Vocation to Religion

I. Notion. Vocation, taken generally, is a certain invitation on the part of God to embrace a state of perfection. Universal and particular vocation can be distinguished. Universal vocation is the invitation to embrace the state of perfection, directed by Christ the Lord to all Christians in general. Particular vocation is that by which the religious state is counseled to a particular person, whether in an ordinary or extraordinary manner.

II. Necessity of particular vocation. In order that someone may be able to embrace the religious state, or at least that he may embrace it laudably, a particular vocation is required, intimated by God either in an ordinary or extraordinary manner. The reason is that one who embraces the aforesaid state without a particular vocation exposes himself to the danger of not fulfilling the grave obligations annexed to that state. For on the one hand, since God does not will that all, although generally called, enter into religion, He will probably not provide more abundant graces to one called only generally, without which religious obligations will in fact commonly not be fulfilled; this being posited, one who lacks a particular vocation ought at least to fear lest he be deprived of those graces, and therefore transgress the obligations.

III. Signs of particular vocation. There are three things which must concur together: 1st, absence of legitimate impediments; 2nd, capacity or fitness of the subject in relation to such an institute; 3rd, right intention (cf. can. 538).

1. Absence of legitimate impediments; concerning these there will soon be discussion where the novitiate is treated (n. 1224).

2. Fitness consists "in sufficient powers of body and soul, and this according to the diverse ends of diverse orders, namely: sufficient health; right judgment, not singular, which would disturb common life; talent at least moderately good, which is suitable or can be made suitable for exercising the functions of the order itself; a disposition suited to subjection, since the religious state is especially a state of subjection, which does not permit one to follow one's own will and one's own judgment in matters to be done."¹

3. Right intention, or the will of entering into religion with a view to the glory of God and one's own salvation, or also the salvation of souls (St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 92); these indeed can exist without a natural inclination, indeed even with natural repugnance. Moreover it makes no difference whether the said intention or will has been provoked in an extraordinary or an ordinary manner. Moreover:

Note 1. Omnimodal certainty is not required for someone to be able safely to enter into religion. But those who must admit a candidate to religion should carefully see and inquire whether he is truly suitable (cf. can. 571, § 2). "It would be illicit to receive an adolescent into religion if his inconstancy were established or probably believed, or if there were anything else of this kind, which things are diligently considered in well-instituted religions" (St. Thomas, Quodlibet 3, article 11).

Note 2. With regard to the office of the confessor, St. Alphonsus observes these things: "If there is question of those who wish to enter religion, before all things the confessor should take care to weigh well into what religion they desire to enter; for if that institute is ever relaxed, it will be better for someone, ordinarily speaking, to remain in the world. For by joining himself to it, he will conduct himself as he has given himself to others.... But if the religion flourishes in observance, let the confessor test well the vocation of his penitent, inquiring whether the penitent has for it some impediment of unsuitability, infirm health, poverty of parents; and specifically let him weigh the end: whether it is right, namely of joining himself more to God, or of correcting the falls of his past life, or of avoiding the dangers of the world. But if the principal end were worldly, to live a more comfortable life, or to free himself from relatives of hard condition, or to please parents who impel him to this, let him take care not to permit him to enter religion. For in that case it is not a true vocation; without it an entrance of this kind will have an evil outcome. But if the end is good, and no impediment is present, the confessor, nor any other, as St. Thomas teaches, neither ought nor can without grave fault impede or dissuade him from the vocation; although he acts prudently sometimes if he delays its execution for him, in order to test better whether the resolution is firm and persevering, especially if he knows that the adolescent is changeable, or if that deliberation was made in the time of a mission or of spiritual exercises; because in occasions of this kind certain resolutions are conceived which afterwards, once the first fervor has passed, fail" (Praxis Confessarii, n. 92).

¹ Lehmkuhl, Theologia Moralis I, n. 658.

IV. Obligation of obeying a vocation. 1. Of itself there is no obligation of following a vocation. "To neglect a religious vocation," says St. Alphonsus, "of itself is not a sin; for divine counsels of themselves do not oblige to fault" (IV, 78).

2. Insofar as there is an obligation accidentally, the holy Doctor explains it thus:

a) "One who does not follow a recognized vocation, by reason of the danger of eternal salvation to which the called person commits himself, making a choice of state not according to the divine good pleasure, cannot be excused from some fault" (loc. cit.). Indeed, "if someone believed that by remaining in the world he would incur damnation, both because of his fragility, which he has experienced amid the occasions of the world, and because of the lack of helps which he would have in religion, he cannot be excused from grave sin, since he casts himself into grave danger of his salvation" (loc. cit.).

b) Outside the hypothesis set out, it is more disputed whether one who neglects a recognized vocation sins gravely. St. Alphonsus inclines to the affirmative opinion, because one who neglects a vocation exposes himself to a great danger of salvation. "But the reason of this danger is that he who remains in the world against the vocation of God will not have the fitting helps of grace which God prepared for him in religion; and therefore, destitute of these, he will with difficulty resist the temptations of the world, and thus by succumbing will incur damnation" (loc. cit.). Nevertheless the holy Doctor adds: "I do not wish to pronounce an absolute judgment on this point: I remit it to the wise" (loc. cit.). Others deny it, because in their opinion it is asserted gratuitously that an abundance of graces is annexed only to vocation; indeed the nature of counsel demands the contrary. While the doubt stands, since there is question of the mystery of the distribution of graces, the safer part seems to have to be followed in practice, on account of the danger of salvation.

Question. To what is one bound who has vowed religion?

Response 1. One who has vowed religion generally can enter whichever he prefers, provided regular discipline is in force there at least with regard to the more principal observances (St. Alphonsus IV, 72).

Response 2. One who has vowed a special religion is bound to enter it, unless he wishes to choose a stricter one; the latter is lawful, since it is better. If he is not admitted into the religion which he vowed, he is not bound to seek another, unless he had the intention of embracing religion in any way whatsoever (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

Response 3. One who has vowed religion sins gravely if after entrance he leaves the novitiate, unless a just cause for leaving is present, for instance if he finds the religion unequal to his strength. "The reason is that a vow of religion obliges not only to taking up the religious habit, but also to serving God for the whole time of life" (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.; cf. St. Thomas 2-2, q. 189, articles 3 and 4).

Response 4. One who has vowed religion and enters it, but is dismissed from the novitiate, is bound thus: if he is dismissed through his own fault, he is bound to correct himself and to apply moderate diligence so that he may be able to fulfill the vow. If he is dismissed without fault, and the impediment ceases, he is likewise bound to use moderate diligence so that he may be able to satisfy the vow, at least if there is hope of admission (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

Vocation to the Clerical State.—(a) Internal Vocation.—No one should enter the religious or clerical state unless called thereto by God (John, xv. 16; Acts, xiii. 2; Heb., v. 4, 5; I Cor., xii. 4 sqq.). The foundation of the entire religious, priestly and apostolic life, namely divine vocation, consists of two essential elements, the one divine, the other ecclesiastical. As to the first element, God’s call to embrace the priestly or religious life must be considered so necessary that in its absence the foundation upon which the whole structure is to rest is absent (Pius XII, Sedes Sapientiae). The signs of a divine call do not necessarily or even ordinarily include a feeling of inspiration or invitation from the Holy Spirit, but it suffices that one may have a liking, a right intention, and fitness (physical, mental, moral) for the life; for, where God gives a call, He gives the means to fulfill the duties. Thus, those who will not be able to say Mass, or who cannot master Latin or theology, or who cannot observe celibacy, or who are vicious (e.g., mischief-makers, drunkards) or unspiritual (e.g., the lazy, those who dislike exercises of piety), do not show the signs of a priestly vocation.

(b) External Vocation.—No one should be admitted to the religious life or to Orders unless he has given sufficient signs of a call from God. Thus, a Bishop would sin most gravely and be a sharer in the sins of others if he conferred Major Orders on anyone about whose unworthiness he was morally certain on positive grounds (Canon 973); nor may a Religious Superior receive to profession any novice about whom he is doubtful (Canon 571). Scarcity of vocations is no excuse for laxity, since it is better to have a few creditable clerics than a multitude of unworthy ones (Benedict XIV). What St. Paul said of deacons (“Let these first be proved, and so let them minister, having no crime,” I Tim., iii. 10), is therefore to be applied to all candidates for the clerical life. A vocation is tested by the years of probation which the church law provides for seminarians, novices and other aspirants to the ecclesiastical state. No cleric has a right to ordination before he receives the free call from a bishop, but on the other hand it is criminal to prevent a suitable candidate from embracing the clerical state (Canon 971). “By a divine vocation to the religious and clerical state a person undertakes publicly to lead a life of holiness in the Church, a visible and hierarchical society, and to exercise this hierarchical ministry. Such a person, therefore, ought to be authoritatively tested, approved and directed by the hierarchical rulers to whom God has entrusted the administration of the Church” (Pius XII, Sedes Sapientiae).

Sinfulness of Disregarding Vocation.—(a) He who enters the clerical state, not knowing that he has a vocation, is guilty of sin, as is clear from the previous paragraph. According to some, anyone who receives Major Orders, even with serious doubt about his vocation, commits a mortal sin, since he inflicts a serious injury on the rights of God, the Church, himself and his neighbor. According to others, the sin is only venial when one enters the clerical state conscious of the absence of vocation, but determined with the help of God to live up to all the duties; for, though the act is rash, there is good will and good intention, and grace will not be wanting.

(b) He who refuses to enter the clerical state, though knowing for certain that he has a vocation, is also guilty of sin, for only negligence or improper motives such as laziness, sensuality, or too great love of liberty can produce such reluctance. The sin is grave or light according to the circumstances. There is grave sin, if the resistance to the call constitutes serious disobedience, pride or uncharitableness (e.g., if there were a great scarcity of priests and the bishop commanded a worthy layman to take Orders); there is venial sin in other cases when the rejection is only dissent to an invitation and exposes neither self nor other to grave peril of losing salvation. Finally, if the signs of vocation do not produce certainty, there may be no sin at all, but rather virtue, in refusal to ascend to the clerical state, for no one is bound to take up grave obligations when uncertain of his duties, and many holy persons from humility or fear of unworthiness have decided, against the advice or invitation of others, not to become clerics.

Is divine vocation required? - R. In the affirmative. In the Norms of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, June 28, 1901, art. 55, 56, it is said that, among the conditions required for the admission of aspirants to the Institute, first of all a true vocation proceeding from a supernatural end is required.

It is certain that a divine vocation is given to the religious state, by which namely God calls some, before others, to this more excellent state, and bestows graces so that they may rightly live according to it. This is proved: 1. from the common authority of the doctors; 2. because, if divine vocation is given to the priestly state, the same must consequently be said of religious life, which is a more perfect and much more difficult state. For since the clerical and religious states contain the exercise of greater holiness than that which is commonly required of all, God does not move all, but only some, by special movements of grace to embrace it. Cf. S. C. of Religious, April 5, 1910, ad 2; St. Alphonsus l. 6, n. 802, 803, 804.

Note: The Saints judge that this vocation is always from God; for it cannot be from nature, which abhors the chastisement of the flesh; nor can it be from the devil, since it induces man to good from a good end. St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 189, a. 10 ad 1. - The ordinary signs of vocation are: aptitude for the obligations of the religious state in general, and for the observance of this or that order in particular; right intention, namely the desire of being free for the divine glory, for one's own salvation, and for the salvation of souls, St. Alphonsus l. 6, n. 802; a constant and right inclination to such a state, notwithstanding some past hesitation arising from temptations of the devil or from the repugnance of nature, although in reality that inclination is not necessary for having a true vocation; a certain interior peace and joy from the consideration of such a state as suitable to oneself for obtaining one's salvation more securely and fruitfully. But extraordinary signs are: divine revelation; a certain singular inspiration of such a state. - In this matter there is no need of the counsels of many and of long deliberation. St. Thomas q. 189, a. 10. - Clement VIII, C. Cum ad regularem; Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius on Election; L. l. 6, n. 802; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 3, d. 1, n. 5, 6, 8.

Whether and how does one sin who, not called, nevertheless receives the state of religion? - He sins of himself gravely if he clearly knows the defect of vocation, because of the proximate danger of transgressing the grave obligations of the religious state, to which knowingly and willingly he exposes himself. Yet he will be excused from that fault if he is supposed to have the will of fulfilling, with the grace of God, the obligations of the state assumed. "A novice who would enter religion with the mind of not persevering can with difficulty be excused from grave fault, because of the temporal damages and inconveniences which he would then bring uselessly to the religion, and also because of the scandal which he would furnish to other novices; for the example of a companion introduces a great temptation to another." L. l. 6, n. 785. In the Catechism published at Rome in the year 1913 by command of the Holy Father Pius X, it is said: "He who would enter the Priesthood without vocation would act most badly, because he could with difficulty observe its most grave obligations, with evident danger of public scandals and eternal perdition." Moreover, he who entered religion from a disordered intention and not from divine vocation should do sincere penance and hope in the Lord. Necessary graces certainly will not be lacking to him; and he can easily also have special helps from the riches of divine Goodness and Mercy. St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 189, a. 10. - St. Alphonsus l. 6, n. 802, 803.

What about those who induce others to religion? - "It must be said," says St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 189, a. 9, "that those inducing others not only do not sin, but merit a great reward. - Yet a threefold disorder could happen concerning an inducement of this kind: if he allures him violently, simoniacally, or by lies." Cf. Quodl. 3, q. 5; Trent s. 25, c. 18 de Reg.

Whether and how does he sin who, sensing himself called to religion, does not obey the divine vocation? - R. "To neglect a religious vocation of itself is not sin; for divine counsels of themselves do not oblige to fault. Yet by reason of the danger of eternal salvation to which the one called commits himself, making the choice of state not according to the divine good pleasure, it cannot be excused from some fault. And indeed, if someone believed that, remaining in the world, he would incur damnation, both because of his own frailty which he has experienced among the occasions of the world, and because of the lack of helps which he would have in religion, he cannot be excused from grave sin, since he casts himself into grave danger of his salvation.... But whether the conscience of those is in a bad state who, having already become morally certain of God's vocation to religion, strive to persuade themselves that, by remaining in the world or returning to it, they can work out their salvation equally easily? It does not seem to be doubted that these expose themselves to great danger of salvation.... But the reason of this danger is that he who remains in the world against God's vocation will not have the congruous helps of grace which God prepared for him in religion; and therefore, destitute of them, he will with difficulty resist the temptations of the world, and thus, succumbing, will incur damnation.... Moreover I do not wish to pronounce an absolute judgment on this point: I leave it to the wise." L. 78.

Therefore in practice particular cases with all their circumstances are to be maturely weighed; and no one after the fact is to be cast into despair, but courage is to be added to him, so that, if the fact no longer has a remedy, he may trust in God, who is rich in mercy, and may establish a Christian and holy life with greater solicitude. - Elbel, de Actib. human. 124, 125; Lugo, Responsa Moralia l. 1, d. 28.

Whether and how do they sin who turn others away from the religious state? - He who by force, fraud, or grave fear impedes or turns someone away from religion sins gravely, even against justice. This is proved from Trent s. 25, c. 18 de Reg., where he is excommunicated who impedes a girl from religion. But each one has a right not to be impeded by force or deceit from the attainment of good. But if the turning away is done only by prayers or promises, it will be a grave sin only against charity, because this cannot be without grave harm to him who is drawn away from religion. "But parents," adds St. Alphonsus 77, "turning children away from religion, I think, offend by a twofold grave sin; for besides the sin against charity, they commit another sin against piety, since they themselves from their proper office of education are held under grave obligation to devote themselves to the spiritual advancement of their children.... Yet I do not therefore deny that many parents can be excused from mortal sin, at least for some brief time, by reason of ignorance or inadvertence, which can easily be in them because of vehement affection of the flesh toward their children." - Elbel l. c. n. 126; L. l. 3, n. 663; St. Thomas Quodl. 3, a. 1.

To nn. 246, 255, 256. "Monsignor,

By reason of the dissensions which have arisen on the occasion of the twofold work of Canon Joseph Lahitton on The Priestly Vocation, and of the importance of the doctrinal question raised there, Our Most Holy Father Pope Pius X has deigned to appoint a special Commission of Eminent Cardinals.

This Commission, after maturely examining the arguments in favor of one and the other thesis, pronounced, in its plenary meeting of last June 20, the following judgment:

"The work of the distinguished man, Canon Joseph Lahitton, whose title is La Vocation Sacerdotale, is in no way to be reproved; indeed, insofar as it maintains: 1. that no one ever has any right to ordination antecedently to the free election of the Bishop; 2. that the condition which, on the part of the one to be ordained, must be attended to, and which is called priestly vocation, by no means consists, at least necessarily and by ordinary law, in some internal aspiration of the subject or invitations of the Holy Spirit to entering the priesthood; 3. but on the contrary, that nothing more is required in the one to be ordained, so that he may be rightly called by the Bishop, than a right intention together with suitability, placed in those gifts of grace and nature, and approved through that probity of life and sufficiency of doctrine, which make a founded hope that he will rightly undertake the duties of the priesthood and be able to observe its obligations holily: it is to be praised exceedingly."

His Holiness Pius X, in the audience of June 26, fully approved the decision of the Most Eminent Fathers, and he charges me to give notice of it to Your Excellency, who will kindly communicate it to the one concerned, Canon Joseph Lahitton, and have it inserted in full in the Semaine Religieuse of the Diocese..." Rome, July 2, 1912. R. Cardinal Merry del Val.

For rightly embracing the religious state, besides the general invitation made to all, a special divine vocation is required. This same divine vocation also is necessary for embracing the priestly state. Matthew 19:11.

Now this divine vocation is had by supernatural internal illuminations of the intellect and inspirations of the will, by which someone judges such a state to be suitable, useful, or even in some way necessary for himself in order to attain holiness of life and eternal salvation, and conceives and constantly fosters the desire of embracing this state. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 189, a. 10, ad 1.

And this will, since it is a will of the end, is that right and efficacious intention which is altogether necessary for actually embracing the priestly and religious state.

But the aforesaid judgment of the intellect and rational aspiration of the will, proceeding from special divine providence, can be had in various ways. St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, on Election. Moreover this divine vocation is shown by various signs. For it is together with aptitude, both internal and external, for the aforesaid state.

But it must be recognized by legitimate Superiors through positive proof, and must be held ratified for its effect, after an examination duly made beforehand concerning the divine vocation itself. And this legitimate admission or election fully and adequately constitutes the divine vocation. Roman Catechism, on Orders, n. 3.

Wherefore, according to the common opinion of St. Alphonsus, a cleric who up to this point has been in shameful sin, whether relapsing or customary, although he has sincere sorrow for his sins and the purpose of not sinning thereafter, and can be absolved, nevertheless cannot be admitted to sacred orders unless beforehand, from other indications, he gives morally certain hope of himself, that he will live constantly in holy chastity. St. Alphonsus, book 6, n. 64 ff.

1. The question concerning divine vocation to the ecclesiastical state has been debated, and various opinions of authors are found. There are those who place it in legitimate admission to sacred orders made by ecclesiastical superiors. There are those who place it in an inclination and a certain attraction which someone experiences in himself toward the priesthood. Others are content with the simple will of ascending to the priesthood or of embracing the religious state, together with the will then of carrying out the obligations of the same state. Others place it in aptitude for the ecclesiastical state. Others establish it in the various ways by which the will and purpose of embracing the ecclesiastical state is had. Finally, others deny that any divine vocation is necessary, since it is free to all to embrace any state whatever.

2. What is to be thought of these various opinions is shown sufficiently and more than sufficiently by the Decision of the Most Eminent Fathers and by the proposed thesis, which looks at divine vocation taken adequately and completely, and which we shall soon try to declare and demonstrate. Let it only be permitted to note beforehand that, in our very humble opinion, a special vocation of God to the state of the counsels, such as the religious state is and also the priestly state, can in no way be denied. And this is established from the very Decision of the Most Eminent Fathers related at the beginning, and from the declaration and demonstration of the proposed thesis, which was publicly defended in the Academy of Moral Theology held in the Pontifical Gregorian University on May 24, 1912, with His Eminence Cardinal Casimiro Gennari presiding, who publicly approved and praised it in most ample words. And that thesis in reality is nothing but a certain explanation and declaration of that Decision, although it preceded it in time.

3. Certainly in the aforesaid Decision of the Most Eminent Fathers it is asserted that, antecedently to the free election of the Bishop, as regards priestly ordination a right intention is required together with suitability for the aforesaid state. But this right intention, or will of embracing the ecclesiastical or religious state, together with suitability for it, is precisely that which constitutes divine vocation, since that intention and will is from God.

Hence Pius X, in the Catechism published at Rome by his command in the year 1913, n. 404, to this question: "Would one who entered the Priesthood without vocation do wrong?" gives this answer, which, like the question, altogether supposes a prior vocation to the Priesthood: "One who entered the Priesthood without vocation would do very great wrong, because etc." And in the same Catechism, n. 405, to this other question: "What duties do the faithful have toward those called to Orders?" this answer is added: "The faithful have the duty of leaving to their children and dependents full liberty to follow the vocation, etc." Therefore, in order that someone rightly enter the Priesthood, he must have a prior vocation to it, namely a DIVINE VOCATION. And this as regards the priestly state.

4. As regards the religious state, in the Norms of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, approved in General Congregation on June 28, 1901, and which constitute the law in force in the Church for Institutes of simple vows, article 56 asserts that divine vocation is altogether required, and in the first place, for admitting someone into the Institute: "The conditions required in those to be received are: first of all, A TRUE VOCATION PROCEEDING FROM A SUPERNATURAL END." Behold that RIGHT INTENTION, or DIVINE VOCATION.

5. Other things being omitted, the stated assertion is confirmed from innumerable documents, especially of the Supreme Pontiff Pius X, and from the Constitutions continually approved by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars and now by the Congregation on Religious. Pius X, Constitution Susceptum inde, March 25, 1914, says: "The perpetual care of the Church, that unworthy or not sufficiently suitable ministers be kept away from the Priesthood; the constant solicitude of the same, that those who have been approved AND CALLED BY GOD may be prepared for it in such a way that, etc."

"Let the Bishops promote..., as the Tridentine prescribes, according to the necessity of the dioceses; and in promoting in this way they will be able to choose only those who are truly suitable, sending away those who would show inclinations contrary to the priestly vocation, chief among them lack of discipline, and that which generates it, pride of mind." Pius X, Encyclical Letter Pieni l'animo, July 28, 1906.

And the same Supreme Pontiff Pius X wrote to the Master General of the Order of Preachers on August 4, 1913: "Let the Prelates of the Order take complete care that they do not hastily, nor in groups, admit young men concerning whom it is uncertain whether by divine breath they choose that most holy manner of life." Is this not a divine vocation prerequired for rightly embracing the priestly and ecclesiastical state? Cf. the first Supplement to the 4th and 5th ed. of the Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, and 4th ed. of the Enchiridion Morale, 3rd ed., p. 62 ff.

Likewise Pius X, writing to the same Father General of the Dominicans on May 7, 1907, expressed himself thus: "The Chapter Fathers will understand how important is the enlightened choice of young novices, and their gradual formation. If it is true that Vocation comes from God, it is no less true that God deigns to make use of second causes to effect the designs of His eternal wisdom."

Likewise by a chirograph dated June 1, 1914, concerning the Canossian Virgins to be educated for their sacred missions, the Supreme Pontiff Pius X established that "a certain house be established for educating and forming, for so great a task and burden, those Canossian virgins who, God calling, shall have willed to undertake it." Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 6, p. 341.

And by an autograph of January 28, 1912, to the students of the Seminary of Reggio, in Emilia, Pius X prays God that "they may show most certain proofs of the divine vocation to the priestly state... through piety, discipline, and study."

6. Benedict XIV, de Synodo, book 11, chap. 2, n. 12, likewise prescribes that clerics who cannot be received in the Seminary be taught "with what gifts and virtues those who desire worthily to approach the ministry of the sanctuary ought to be furnished; what are the true indications of an ecclesiastical vocation; what manner of life, etc." And n. 16: "nor let any be admitted into the clergy except those who are recognized as both deserving and endowed with the required qualities, and, so far as it is permitted to man to judge concerning interior things, called by divine vocation to ecclesiastical ministries."

7. The spiritual director in Seminaries will give suitable admonitions to the students, especially as regards priestly vocation. Confessors of Seminaries must impose the obligation of withdrawing from the ecclesiastical state on those who would show that they are not called to it. And to the higher courses none are to be admitted except those young men who have given signs of vocation to the ecclesiastical state. Articles 54, 56, 86 of the Norms for the educational and disciplinary ordering of Seminaries in Italy, Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, January 18, 1908, which the Supreme Pontiff Pius X ordered to be observed and put into execution by all whom it concerns.

It is decreed that one is to be kept from sacred orders "who does not present certain signs of vocation, or does not seem furnished with the qualities required for the ecclesiastical state." Sacred Consistorial Congregation, Decree Vetuit S. Tridentina Synodus, December 22, 1905.

The Sacred Congregation on Religious, Decree of January 1, 1911, established several things as regards lay brothers for promoting in them with more earnest care the holy purpose of vocation. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 3, p. 30. And it also established several things for Religious bound to military service, lest they lose the gift of holy vocation. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 3, p. 37. And again, in the Decree of September 7, 1909, concerning certain persons not to be admitted into Religious Families, it begins thus: "Although the Church of Christ is affected with spiritual joy when the faithful, by mature deliberation and right intention, embrace the state of perfection in Religious Families, nevertheless solicitous of quality rather than number, she has so regulated entrance into the Novitiate and profession of vows, that she decreed that only those be admitted to observe the evangelical counsels in religious houses who would give proofs of divine vocation." Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 1, p. 709.

And coherently with the Norms, in article 8 of the Constitutions of the Sisters Reparatrixes of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, which very recently were definitively approved by the Sacred Congregation on Religious, as in others, it is established: "No persons shall be admitted into the Institute of the Sisters Reparatrixes unless they have a true supernatural vocation."

Nor is the following Decree of the Holy Office to be passed over in silence, which openly presupposes and affirms a prior divine vocation to the ecclesiastical state.

"DECREE. Sodalities established for promoting and assisting ecclesiastical vocations are enriched with spiritual graces. Certainly most provident God is present to His holy Church, that He may send laborers into the harvest at the opportune time; but He does not disdain that His faithful very often undertake to be cooperators in a mission of this kind. He is indeed the author of the most pious counsel by which many Sodalities have arisen throughout the world for fostering, protecting, and assisting ecclesiastical vocations... All and each of the sodalities whose principal and immediate end is to promote ecclesiastical vocations and to help them by suitable means..." Holy Office, May 28, 1913; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 5, p. 236 ff.

8. The Most Reverend Bishop John Régine, Bishop of the Diocese of Newcastle, in his Pastoral Letter for the Lent of the present year 1915, p. 7, says that bad priests are present in the clergy because "some, NOT CALLED, entered the sanctuary by the window as a thief and robber."

And the Most Reverend Bishop of Arezzo, John Volpi, in his Pastoral Letter of the year 1914, distinguishing between internal and external vocation, says that this latter is the authentic and official vocation, but that for it an internal divine vocation is altogether presupposed, either from divine revelation, or from some extraordinary motion of the Holy Spirit, or from one's own free supernatural election, namely made in the spirit of faith and with the help of ordinary grace; and this purpose indeed must often be renewed, so that finally in effect it may really attain the end. "It is enough that the vocation arise from an intention, which is the fruit of a deliberation and of an election proceeding from our free will, which never excludes grace, of course, but instead always supposes it." Pp. 8, 18, 19, 28, 30.

And the same Most Reverend Bishop of Arezzo, loc. cit., p. 15, says: An efficacious means for having good priests is to ordain only truly good priests, because these "will work with great zeal in rightly cultivating the souls of young boys, and by such a means they will cause the seed, that is, the natural and supernatural predispositions, of the divine vocation to unfold in a good number of them... in contrast with a priest who is not good, who... because he has never experienced in himself so sublime a vocation, or has not corresponded to it, is unfit to discern it, to nourish it, to develop it in others."

Moreover the praised Bishop of Arezzo excellently insists in his Pastoral Letter on this preparation of young men of good disposition for the priesthood. But how finally will young men be able to arrive at the priesthood without any aspiration to it?

And this aspiration, if it is truly had in them, certainly is not without grace, which is in the supernatural illumination of the intellect and inspiration of the will by the Holy Spirit. "It is God who works in us both to will and to accomplish, according to good will." Philippians 2:13.

See also Monitore Ecclesiastico, vol. 25, p. 125 ff., May 31, 1913; vol. 25, p. 221 ff., July 31, 1913.

9. Now the general vocation of all to the state of perfection, and consequently to the religious and priestly state, is established from the very words of Christ, inviting all to follow Him perfectly, by the observance proposed to all not only of the precepts, but also of the evangelical counsels. To all Our Lord Jesus Christ even now says what He said to that young man who from his youth had kept all the commandments: "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor,... and come, follow me" (Matthew 19:21). The Apostle also repeats to all the invitation of Jesus Christ: "Concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel.... She shall be more blessed if she so remain, according to my counsel" (1 Corinthians 7:25, 40).

10. But another special divine vocation is required for embracing the aforesaid state, as is asserted in the first part of the proposed thesis. For, as Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself said to the Pharisees: "Not all take this word, but they to whom it is given" (Matthew 19:11). Not all take it is not said only of intellectual cognition, by which someone judges celibacy to be superior to matrimony, but is said of such an intellectual cognition by which he approves that virginity to be preserved, and by which consequently the will is efficaciously impelled to embrace it.

Therefore, after Christ said, "Not all take this word," He immediately adds: "but they to whom it is given." Therefore a special benefit of God is required, a special gift of God, "but they to whom it is given"; and this gift is a special divine vocation.

11. After the Apostle in 1 Corinthians (7:1 ff.) had affirmed matrimony to be good and virginity to be preserved as better, he immediately thereafter says: "Except to each one as the Lord hath divided, each one as God hath called him, so let him walk." And again: "Let every one remain in the vocation in which he was called." And a third time: "In what state every one was called, brethren, in this let him remain with God."

According to the Apostle, not all are called to matrimony, nor all to preserving virginity. Nor likewise are all called to the religious state, to the priesthood, and to the apostolate. Therefore if virginity is far more excellent than matrimony, if the religious state excels the secular state, if the priestly state far excels the lay state, then for this and for that there is a special vocation from God, a special grace. If according to the same Apostle "every one hath his proper gift from God, one indeed after this manner, and another after that" (ibid., v. 7), one, as the same Apostle says, "bound to a wife," another "loosed from a wife" (v. 27), one woman "joined in matrimony" (v. 10), another "unmarried and a virgin" (v. 24), is it not a special gift of God that someone fortunately embraces virginity, and more fortunately the priestly and religious state, "having obtained mercy from God, that he may be faithful" (1 Corinthians 7:25), which God in His wisdom grants to some and does not grant to others?

12. "Divine vocation," says St. Alphonsus, "is especially necessary for assuming the ecclesiastical state.... However learned, prudent, and holy someone may be, he cannot of himself enter the sanctuary unless first he is called to it by God and is introduced into it by God" (in the work Selva di materie predicabili, chap. 10 of the first part). This divine vocation is interior, as is evident of itself.

13. Now who are those to whom this has been given from heaven, or in what does this divine interior vocation consist? The other part of our thesis responds to this second question. This divine interior vocation consists in supernatural internal illuminations of the intellect and inspirations of the will, by which someone judges such a state to be suitable, useful, or even in some way necessary for himself in order to attain holiness of life and eternal salvation, and conceives and constantly fosters the desire of embracing this state; and thus he takes that word, with docile intellect and efficacious will, which not all take. For we are treating of a full and perfect divine vocation, which is brought through to its effect.

14. After Christ uttered these words: "Not all take this word, but they to whom it is given," He Himself at once explains to whom it has been given, and how. For He says: "There are eunuchs who were so born from their mother's womb," namely from a defect of nature, and consequently from natural necessity; and therefore that supernatural gift is not to be sought in these. But Christ proceeds, saying: "And there are eunuchs who were made by men," that is, by the violence of others, the malice of others. Therefore neither are these those to whom the heavenly gift of virginity and chastity has been bestowed from above.

And finally Christ added: "And there are eunuchs who have castrated themselves for the kingdom of heaven." To understand this literally would indeed be absurd, just as it would be altogether absurd to understand literally those other words: pluck out thy right eye and cast it from thee... cut off thy right hand and cast it from thee (Matthew 5:29-30), cut off thy foot and cast it from thee (Matthew 18:8). For Christ says: "and there are eunuchs who have castrated themselves for the kingdom of heaven." Physical impotence contributes nothing at all to acquiring the kingdom of heaven for oneself and to preaching the kingdom of heaven to others.

Therefore the eunuchs who have castrated themselves are those who, by judgment of the intellect and by firm or constant purpose of the will, contain themselves, so that they may be free from the care and solicitude of a family and may be able to expend themselves wholly in divine service. For that phrase "for the kingdom of heaven" signifies this: that someone may please God more readily, more surely, and more fully. St. Paul expressly declared this: "He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided; and the unmarried woman and the virgin thinks on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy in body and in spirit; but she that is married thinks on the things of the world, how she may please her husband" (1 Corinthians 7:32 ff.).

15. That Christ designates a perpetual state for the whole course of life, and not a passing one for some brief time, the words themselves show clearly: those "who have castrated themselves." For by these words are designated those who are perpetually impotent, and who perpetually by their own will have rendered themselves impotent for marriage. And these are those who, by judgment of reason and by firm purpose of the will with the grace of God, are withdrawn in perpetuity from all marriage. And this is not fully fulfilled except by those who, by the solemn vow of sacred orders or of religious profession, render marriage illicit and invalid for themselves.

Certainly, in order that someone attain this holily in fact, it is altogether necessary that in his mind he consider the excellence and superiority of that state, its suitability, utility, and necessity, for the kingdom of heaven, for acquiring its goods, and that he conceive a constant, firm, efficacious desire for that virginal, religious, priestly state. And these indeed are supernatural illuminations of the intellect, supernatural inspirations of the will, and both the former and the latter are supernatural gifts of God, "to whom it is given."

And this indeed is that right intention required by the Decision of the Most Eminent Fathers, which right intention indeed is certainly a supernatural intention or supernatural will; for intention is an act of the will, before which there precedes a prior cognition of the intellect. Therefore that right intention is contained precisely in the aforesaid illuminations of the intellect and inspirations of the will. But in order that someone truly embrace the ecclesiastical state, it is necessary not only that he conceive that right intention, but also that he foster it constantly. Without this constancy, that right intention will be without effect. And this constant right intention appears still more clearly if it is considered that embracing the priestly and religious state does not happen in an instant, but lasts from first tonsure to priestly ordination, from postulancy to profession.

16. The Angelic Doctor, although he does not use the term divine vocation to sacred orders, nevertheless implicitly requires it, by requiring for them, besides knowledge, a holiness that is not common. Knowledge is required, says St. Thomas, "because one receiving order is set over the people to repel ignorance." Excellent holiness is required because, he says, "just as those who receive order are constituted above the people by the grade of order, so also they should be superior in the merit of holiness."

But explicitly, as regards the state of perfection, St. Thomas affirms divine vocation, and indeed as it is proposed in our thesis, namely by affirming divine inspiration, without raising any doubt concerning it; and he uses a still more significant word, namely divine motion. "It must be said," he says, "that when it is said, 'Prove the spirits, whether they are of God,' this has place in those things which are doubtful, whether they are OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD; just as there can be doubt in those who already are in religion whether he who offers himself to religion IS LED BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD, or feignedly. And therefore those who approach must be proved, whether THEY ARE MOVED BY THE DIVINE SPIRIT. But for him who approaches religion there can be no doubt whether the purpose concerning entrance into religion, having arisen in his heart, IS FROM THE SPIRIT OF GOD, whose office it is to lead man into the right land" (II-II, q. 189, a. 10, ad 1).

17. Now Our Lord Jesus Christ established in His Church a state of counsels and perfection, or the religious state; likewise He established in His Church a state of counsels and apostolic zeal, or the priestly state, by which priests themselves would more easily and abundantly attain the kingdom of heaven, and would promote the kingdom of heaven among others, by announcing the Gospel among the nations and serving their spiritual good. To this religious and priestly state the same Christ does not oblige all, but only invites and exhorts all, setting before all the excellence and superiority of the religious and priestly state.

Yet most certainly God moves not all, but many, by internal illuminations of the intellect and inspirations of the will, so that they in fact embrace the aforesaid state. And from this also it is that God by His divine providence so distributes His natural and supernatural gifts that those whom He calls to the religious and priestly state are furnished with those gifts which are necessary for this kind of life.

Wherefore in Monitore Ecclesiastico, vol. 24, it is very aptly observed: "Those whom the Lord calls to a state of such holiness, He so disposes and prepares with natural and supernatural graces that they may be found suitable for it. Those whom God chooses for some office He so prepares and disposes that they may be found suitable for it. St. Thomas.

"Nor does He only make them suitable, but He renders their vocation sufficiently knowable, chiefly from that same suitability, Guerra, etc.," namely especially by probity of life and sufficient doctrine. "These two things are altogether required for clerics to be promoted: innocence of life joined with soundness of doctrine." Pius X, Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, September 1, 1910, par. VII. Cf. also Monitore Ecclesiastico, vol. 24, p. 318 ff.

And this divine motion and divine providence is divine vocation to the religious state, to the ecclesiastical state; it is certainly an internal divine vocation, according to the word of the Apostle.

18. And divine vocation, the voice of God calling, is so called by the Sacred Consistorial Congregation itself.

In the Circular Letters of the Sacred Consistorial Congregation dated July 16, 1912, that is, shortly after the praised Decision of the Most Eminent Fathers, concerning the Seminaries of Italy, to the Most Reverend Ordinaries, first the defect is noted in Seminaries of students who aspire to the ecclesiastical state, and then, as regards our matter, the following is had:

"Since by the divine promises it is certain that the Levitical stock will never dry up in Israel, and that divine assistance and vocations to the ecclesiastical state will not be lacking in the Church, even to the consummation of the age, nor will there ever be lacking generous souls who respond to the voice of the Lord even when He calls them to privations and sacrifice: there is no need to lose heart over the present difficulty from which the dioceses suffer. But rather it is fitting to think of the remedy.... Let them seek... young boys of good disposition... inclined toward the things of the Church,... let them cultivate them in piety... so that, if the voice of God should call them, they may be fit and prepared to respond to it and to enter the Seminaries at the proper time."

And afterwards, according to the same Sacred Congregation, due precautions are to be used in admitting them to the Seminary. "Let at least this be required... that they manifest an initial inclination toward the ecclesiastical state.... The mixing of students not called and others called to the ecclesiastical state always proves fatal to the latter, and... causes the loss of many vocations.... As regards the schools, care will be taken that they be internal and for seminarians alone or for aspirants to the ecclesiastical state.... They must have a character and direction proper to themselves, such as is required for aspirants to the Priesthood.... All the students of the gymnasium must compete for the State license.... Exceptions in this regard must be only in very rare cases of advanced age, distinguished piety, and certainty of vocation."

Behold, therefore, divine vocation prerequired not only for admission to the Priesthood, but for admission itself into Seminaries. This divine vocation indeed, according to the same Sacred Consistorial Congregation, is a special divine grace, which is manifested by the aforesaid inclination toward holy things and aspiration to the ecclesiastical state, and therefore is not without some aspiration of the subject or invitations of the Holy Spirit to entering the Priesthood.

And here it must immediately be noted that the aforesaid inclination, which is manifested either from the first years of life or later and is fostered for a longer time, absolutely speaking is not altogether necessary for having a divine vocation, as is asserted in the Letter of the special Commission of Cardinals, and as will soon be clear from the various ways by which divine vocation can be had.

But it is one thing that priestly vocation does not require this inclination, from a certain internal almost continuous aspiration of the subject, or from almost continuous invitations of the Holy Spirit, at least necessarily and by ordinary law, as is had in the Declaration of the Most Eminent Fathers cited at the beginning; and it is another thing that, if the aforesaid inclination is had, by an almost continuous internal aspiration of the subject, or by almost continuous invitations of the Holy Spirit to entering the priesthood or the religious state, this is not a divine vocation. Certainly, by the very fact that it is asserted in the Decision of the Cardinalitial Commission that priestly vocation does not consist in it, at least necessarily and by ordinary law, it is implicitly affirmed that nevertheless it is a true priestly vocation, although not necessarily and extraordinarily.

And here, before we declare the aforesaid various modes of divine vocation, certain other very grave words of the Sacred Consistorial Congregation are to be noted, to whose letter the thesis established beforehand altogether corresponds. "The liceal State license," it says, "will not be obligatory for all, but indeed... for those OF WHOSE VOCATION the Ordinaries were not entirely certain." And this certainty certainly is not had as regards those who show themselves inclined to worldly things; on the contrary, it is had as regards those who show themselves inclined to sacred things, to piety, to the worship of God, which St. Jerome very beautifully describes in his Nepotian, still a cleric: "He was solicitous whether the altar was shining, whether the walls were without soot, whether the floors were clean, whether the porter was frequently at the door, whether the veils were always at the entrances, whether the sacristy was clean, whether the vessels were bright, and whether pious solicitude was disposed for all ceremonies; he neglected neither the lesser nor the greater duty." If in the Seminary all the students showed this same most pious inclination, would it not render the Bishop secure concerning their divine vocation?

19. Nevertheless God does not move and call all in the same way, as the doctors and teachers of the spiritual life teach. According to the commonly received doctrine handed down by St. Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises (Second Week, on Election), divine power so impels the will of some that all doubt, indeed even the faculty of doubting, has been taken away from the soul so that it does not fail to follow such an impulse, as we read happened to Blessed Paul and Matthew, and to certain others, when Christ called them.

Others God moves and attracts not with so great evidence and certainty, but He allures them by frequent, and often almost continuous, experience of interior consolation or desolation, by which the divine good pleasure concerning the election of this state becomes sufficiently clear and known.

Finally, God so most sweetly moves others that, as though left to their natural faculties, they themselves begin to seek and await the will of God, until the Creator Himself and Our Lord communicates Himself to the soul devoted to Him (Annotation 15). Considering first the end, for what man was born, namely to praise God Our Lord and to save his soul, and desiring this, someone thinks and feels that this more excellent state of life is more useful and necessary for himself, so that by it he may be helped in the service of his Lord and in the salvation of his soul.

The first motion is extraordinary; the second is more ordinary, from a certain supernatural inclination; the third, simply ordinary, is from a prior consideration of the end and of the means to it, yet it is always a supernatural motion. For man cannot conceive heavenly desires by the powers of nature without grace.

Wherefore, since grace is situated in the supernatural illumination of the intellect and inspiration of the will, that third motion also is had, as is said in the proposed thesis, in supernatural illuminations of the intellect and inspirations of the will, by which someone judges such a state to be suitable, useful, and necessary for himself for obtaining holiness of life and the eternal salvation of his soul, and determines himself by a constant and efficacious will to desiring and embracing that same state. But this varied manner of having divine vocation is certainly not the vocation itself. Rather, interior divine vocation is in that supernatural will itself, in whatever way at last it is conceived.

20. This supernatural vocation does not exclude natural repugnance, which someone could easily experience. But then, with the grace of God assisting, the will is strengthened to do violence to nature. Likewise the same supernatural vocation does not exclude some natural affection; for grace, accommodating itself to human weakness, not rarely also uses the occasion of some natural advantage which could be had from such a state.

And if the end is not primary, but altogether secondary, subordinated to that end of supernatural good, of greater security of one's own salvation, of promoting divine glory, and of procuring the salvation of souls, then indeed the supernatural determination to embrace the religious and ecclesiastical state is not impeded by this, nor that right intention which must be had in it. Finally, that supernatural vocation which is had from consideration of the end and of the means can well first have its origin from exterior grace, from the counsel of others, from Spiritual Exercises made, from the reading of the lives of the Saints. "For God by His common Providence directs each one through parents, companions, confessors, teachers, and other occasions and second causes, by which it happens that this one devotes himself to matrimony, that one to the priesthood, but freely." Cornelius a Lapide, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 7:7.

21. This supernatural will, if it is truly from God and is efficacious, is together with internal and external aptitude for the aforesaid religious and ecclesiastical state. This internal and external aptitude, which is affirmed in the third part of the thesis, consists in those gifts of body and soul, of health and talent, by which someone is fit for fulfilling the obligations and for exercising the offices proper to the aforesaid state.

And among gifts of this kind there is especially numbered that honesty of morals by which someone gives good hope of himself, whether as regards his own sanctification, or as regards the good edification of his neighbor. By this aptitude are also removed all impediments which arise from extrinsic circumstances, as, for example, if someone were held by the obligation of supporting his own parents and of taking care of his own family.

The Letter of the Special Commission of Cardinals very knowingly joins this aptitude with the aforesaid right intention. In this aptitude, divine vocation is present only materially. And from it a sign of true vocation is had; as also from that right intention of seeking not the things which are one's own, but the things which are Jesus Christ's, another sign of true divine vocation is had. Let St. Alphonsus be heard: "For receiving orders divine vocation is required.... But the principal signs are: suitable knowledge,... probity of life... right intention, namely the desire of devoting oneself to divine glory and the salvation of souls." L., book 6, n. 802.

22. These things St. Doctor says in the Moral Work. And in another work, Homo Apostolicus, St. Alphonsus likewise altogether distinguishes divine vocation from its signs and indications.

"Concerning the state," he says, Homo Apostolicus, last tract, point 4, nn. 39-40, "to be chosen by some young man, let the Confessor not dare to determine it for him, but only from indications let him take care to persuade him of that state to which he can prudently judge him to be called by God. Especially speaking of those who wish to enter Religion.... Let the Confessor well test the vocation of his penitent, inquiring whether he has any impediment to it from inability, infirm health, poverty of parents?... If the end were worldly... that is not a true vocation.... But if the end is good, and an impediment is absent, the Confessor, nor another, neither ought nor can, without grave fault, impede or dissuade him from the vocation.

"If some young man wished to assume the state of a secular priest, let the Confessor not be easy in agreeing, without long and proved experience of a right end, and of knowledge, or of sufficient capacity. Secular priests indeed have the same, indeed a greater obligation than Religious; and on the other hand they remain in the same dangers of the world. Hence, in order that someone become a good priest in the world, it is necessary that beforehand he have led a very exemplary life, remote from games, from idleness, from wicked companions, and given to prayer and the frequenting of the sacraments."

23. Now in order that someone in fact embrace the religious and ecclesiastical state, it does not suffice that he have a divine vocation to it. Since each of those states is a state in the Church, and a state of no ordinary holiness, it is necessary that his vocation be recognized and approved by legitimate Superiors in the Church, and then that he be legitimately admitted and received by them into that state.

24. As regards the religious state, the matter is most clearly evident from the previous required information, probations, and examinations which have been established in the Rules of all Religious and in the Norms of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, and now of the Congregation on Religious, and also in the Apostolic Constitutions, especially of Pius IX, which are well known to all. Nor is this matter new in the Church, since it flows from the very nature of the thing.

25. In the Rules treated more fully for Cenobites among the works of St. Basil, Migne, vol. 31, cols. 943, 946, Question X, it is said in the Response: "Since the benign God, and the same Our Savior Jesus Christ, proclaims and says: Come to me all you who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you, it is dangerous to repel those who, by our work, approach the Lord and wish to undergo His sweet yoke and the burden of the precepts, by which we are lifted up to heaven.

"Nevertheless it must not be permitted that anyone come with unwashed feet to the holy teachings; but just as Our Lord Jesus Christ questioned the young man who had approached Him concerning his past life, and when He had learned that it had been rightly lived, commanded him besides to obtain what was lacking for perfection, and then gave him the opportunity of following Him: so certainly also by us the past life of those approaching is to be weighed, and to those who have done anything rightly, more perfect teachings are to be handed down. But those who are converted either from a wicked life, or from an indifferent state pass over to the perfect life situated in the knowledge of God, these it is fitting to scrutinize, namely with what morals they are endowed, whether unstable, whether prone to making judgments....

"For these, besides the fact that they themselves receive no advantage, also become authors of detriment to the rest.... While they are still outside, let us send them away, lest the experiment bring some harm and destruction to the brethren.... But after each one has been declared, by every test being applied, as some vessel useful to the Lord and prepared for every good work by those who can skillfully scrutinize such things, then at last let him be numbered among those who have dedicated themselves to the Lord."

26. And as regards sacred orders, the discipline in force in the Church is that each one be ordained by his own Ordinary, who cannot do this unless, after previous testimony of approved persons, there is certainty concerning the sufficiency of knowledge, the honesty of morals of the one to be ordained, and also the absence of any canonical impediment, and concerning his true divine vocation to the ecclesiastical state.

27. These and other things, affirmed in the thesis and already explained, the Roman Catechism embraces thus, declaring who are to be considered divinely called to the priesthood and ecclesiastical ministries. "Just as," it says, "our Savior was sent by the Father, and the Apostles and Disciples into the whole world by Christ the Lord, so daily priests, endowed with the same power as they, are sent for the consummation of the Saints, unto the work of ministry, unto the building up of the body of Christ.

"Therefore the burden of this so great office is to be imposed rashly on no one, but only on those who can sustain it by holiness of life, doctrine, faith, and prudence. Nor indeed let anyone take the honor to himself, but he who is called by God as Aaron. But they are said to be called by God who are called by the legitimate ministers of the Church. For those who arrogantly introduce and intrude themselves into this ministry, concerning these it must be said that the Lord understood them when He says, I did not send the prophets, and they ran; and nothing can be more unhappy and miserable than this kind of men, nothing more calamitous to the Church of God." On the Sacrament of Order, n. 3.

Here, as is evident, the Roman Catechism is properly treating of mission, or of divine vocation adequately taken, by which those called by God to exercise the sacred ministry ARE SENT. And note that the Catechism asserts that those are called by God who are called by the legitimate ministers of the Church; that is, not all, but those alone. Those alone, because the election of the Bishop is the condition without which there is no legitimate vocation; but by no means all of those, because the Bishop can well be deceived by the fraud of one not called, or even through his own fault. Therefore those alone are said to be called by God who assume this ministry from legitimate superiors, not by the suffrages of the people, nor by the power of any secular magistrate, nor by their own rashness, as the Council of Trent has it against the Innovators.

28. Then, proceeding to explain who are divinely called to the priesthood, who are to be chosen for the priesthood by the ministers of the Church, the Roman Catechism says: To aspire to the priesthood for the sake of gain is sacrilege; to proceed to the priesthood from hope of honors or riches is most pernicious; by the ambition and avarice of those who truly are hirelings, the priesthood is debased. Those alone are "LEGITIMATELY CALLED BY GOD who undertake ecclesiastical duties FOR THE SAKE OF THAT ONE THING, that they may serve the honor of God," loc. cit., n. 4. The priest to be created should be one who is greatly recommended by integrity of life and morals and by fitting knowledge, "because he must hold before others the light of virtue and innocence," loc. cit., nn. 31-32.

29. Wherefore rightly and deservedly it is said in the often-praised Letter of the special Commission of Cardinals: "No one ever has any right to ordination antecedently to the free election of the Bishop." Here it must be carefully noted that no one antecedently to the aforesaid election has a right to it, but antecedently to it he must altogether have right intention together with suitability, and the required gifts of probity of life and of approved sufficient doctrine, that is, divine vocation to the ecclesiastical state.

The required suitability and required gifts certainly are not had in some natural inclination to worldly things; and certainly those are not suitable "who positively aspire to the secular state." But on the contrary, suitability and required gifts certainly are had in a certain supernatural inclination to the sacred things of the Church, together with zeal for a holy life and sufficient talent for learning sacred doctrine, as is had in the praised Circular Letters of the Sacred Consistorial Congregation. And suitability, from what has been said, is generally had from a sincere intention and firm will of dedicating oneself to divine worship, to the glory of God, to the salvation of souls, to the salvation of one's own soul. Namely, he is not suitable who lacks divine vocation.

"Let them not be initiated to First Tonsure... concerning whom there is no probable conjecture that they have chosen this kind of life not by deceit to flee secular judgment, but in order to offer faithful worship to God." Council of Trent.

The author of the dissertation which is found in Monitore Ecclesiastico, vol. 27, p. 76, speaking of priestly vocation adequately taken, says: "Ecclesiastical vocation is a sufficient manifestation of the divine will that such a person become His minister. And this manifestation is made by full and certain suitability for the priesthood, opportunity of adding another priest to the clergy, necessity or utility of the Church, and the election of the Bishop." And certainly the chief condition of that suitability is the will and desire of such a state, not the will and desire of worldly things.

30. From the very words of the Roman Catechism which have been related, it is evident that each can be called a divine vocation: both the will inspired by God of living for God in this state of counsels and perfection, and the admission or election to it by legitimate Superiors, and at the same time also the mission to exercise the sacred ministry. And in reality, divine vocation, taken adequately and fully, embraces this whole thing. And if a distinction is made between one and the other, and that expression divine vocation is taken more strictly, then indeed in ecclesiastical documents, and almost always among Theologians, it is very often restricted to that supernatural will divinely inspired, "to whom it is given."

148. • It is certain that there is given a divine vocation, that is, that God by most benign providence calls some before others to a more excellent and more perfect state, and at the same time lavishes the gifts and graces for rightly executing and preserving it, especially as to the ecclesiastical and religious state. For since all things in the natural order are governed by God in the mode proper to each, therefore a fortiori in the supernatural order. On another ground, special gifts and graces are required for embracing and pursuing a more perfect state, which can be conceded by God alone, the supreme dispenser. It is established moreover from various places of Sacred Scripture. Thus concerning the Priesthood in particular the Apostle says, Heb. 5:4: "Nor does anyone take honor to himself, but he who is called by God, as Aaron...." Moreover the same thing must be said about religious life, which is a more perfect and much more difficult state.

149. Questions. - QUESTION 1º. Whether or how does one sin who, feeling himself called to Religion, does not comply with the divine vocation?

Resp. 1º Per se, strictly speaking, he sins in no way; because divine counsels per se impose no obligation, since in this precisely they differ from precepts.

Resp. 2º Yet he can scarcely be excused from some fault because of the danger of eternal salvation to which he commits himself. Indeed he would not be excused from grave sin who was persuaded that this one means of obtaining eternal salvation remained for him, namely that he flee from the dangers of the world.

But indeed, are those persons in a bad state who, morally certain about a divine vocation to Religion, strive to persuade themselves that they can obtain their salvation equally easily by remaining in the world, or by returning to it? It does not seem to be doubted that these persons expose themselves to a great risk of salvation; because by remaining in the world against the vocation of God, they deprive themselves of those special helps which God's providence had prepared for them in religion, and therefore they will with difficulty resist the temptations of the world. Nevertheless St. Ligorius does not dare to render a certain judgment about this.

150. • QUESTION 2º. How does one sin who, not called, nevertheless undertakes the more perfect state of Religion or of the Clericate?

Resp. He sins gravely, if he has clearly known the defect of vocation, both on account of the reverence due to sacred Orders and Religion, both on account of the injury brought upon God, and especially on account of the danger of salvation which he incurs, while he undertakes obligations which he will not be able morally to satisfy, as one lacking the special helps which are conceded by God only to those called. Nevertheless he will be excused from that fault if he has a firm will of fulfilling the obligations of the state undertaken.

151. • QUESTION 3º. Do parents or Superiors sin gravely who turn children or subjects away from the religious state?

Resp. 1º Affirmative, if they turn them away unjustly by threats, force, fraud, or importunate prayers; because they impede them from the attainment of a great good, to which they have a right ¹.

¹ ** They not only impede from the attainment of an immense good, but expose their children to the risk of eternal salvation.

Resp. 2º Affirmative, for the most part, even if they turn them away only by prayers and promises; because this cannot be without grave harm to them. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, who says that this opinion is altogether to be held against some. - Yet parents do not sin who oppose for a time the pious desires of younger children in order to test their constancy, or because of another just cause ². Nevertheless in this matter, in order to avoid hallucinations, they ought to stand by the counsels of the Confessor or of an upright and learned man.

² ** That cause can be judged just on account of which not even the Superiors of the Order would easily admit the candidate. For the rest, even in testing the constancy of the younger ones, no small discretion is needed, lest namely the candidate's frailty turn him away from a vocation otherwise true.

QUESTION 4º. Do children sin by entering Religion when their parents are unwilling or unaware?

Resp. No, speaking per se, although in practice this ordinarily is not expedient, unless they deservedly fear unjust vexation or impediment. The reason is that unless parents oppose from a just cause, children are altogether free concerning the choice of a state of life. - Recall the things said concerning the fourth precept, tom. 1, n. 369.

152. • QUESTION 5º. What are the signs of a religious vocation?

Resp. Speaking generally, or according to ordinary providence, two things are required and suffice for proving a divine vocation, namely due aptitude and propensity of the will.

1º Aptitude is understood as suitability for the religious state in general, and in particular for the observance proper to such an Order. But it consists especially in right judgment, in a good disposition, in a soul submitted to the yoke of obedience, in relatively sufficient knowledge, and in lack of defects of body and soul which are repugnant to the reason of this life. 2º A natural ³ and constant inclination, which therefore is not subject to frequent changes, notwithstanding otherwise some past tergiversation arising from temptations of the devil or from some repugnance of nature. Yet it is not required that the inclination proceed from spontaneity or propensity more than from intimate persuasion of soul. Moreover that inclination ought to be right, namely to proceed from a pure intention, from the mere desire of attaining salvation more easily, of procuring the greater glory of God or even the salvation of souls, etc.

³ ** Understand natural here as a spontaneous propensity of soul, which arises almost from this, that the religious state is presented to the mind as congruous to one's proper disposition, and suitable for bringing about internal peace and happiness.

I said speaking generally or in ordinary providence; because there are more evident signs of vocation, namely 1º divine revelation, as St. Paul, St. Aloysius Gonzaga, St. Stanislaus Kostka, etc., were called; 2º singular inspiration, which consists in an internal motion by which someone is vehemently impelled to a more perfect life and, as it were, drawn.

V. Especially A. concerning the religious state: 1) as to aptitude, there are necessary: good health, relatively sufficient intelligence with right judgment, whence the notably melancholic or scrupulous are not suitable; a good character which can bear the burdens of common life; piety; 2) as to the end, let it be supernatural, e.g., holiness, zeal, reparation, or preservation; not natural or worldly, such as convenience of life, complacence of parents, or ambition for honors; 3) as to conservation of vocation, the confessor must enjoin the caution of secrecy, assiduous prayer and frequenting of the sacraments, separation from the world, namely, as far as can be done, from every dissipation, worldly association, worldly amusements.

I say. Certainly Christ willed that in His kingdom there be a state of voluntary poverty, celibacy, and obedience. For the Lord Himself shows the way by which someone may enter into life and by which he may attain perfection. "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matt. xix, 17. He set before these words others: "One is good, God": the observance of the commandments is indicated as necessary in order that someone may become a sharer of the highest good, God. And to the young man asking, "Which?" namely, commandments, the Lord explains them. To the young man answering that he had kept all these from his youth, and asking, "What is yet wanting to me?" Jesus said: "if thou wilt be perfect, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come follow me." Therefore here the Lord sets forth two states in His kingdom, namely one enjoined on all, the other voluntary for them: the observance of the commandments; the voluntary taking up of poverty, celibacy - for he who sells all his things and gives the price to the poor cannot enter marriage - and obedience, "come follow me." Therefore He says to the young man: if thou wilt supply what is lacking to thee and come to perfection, I now show thee the way: "sell, give to the poor," and, lest thou fear, I set before thee the reward, "treasure in heaven, and come follow me." And so He excites the will of the young man by this treasure and by the attainment of perfection arising for him from voluntary poverty, celibacy, and a certain excellent obedience under the yoke of Christ. - Cf. v. 12.

Therefore Christ wills that such a state be in the Church. Now come, all these things strike the hearts of men with wondrous efficacy. - Cf. Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew; Knabenbauer, pp. 154 and seq. Let it be noted that between this doctrine of Christ concerning the more perfect way in His kingdom and the doctrine concerning matrimony and virginity (xix, 1-12), there is commemorated by the Evangelist the most tender love of Our Lord toward little ones: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. These easily lay up the things of God in the heart. Suffer the little ones to come unto me. The time will come when many of them will have to answer for themselves whether they ought to follow Christ by the common way rather than by the more perfect way. At the age of twelve and living the Apostolic life, He gave them a most efficacious example; He will also give grace. For them also a choice must be made between these ways: "Lord, what wilt thou have me do?" The will of God, not our own, is the norm of any Christian. Right intention of divine service is necessary, especially in choosing a state of life. And therefore it is necessary that the one about to choose, according to his powers, free himself from every disordered affection, and will nothing except what is from above. These things being posited, how will the young man know what is the good-pleasing will of God? Our Lord shows His will in this matter to men in various ways. First, indeed, He does this in such a way that no doubt can be present concerning it - which happens in the case of Saint Paul, Saint Matthew, and others in the Church of God. This way is extraordinary and not to be expected by all. Secondly, when the soul is moved by inspirations and motions in such a way that with almost no discourse of the mind the will is borne into the service of God; but in this method too great difficulties can arise. Finally, a third way remains, the ordinary one, safer and more secure from illusions, namely when someone with tranquil mind seriously considers the question, What shall I do? shall I follow the religious state? (a) by weighing the advantages and disadvantages arising to him from it; by taking from the desire of divine service reasons for the state and against it; and by not admitting merely human considerations; by placing himself in indifference of heart; let him ask light from God; then let him see to which side reason inclines him more, and finally let him choose that side. Or, with the same tranquil mind, (b) let him propose to himself a man hitherto unknown, who asks counsel in this matter; by desiring the perfection of this man, he chooses this state for him, and let him judge that the same will be best for himself. Or again, with the same tranquility of soul, (c) let him place himself at the article of death or on the day of judgment, and ask what way he would then wish to have held, and let him now take for himself the one desired; for he will be able sincerely to hold that his vocation is that which that weighing and prayer under (a), or that counsel under (b), or the longed-for way under (c), indicates. Therefore divine vocation seems able to be called the divine good-pleasure morally securely manifested to a man by the light of reason aided by faith; in the man himself it is a complex of right intention, of natural and supernatural gifts, by which he may seem suitable for duly carrying out the duties of the religious state. But the judgment of all these things in this or that case belongs to the Superiors, so that their assent and admission of the candidate is, as it were, the authoritative complement and perfection of religious vocation.

Question 1. Whether, or how, does one sin who, sensing that he is called to Religion, does not obey the divine vocation?

Resp. Of itself and rigorously speaking, he sins in no way; because divine counsels impose no obligation, since precisely in this they differ from precepts. Yet he can scarcely be excused from some fault because of the danger of eternal salvation to which he commits himself. Indeed, he would not be excused from grave sin who was persuaded that this one means of attaining eternal salvation remained for him, that he flee from the dangers of the world. - But truly, are they in a bad state who, morally certain concerning a divine vocation to Religion, strive to persuade themselves that they can attain their salvation just as easily by remaining in the world or by returning to it? It does not seem to be doubted that they expose themselves to great hazard of salvation; because, by remaining in the world against the vocation of God, they deprive themselves of those special helps which the providence of God had prepared for them in Religion, and therefore they will resist the temptations of the world with difficulty. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 78. Others, however, judge more mildly.

Question 2. Do parents or superiors sin gravely who turn away children or subjects from the religious state?

Resp. Affirmatively, and indeed against justice, if they turn them away by threats, force, frauds, etc.; but against charity, if they only employ prayers and persuasions. The reason is that they deprive them of a great good and heap up many damages. Nevertheless parents do not sin who oppose, for a time, the pious desires of younger children in order to test their constancy or because of another just cause. Yet in this matter, to avoid delusions, they must stand by the counsels of a confessor or of an upright and learned man. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 77.

Question 3. What are the signs of a religious vocation?

Resp. Generally speaking, or according to ordinary providence, two things are required and suffice for proving a divine vocation, namely due aptitude and inclination of will.

1st. Aptitude is understood as suitability for the religious state in general, and in particular for the observance proper to such an Order. It consists especially in right judgment, in a good disposition, in a soul submitted to the yoke of obedience, in relatively sufficient knowledge, and in the lack of defects of body and soul which are repugnant to the reason of this life.

2nd. A constant and right inclination, which therefore is not subject to frequent changes, notwithstanding, otherwise, some past shifting about arising from temptations of the devil or from a certain repugnance of nature. Yet it is not required that the inclination proceed from spontaneity or propensity rather than from an intimate persuasion of the soul. Furthermore, that inclination must be right, that is, proceed from a pure intention, from the mere desire of attaining salvation more easily, of procuring the greater glory of God, or also the salvation of souls, etc.

I said generally speaking or in ordinary providence, because more evident signs of vocation are present, namely: 1st, divine revelation, as St. Aloysius Gonzaga and St. Stanislaus Kostka, etc., were called; 2nd, singular inspiration, which consists in an interior motion by which someone is vehemently driven and as it were drawn to a more perfect life.

I. St. Thomas treats of the vow of assuming the religious state (II-II, q. 189, art. 2 — not art. 88, as Leander writes, correcting Prado, since he wrote art. 89), where he shows that a vow of professing the religious state is a laudable work, and full of merit — since, whatever a vow concerns pertains to God, and the profession of the religious state pertains to God in the highest degree; for by this profession a man offers himself as a holocaust in the service and honor of God.

II. It follows from this that one who made a vow to enter religious life ought to apply every diligence, as the Angelic Doctor teaches (loc. cit., art. 3, ad 1). Nor, however, is it required for the observance of the vow that the one vowing actually enter religious life, and actually carry out the entrance — since many things can prevent such an entrance from being carried out, and it does not depend on the one vowing that these be removed; but it is only necessary that the one vowing omit nothing, on his own part, of those things which can pave the way toward entering the Order. If, however, the one vowing had any impediments, he ought to reveal them to the Superiors of that religious order which he vowed to enter. For such a revelation, even if it should impede the entrance, is necessary for the validity of the contract between the religious order and the one vowing. For a religious order has the right not to receive those who are bound by a grave impediment, and can, by right, insist that hidden impediments be revealed. So authors commonly teach. The diligence, however, which we have said must be applied by the one vowing, need not be extraordinary — such as having recourse to intercessors, and the patronage of great men, to secure entrance — but it suffices that he use those means which prudent men are accustomed to employ in matters of graver import. We consider less probable what the theologians of Salamanca write (tract. 15, ch. 2, punct. 1, n. 2) — namely, that the one vowing is not bound, when he seeks to be received into the habit, to reveal his vow to the Prelate, even though he might hope, by this manifestation, to be admitted to religious life more easily — since, they say, this manifestation is not necessary for the execution of the vow: for the one vowing is bound only to apply the necessary means. They praise, for this opinion, Cajetan (II-II, q. 189, art. 3, near the solution to the second objection). But this is falsely alleged, as often happens with them. For Cajetan has not a word in the place cited to exempt the one vowing from the manifestation of such a vow. They also praise Bonacina, and others, whose examination, since the matter is of lesser moment, I pass over. I say this manifestation is necessary for the execution of the vow: for the one vowing is bound, by virtue of the vow, to apply those means which he prudently judges to conduce to obtaining the end of the vow. Given, then, that such a means is fitting for obtaining the end of the vow, and can be employed without grave inconvenience to himself, I do not see why he should not be bound to use it in such a means. What, indeed, is easier than this manifestation of the vow? Once it is known, entrance into religious life is more easily obtained; nor, indeed, does it not sometimes happen that this is the case. Although we grant that this manifestation is not, by its own nature, necessary for the execution of the vow, nonetheless, in this circumstance, it is necessary that the one vowing act in good faith, and apply those means which present no difficulty, and are efficacious for the attainment of the end. For in what business of any importance similar to this would such an easy diligence be omitted? Nor does it follow from this that the one vowing is bound to implore the aid and favor of patrons — since such means carry with them a grave inconvenience, and it is prudently presumed that the one vowing did not bind himself to them. So that this matter, somewhat entangled, may be more clearly explained, we shall devote the following paragraphs to it.

I. Question I. What is to be said of this vow: "I promise to enter religious life, unless God should decide otherwise concerning me"? Response: This vow can have a twofold sense, as Sánchez, following Córdoba, notes (Bk. IV, on the Decalogue, ch. 16, n. 2). The first is: "I vow religious life, unless God should render me unfit for entrance by some illness, or other obstacle" — this impediment removed, the vow will still oblige. The second is: "I vow religious life, unless God should decree something more expedient for my salvation." In this case, they say, the vow ceases. And in doubt as to whether some other state than religious life is more expedient for the salvation of the one vowing, they add that upright men should be consulted, and, the doubt remaining, a dispensation from the vow should be sought. For the rest, to state what I think: this attached condition seems to me inept, and superfluous — since, whenever an impediment occurs, or a state of greater perfection presents itself, it would be understood even if the condition had not been attached. I likewise consider this other condition superfluous: "I vow to enter religious life, if I shall be able" — since no one is bound to enter religious life unless he is able. And although all have physical power, not all have moral power. Nonetheless, in any vow whatsoever moral power too is included, so that grave impediments render the one vowing unfit. But if someone wishes to defend the aforesaid condition as reasonable, I do not consider it a matter of such importance that I should contend sharply about it — especially since, in similar vows, the intention of the one vowing must always be looked to first of all.

II. Question II. How is this vow to be explained: "I vow to enter this religious order, if I shall have entered any"? Response: St. Antoninus proposes this vow (Part II, tit. 11, ch. 2, §1, note 15), in these words: "If someone should swear, or vow, to enter this religious order — if he enters any, it is valid; because by this, no other order is principally excluded, but this one is principally included. And if not purely, yet under a condition — namely, if he wishes to enter any. But if he were to promise that he would enter no other, and would not promise to enter this one, he would not be bound to enter it, either purely or conditionally; nor would he sin by not entering it." When, then, the one vowing designates some particular religious order, even though he casts aside the condition, the vow is valid; if, however, he excludes every religious order, the vow is null, and impious. To make the nature of this vow clearer, however, the intention of the one vowing must be examined. For if, led by a particular affection toward this religious order, he vowed entrance into it as something set before him principally, the vow is valid, even though conditional — since the entrance into religious life, even though bound by a condition, is good and fit matter for a vow. On the contrary, if he had principally vowed that he would enter no religious order at all, then the whole matter of the vow would be a pure negation, unsuited to a vow; and consequently the vow itself would be null. So authors commonly teach.

III. Question III. Is this vow valid: "I vow that no person shall be an obstacle to me, from entering religious life, or from doing something else"? Response: Sánchez (Bk. IV, ch. 16, n. 3), Trullench (Bk. II, ch. 2, dub. 17, n. 4), Leander (tract. 1, q. 5) pronounce this invalid. It seems valid to me, however; for it yields this sense, unless the express intention of the one vowing indicates otherwise: "I vow that I will enter religious life, unless someone's prayers or objections are an obstacle to me" — that is, "I vow that I will overcome, as much as I can, the impediments of all persons, so that I may enter religious life." What of the fact that the cited authors affirm that a vow conceived in this manner is valid: "I vow that nothing shall be an impediment to my entering religious life"? And yet there is no difference at all, save in the words, if it is compared with the other.

IV. Question IV. Is one who made a vow of wishing to enter religious life bound to enter it? Response: Sánchez (Bk. IV, ch. 16, n. 8) answers negatively, and Navarrus (Bk. III, Consilia, on vows), to whom Leander, Pellizzari, Azor (Bk. XI, ch. 20), Bassaeus, and others subscribe. If this vow is considered absolutely, disjoined from any circumstance, it is certain that it does not induce an obligation to enter religious life, for the reason the cited authors assign — namely, that a vow to wish is one thing, a vow to do is another. One who vows only to wish does not vow to do. But this one vowing does not vow to enter, but vows to wish to enter. For this, it suffices that he sometimes have a firm and good will to enter — which will not at all obstruct his entering marriage. But these are, in a certain metaphysical consideration, all true. For the rest, if someone had really made such a vow, there would scarcely be any foundation for presuming that such a one vowing did not have the intention of vowing entrance into religious life. What prudent man would vow that he would have the will to enter religious life, while at the same time having a purpose of contracting marriage? The will to enter religious life is good, since it looks to a good. But, while a contrary deliberate will to marry is present, there are two acts that collide with one another. Wherefore, if this case occurred to me, I would seriously investigate the intention of the one vowing — since in practice either the vow is ill-considered, and null for want of due knowledge, or the one vowing is certainly bound to entrance into religious life. The same must be said of one who vowed that he did not wish to live in the world — namely, the intention of the one vowing must be investigated. The cited authors say that, for the observance of such a vow, it will suffice that the one vowing behave negatively, and elicit no contrary act — "I wish to live in the world" — and therefore he can enter marriage. Such vows seem ridiculous to me; and those who would make them, too imprudent, and ill-considered. Wherefore, if I were to find that prudent men had made such vows, and expressed them thus, I would seriously investigate their intention: since commonly one who vows... wishes to enter religious life is presumed to intend that entrance in earnest. Nor is it so much from the words as from the intention of the one vowing that the obligation and nature of the vow are to be drawn. If the matter of the vow were a mere negation, and included nothing positive, the contrary opinion would be true. And therefore the cited authors say that such a one vowing must behave negatively, by virtue of such a vow. But I, all things weighed, would judge either that the vow is null, or would oblige the one vowing to entrance into religious life.

V. Question V. Is a vow of dying in religious life a vow of religious life? Response: All commonly affirm this. For no one can meet death in religious life unless he first enters it. Indeed, by virtue of such a vow, he is bound to persevere in it. Authors dispute only about the time by which the one vowing is bound, by virtue of such a vow, to make his entrance. Some maintain that such a vow does not induce an obligation to enter so quickly, as with an absolute vow of entering religious life; and this must be investigated, as regards this vow and other similar disputed points, with the intention of the one vowing and the circumstances considered. If the force of the words is attended to, it seems probable enough that such a vow does not press an entrance as swift as an absolute vow to enter religious life would. That, on the contrary, it does not admit a long delay, likewise appears likely enough. Wherefore this should be left to the judgment of a prudent man, so that, the circumstances inspected, he could either anticipate, or moderately defer, the time of execution.

VI. Question VI. Does a vow of eremitic and solitary life induce an obligation? Response: Authors agree that this is not a true vow of religious life. They differ concerning its obligation. Lest we linger longer than is just on questions of lesser moment, it does not seem to be doubted that this vow is valid. If those vowing do not fully hold the eremitic and solitary state and perfection of life (which is not to be undertaken without a special vocation, and celestial illumination), they will be able to obtain a dispensation. This too is common ground among authors.

I. Question I. Does one who vowed religious life absolutely fulfill the vow, if he assumes the habit of the Knights of St. James, of Calatrava, of Alcántara? Response: Some affirm this; but the common opinion denies it — both because it is highly controverted whether these are true Religious, since they do not vow chastity absolutely, but only conjugal chastity; nor do they pledge to God either absolute poverty, or obedience; and also because, granting them to be truly in the religious state, those who vow "entrance into religious life" do not intend such orders, but those which profess the cenobitic life.

II. Question II. Is a vow of religious life at least fulfilled if the habit of the Knights of St. John is assumed? Response: Several not undistinguished writers say that these Knights make three absolute vows — poverty, chastity, and obedience — and are true Religious; and, as far as the religious state is concerned, some of these same Knights insist to me that, by the assumption of the habit, they turn to an apostolic life approved by the Church. But the common opinion denies that the absolute vow of religious life of the aforesaid Knights of St. John is fulfilled — since, according to the common estimation of those who vow entrance into religious life, the ordinary meaning intended is one of the orders in which, wholly separated from the tumult of the world, a common life is led.

III. Question III. Would such a vow at least be fulfilled by entrance into an order of military Clerics of chastity, such as the Knights of Malta living there, and observing common life? Response: All commonly affirm this — since these do lead a truly regular life in convents, in the manner of other Regulars; and it is beyond controversy that, as long as they live under a rule approved by the Holy See, they are true Religious, since the Knights of Malta dwelling there lead a common life, just as other Religious do.

IV. Question IV. Does the one vowing religious life satisfy the vow, if he enters a relaxed religious order? Response: All authors commonly deny this. But it must be explained what is meant by "relaxed" religious order. For relaxation admits of greater or lesser latitude. Some religious order (would that it were only some!) has diminished from its ancient rigor in food, and in its garments, observing neither the abstinence, nor the austerity, which it observed from its beginnings; it takes care, however, that the laws and constitutions, though now milder, are observed by all. Moreover, the observance of the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience flourishes exactly in it, having remitted nothing of the ancient rigor, not only in its chief points but in every particular. This religious order, however, though somewhat diminished in its common estimation, and in fact, is not relaxed; but can only be called milder.

V. That religious order is commonly called "relaxed" which is deficient, as they say, in substantial matters. Now the substantial laws, or the first and chief constitutions and precepts, which must be observed, are the three necessary vows, and those things which are proximate to these vows, and without which — or scarcely without which — the observance of these vows can stand at all. Thus the vow of poverty cannot possibly be reconciled with private property; the vow of chastity with free egress from the cloisters; the vow of obedience with the free faculty of advancing one's own private interests. Hence those religious orders whose Religious have their own private property, now richer, now poorer, according to what fortune brings, and inhabit dwellings not infrequently more spacious and comfortable than secular men, feast on delicacies, and, if they wish, eat meat at their own pleasure and appetite, and where the leaders and Superiors, with tacit connivance, impune violate the other constitutions, in which, finally, the subjects conspire against the transgression of the laws; leave the monastery, indulge in games, break silences, fasts, and — although with their mouths they boast of observing their vows — most manifest experience nonetheless suggests the opposite.

VI. It must also be noted that scarcely any religious order is found which has collapsed in all its convents; rather, nearly every order has some monasteries, or Congregations, or Provinces, in which firm regular observance persists.

VII. We say, then, that one who vows entrance into religion not only does not fulfil his vow if he enters a religious order relaxed in the way we have described; but we add that even a vow of entering such religious orders is null, because it is not of a better good. Religious orders approved by God make the way of salvation easier; the relaxed Orders which I have described make the attainment of the blessed life more difficult, indeed most difficult. Therefore a vow of entering them is not of a better good, and so is null. The minor premise, about which alone there can be doubt, has been plainly shown in our Apostolic-Monastic Discipline, where we asserted, with all the theologians and casuists, however benign, that one who enters such religious orders casts himself into the gravest dangers of his eternal perdition. We will now recount only some of them: St. Antoninus (Part III, tit. 16, ch. 2); Thomas Cajetan (II-II, q. 189, art. 9, and Vol. I of the Opuscula, the last tract, resp. 7); Seraphinus Porrecta in the same place; Martín Navarrus (in the Manual, ch. 12, nn. 45 and 46); Paul Nazarius (on the state of religion, concl. 14); Nyder (on the reform of religious orders, ch. 9, part 1); López (in the Instructions, ch. 43); Lezana (on the obligations of religious, ch. 7, n. 16); Lessius (on justice and right, Bk. II, ch. 41, dub. 5); Cassiano a S. Elia (decis. 1, n. 2); Sánchez (Bk. IV on the Decalogue, ch. 16, n. 14); Passerini (q. 189, art. 2, n. 6); Leander (tract. 1 on oaths, qq. 14 and 15); the theologians of Salamanca (tract. 15, ch. 2, punct. 1, n. 3); Rotarius (Vol. I, Bk. I, ch. 7, punct. 2, n. 2); Martínez de Prado (Vol. II, ch. 31, q. 7, n. 2); Bonacina (disp. 4, q. 2, punct. 5, §6, n. 3); Layman (Bk. IV, tract. 5, ch. 6, n. 5). The reason is obvious enough, and occurs to everyone at once. For whoever vows entrance into religion intends chiefly and solely that state in which, far removed from the dangers of the world, he may serve God and work out his eternal salvation more safely. But when he enters a collapsed religious order, he casts himself into more and graver hazards, and into a kind of necessity, as it were, of violating the new obligations he has taken on, above all the vow of poverty, which he will pronounce to God with solemn rite. Consult what we have said in the aforesaid Apostolic-Monastic Discipline, dissert. 5, ch. 13.

VIII. Question V. Does one who vowed to enter a stricter religious order satisfy his obligation if he enters a laxer one? Response: By no means, and this is certain among all — since a solemn vow renders it impossible to commute a lesser thing for a greater. What if he makes profession in a laxer institute? Will the profession be valid? I do not deny it. But does he satisfy the vow? No one, however, promised a greater vow. This is certain and holds among all. Is the profession valid? It will certainly be valid, though it does not satisfy — since one solemn vow, such as monastic profession is, dissolves another simple vow, such as that of entering a stricter Order. This holds among all.

IX. Question VI. Can one who vowed a stricter religious order, but professed in a laxer one, lawfully persevere in it? Response: Authors speak too obscurely, and confusedly, about this matter. For they commonly assert that, in one sense, it is true, according to what St. Thomas holds (II-II, q. 189, art. 8, ad 3), where he says: "A solemn vow by which someone is bound to a lesser religious order is stronger than a simple vow by which someone is bound to a greater religious order. For if someone, after a simple vow, should contract marriage, it would not be dissolved, as a solemn vow would be. And therefore one who has already professed in a lesser religious order is not bound to fulfill the simple vow which he made of entering a greater religious order." From this doctrine the theologians of Salamanca gather (tract. 15, ch. 2, punct. 1, n. 4) that someone can, on his own authority, commute a vow of entering a stricter religious order into that of persevering in a laxer one — since to persevere in the laxer is more perfect than to dissolve the vow only of entering the stricter. This they teach, and several authors praise it, who really do gather this doctrine. This, however, unless it is explained, is a cause of error, and matters must be resolved apart from doubts. It is certain that a solemn vow extinguishes a simple vow; and consequently one who made a vow to enter a stricter religious order, if he made profession in a laxer one, is no longer bound, by virtue of his simple vow, to embrace the stricter — since that simple vow is dissolved, and utterly extinguished, by the solemn vow of profession. And, as to this point, the cited authors, along with St. Thomas, speak excellently. But if the religious order is relaxed in substantial matters, although he is not bound, by virtue of the past and extinguished vow, to enter the stricter order; he is nonetheless bound by reason of the divine law, which obliges all to avoid the dangers of eternal damnation. It has already been shown that a vow of entering a relaxed religious order is null, and that the one vowing gravely sins, unless ignorance excuses him, when he fulfills it by entering such a religious order — as we have said, and as the theologians of Salamanca themselves teach, in agreement with all other theologians. Such a one vowing, then, cannot lawfully persevere in a religious order relaxed in substantial matters. St. Thomas, however, in the place cited, speaks of a religious order which is truly "lesser," in relation to a greater religious order which is stricter — each of which, however, observes its own proper laws, as I have shown at length in the aforesaid Discipline. But one who vowed a laxer order, without doubt, elicited a valid vow of such a lesser order.

One who vows the assumption of one religious order cannot, by his own authority, commute the vow into another, even equally strict, by entering it: for no one, without dispensation, can, as we more probably consider, commute a vow into an equally good, but only into an evidently better, one.

X. Question VII. Does one satisfy the vow of entering a stricter religious order, if he enters a laxer one which has a pontifical privilege of receiving all who have vowed the stricter one? Response: The Doctors commonly affirm this, and report that the Benedictines, Augustinians, and others really do have such a privilege. Whatever the truth about these privileges, the distinction given above must always be kept before one's eyes — namely, understanding by "laxer religious order" one that is milder, gentler, and less severe, which nonetheless truly observes its own milder laws; the privilege having been granted, this is the true, common opinion. If, however, by "laxer religious order" is meant one collapsed in substantial matters, the aforesaid opinion would be false. For we deny that any legitimate privilege is found which grants collapsed Orders the faculty of receiving those who have vowed a stricter religious order. Indeed, we assert that pontifical decrees deprive religious orders of this kind of the faculty of receiving anyone at all for profession.

XI. Question VIII. What is one bound to who vowed religious life indefinitely? Response: St. Thomas (II-II, q. 189, art. 3, ad 2) says this: "That man is bound to go to a specific religious order, who intended simply to bind himself. Therefore, if he is not received into one religious order, he is bound to seek entrance into another; and, if he is indeed received into some religious order, he ought to do what he intended by such a vow. And if he vows himself specially to one religious order, he is bound only according to that mode of obligation which he vowed. But if he determinately vowed one religious order alone, he ought to apply the diligence that he would apply in any other matter of graver moment, so that he may be received in it." Thus, as the Doctors commonly say, if he has been refused by one monastery, he ought to seek out four or five others; just as, if he vowed religious life indefinitely, he is bound to explore four or five orders, and five or six convents of each order, so that, if rejected by all, he may be free of the vow. So teach Sánchez, Castropalao, Trullench, Leander, and others. They also dispute whether he is bound to go outside his own nation and homeland, and to approach convents of another language and region. But this is commonly denied — it seeming preferable to leave the matter to the judgment of a prudent man. This alone should always be noted: that the entrance into a collapsed religious order is neither to be attempted, nor carried out. If the one vowing is free of impediments, entrance into one or another religious order will be easy for him; if he is entangled with impediments, he will find none. One who is unfit for one may be fit for another. All these matters depend on many circumstances. For this reason no fixed rule can be assigned, but the matter must be left to the judgment of a prudent man.

From this it is gathered that the opinion of Sánchez, Castropalao, Leander, and the theologians of Salamanca, who assert that one who vowed religious life indefinitely is not to be compelled to enter the strictest Order — such as the Capuchins, Carthusians, Camaldolese, and Minims — is not absolutely true. Since it can occur, and indeed not infrequently, that one vowing possesses all those qualities that render him fit, and apt, for one of the aforesaid Orders. If, however, he is unfit for others, and this one vowing is healthy and robust, if he experiences no aversion to such an Order, if he is instructed with the best character, if he burns with the ardor of virtue — why should he not be advised toward the entrance into such an Order? Rather, this matter, as we have said, ought to be left entirely to the judgment of a prudent and learned man, and, alongside him, a pious man, when it comes to the assumption of the religious state. Absolutely, then, the rule of these Doctors seems false. And this must equally be affirmed of women as of men. As for the diversity of homeland and province, however, women are commonly not to be compelled to seek a convent outside their own city, or at least too far removed from their parents. Men who have vowed religious life indefinitely, if they have been commonly refused by all religious orders, are by no means bound to enter the military Order of the Knights of St. John, of Calatrava, or of Alcántara — since such military Orders are not comprehended under the term "religious order" in general, as has been explained above.

XII. Question IX. One who vows to enter this or that convent, if he suffers a refusal, is he bound to approach other monasteries? Response: The resolution must be gathered from the intention of the one vowing. If, moved by some peculiar reason, he first and principally set before himself such a monastery, and suffered a refusal, he remains free from the vow. Cautiously, however, and seriously, the intention of the one vowing must be investigated. For if a peculiar affection alone toward such a monastery moved him only to elicit the vow, and no solid reason for such a specific choice shines forth, then he is not free from the debt of seeking acceptance in other monasteries of the same Order — since in these circumstances it is clear that this one vowing intended, first and per se, entrance into religious life, and then, secondarily, into this particular monastery. In similar cases, the whole judgment depends on the one vowing's own account of the matter.

XIII. Question X. One who has once been legitimately rejected by a monastery, or religious order, is he bound, if invited afterward to embrace it, or the monastery, to do so? Response: If someone is repelled on account of a temporary impediment, once the impediment is removed, he is bound, by virtue of the vow, to seek re-entry. This is agreed upon by all. This must be said first, which is certain among all: namely, that if the one vowing was rejected on account of some apparent impediment, which in fact and in truth was not one — as, if one to be received were reckoned to be burdened with debt, or illegitimately born, or afflicted with some hidden disease, which was in fact not true — then, certain, I say, it is that he would be bound, if that same Order should later admit him.

XIV. What is brought into dispute, however, is whether one legitimately, and perpetually, rejected remains free of the vow, if he is invited later, or is not bound to entrance. Authors commonly declare that such a person is free of the bond of the vow; and this opinion seems to me more probable, and absolutely so — since, otherwise, if he were invited anew by a religious order, and did not enter, he would be forced to remain anxious and suspended for his whole lifetime; nor is it in any way to be presumed that the one vowing intended to bind himself to so uncertain a fate when he made the vow of religious life; nor can such a grave burden be prudently gathered from the nature of a vow. Less probable to us, however, seems what the theologians of Salamanca teach (n. 11), along with Castropalao, Aragón, Pellizzari, Diana, and others, in the place cited — namely, that the one vowing, having made his petition for admission to the religious habit, is not bound, by virtue of the vow, to await the consent of the religious order; since, they say, this vow is presumed to have been made under this condition: "If, due diligence having been applied, the religious order should wish to admit me" — for this time is required for deliberating, or if it defers the deliberation as long as it wishes. This opinion, I say, seems to us both less probable, and false — since scarcely any religious order is so cautious and prudent in receiving candidates that it does not defer acceptance for some period of time, so that it may ascertain whether it is expedient to admit, and make trial of whether the postulant's will is constant and firm. So far, then, is it from being true that, in the vow of acceptance, a tacit condition of a sudden acceptance is included, that rather a fitting delay is always presumed. It must be said, then, that if such a delay is such as to provide a solid foundation for despairing of obtaining entrance, then the one vowing is to be declared free from the vow; otherwise, if the delay is moderate, and leaves hope of obtaining acceptance at a suitable time.

XV. Question XI. Can a regular Superior lawfully reject, with the same facility, one bound by a vow of religious life, as one bound by no vow? Response: The common opinion affirms this, and rightly — since the obligation of the one vowing in no way affects the Prelates, or the religious order accepting him. For the vow was made under this condition — namely, if the Prelate should wish to accept.

XVI. Question XII. One who vowed religious life, so that he might be a Cleric in it, is he free from the vow, if the religious order refuses to admit him except as a lay Brother? Response: He is altogether free — since a vow does not oblige beyond the intention of the one vowing; but the one vowing expressly intended, when he made the vow, to profess as a Cleric. Therefore, this condition failing, the vow remains dissolved. But if, when he made the vow, he thought nothing about the clerical or lay state, and is fit for either state — namely, both clerical and lay — he is bound to accept whichever grade the religious order shall prescribe. One who expressly vowed to assume the priestly state can commute the vow, and become a lay Brother, and vice versa, if, however, the religious order consents — since this is an accidental change within the same religious order. All this is common ground among all. From the condition of the one vowing, however, it will generally be easy to discern which state he intended for himself, whether expressly, or at least tacitly. But if this can in no way be discerned, the one vowing must abide by the judgment of the religious order, as we have said.

XVII. Question XIII. An illegitimate son, aware of the constitution of Sixtus V, by which illegitimate sons are excluded from ranks and dignities, vows religious life; knowing the constitution, is he bound to fulfill the vow? Response: The Doctors commonly deny this — since, since an illegitimate son is unfit to attain such dignities and ranks, he suffers grave ignominy on account of such a penal deprivation; and they assert the same of one vowing a religious order which has a similar law, if he was ignorant of it at the time he made the vow. So teach Sánchez (Bk. IV, ch. 16, n. 55), Pellizzari (Vol. I, tract. 4, ch. 1, sect. 1, q. 9, n. 55), Leander (tract. 1, disp. 21, q. 43), Castropalao (tract. 16, disp. 1, punct. 3).

This opinion causes me no small difficulty, since not every inconvenience, or difficulty, is sufficient to dissolve a vow. One who despises the world, and all that the world can give — whether riches or dignities — in order to profess evangelical perfection, so as to exercise himself in the virtue of humility, which seems, by its own nature, to include a renunciation of all worldly ranks and dignities — is most prudently presumed, when he made the vow of religious life, to have renounced all such things. Add to this that the aforesaid deprivation of ranks brings ignominy to worldly men, not to Religious; since the more devout, and the more approved, Religious are, the more this renunciation of the vow will bring them praise, the more they will excel among other Religious, however great the worldly dignity from which an illegitimate son is barred. Wherefore this opinion just cited seems to me to accede more to human affections than to the evangelical counsels, to whose observance one who vows religious life pledges to conform his whole life. I myself, indeed, on account of this difficulty alone, unless peculiar circumstances occurred, would not exempt from entrance into religious life one who had made such a vow while ignorant of the aforesaid law.

XVIII. Question XIV. One who vowed religious life in the priestly state — is he bound to learn grammar, when, on account of his ignorance of it, he is not admitted? Response: The common opinion affirms this: Sotus (Bk. VII, q. 2, art. 1, ad 3), Sánchez (Bk. IV, ch. 16, n. 61), Suárez (Vol. III, on Religion, Bk. IV, ch. 15, n. 11), Bonacina (disp. 4, q. 2, punct. 3, n. 14), Leander (tract. 1, disp. 21, q. 44), Aragón, Ledesma, Rodríguez, Azor, and others. For whoever wills the end must will the means that conduce to attaining it. If, however, when he made the vow, he thought he could learn it within the religious order, he is not bound to learn it outside it — since his express intention is established, beyond which a vow does not oblige. If he does not wish to learn grammar, he can become a lay Brother, with the consent of the religious order — since then he is judged to fulfill his vow more perfectly, on account of the peculiar humility and labor of such a state. What if, at the time he made the vow of embracing religious life in the priestly state, he was ignorant that a knowledge of grammar was necessary? Is he bound to learn it? The cited authors deny this, on the grounds that this supervening difficulty is grave enough to be sufficient for the dissolution of the vow. This, however, must be gathered from the circumstances. For if the one vowing was so affected toward the religious order that, had he known of this difficulty, he would nonetheless have made the vow, he would surely be bound to learn grammar. If, on the contrary, it is prudently presumed that he would not have made the vow, had he had a clear view of such an impediment, he remains free of the vow, nor is he bound to embrace the lay state in the aforesaid religious order — just as one who vows religious life, knowing that this state requires learning grammar, is not bound to become a lay Brother, if, the risk having been made, he is afterward found altogether incapable of learning it — since moral incapacity dissolves the debt of a vow. On the other hand, the lay state, besides being the state of the one vowing, was, when he made the vow, doubted, whether or not it required grammar, then he is bound to learn it — since, when he was in doubt, he ought to have made himself more certain. Indeed, if he had doubted whether a knowledge of the liberal arts was required for acquiring Philosophy or Theology, he would be compelled to learn those arts, for the reason given — since, when he made the vow in such doubt, he is presumed to have bound himself to carry out all those things which are necessary for obtaining the end. When, however, it is doubted whether the one vowing knew or did not know, at the time of the vow, that grammar was required for the clerical state, it must be presumed that he did know — since there is no religious order which does not require this knowledge; and consequently this is commonly known to all. One who vowed the lay state is not bound to learn a mechanical trade, so that he may be received, if the religious order would exclude him on account of this defect, when, in making the vow, he thought nothing at all about such a trade. On the contrary, if he knew that some trade was necessary for entrance into religious life, then he ought to learn some trade. Sotus notes, however (Bk. VIII, on justice, q. 2, art. 1), that the one vowing is bound to learn the trade which the religious order requires, even if he thought nothing of it, provided, however, that the trade is of such a nature that it can easily be learned; and otherwise the one vowing would scarcely be useful to the religious order without such a trade. For whoever vows is bound to carry out easy means, so that he may become possessed of his vow. This opinion is true.

XIX. Question XV. One who, after having made a vow of religious life, contracts marriage; or, having contracted and consummated marriage, vows religious life — what must he do? Response: If the vow of religious life preceded the marriage, the one contracting marriage sins mortally. For the entire first two months, he can neither lawfully request the debt, nor render it — since, within these two months, he can still fulfill his vow, by assuming the religious state; wherefore he would sin mortally, both by rendering and by requesting. Once the two months have passed, he is bound to render it, but by no means can he request it. If, however, the marriage is consummated, whether with or without fault, he is then held, by Lessius, Palao, Bonacina, Sánchez, and the theologians of Salamanca (loc. cit.), to be able both to render and to request the debt. If, however, after the marriage is consummated, the spouses, by mutual consent, make a vow, they can both render and request it — since the use of marriage does not impede the vow of taking up religious life; the vow of religious life is understood to be contracted under this condition: unless a better state is chosen. And if someone, after a marriage ratified but not consummated, has the right to enter religious life, he enjoys an even stronger right after the betrothal has been contracted; for betrothals are held to be contracted under this condition. A vow of religious life made after betrothal is valid — since betrothal does not impede a vow of undertaking religious life. But more on all this at greater length when we come to discuss marriage.

XX. Question XVI. Does one who accepts the Episcopate thereby fulfill a vow of religious life? Response: The common opinion denies this. This is gathered from the chapter "Per tuas," on vows, where Innocent III answers this case: "We are confused as to why, if you desire to heal your conscience, you should resign the governance of the Church, rather than accede to it, unless compelled; and render your vows to the Most High." The reason too is clear: for no one is bound to a more perfect state, unless led by peculiar inspiration; and although the episcopal state is absolutely more perfect than the vow of a religious man, nonetheless, excluding the case of necessity, it is better — as far as it concerns embracing and promoting perfection — to have embraced the religious state, and, as it were, called from above, and constrained by superiors, to accept the Episcopate, to which he is called by vocation, rather than to seek it out. This is the common opinion.

I. One who vows religious life is bound, by virtue of the vow, not only to enter it, but also to persevere in it, unless he otherwise indicates, so that he is bound to one, not to the other. He, however, who vows absolutely to enter religious life, is bound to try it, in the year of probation, as they call it, with a sincere mind of professing it, if he recognizes it as expedient for his eternal salvation. Wherefore, if he is expelled without his own fault, he remains free of the vow, nor is he bound to seek entrance into another religious order. Nor is it to be presumed, when this is not openly established, that one who vowed religious life also vowed perseverance in it — since this is a distinct burden, which is not to be added to the one vowing beyond his intention. St. Thomas treats of this (II-II, q. 189, art. 4).

II. Question I. Does one who enters religious life with the intention of leaving satisfy the vow? Response: St. Thomas, in the place cited, ad 3, answers that one who enters, so as to leave immediately, does not seem to satisfy his vow — since in vowing this he did not intend it; and he is therefore bound to change his purpose, so that at least he wills to make trial of whether it would be expedient for him to remain in religious life; he is not, however, bound to remain there in perpetuity. The reason is clear. For one who vowed religious life... did not vow only the reception of the habit, but the religious state, in which he might be able to serve God; wherefore, unless he tries this state, he cannot lawfully abandon it, if he finds this state less suited to him. So all teach commonly.

III. Question II. One who entered religious life with the intention of leaving, together with the resolve to pray to God that he might change his heart — would he satisfy the vow? Response: Leander affirms this (tract. 1, disp. 21, q. 47), where he cites Angles, Richard, Sylvester, Sánchez, and Bassaeus. Sylvester (s.v. Religio, q. 19) actually reports the opinion of one holding this view; and Sánchez (Bk. IV, ch. 16, n. 74), with several others, defends this same opinion, on the grounds that he would, in good faith, apply all that is necessary, on his own part, to obtain the effect of his vow. But when the one vowing enters with the intention of leaving, the purpose alleged — of trying to get God to change his heart — is presumed false and mendacious. Wherefore he ought, first of all, to lay aside his intention of leaving; and then pray to God to soften his heart. For how can he, in good faith and sincerely, pray to God to change his heart, if he enters with the deliberate intention of leaving? Wherefore it seems to me more probable, and more consonant with sincerity, that the one vowing ought first to lay aside his depraved intention of leaving, and then apply himself to obtain that God might break the hardness of his heart. If, however, having entered with the aforesaid intention of leaving, and with the purpose of persevering (which two things fight against each other simultaneously), he really did leave the religious order — I would urge him anew that, his intention of leaving having been laid aside, he make trial of the matter in the customary way; and then, if, the experiment made in good faith, he should leave the religious order, because he found that state less suited to him, I would declare him free of the vow. Hence it is to be said, by a stronger right, and authors commonly teach, that one who enters with the intention of not persevering does not satisfy the vow of religious life, even if he leaves for a just cause — since he does not enter in good faith; and therefore he is bound to carry out the business with a sincere mind, so that, having made trial, he may satisfy his vow.

IV. Question III. One who made a vow of entering, and of immediately leaving, or of entering with the express intention of leaving, or of enjoying the liberty granted to Novices by law — to what is he bound? Response: The vow is null, and inept, when both the entrance and the departure equally constitute the matter of the vow. If, however, the vow were, in itself, a valid vow that regarded the entrance, and the departure were an attached circumstance, then the one vowing would be bound to the entrance, and the circumstance, as unjustly attached, need not be observed. One who vows with this express intention of enjoying the liberty which Novices making trial enjoy, can, without doubt, once the trial is made, leave religious life without any bond of vow, and has satisfied his vow. So St. Thomas expressly says (II-II, q. 189, art. 4, in the body): "If, however, he intends to bind himself to entrance into religious life for the sake of making trial, with liberty of remaining, or not remaining, it is manifest that he is not bound to remain. If, however, he leaves without any just cause, he would sin against his vow — provided he held the divine mercy, whose kindness he thus scorns and contemns, as of no account. But if, in vowing, he simply thought of entrance into religious life, without thinking of liberty of departure, or of the perpetuity of remaining, he seems to be bound to entrance according to the common form of law — namely, that a year of probation be given to those entering — whence he is not bound to remain perpetually in religious life. And so, if, the trial having been made beforehand, he leaves for a just cause, he has satisfied his vow."

V. Question IV. One who vowed religious life absolutely, thinking nothing either of perseverance or of departure — does he satisfy the vow if he enters religious life, and, the trial having been made, without any cause, but merely with the liberty granted to other candidates freed of the vow, he leaves? Response: Not a few affirm this. Henry of Ghent (Quodlibet 3, q. 9; Quodlibet 14, q. 15), Navarrus (Bk. III, Consilia, on vows, consil. 25 or 3), Angles (s.v. Votum, n. 18), and others whom Sánchez cites (Bk. IV, ch. 16, n. 89). The reason for this opinion is that a vow, just like an oath, takes on all the limitations and exceptions which the law grants — final chapter, on undue condition. Therefore the vow of religious life is understood to be only for the sake of trial, according to the rules of law.

VI. The contrary opinion, which is more probable, and which authors commonly teach, we embrace. The reason is evident. For one who vows religious life vows that he will lead his life in such a state, granted that this state, the trial having been made, is agreeable to himself, and no sufficient reason occurs why he should withdraw from it. If, indeed, he vowed a religious life to be abandoned at mere whim, with no cause pressing at all; this entrance would be vain and futile, and the matter of the vow inept. Indeed, all who enter religious life set before themselves that they will persevere in it. Therefore, if they act prudently, as we ought to presume, they intend, and this the law grants to the candidates for the sake of making trial within the year of probation — so that, if the state, once tried, is found agreeable, no sufficient reason for departure occurring, they will remain in it fully free of departing. Since, then, all who prudently make the vow of religious life intend, so that they fulfill their vow, to persevere in the religious order, unless some cause of departure arises, the one vowing is bound to persevere in religious life. Nor does the reasoning of the contrary opinion stand in the way — namely, that the law grants full liberty of withdrawing within the year of probation in the external forum, so that, that is, no action lies against departing Novices. For it by no means follows from this that a Novice, though freed of the vow, can, without any cause at all, and by mere caprice, withdraw from religious life which he had once seriously embraced, without at least venially sinning against the gratitude owed to divine goodness. Moreover, if this holds for those free of the vow, whenever they depart without any cause, they would not sin against the vow, but would sin the sin of levity, rashness, and ingratitude against divine kindness — the same, with even stronger reason, must be said of those who would be bound by a vow, and are by no means free from it: for although those freed of the vow would sin, if, having taken up religious life, they departed, they would sin only venially; but these would sin, and gravely, by departing, and would themselves be bound, in good faith, to seek entrance and trial again. So teach Cajetan (II-II, q. 189, art. 4, dub. 3), Armilla (s.v. Novit., n. 10), Sotus (Bk. VII, q. 2, art. 1, ad 3), Aragón (II-II, q. 88, art. 3), Toledo (Bk. IV, Summa, ch. 17, n. 12), Valentia (disp. 6, q. 6, punct. 4), Manuel Rodríguez (Vol. II, Summa, ch. 95, n. 1), Leander (tract. 1, disp. 21, q. 57), Sánchez (Bk. IV, ch. 16, n. 90), and several others.

VII. Question V. What are the just causes for leaving religious life, whether one freed of the vow, or bound by the vow? Response: As is clear from what has been said, according to the common opinion, if, without any legitimate cause, but by mere whim, he abandons the religious order which he had entered, he sins. There is, however, this difference: that one free of the vow would sin venially, one bound by the vow would sin mortally. Sufficient causes must now be assigned, by which both one who vowed, and one who did not, can lawfully withdraw. And, first, it is certain that a greater cause is required in one who made a vow of religious life than in one who assumed religious life without a vow. For a Novice free of the vow can lawfully leave religious life for any reasonable cause whatsoever — say, that the religious order does not suit him, that he foresees that he will not lead a happy life in it, etc. It suffices that he can probably fear such evils. For the rest, one who entered religious life by a vow can withdraw from the religious order which he vowed only for grave, and morally certain, causes. Such are: grave danger of some notable harm, whether temporal or spiritual; the gravest temptations, which such a state would bring upon him; incapacity for sustaining the burdens of religious life; a grave necessity of one's parents, and the like — all of which are to be submitted to the judgment of a prudent man, so that, the circumstances inspected, he may decide what he judges expedient for the one vowing. One who vowed not only religious life, but also perseverance in it, cannot withdraw even for otherwise just causes. Only incapacity, and being expelled from the religious order without his own fault, can exempt him from the vow. If, however, he were rejected through his own fault, he would by no means be free of the vow.

VIII. Question VI. One who, beyond the vow of religious life, also vowed perseverance in it — is he bound to persevere in such a way that, if he happens to leave for just causes, he must enter it again? Response: One who vowed two things — namely, entrance and perseverance — does not satisfy the vow by entrance alone, unless he also adds perseverance: therefore, if he withdraws, even for an otherwise just cause, he is bound to attempt entrance again. For only, as has just been said, evident incapacity for profession, or expulsion from the religious order without the one vowing's own fault, can free him from the bond of the vow. If, however, some most grave difficulty were to supervene, unknown at the time of the vow, such that, had he known of this difficulty, he could have withdrawn — this opinion seems to me more probable: that, the difficulty ceasing, he would be bound to embrace religious life again — and although many authors defend the contrary, several nonetheless... uphold this opinion — St. Thomas (II-II, q. 189, art. 4), Cajetan there, Sánchez (Bk. IV, ch. 16, n. 91, citing Navarrus, Covarrubias, Azor, Valentia, Rodríguez, who defends it too), Layman (Bk. IV, tract. 5, ch. 6, n. 42), Pellizzari (Vol. I, tract. 11, ch. 6, n. 11), Candido (s.v. Votum, art. 2, punct. 5, §6, n. 13), Portel (s.v. Votum, n. 21), Toledo (Bk. IV, ch. 17, n. 12), Bonacina (disp. 4, q. 2, punct. 1, n. 28), Leander (tract. 1, disp. 21, q. 51), the theologians of Salamanca (tract. 15, ch. 2, n. 1), Bassaeus (Vol. II, s.v. Votum), Suárez (Vol. III, on Religion, Bk. IV, ch. 4, n. 1), Trullench (Bk. II, ch. 2, dub. 20, n. 2), López (Part I, Instructions, ch. 4), and several others.

IX. Question VII. Is one bound by a vow of persevering in religious life, who has been expelled, obliged to preserve chastity while remaining in the world? Response: First of all, if he was expelled without his own fault, it seems certain that he is not bound to preserve chastity — since chastity is not included in the vow of entrance, but only in solemn monastic profession; therefore, since this profession was not made, the vow of chastity does not oblige. This reasoning also establishes that he is not bound to chastity even if he was expelled through his own fault. This opinion is taught by Cajetan (II-II, q. 189, art. 3, ad 2), Armilla (s.v. Votum, n. 21), Navarrus (ch. 12, n. 63 and 45), Azor (Bk. XI, ch. 22, q. 3), Sánchez (Bk. IV, ch. 16, n. 111), John of St. Thomas (disp. 29, art. 11), Trullench (Bk. II, ch. 2, dub. 20), Leander (tract. 1, disp. 21, q. 45). If, however, someone had vowed religious life and chastity simultaneously and principally, he would be bound to chastity, even if he remained in the world — since it did not perish as an accessory, its principal having failed. If, however, one had vowed chastity dependently upon religious life, then, the vow of religious life ceasing, the vow of chastity would likewise cease. When doubt arises as to whether chastity was vowed dependently upon religious life, the intention of the one vowing must be investigated from the words in which the vow was conceived; for from these the doubt arises. If, however, the intention of the one vowing is itself doubted, and cannot be resolved from the circumstances, then the rule must be observed, which asserts that in doubtful matters the safer part is to be chosen.

I. One who vowed religious life absolutely, with no time prefixed, is bound to fulfill his vow as soon as he can conveniently, as is declared (Deut. 23): "When thou hast made a vow to the Lord thy God, thou shalt not delay to pay it: because the Lord thy God will require it. And if thou delay, it shall be imputed to thee for a sin." This too is impressed upon us (Ecclesiastes 5): "If thou hast vowed anything to the Lord, defer not to pay it: for an unfaithful and foolish promise displeaseth him." When it is said "as soon as he conveniently can," the sense is by no means that any difficulty whatsoever is sufficient to defer the entrance into religious life; but it indicates that only some grave obstacle can lawfully excuse the delay. For if any difficulty whatsoever sufficed to justify delays, scarcely any time would ever be opportune and fitting for fulfilling the vow. That time, then, is reckoned opportune for the execution of the vow in which the one vowing can, morally speaking — that is, without an urgent and grave impediment — leave the world, and embrace religious life. Just as, then, other indefinite promises made to men oblige to execution at the first opportunity offered, so too it must be said of a promise made to God. For one who has prescribed no time for himself has no reason why he should await a future time; otherwise, once it were granted that he could defer his promise into future time, no time at all could be defined for its execution. This, however, I would not have you take too strictly, so as to reduce the one vowing to straits. But the law "What we say" on solutions must be kept before one's eyes: "'Immediately' is to be understood with the tempering of some allowance of time." Likewise, "at once," "immediately," "continuously," in the law "Since so," on the meanings of words, on obligations. Such adverbs, then, admit some interval of time, which is neither the smallest nor the greatest, but a fitting one. What span, however, is to be called fitting, cannot be absolutely defined, but must be left to the judgment of a prudent man. Now a shorter, now a longer span may be granted, according to the diversity of the circumstances observed. If the matter is conducted in good faith, anyone can most easily define such an interval of time.

II. Question I. Does one bound by a vow of religious life sin mortally if he defers his entrance for an entire year? Response: Some authors, such as Ledesma (Vol. II, tract. 10, ch. 3, dub. ult.), Rodríguez (Vol. II, ch. 95, n. 9), consider that a delay of two or three years is required in a vow of religious life, for it to be called a notable delay, and for the one vowing to sin mortally; but in other vows, such as of fasting, alms, pilgrimage, etc., which do not look to perpetual divine service, they hold that a greater delay of execution is admissible; and that only then does the one vowing sin mortally, when he exposes himself to the danger of not fulfilling the vow. This opinion is too lax.

Although a longer span of time is required in other vows besides religious life, its execution can nonetheless not be deferred, without grave fault, for so long a span without risk to the promise. Authors commonly hold, then, that one bound by a vow of religious life sins mortally, if, opportunity given, he procrastinates the execution of his vow beyond half a year. They permit more time for the execution of other vows, since, in these, less is subtracted from the divine service by delay. If someone protracted their execution beyond a year or two, he would sin mortally, unless grave impediments excused him.

III. Question II. If someone has defined a time for the execution of his vow, is he bound to fulfill his vow within the interval of the prefixed time? Response: All affirm this. The only difficulty that arises is whether, if he foresees an impediment which would render the observance of the vow impossible at the designated time, he is bound to anticipate that time. Authors commonly deny this, and rightly — since a vow does not oblige beyond the intention of the one vowing; but the one vowing did not wish to bind himself before the defined time: therefore he is by no means bound — just as one is not bound to anticipate hearing Mass before a feast day, nor to fast at the time of carnival, even if he foresees impediments by which he would be prevented, both on the feast day, and in Lent, from hearing Mass, and from keeping the fast. Suárez (Vol. II, on Religion, Bk. V, on life, ch. 7, n. 3), Bonacina (Vol. II, disp. 4, q. 2, punct. 5, §1), Castropalao (tract. 15, punct. 14), the theologians of Salamanca (tract. 15, ch. 2, punct. 3, n. 33), and others.

Caius, a young man of excellent ability and good morals, educated in a certain Catholic College, as the time for leaving the College approached, went to his confessor and asked what he ought to do. For he fears that he may be called to the religious state, since for almost an entire year the thought of entering religion has very frequently come into his mind, and he is persuaded that he would easily attain salvation in that state, whereas this would be rather difficult in the world because of his lively disposition and inclination to pleasures; nevertheless, his spirit shrinks from the austerity of religious life. He therefore wishes to know whether he is bound to enter religion. Hence it is asked:

1. What is a divine vocation, and how is it known whether someone has a vocation?

2. Does one who is called sin if he does not follow the vocation, or one who is not called if he thrusts himself into the religious state?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. This question is answered above, p. 23.

2. Does one who is called to religion sin if he does not follow his vocation, and does he sin who enters religion without a vocation?

The answer given above with regard to vocation to the priesthood may be applied to this question. With regard to religious life which does not involve the priesthood, many divines hold with St. Thomas that a general vocation is given by God to all who are free and suited to the religious state. So that any such persons who choose to enter religion for some supernatural motive are in fact called thereto by God. As a vocation to a religious life is a call to perfection and to the practising of the counsels of the Gospel, which do not bind under sin, no sin is committed per se by one who does not follow such a vocation. If, however, he is conscious that by remaining in the world he would expose his salvation to serious danger he would of course commit sin by neglecting the necessary means to save his soul. 1

3. The case. Caius, a young man of excellent disposition and good morals, is afraid that he has a vocation to the religious life. The thought of it has often been in his mind during the past year; he is persuaded that he could easily save his soul in that state of life, while he is afraid that on account of his lively disposition and inclination for pleasure he would find it difficult to do so in the world. What deters him is the austerity of religion. Caius manifests some of the ordinary signs of a religious vocation. His fear of the austerity of the life does not militate against his having a genuine vocation, and should not be reckoned when trying to come to a decision. The confessor therefore should tell Caius that a religious vocation is a great grace which God gives to those whom He specially loves, 1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 642.

as He did to the young man in the Gospel. He might tell him that he has many of the signs of a religious vocation, but he should not attempt to settle the question himself; he should let Caius do that, recommending him to make a retreat for the purpose.