RELI GI OUS C ONGREGATIONS

I N T HEI R

EXTERNAL RELATI ONS

RELIGIOUS QONQ REGATIONS

I N T HEI R

EXTER NAL RELATI ONS

DIS S ERTATION

SUB MITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THEOLOGY OF

THE CATHOLIC UN IVER S IT Y OF AMERICA

IN PART IAL FU LFILMENT O F T H E REQU I REMENTS

FO R T H E DEG REE

DOC TOR OF C ANON LAW

F R RI K . . . B Y E E . E S C L STI N E A , J C L Catholic University o f America NIH I L OBSTAT

G D E 14 U NI I 1 1 C . I 6 H N T ON D . 9 WAS I , , J

O D H M AS S . T . S H H AN . t j . A , , CENS O R DEPUT AT US

P I 1 9 1 6 CO YR GHT,

BY

FR RI K C . A . E S ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

WASHI NGTON COLU M B IA POLYTECH NIC INSTITUTE FOR TH E BLI ND 1 9 1 6

CONTENTS .

PAGE

Introduction

Definition and Explanation o f Term s

An Historical Su rvey o f Ecclesiastical Approval

A The Founding and pproval of Religious Congregations .

Entrance into a Religious Congregation

The Bond o f Religious Life

Egress from a Religious Institute

The Relation o f Congregations to the Holy See

The Relation of Congregations to the Ordinary

r Sources and Bibliog aphy .

6 RELIGIOU S CONGREGATION S

INTRODUCTION .

A treatise on Religious Congregations can hardly be prefaced “ more fitly than in the words of Pius X : Dei p rovid entis benigni

s ubvenientem tatem , opportune Ecclesiae temporibus , cum alia

ostend unttum raecla re veteribu s reli iosorum multa , hoc p , quod g

Ord inibus convers ionem ublica rum dis ersis afflictis ue ob p rerum p q ,

a ccess ere ro fess ionem reli iosae re nova instituta , quae p g vitae tinend o in ravescentibu s n eces s itatibu s , g Christiani populi multi

li i n P r fect sod alitatum istiusm odi p c ter d eserviu t. o o

m erentium tam bene de Ecclesia deque ipsa civili societate , sper

u d e futu ram CO iam : hod ie ue a noscere andum est , n nquam p q libet g ,

increbuis se ut m inistrand ae usque adeo eas , nullum videatur esse ” 1 ca ritatis Ch ristiana e u illae reli uum fecerint. gen s , quod q The truth of these words of the Sovereign Pontiff are in our times so evident to both Catholics and non - Catholics that they

a l naturally , as it were , turn to the heroic souls o f Religion in n most every eed and affliction of soul and body . Wherever the standard o f the Cross has been carried , there divine Providence has chosen heroic souls to imitate the sacrifices and charity of

ru ifi the C c ed . For centuries these elect o f God were banded together in Institutes called Orders which demanded of their members the profession of Solemn vows and generally also the observance o f the Cloister . With the changed conditions of f society it frequently became very di ficult , and in some countries even impossible , to adhere to this ancient and approved mode o f Religious li fe and still render to society that multi farious service

a which Christian charity inspires . Hence divine Providence s the Holy Father tells us , came to the rescue by providing Insti tutes which were adapted to our times and necessities .

For a long time , however , the Church was extremely reluctant to recogn ize offi cially some of the new Institutes that had sprung

r he a r up in the various parts of the Ch istian world . S ever pp e

Decr Dei rovid entis l 1 6 9 6 . u y 1 0 . p , J , I N TH EIR EXTERNAL R ELATION S 7

r th ciated the good they performed and repeatedly confi med eir rule o f life as well adapted to the purpose o f their Institutes . Bu tit was only after years of probation that She gradually placed Her official appI Ova l on single Communities and their mode o f

‘ u living . Especially was this Her attit de towards Institutes of women .

But ff y h i s it remained for the celebrated Ponti , Leo X III , b “ ” Conditae m decree a Christo , to give the Congregations a per a h nent and specific standing in the Common law of the Churc . “ ” ' Many regulations have been added to this Magna Cha rta o f

“ u X Religious Congregations . Pi s says in one o f his decrees “ a d m od um roveh end ae erfectionis Apostolica Sedes , sollicita p p

’ ' lu res ed iditea s ue inter Religiosas utriusque sexus Familias , p q

' sa luberrim a s u vetantur ra escrib leges , quibus q aedam , quaedam p untu r S od alium in res sum institutionem t , ad g , , vota , studia . vi ae ” li m r n externae rationem a aqu e id genus apte od e a d a . " ’ Re These words suggest immediately that Pius X s motto , ” sta u ra re o f omnia in Christo , embraced nearly every phase

z Religious li fe . A consistent policy of reforming and generali ing the laws for Religious Congregations was carried on throughout

ntific t n z t o a e . a d. a his en ire p These regulations generali tions ,

o f however , extended chiefly to the external relations Congre

i n 1m rtan gato s . S ome po tmodifications and new laws were made

re im e Or for the internal g , but even these have frequently a more less close connection with external conditions . G a Many valuable works have been written in the Latin , erm n ,

F r French , and Italian languages on Religious Congregations . e quently their authors wrote before a definite and common status

u had been assigned to Religious Instit tes . Then , too , large ” parts o f their works a re o ften devoted to the Normae drafted

S ee and used by the Holy in approving new Institutes . But the

“ “ ” Holy S ee has never imposed these Normae on all Congrega s tion a s laws . S till it must be said that no better foundation

D r d e Reli io sis u 3 1 9 1 0 ec . S . . . C g , J ly , 8 RELIGIOU S CONGR EGATIONS

u s the O f co ld be laid for their writings , for they expres mind

reconstruc S ee . the Holy Finally , the new discipline demands a

' tion o f many of the works on Religious Congregations . These different circumstances and the fact that Religious S o c ieties occupy such an important place in Religious life and ecclesiastical legislation , have led us to believe that Religious

Congregations afforded a valuable subj ect for a canonical study .

u u The present st dy , however , excludes partic lar and internal regulations and privileges . It aims solely at investigating the legislation o f the Church in regard to the external relations o f R eligiou s Congregations in general . For this purpose it has seemed necessary to review the origin and development of Re li iou s found a g Congregations , to give the laws governing a new tion and its approval , the conditions requisite for entrance , the

u reg lations regarding dismissal , and the external government . With this brief foreword we introduce the reader to the follow “ ing eight chapters on Religious Congregations in Their External ” Relations . hoping some day to perfect and supply what is wanting in them . We deplore the fact that European conditions pre vented u s from investigating some valuable works having direct

u r bearing on o subj ect . S ome Canonists have written com m enta ries 0 11 many of the new decrees used in this treatise , but f at present it is very di ficult and in some cases impossible , as we

. n experienced , to obtain them No doubt these experienced mi ds throw considerable light on many points of the new regulations .

To all however , that will be said in the following pages , let the ” a m eli re phr se salvo o judicio be added and understood . I N TH EI R EXT ERNAL RELATION S 9

CHAPTER I .

D EFI NITION AND EXPLANATION OF TER M S .

The word Congregation is of Latin origin "congregare , f .

xi — to ether re a re — co r g , and g g to collect into a flock or company ,

. re em f g g ( grex ) , flock , herd ] and signifies both the action o f collecting and its result , viz . , a gathering or assemblage o f men , animals or things . In its concrete sense as an assemblage of persons it is not found in classical Latin ; it is , however , found 1 ld in the Vulgate . Both O and New Testaments predicate it o f Israelites and Christians in their collective capacity as well as o f 2 particular groups and classes . The Biblical use of the term found application in secular and ecclesiastical institutions and corporations . Assemblies , societies , “ and faculties o f learning , were frequently designated Congrega " in 3 f tions civic and social life . In transacting ecclesiastical a

has im fairs the Church , both in Council and Curia , from time

a d memorial called the commissions discharging the legislative , “ ministrative and j udicial functions Congregations , or the "Roman Congregations ” in the case o f the permanent commis 4 sions or tribunals . Wi th the development of Religious li fe in the early Church , groups o f chosen souls established their abodes in the wilder ness and deserts to devote their lives to a more intimate union “ ” with God . These little communities o f saints are known in

The N a ona E n lis c ion ti l g h Di t ary . ” Num f 2 1 6 Macab 1 2 , X . , Th es s 1 . I ; VI ; I VII ; II II ,

a New En s D c onar ol 8 824 A h y V . . gli i ti , , p

4 n roced ure o f th e om an Cu a a s or H istorv f the Hilli g, P R ri P t , o ” o P pes . 1 0 RELIGIOU S CONGREGATIONS

? history as the first Congregations of Religious Later , the Monastic system found greater protection for itsel f by uniting the independent Monasteries into “ Congregations ” under a more 6 or less general direction and government . But the severe life of the ancient Orders was not adapted to the new conditions o f

u u society in the fifteenth and sixteenth cent ries . Altho gh these

u Institutes have always been the glory of the Ch rch , yet their ru les prevented them from participating in many works of re ligi on and charity which the changed conditions o f society d e

m a nd ed . Hence arose organizations , clerical and laical , which devoted their u nited efforts to the wel fare of the Chu rch and

u u u its members , nder a r le o f life s itable to their aim but greatly

z unlike the established Institu tes . These organi ations the

u Chu rch incorporated . While they co ld not be classed among

u S re the Religio s o f olemn vows and of Cloistered li fe , they “ ” ceived u S the canonical title of Congregations p re and imple ,

c O . S O in contradistinction to the an ient rders , the ecclesiastical “ u s ecifices approval of one of the first of these Instit tes p it , con ” 7 l ri gregatio de corpore cleri sa ecu a .

‘ " A Religious Congregation , therefore , may be defined societ

u instituted and approved by ecclesiastical a thority , in which the members p rofess to tend towards perfection hy . the practice o f S the three imple and perpetual vows of poverty , chastity and

8 u obedience . In such associations the tr e nature o f the Religious

. u state is preserved They are , therefore , called in the lang age

7 n 320 uter es o f 1 i . m f l P e o . G L C e . o A e a d a P . , l x, g g , , VIII , ; B l iv ” ’

11 2 P r f i t ened c s u e c . 7 7 2 Ga s ue to . S ain s Ca s s an C0 . 3 ae a S R , , ; q , t ; i , ; B i t l t

n i m M o a stic s . “ l n s et D R e . l rm eersch e . b d n nd K n r. vo Ve H eim uch er O e u o . , r g I ; , I t

l 25 a ue o . c . nno l n n n em . vo . s P ersonis vo . Le Ca o s e Co C q , ; , I ; i t t p , ; t I “ ”

25 c 6 a nd 8 . I n in l ris f n es s . . cen C ons . s u a C . o T e S , t III , t g ; r t,

7 i 22 6 5 et 1 5 . ons . Ex com m s sa S . C t , p ,

‘ 5 1 2 stien ce i m n . 1 a ett n e u M r et u o N . O S o s s o . s j , y p i R r J ri P t , ; B , Dir toire an n n o ue . 1 . C iq , I N TH EIR EXTERNAL R ELATION S 1 1

u of the Church and o f Canonists , Religio s Congregations in “ the strictest sense , and are distinguished from the Religious e Orders chiefly by the absence o f the Sol mn vows , by their less ' b rigid mode o f personal allegiance ( vota Simplicia ) , y their simpler organization and constitution , and by their freer inter ” 9 course with the world . W There are , nevertheless , many Religious Institutes in hich the vows are “ not perpetual but tempora ry ; others in which only

fi These m . one vow , or more , is made , be it te porary or perpetual u Institutes naturally lack the essentials o f the Religio s state , in the strict and traditional sense , and are only improperly called “ ” 1 ° Religious Congregations .

When , furthermore , Religious Institutes are composed prin ci all p y of clerics , law and commentators on law generally style ” 1 1 them Ecclesiastical Congregations . Although they are placed in the category o f Religious Congregations , yet , in virtue of

O fre Sacred rders which their members receive , the Holy See quently makes many exceptions and Special legislation in their 1 2 favor . The status of all these Religious Congregations has “ ” CO-n ditae been defined by Leo XIII , in his Decree a Christo 8 ( Dec . , and their place in Common law definitely deter

n mi ed . Notwithstanding the common element in all these Insti n d f ’in t tes , multiple diverging relations augment the i ficulty ascertaining the d u e application o f ecclesiastical laws to these n ‘ Religious Co gregations . Hence petitions ever recur to the

Holy See . S till greater difficulties arise in regard to those numerous Con

re ation s g g in which are pro fessed no vows , but a mere oath of e persev rance or a promise pure and simple . These organizations may consist of clerics or o f laics . Upon ecclesiastical authorization

9 i in oced u re o f th m n H , P e Ro a C u a . 2 1 9 . ll g r ri , p 1 0 i l ett c. n l c rm O . as e Ve eer ch D R l . . s e e n t e 42 . j , ; . s . e P s . . B ti , ; , I t r , p

Verm eers h ba ti nelli P l c o c. e ti n . S s a rae ec o e r. an. l 353 s u C vo . . , ; , J , II , p . “ ” ns ndi ae r o . Co t a o D C s ec. 8 1 900 C I Ch ( , . n. 9 1 0 1 1 t i t ) I , , , , 1 2 R ELIGIO U S CONGREGATIONS

they become true Religious Associations and are , therefore , s cla sed among the Congregations , but only in a very broad and 1 3 improper sense . To these mu st be added another species o f associations insti tuted by the Chu rch for carrying on works of piety or of charity in the world without leading a common life under the direction f o f an authorized Superior . These , in O ficial documents , are sometimes called Congregations but more frequently Con fra “ rni i s s - te te . This class of Congregations o called is outside of our scope . The basis of this treatise shall be the Religious Congregations S of imple vows , because they possess the common element which

iz v . permits o f generalization , , the Simple vows . Those com m unities , however , which have not the vows as a bond o f per

erfec severance , but receive ecclesiastical approval , strive for p tion under a common rule and live after the manner of true

Religious , cannot be excluded from our investigation . In virtue

o f these common principles , ecclesiastical law , in most regula

tions , considers them on an equal basis . Where limitations or

is ex ce extensions are necessary , explicit reference made to the p

’ We tion . This procedure , think , has become Rome s mode o f action more and more in these latter years as will be evidenced

throughout the dissertation .

May we then class the members of all the foregoing Congre “ a tions ? g as Religious Benedict XIV in his Constitution , Quam vis j usto ” drew attention to the fact that the S isters of the Anglican Congregation could not be called Religi ous because

they made no profession o f S olemn vows and retained no Cloister . B v this act he simply declared the traditional practice o f the

Roman Curia and of Canonists . Gregory XI II made an exception

m r h l ti Ver ee c . e t l s , . c ; Oj , . c .

i l n 1 49 ett . c. . 5 erm r ch l . Oj , , ; V ee s , . c I N TH EI R EXTERN A L R ELATIONS 1 3

1 5 in favor o f the S cholastics of the Jesuit Society . But later legislation has at times ignored the distinction and design ated as Religious all those who strive for perfection under a common 1 “ rule o f life , authorized and directed by the Church Expressions Similar to the following are frequently found : Religiosi votis tem poraneis vel iuram ento perseverantiae vel supra d ictis promis ” 1 7 i ni n s o bus . ligati , etc Here is but a other instance in which technicalities yielded to custom , for common parlance never adopted any other appellation .

Iii regard to women Religious , in particular , the names Nun “ ” a and Sister are frequently used promiscuously . Etymologic lly ” m onialis and canonically the word ( Nun ) , in the strict sense , “ ” is predicable only o f persons in Solemn vows and the N orm ae e o f forbad its use except for such ; but this , too , is applied to women in Institutes o f Simple vows in which the papal Cloister 1 8

a nd . is observed , sometimes even to others However , late de crees draw a distinction between Nuns and Sisters in favor o f the

'

i . e . original classification , , Nuns are such as have the Solemn vows , or at least Simple vows which prepare them for the Solemn 1 9 vows . All others are classed as Sisters .

No strict distinction , on the contrary , is made o f the term

Profession of Religious li fe . Authors forbid the use of the term “ Religious Pro fession save in the case o f Religious Orders

d en m in 1 5 84 ons scen e o o . C t A t D ,

D i i i 1 6 1 906 n n r d ents u o s . a en s o ee . e ov C co D r p J ly , ; t S pi ti ili , n 2 9 c R l 5 9 1 i m d e e . 1 0 u d e u e 2 1 u e 8 1 08 De r. d v No . S . C . A . a s J , ; , pr , ; li , ,

9 h P ri i l 1 01 i R m 1 8 rm r o . O ettDe o a D r 0 Ve ee sc e od sa V . C u ec . ; , , II , p ; j , . ri ; l 3 3 d e R F e 1 9 1 . S . C . e . b . , ,

‘7 n h n f d e Rel f A r 1 9 0 . o 5 1 I te es o se o . . . R p S C , p , . 3 h D Rel n . e e 4 er l Verm eersc e s t s . . od ca 6 Vo . 0 , , I t , P r , p ; P i i , VI, p . “ “ D r m in l e M 1 6 1 9 1 1 e m Cu s u a a e . Cu d ram n li s ec . e sac e ta bu g , y , ; D r ,

' F e 3 1 9 1 3 rm eer ch D R l n r 443 b . e s e e s . et e s . V . P . P e od ca Vol. , ; , I t , p ; ri i ,

50 . VI , p . 1 4 RELIGIOUS CON GREGATI ONS

2 0 ca n e but to which it be properly appli d , Pius X does not hesitate

“ ' Reli IOus ro essionem R el 1 osae to speak of g associations , quae p f 1g ta retinend o in ra ve centibus o necess itatibus e. vi , g s Christiani p puli

‘ ' ” m ulti liciter deserviunt. And so p rightly , for also in Congre ations an em vow g a public d sol n declaration confirmed by , oath , or promise is made by persons to devote them selves to God and His exclusive service according to the direction O f the rules o f the Institute .

a re . Rules , finally , norms , standards or guides o f life Canon

a s z u o . law h standardi ed four rules , or better , fo r sets f rules , viz , a an . t d d a . S . that of St B sil , that o f St Augustine , th t o f Bene ict h c f the t at Of S t. Fran is o Assissi . Along with these existed

l m ba n n . Co u u . a d S t . s rules of Pachomius , o f St , of St Anthony ” ec e “ o f Cassian . The first four norms b ame the gen ral Regu lae for Religi ous Others were strictly forbidden as will be B r hi seen later . utLeo X broke away from the canonical p o bi tion by giving the Franciscan Tertiary Congregation a new rule

1 87 7 n I X Re o f li fe . This , in , was assig ed by Pius to a new i i ” re ous . l g Congregation in India The Canonical Regulae , the t e e a fore , possess grea antiquity , and enj oy special ccl siastical p 2 3 proval and the most extensive use .

e difi erent How ver , at various times and for reasons other u regulations , which emanated from the general Chapters and S “ ” eriors i O p o f part cular rders , were called Constitutions , because they did not enj oy papal approval and were , moreover , intended s only for special ends and purposes o f particular Orders . Thi distinction between Rules and Constitutions is observed by authors when speaking of Orders or of Institutes possessing one o f the ancient Regulae . But in other Religious Institutes the distinc

. S . . . et . tion is arbitrary In fact , the C EE RR has repeatedly

i n 3 Ba tan i a s e l. c . t d er uid n n e 09 . G , e Ca o qu . 1 . B t , p , i , p “ ” Decr Dei rovid entis u 1 6 1 9 06 . y . p , J l ,

u . te 0 . c. Gas o . c u e . q t ; B l r,

ou De u e Re Vol 544 eb tianelli De P er ni 5 . . S as so s . 3 1 . B ix, J r g , II , p ; , , p

1 6 RELIGIO U S CONGREGATION S

CHAPTER II .

1 A N HISTOR ICAL S U RVEY OF ECCLESIASTICAL APPROVAL .

The history o f the Regular Orders has been written by different authors . Not the same can be said of Religious Congregations . A nd , indeed , it is not an inviting task to undertake , for many o f the Institutes have disappeared entirely , leaving little more

. O than a mere name to history thers , while they have weathered

r the storm o f ecclesiastical opposition , often lack the necessa y and precise data from which their early struggles may be gleaned . Then the large number of these Institutes and the almost insuper f in able di ficulties involved Obtaining the available facts , have kept many scholars from applying their talents and time to this

is d efi work . It not the purpose of this treatise to supply the i c ency . But the scope of our subj ect at least calls for a brie f sketch of the origin , growth and approval o f Religious Congre i n gato s in the light of ecclesiastical legislation . Some strong argu ments have been produced by several Canon ists and Moralists to prove that the vows o f the early Religious 2 n . O e s au were all Simple could therefore , with some how o f th rit o y class them among Religious Congregations in our sense .

. One u But it is a useless undertaking thing, tho gh , seems certain , k l . a c now viz , that at the end of the twelfth century the Church

u edged only the strict Religio s Orders with Solemn vows . The basis for this is found in the Decretals which invariably speak “ ” “ ” 3 of Religiones and Religiosi Ordines . Authors admit that

1 m r h D R l n — Ver ee sc e e . s . et e s . o t , P , s . e Pe od ca o s . 1 7 I t r v l I II ; ri i , v l ; “ ” fr H im buch er Die d n n . e O e u d Kon r c o s . t . o n ca , e H H h o r g , v l I II ; , V ” “ tons 2 o s . E no e e e i ou s O d e s o f Wom en in the Un ed i , v l ; li r D b y, R l gi r r it a es S t t . ll ’ i Cfr Ba c in . f k . m . a s a e c to 1 7 y rt l Ar k , . k . , . . 3 9 ti 36 li C. t. b . . 3 i t. 1 7 in . c t , , X ; III , , I N TH EIR EXTERNAL RELATIONS 1 7 no explicit and absolute proof to the effect that these terms were used in the twel fth century exclusively in connection with Orders " o f Solemn vows is obtainable But the very fact that the Orders

subs ta n o f that time have continued throughout the centuries , tiall y unaltered , creates a very great presumption that at that th e time they were as we find them today , and , therefore , above mentioned terms invariably sig nified only Orders with S olemn vows . Gratian draws a strict distinction between the Simple “ vows and the vow pro fessed in Religion : Hic d istinguend um est

voventium voventes quod alii sunt simpliciter alii sunt ,

benedictio acceditconsecrationi v el quibus post votum , , propo ” ni 5 situm religio s . Bernardus of Pavia adds his authority to 6 the same distinction . Boni face VIII , however , definitely lays down the p rinciple thatvows taken in approved Societies are “ Solemn : I llud solum votum debere dici solemne quod

suce ti nem O sole m niz atu m fuerit per p o S . rdinis aut per pro fes sionem expressam vel ta citam fa ctam alieni de religion ibu s ” G A stlicam a r ati per Sedem po o pp ob s . From these statements the conclusion is warranted that no Religious Congregations as

1 e . such , . , with only Simple vows , were acknowledged by the

S ee Holy at the time o f Boni face VI II in the thirteenth century . The argument increases in weight when viewed in connection O with the prohibition of j oining any unapproved rder . Innocent O III forbade not only the formation o f new rders , but also strictly prohibited persons from affiliating themselves to any unapproved “ Order : Ne nimis religionum diversitas gravem in Eccles iam Dei

con fusionem ind uca tfi rm iter rohibem us m e c tr , , p , quis de a e e o m ovam R eligionem inveniatsed quicum que ad R eligionem con ” 7 l rit a robatis a s sum a t vo ue . verti , unam de pp Notwithstanding

3 i n s 57 . S eba stianelli P raelecto es d e P e . . , , r , p 8 27 i ni es . . . ec e um Grata c. D r t , Pr byt , D “ R l n et e s . a s . . A ud Verm eersch De e . s . P P p , I t r , r I

5 i in l b . d e o . 1 un c. o C . i v t , tit , III i 3 l . 6 . b . C 9 . . X , tit , III 1 8 RELIGIOU S CONGREGATION S

the peremptory decree o f the S overeign P ontifi and the IV Lateran

u Co ncil , new Institutes did spring up and the Council o f Lyons ( 1 27 4 ) under Gregory X not only reiterated the law of Innocent I I I . but also decreed the disbandment o f all Institutes founded “ sin c e the Decree : Ne aliquis de caetero novum Ord inem aut

R li i n em n habitum R eli i n i m e o o s a ssu at. g adve iat , vel novae g ’ Cu ncta e a fi a tim Religiones etOrdines mendicantes post dictum

Co nciiium a d inventos ui confi rm atione s a ostolicae , q nulla edis p m e rnerunt er etua e rohibitioni sub icim u s et u , p p p j q atenus pro ” 3 ce s s era n trevocam u s .

~ "mong the condemned S ocieties are enumerated especially the

H u m iliati . , The Poor of Lyons and the Beghards But appar ently some others persevered in spite o f the regulations . Hence 9 Clem ent V issued another proclamation condemning them . The reason for this apparent severity o f the Popes was not so much the great multiplication o f new Religious Orders or Institutes ( for good reasons justified new foundations ) as the heretical doc trines and immoral practices prevalent in certain Institutes . This fact was known to Bishops and people alike . Hence John XXII was called upon to interpret the mind of the Holy See in the above mentioned condemnations , especially since many Institutes

H is had arisen which deserved well o f the Church . declara “ ” tion proclaims the tolera ri potest of certain Institutes under “ the surveyance and j urisdiction o f local Bishops : Ceterum statum Beghina rum huiu sm odi quos esse p erm ittim us ( nisi de his per sedem apostolicam aliter o rdin andis existent ) nullatenus ” 1 “ inten im ex praemissis d us approbare . The Institute as such is not to be approved , the Pope continues , but under the condi tions their mode o f li fe may be permitted by the Bishops .

Congregations of this sort were , seemingly , the Dames o f St .

B e hin es Misercord e Andrew , the g , Magdalenes , and Soeurs de la

1 7 in 3 tit. C . , ,

i 1 li I n m t 1 b . e t. . C . , C I , III , l ” i i 7 ex x tr n a tt. av . C U c , , E I N TH EIR EXTER NAL RELATION S 1 9

de Jesu . This latter Society struggled on against all opposition from the thirteenth centu ry until the year 1 627 when the Holy 1 1 n i S ee finally granted it po tfica l recognition . Moreover many Associations o f Tertiaries had arisen which were affiliated to one

a or another o f the strict Orders and at times . sought Papal p proval . But it was reserved to Leo X to establish them on a

1 '2 solid basis of community life . He acknowledged not only their

h as be good work , but wrote also a special rule for them which come the norm for many Religious Institutes o f wom en r As

sa w we in the last chapter , Pius IX assigned this same rule to s a new Community o f Si ters in India no later than 1 87 7 . n Prior to the sixtee th century , however , comparatively few i nstances are found where Community li fe was professed with out the Solemn vows . But between the twel fth and sixteenth centuries many new Orders were authorized by the Holy See . u Authors generally classify them as Friars , Canons Reg lar ,

s o— O Clerks Regular, and the called Second rders of St . Francis f O . , a m e es A . St Dominic o f the ; C r lit , and o f the ugustinians

These , however , espoused the mode of life sanctioned by the Church for many centuries in the form of strict Orders with 1 3 Solemn vows . But the revolutionary spirit of the fifteenth and sixteenth cen tu rie s had a baneful influence upon all Religious life . Discipline had become lax in many Institutes and scandals not a few aroused the indignation o f those in high places . The Tridentine reforms sought a renovation o f Religious li fe and a return to ancient principles and traditions . Wherefore the Council of Trent de “ 1 : r i i in . a ec tut creed session XXV , c Hoc decreto p p omnes m ulieres regulares , tam viri quam , ad regulae , quam professi

raescri tam etcom onant sunt , p p vitam instituant p , atque in primis

suae ro fessionis erfectionem utoboedientiae quae ad p p , , pauper

H o n oca ions . . H h , V t “ ” Cons n e Ce e a 1 52 1 . t . I t r t r ,

25 s . B ud inhon Le anonis e vol . q im bu ch er o . c . o C , H e , ; , t 20 RELIGIOUS CONGREGATION S

tatis etcastitatis ac si quae alia sunt alicuius regulae etordin is eculiaria ota et raece ta ad c r ess entiam nec p v p p , o um respective com m unem victum etvestitum conservand a non ad vitam , perti m fi li r su erfl ou s his entia d e te Observent . It is p to adduce the f torical foundation for these specifications . Let it su fice that the Bishops were commissioned as the special delegates o f the Holy

see u See to that the reforms were inaug rated and maintained ,

no not only in Institutes which made Solemn profession , but also “ in Monasteries and Orders : Commendata m onasteria etiam abbatiae rioratus et rae ositurae nuncu atae , p p p p , in quibus non vi etre ula ris ob servantia e isco is g g ab p p , etiam , tam quam apostolicae sedis d elegatis annis singulis visitentur curent

' que iid em episcopi congruentibus rem ediis utquae ” 1 ‘ i n r ta ra i n r fi i n r renovato e es u to e e c a tu . indigent aut , The Council of Trent heralds in a new era for Religious Orders f f and Institutes . Since its immediate e fects were di ferent on In stitutes W of men and of women , a clearer view ill be obtained by taking each separately .

Institutes of Men . Pius V responded to the Council of Trent by issuing regulations which would eradicate the abuses and innovations of Religious

Institutes . But his means were radical and drastic . They per ” i r m tted no temporizing . By the Bull Lub icum vitae genus

Religious and TertI arI es were compelled to change their mode of li fe and the nature o f their Institute . The determinate

stand o f the Holy See remained inflexible . The gist of the Bull “ is given in the following words : S ta tuim us utomnes etS inguli

in communi etsub oboedientia voluntari etextra votum solemne Religionis viventes profes sionem regularem solem nem em ittere etintra viginti quattuor hora rum ” li rentetd clarent spatium palam etsponte d e be e . This mandate

Of extended not only to the profession Solemn vows , but also to

S es s . 21 , c. 8 . I N TH EIR EXTERNAL RELATION S 21

the choice of one o f the four approved Regu lae a s decreed by

Innocent III and Gregory X . It is difficult in our day to measure the influence this legislation

l1 f had upon the Religious e of the Institutes of Men , but tangible ff results were apparent at once . Not only were reforms e ected but Institutes , organized contrary to the mind of the Church , f were a filiated to the Orders o f the Regular observance . Thus Pius V united a Franciscan Tertiary Community to the Regu lar 1 5 O rder . In the wake o f the Religious revival new Institutes n i arose and old ones sought po tfical approval . The Clerks Regu 1 5 7 4 t lar of the Mother o f God were approved in , an independen

O 1 580 Cam illians 1 582 Discalced Carmelite rder in , the in , the 1 588 Clerks Minor in , the Clerks Regular o f Pious Schools in 1 621 1 67 3 O , the Marian Clerks Regulars in , the rder o f Penance 1 7 84 O in , and the latest rder seems to be that of the Canons Regular of the Immaculate Conception in The most checkered career o f all these new Orders seems to have been 59 that o f the Clerks Regular o f Pious Schools . Founded in 1 7 at Rome , they united with the Clerks Regular of the Mother 1 6 1 4 1 6 o f God in . This union was severed in 1 7 and the Holy 1 621 See gave them a separate approval in . Dissensions within to 1 646 their own ranks induced Rome dissolve them in . Ten

a ye rs later , however , a new and more flourishing Institute arose h upon te ruins of the old . At present they number no less than two thousand members .

During these three centuries o f Religious advancement , the Oriental Church has not manifested the same growth o f the

ha Religious life as the Western Church . It s added but little 1 7 01 worthy of mentioning . In the year we find the Order o f

Mechita rians , or the Armenian Benedictines ( founded at Con stantinople ) which is perhaps the only new Order since the Coun

H im ch r i l 65 365 fr e bu e o . c. eo . P r c r l hr ft o . . C . a t. ua ta sc v , ; Th l Q , , p ; “ “ k r i hi h Za Oeste re c sc es os e uc H oln oca ons . , Kl t rb h , V ti

id em Ib . 22 RELIGIOUS CONGREGATIONS

cil of Trent . It received ecclesiastical recognition soon after 9 9 1 0 . wards , but its Constitutions were approved as late as The O ancient rder of Antonians , too , received new life and strength by having its Constitutions revised and approved by the Holy See in i Did , then , the Relig ous Congregations of men disappear with ? the advent of re form No . The conditions of the times , and the needs of the Church together with the aspirations of apostolic ’ men to meet both , produced , with God s grace , organizations o f men which the Holy See gladly received and guided . They were O accepted , not indeed on an equal basis with the ancient rders , but as divinely inspired Institutes destined to meet exigencies that the austere rules of the existing Orders could not well provide for . Their humble beginnings were naturally diocesan and therefore furthered by Bishops only . When their field of labor extended n beyond the diocesan borders , a conflict , or at least an occasio for

O f . conflict , Episcopal authority too often arose This naturally led them to seek Roman approval and Roman j urisdiction . I f ’ the Institute s field of labor promised permanence , the Holy See hesitated not to receive it under her protecting mantle and , i f m necessary , odify or grant it an organization , rule and privilege suitable to its scope and purpose . Thus hardly had the echoes of the Council of Trent and the “ ” ub ricum v Bull L itae genus subsided , when the Congregations o f the Oratorians ( 1 587 ) and the Doctrinarians ( 1 593 ) budded forth into a vigorous li fe under Episcopal authorization and which readily succeeded in winning recogn ition and approval from the tff Pon i s of their times . The seventeenth century added the Con gregatioii s o f the Pious Works the Lazarists the Eudists the Sulpicians and the Congregation o f Missions With the advent of the eighteenth century the Religious attitude of the age and the Holy See favored a stricter discipline . Perhaps the Congregation of the Fathers o f the

i m . d r i d e et ee . . e o d e A 6 9 09 S . u . 1 . Ib ; D r C P p F , g ,

24 R ELIGIOU S CONGREGATIONS

approval . They varied according to the nature and scope of

c n id the individual Institute . But this very frequently caused o s c s rable inconvenience , and at times occasioned no little confu ion

for both Bishops and Superiors . Hence Leo XIII sought to remedy the difficulties by laying down general principles and laws i which must govern all Relig ous Congregations , Diocesan and i Pontifical respectively . This leg slation is incorporated in the “ ” Condita e Constitution a Christo , dated and promulgated De “ ” m 8 1 900 ce ber . i th , To this Corpus Juris for Relig ous , numer

ou s so regulations have been added in subsequent years , that the Congregations today find themselves on a full canonical basis O nearly as well defined as that of the Regular rders . Under the benign guidance and favorable legislation of the

S ee e Holy , these Congregations of men have grown and d veloped

to such an extent that they compare well , at least in numbers ,

with the strict Orders . To take cognizance of the Diocesan

Institutes in such a comparison is hardly possible . But , accord

1 91 3 - ing to statistics for , there exist today some thirty three Regu O lar rders of Knights , Monks , Mendicants , Canons Regular and

Clerks Regu lar with a total membership of about fi fty - eight thou

. On sand Religious the other hand , the Holy See has approved

in these latter centuries some sixty - six Congregations with an 1 9 fi ft- i aggregate membership o f about y nine thousand Relig ous . This vast array o f Clerics and Brothers lend their service to nearly every work of Charity and Religion within the Catholic Chu rch which has for its domain the kingdom of the earth and for its inheritance the peoples of every tribe and nation and

tongue .

Institutes o f Women .

The lax Religi ous spirit of the fi fteenth and s ixteenth cen O f tu ries had also invaded the Cloisters of women . The Council

25 . 5 S . Trent ( ess , c ) renewed the strict legislation of Boniface

' l P racktische uartalsch riftl . c. ; ri P ntifi cio 1 9 1 5 heo . , Annua o o , T Q “

n o ca on s for Men . H . H oh , V ti I N TH EIR EXT ERNAL RELATION S 25

VIII 20 and commissioned the Ordinaries to enforce the strict observance of the Solemn vows and the papal Cloister .

But was u here , too , it was the great Pius V who to inaug rate “ ” P a storalis 26 the actual reform . By his decree Circa ( May ,

he sought to renovate Cloister li fe and force all Religious , even the Tertiaries , into Congregations to take the Solemn vows and observe the Cloister . Should any re fuse and continue a li fe of scandal , the Bishops were empowered to mete out the n ff ’ severest punishment to compel submission . But let the Po ti s own words show us the mind o f the Holy S ee in introducing measures that gave new life and vigor to Religious Institutes and Orders : Mulieres quoque quae Tertia riae seu de P a enitentia dicuntu r cu iu scum u e O con re atione , q fuerit rdinis in g g viventes , s i eti sae ro fessa e fuerint ut em is erint p p , ita solemne votum , ad

ra ecise ut ra em ittitur eti sae teneantu r clausuram p , p , p ; quod si

em is erintO s u erioribus votum solemne non , rdinarii una cum p

h ortentu r et stu d eantutillud em ittantet carum persuadere , p rofiteantur ac post em issionem etp ro fessionem eidem clausu ra e se subiciant; quod si recusaverintetaliqu ae ex iis inventa e fuerint

ni n r a u a tu . sc ndalose vivere , severissime p “ Ceteris autem in omnibus s ic absque emissione pro fessionis etclausura vivere om nino volentibu s interdicim us etperpetuo

rohibem us ne u llam rorsus Ordinem p , in futurum aliam p in suum , Reli ionem C n re ati nem ue reci i n h i g o g g o q p a t. Quod si contra u us

nostram rohibitionem et ali uas rece erint modi hanc p decretum q p , eas sic vivend um om nino reddim u s illa rum ad inhabiles , ac , qua slibetpro fessiones etreceptiones irritas facim us etannula

m us .

i n The fruits o f this leg slatio were soon manifest . Many o f the Institutes returned to the ancient discipline or at least sub m itte d to the letter o f the law . The Society of the Jesuitissae was abolished by Urban VIII on account o f the many intolerable

n P ericulos un d e l tit1 6 lib in Co s . o c. . a u re u . II s . . t t t g , , I 26 RELIGIOU S CON GREGATI ON S

abuses that had crept into the Institute . The Carmelite Ter tia ries m f , at least some of the , a filiated themselves to the strict 2 1 Order of Carmelites . The Ursuline Sisters had organized 1 537 ontifical prior to Trent ( ) and had , moreover , also secured p recognition as a Congregation . But the stringent demands of ecclesiastical authority induced them to adopt the Solemn vows

‘ and the papal Cloister during the pontifi cate of Gregory XIII in 1 5 7 2 S . The oeurs de la Misericorde de Jesu , as mentioned above , had struggled against the tide of ecclesiastical opposition and prohibition for centuries , but achieved papal approval as a Con 1 62 e re ation 7 . g g in But in spite o f this r cognition they , too , were destined to yield to the importunities of authority and adopt the stricter mode of li fe . Wherefore they were raised to 6 the rank o f a regular Order in 1 65 . New Institutes arose in various parts of the Christian world which ever and anon sought the approval of the Holy See . The “ ” Society of Notre Dame , the first teaching Community o f 1 606 wa s u . women approved by the Holy See , fo nded in Though they received pontifical recognition as a Congregation in . th e

following year , they , apparently , like the Soeurs de la Miseri corde de Jesu , were hampered in many ways on account of their 1 6 u e . 08 nfavorable cclesiastical status At any rate , in , we find fi O 2 3 them af liating themselves to the strict rder of Benedictines . Prominent in the history of the seventeenth centu ry stands the

Order of the Visitation founded by St . Francis de Sales and

St . Jane de Chantal . The amiable disposition o f St . Francis sought to introduce into Religious life a Spirit of greater gentility “ and attractiveness . He aimed to secure the benefits o f Religious life for persons who had neither the physical strength nor the attraction for corporal austerities at the time general in the Re ” ligious Orders . Consequently it wa s their wish to found a

7 “ i n o n oca o s . H . H h , V t m l n Deh i i m n id e E o e e ous O d e s o f Wo e . Ib ; i r y , R l g r r id em o n . H h , Ib I N TH EIR EXTERNAL RELATIONS 27

obli atiori Congregation without the external vows or the g l bathe th e strict Cloister . But in spite o f their laudable purpose y lwere

' compelled to yield to the persuasions of ecclesiastical authority .

u The rule of St . Aug stine , together with the Cloister prescribed 1 6 1 5 by Trent and Pius V , were imposed upon them in .

In the following centuries but few new Orders arose . Accord ing to Dr . Hohn , however , the Sisters o f St . Joseph the Sisters o f the Blessed Sacrament ( 1 639 ) and the Nuns of the Presentation must be mentioned . The Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament existed for about thirty years as a Congregation of 1 669 O Simple vows , but in were raised to an rder with Solemn vows and papal Cloister . Similar was the development o f the 1 7 7 7 Nuns o f the Presentation . Founded in as a mere Congre 2 4 ation 1 805 O . g , Pius VII elevated them in to the rank of an rder

Apparently this closed the period of new Orders of women . O These new rders , however , were not the only Institutes o f

’ that time . The spirit o f St . Francis de Sales commenced to permeate other saintly men and women . The conviction grew that the Master ’s counsels could be lived in Institutes of less

o severity than the rigid Orders . This would open the do r to many chosen souls who were , for one reason or another , now barred from embracing the Religious life . Bishops in general did not check it . True , they realized that such Institutes would

was require careful guidance and strict supervision , but this not their duty in regard to the entire flock entrusted to them ? Hence S Diocesan Institutes of imple vows were multiplied , which , when their field o f labor extended beyond the diocesan border , sought the protection and the approval o f the Holy See . Among these the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries produced 2 5 : the following the Sisters o f St . Catharine the Anglica n

Sisters , famous in the Constitutions o f Clement XI and Benedict

. r X IV , the Company o f St Ursula the Sisters o f Ou

“ i Ib d . 25 d em et a r Analectanea etBattandi r G C b , e u d e anon que . I i Bizz r i , i i 28 RELIGIOUS CONGREGATION S

l ’ ad of y zL y , I Calvary the Institute of Mar the o Si sters o f Martha the Sisters of St . Charles Borrome the Soeurs de la Croix the Daughters of Calvary the Institute of Ou r Lady o f Charity and Refuge the Daughters of the Immaculate Conception the Notre Dames of Montreal the Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus the Visitation Sisters o f Ghent and the Sisters of Charity All but two O f these received a certain recog ni i n to from the Holy See within the seventeenth century . Fer

Verm eersch orm al rari and , however , insist that the first f appro bation o f Cons titutions of Religious Congregations of Simple

oriven r vows by the Holy See , was that of Clement XI in the B ie f , “ ” 1 3 Inscrutabili ( July , to the Constitutions of Anglican

Verm eersch . . t . v l . e o . Sisters ( , De Rel Inst Pers , I , p Prob ably the greatest difficulty was experienced by the Institute o f

S t. Vincent de Paul . The Holy See was most insistent on mak ing this Institute a strict Order and for many years refused to in stamp it with ecclesiastical approval . St . V cent , however , persevered in his efforts and finally his arguments prevailed with

ha f S ee . s O the Holy Time proved the wisdom his counsels , for the Sisters o f Charity today outnumber any Single Religi ous

Order or Comm unity within the Church . N 0 less than seventy a five thous nd heroic women , true to the principles and Spirit of

St . Vincent de Paul , devote their lives to the assistance of the f poor and a flicted in almost every corner of the world .

' The eighteenth century added about nine approved Institutes i to the catalogue o f Relig ous Congregations o f women . But in

r the nineteenth centu y they multiply even more rapidly . Dr . “ ” H . Hohn in his work Vocations enumerates at least one hundred

and fifty . In all these Institutes the distinctive feature differentiating them O the from the strict rders , is the change from the Solemn to

S imple vows and in many cases the absence of the Cloister .

Vows , however , remained . They formed their very essence and

generally their number was three or more . But in the seventeenth

century we find an instance of a S ociety - Of Religious with only I N TH EIR EXTERNAL RELATIONS 29

iz h f s t s ns u was a o f n v v . tat ta . o e ow, , o bili y Thi I tit te th t the r in 1 61 9 Daughters of Calva y founded . In the following century the Holy S ee even approved the Sisters of Christian Retreat ( 1 7 87 ) who made no vows— surely a mode o f procedure hardly explainable when viewed in the light of former legislation . Here it must be noticed that Rome ’s approval o f Religious Congregations for women wa s for many centuries only a qualified

n as one . Joh XXII , seen above , permitted certain Institutes to exist under Episcopal j urisdiction , but expressly added that he nowise meant to approve their Institutes . This attitude o f the Holy See continued throughout many centuries . In the “ ” uam vis famous Constitution , Q j usto , Benedict X IV repeats the position o f the Holy See in the following words : Ea rum

r tolerari s ed conse vatoria quidem ab hac apostolica Sede , Insti tutum ipsum nec approbatum nec confi rm atum est( esse ) ; ob sistentibu s S acris Canonibus etgenerali Constitutione Sancti Pii

ne reli iosae m ulierum confi rm ation e stabi V , g Domus Apostolica ” li ntr erfectae clausura e le ibus obstrinx erint a u . , quae se p g non In 1 81 6 the Sisters of Charity o f Jesus and Mary petitioned the

Holy See to approve their Rules and Solemn pro fession . This would have been equivalent to an approval of the Institute . Hence the Holy See still refused such a request and Simply an “ swered that the Rules Plane com m endand ae etlauda ”

fini fa ccom odatae . 24 bili plurim u m ( Sept ,

’ Roman approval o f an Institute s Constitutions up to the 1 9th “ century invariably added the explicit words : Citra tam en appro ” n inteenth bationem conservatorii . But in the beginning o f the

century the traditional phrase began to be omitted , though no

'

formal approval wa s yet given . The first formal approval o f

an Institute does not appear be fore 1 821 . According to Biz z a rri this was bestowed upon the Institute o f the Daughters o f

the Blessed Virgin Mary ( Collectanea , p . Furthermore Roman approval has more and more eliminated

the multiplication of independent Religious houses , and placed

a general and supreme power in a Superior General . In the “ uam vis Re Constitution Q j usto , which opens the new era for RELIGIOU S CONGREGATIONS

li iou s a e g Congregations , Benedict X IV expressly emph siz s that he is not speaking of Institutes under a general direction ( of which he mentions but four as existing at his time) but of dio “ : su eriorissa cesan Societies Nee agitur de tali p generali , quae am lam uand am u ris dictionam subdita s ex ercere i sa ue p q j in , p q ” ab ordinaria Episcopi auctoritate exempta esse d ebeat. What u is here referred to as an exception , has become in the last cent ry a fairly general rule and the former rule a very rare exception .

“ New Religious Congregations are placed under the imm ediate care a nd direction Of the Holy S ee to increase efficiency and to provide better government . Therefore general laws are laid down to facilitate Roman recognition . Therefore , too , the time “ worn phrase citra tam en approbationem conservatorii has dis appeared and independent houses of Religious are diminished d more and more . Leo X III exerte the greatest influence in this

r direction . From pa ticular and tried precepts he has formed

ha s general laws . His successor , Pius X , added to this general

so legislation that almost every phase of Religious life , at least the external relations , has been generalized and harmonized as will appear more explicitly as these pages increase . What percentage o f the actually existing Religious bodies is f thus minutely ruled and directed by the Holy See , is di ficult to

sa . y The number , status and personnel of all the Diocesan Insti tutes within the twelve hundred Dioceses o f the Catholic world , 2 6 is yet unwritten history . But one can hazard a comparison when considering the m ahy Institutes and their inmates within our country . The first Religious Community of women in what is now the

United States seems to have come from France . The Governor O f New Orleans urged the Ursuline Nuns of Rouen in 1 7 26 to accept the appeal of the American French to institute a Mon “ a stery in the New World . According to the authoress o f The O Religious rders in the United States , these Ursuline Nuns

“ 26 P n ifi i 1 9 1 5 nnua o o tc o . A ri ,

32 RELIGIOUS CONGREGATIONS

With the founding o f the Sisters of Charity by Mother Seton

1 809 m m ittsbur . in at E g, Md , and the Sisters o f Loretto by ’ r i kx 1 81 K fl urish e n c 2 . o Father N , in at Harden s Creeks , y , that 2 9 ing Religious life of the Church in the United States began . Its growth has developed so wonderfully that today more than one hundred and fi fty R el1g1ous Communities with a total mem — bership of more than seventy thousand Sisters beside s the many novices and postulants— devote all their efforts to the fur therance o f Catholic life and progress in every parto f the 3 0 a s country . The Church a kind Mother appreciates their work

' and in the person o f the Sovereign P ontifl praises them and bids “ them prosper : P ro fecto s od alitatum istiusm odi tam bene de

m erentium s erandum est Ecclesia deque ipsa civili societate , p , num uam d efuturam : h odie ue a noscere e q copiam q libet g , usqu

' increbuisse ut m inistrandae adeo eos , nullum videatur esse cari ” 3 1 ch ri tia na e illa e r li u m fecerin s e u t. tatis genus , quod q

E . . e e o. c. T D b y, o c ec o f r 1 9 1 5 Cath li Dir t ry o . “ r ri D i r id ntis u 1 6 1 90 6 o u O o : e ov e y . M t p p p , J l , I N TH EIR EXTERNAL RELATIONS 33

CHAP TER II I .

R TH E FOUNDI NG AND A PPROVAL OF RELIGIOUS CONG EGATIONS .

n The law o f Innocent III , laid down in the Lateran Cou cil , has never been abrogated and therefore constitutes the norm

“ ‘ o f present ecclesiastical discipline : Firm iter prohibem u s nequis ” 1 caeter m Reli i nem inve i de o ovam g o n at. The same was repeated

‘ by Gregory X in the COUI ICII O f Lyons : Ne a liq u is de c ae tero i ” 2 novam Ord inem Reli ionem a dinven at. aut g The founding,

O re consequently , of a new rder with Solemn vows certainly

The quires the explicit consent o f the Holy S ee . greater number o f Canonists interpret these canons as extending also to Religious 3 Tu Congregations . But , notwithstanding the prohibition , new stitutes arose even under the tutelage and the approbation of

Bishops . Upon this custom the Holy See looked silently for many centuries , thus permitting it to grow into a definite law “ n ita e which Leo XIII formally acknowledges in the Const . Co d ” “ a Christo . He says : S ome Congregations have Obtained the approval o f Bishops and others have besides this a decree of the Roman Ponti ff issued in their favor ; the former have been established and exist by the sole will o f the Bish op It is there fore the Bishop ’s privilege not to receive into his diocese any newly founded Congregation before he knows ” and has approved its rules and constitutions . In 1 906 Pius X qualified the rights of Bishops in regard to 4 founding or permitting the foundation of a new Institute . In

1 9 i 36 li tt. b . C . X . , , , III ° 3 lib in 6 C . , tit . XVII , . III , lli r ni 3 8 u re i ebastian e De P e so s . 5 a d e S , , ; S e R . T . 1 . p z , l g III , “ o u o r o Dei rovid entis ul 1 6 1 9 y 06 . M t pr p i , p , J , 34 R ELIGIO U S CONGR EGATION S

r1nc1 le : the first article of the Motu proprio , he lays down the p p “ isco us O Nullus Ep p aut cuius loci rdinarius , nisi habita Apos tolica e littera s licentia nova m alterutrius Sedis per , sexus sodali i ” sua dioeces e . tatem condat aut in condi p rmittat Bishops ,

Abbots Nullius , Vicars Apostolic and Prefects Apostolic are there fore denied exercise of their right of founding a new Religious

Institute without the consent o f the Holy See .

NO doubt exists in the minds of Canonists that by the terms , ” “ ” “ ” e Sodality , Family , and Religious Institutes , the decre em braces all Religious Organizations that lead a life after the man m ner of Religious . Whether or not the vows , oath , or mere pro ise form the bond of union and perseverance , matters nothing in the present legislation . The Holy See simply prescribes that , in the foundation o f every Religious Institute , she must be con l Su ted through the proper Congregation .

d ecr. The Roman Congregation competent , according to the “ ” rovid entis Dei p , to receive and deliberate upon the application

. Con r . E et . re o f the Bishop , was the S g E RR But with the

o f 1 908 organization the Roman Curia in , this Congregation has been abolished and its work divided among several Congregations .

R i s . n r el i i i Under the present arrangement the S Co g . de g o s d s charges the affairs o f Religious and therefore ordinarily examines 5 and approves the application for new Institutes . The m odifica tions and exceptions to this general law will be treated later , when n ifi l we speak of po tca approval .

What the Congregation wishes to examine ( and there fore also demands the corresponding information in the application ) is I n especially the name , the character and purpose of the proposed

stitute . and of its founder Then , in regard to the members o f the prospective society , the habit for the Novices and the Pro fessed respectively must be specified . Finally , the principles and rules which form the basis for this approbation mu st be dra wn “ ” ndita . Co e from the Const a Christo , and the Normae o f 1 901 .

s s i n n i i n 28 9 t. a e tco s o u e 1 08 Co n S . p i l , J , I N TH EIR EXTERNAL R ELATION S 35

r vid entis to The dccr . Dei p o admonishes Bishops keep these

a s me prescriptions in mind , when they approve the rules and con stitutions o f new Institutes . This admonition hardly means that “ ” the Normae must form the sole rule for every Community , because the purpose and scope of an Institute may not permit

ha s this . Then , too , posterior legislation frequently laid down general laws in contradiction to them . But it seems that the Holy See intends that the statutes of future Congregations shall “ ” harm onize with the Norm ae wherever possible .

It is self - evident that neither the Ordinary nor the Institute itsel f m ay change anything that the Holy See has passed upon . 6 For such a change requires the consent o f the Holy See . How

- o ever, this quasi approbati n does not withdraw the Institute from the j urisdiction o f the Bishop . It remains entirely subj ect “ to the Bishop in accordance with the principles o f the Con dita e in a Christo , except only matters already determined by the

Holy See . What then is pontifical approbation proper ? According to

Leo XI II , it is the favorable recognition and approval o f the 7 rules and constitutions o f an Institute by the Holy See . The approbation of only the Institute , exclusive o f the rules and con stitution , constitutes a truly papal approval , but an imperfect “ n o e . In virtue of this action o f the Holy See , it is necessary that the Bishop ’s authority should be regulated and restricted within certain limits . What these limits should be may be gath ered from the manner in which the Holy See approves sim ila r a ssociations , and which consists in approving a Congregation as a Religious Society with Simple vows under the authority o f a w th Superior General , ithout prej udice to the j urisdiction o f e O A rdinaries , according to the sacred canons and the postolic ” 8 Constitutions . The Const . of Leo X III calls this intervention

” D r Dei ro id n i 1 6 ec . e ts u 1 9 v 06 . p , J ly , “ n C ndit hri o s . a C t o e a C sta . 8 id Ib . 36 RELIGI OUS CONGREGATIONS

com robatio as of the Holy See p , it were , acknowledging the app robation o f the Bi shop .

Itis well here to d raw attention to som e necessary distinctions . We saw above thatthe H oly S ee has approved and adopted four “ ” R les and o en the ntrodu on of new ones atleastfor u , f rbidd i cti , h s n one o f hese r e . a on O d rs Now , many Congreg ti s have c o e t “ h h n n a r ved Regulae for their norm of life . T is c ose a d pp o Rule m ust not be con founded with the approval spoken of by II P na n a o e a es tha Leo XIII . The I le ry Cou cil of B ltim r decl r t the adoption of an approved Rule does not withdraw a n Institute “ from the j u risdiction of the Ordinary : Instituta dioecesana

. a robatam se uantur licet Regulam a S Sede pp q , depend ” 9 e ent ab Ordinario . The same must be said of Institut s which “ 9 1 l adopt the Normae of 1 0 for their exclusive rule . A though “ ” the Holy See ha s framed the aforesaid Normae and com m anded that they should be the models for future Institutes , yet such a adoption does not constitute an approved Congreg tion .

Furthermore , as the preliminary examination and permission “ ” r vi nti required by the deer . Deo p o d e s does not constitute ap ontifical so a proval in the sense that the Institute becomes p , lso Rome ’s formal praise of the founder ’s intention or of the Insti ’ tute s ontifical work , cannot be understood as p approbation . The “ ” “ 1 sa Normae ( Art . ) y such an Institute manet in statu pri ” in i ii etom n o dioecesan sodalic . a vati Now , the process o f p proval will appear clearer . The practice of the Roman Curia permits of four stages in the process of approving an Institute . The decrees expressing the nature and extent of this pontifical approbation are termed re ” “ ” s ectivel lau dis a robationis p y Decretum , Decretum pp instituti , “ ” Decretum approbationis constitutionum ad ex perim entum and “ ” a r b i ni fini iv 1 ° finally Decretum pp o ato s d e tae . The significance ” of the different decrees is quite evident . The Decretum landis

9 i 358 l n 9 3 i nell l c. . b ta . . . a . . e a s III . C B t ; S , , p

2 - 4 Art . N orm ae . , I N TH EIR EXTERNAL RELATIONS 37

n m m nd ation o f the s em bodies a genera l p raise a d reco e In titute , n la s itunder the dire tu sdi tion of the S ee at a d p ce c j ri c Holy , as f r im e e until a m ore thorou h n esti atn of le t o the t b ing, g i v g io 1 1 the Institute and its Cons titution has been m ade . This transi “ ti ” to ry s tage is term inated by the Decretum approbationis ins ti ut. Frequently the two pronouncements are com bined in the one 1 2 n an a its r i s decree o f praise and approbatio . At y r te impo t to assign a definite and canonical status to the Ins titute with th e authoritative decla ration that the Institute contains nothing contra ry

oo m o a o e and ha er se is a a to g d r ls or pr pri ty , t t , p , it c lcul ted to ” n lead its members to perfectio . “ By the Decretum approbation-is cons titu tionum a d ex peri ” m entum ta n ear are s ri , a cer i number o f y s pre c bed for testing the — fi a a om ve to . practic bility o f the rules , gener lly fr ten After

a s of er o and d ue o re tons a the l p e this p i d , when c r c i h ve been “ ' ” “ ti nis m fl il r a roba o d e w e . made , the Dec etum pp fi w l be given “ This decree renders the rules canon law and a public and sol ” “ “ ” n 1 h em nly recognized way of perfectio . T e word law m ust here be taken in its directive , and not preceptive , sense , for even “ ” a fter this approval the ru les do not per se bind under sin : I psa s per Se sub nullo culpae reatu obliga te ; non tam en ex cusare a culpa eum qui easdem transgred eretur ex contem ptu vel in ma ” 1 " i r teria contraria votis Dei Eccles aeve p aeceptis .

Note that this ordinary procedure is not always followed . Some times the Holy See omits all preliminaries and includes in " tn a single decree the various approba io s .

Ar . 2 . d . t Ibi , 6 d Ar . Ibi t. l 1 7 ua e d e Re . II n S . . r z , , V , II , XVII ,

l 1 n 2 22 m h d c Re . t aa . 1 , ; Ver eersc , 5 3 2 n . 1 , .

m n l n r eli io Ver eersch Cath . E cyc . u de R us . , g

1 ° “ ” Ar 320 No m ae t. . r ,

i A 23 Verm eer c l I I 3 d . h Vo . c. . rt. sc o. . Ib , ; , , , 38 RELIGIOU S CONGREGATIONS

The conditions and formalities required on the part of the applicant for obtaining the pontifical approbation are not clearly th e and definitely laid down in the Canon law . But ordinarily

‘ S ee ositis onendis Holy will readily approve an Institute , p p , the activity o f which extends to two or more dioceses . For in this case an occasion for a conflict of authority arises which gen erall f y hampers ef ectiveness . This principle is certainly deducible “ i ” t C nd tae . . o from the Const a Christo Fur hermore , the Latin American Council ( 1 899 ) gives the same reason for inducing such

n ifi al Institutes to seek po tc approbation .

But the nearest approach to positive formalities , are the norms “ ” laid down by the Holy See to guide the Commission in approv 1 8 ing new Institutes and their constitutions . They are , there fore , indirectly imposed upon every Institute seeking approbation . ” The first requisite demanded by the N orm a e peculiares 4 1 9 1 4 ( March , ) comprises a full account of the personal , moral , and economic status of the Institute . No specific directions are

- given . Evidently a complete answer to the ninety eight questions “ ” I nstructio 1 6 tri of the ( July , which refers to the ennial account of the Religious Congregations to the Holy See , would very probably meet all the demands o f the S . Congrega 1 906 tion . Since , moreover, Institutes founded after are ex ” ected r 1 901 p to be confo mable to the Normae of , the Holy See can well demand a report on the actual agreement or dis

r m ag eement with these nor s . Next in impo rtance are the testimonials from the various th Bishops in whose dioceses e Institute is loca ted . The Holy See insists on those for the reason that pontifical sanction entails r a diminution of episcopal authority and j u isdiction . Prudence , ’ O o there fore , requires that the rdinary s viewp int and report be n r presented and co side ed . The chief work o f the Apostolic See is necessarily centered on the constitutions of the Institute . For this reason the Holy See

1“ N m iare arc 24 1 9 1 or a e ecu s h , 4. p l , M

40 RELIGIOU S CONGREGATIONS

R li iosis n the sam e u e n r. e o the powers of th e S . Co g de g s bj ct “ ” 6 n rm e e a es . II a . matter as defi ed in the No a p culi r , c V I V , n , o f

1 9 0 n m en o is m a e subs tantialis 8 ( q . v . supra) . For o ti n d of the ” es de m uta tio quaevis in iam probatis institutis inducend a . B i s “ ” explicit re ference is made only to Instituta Votorum S im plicium . o law m a I n Apparently , however , the purp se of the e br ces also stitutes as c without vows , as well deliberation on notable hanges proposed on constitutions already approved . For the express intention o f the legislator is to relieve the Congregation o f thi subj ect - matter except in extraordinary cases of disagreement when the affair must be submitted to the entire Congregation . a There seems little doubt th t when such cases arise , the new

Commission will have little difficulty in disposing of them . Here another doubt suggests itsel f in rega rd to the q uasi approval required for the formation o f diocesan Institutes . It seems reasonable to infer that the Commission will likewise fall heir to this duty . For it would be rather strange if the entire Congregation were to examine and direct the initiative steps o f an Institute , but afterwards assign the complete approval to the

Commission .

The Commission , in the entire mode o f procedure , is in the 2 1 hands of the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation . He ap o S m n p ints the ecretary o f the Co missio , and directs all docu

s ments and testimonials to be delivered to him . He de ignates one o f the consu ltors to make a thorough study of the docum ents

. his a e and the constitutions The result o f investig tion , togeth r a h with a printed copy of the constitutions , are tr nsmitted to eac

. i of the associate consultors These , in turn , are g ven ten days consideration . Thereupon the entire Commission meets to dis cu ss in detail the merits and deme rits of the Institute and its

Constitution . The principals to guide them in their deliberation are those laid down in Common law , Pontifical Constitutions and “ ” 1 901 f . O especially the Normae of prime importance , how

“ rm a e i e No e p cul ar s c . I N TH EIR EXTERNAL RELATIONS

” “ t Conditae ever , are the cons itutions a Christo , Dei provi ” “ “ ” te . A dentis , Sapienti consilio , and Romanus Pontifex f r the matter has been thoroughly considered , each consultor is obliged to s etforth his opinion in the general assembly . Should it be impossible to agree in essential matters the case is to be

t . referred othe entire Congregation Finally , the result is com m nicated u to the Religious Institute , after the approval of the n Holy Father has been gra ted . t a conSilio Cons . S pienti , It is well known that prior to the l Religious Institutes whose mother house was situated in the

n r . as r S . Co . te ritory o f the g de Prop Fide , well as those Insti tutes - fi eld whose special aim was the mission proper , were sub

o . j ectto the S . Congregation for the Pr pagation of the Faith

It therefore also approved new Institutes and their Constitutions . But with the Introduction of the new discipline this Congregation ’s competency with regard to Religious was limited even within its

: s ectat sodales own territory Quod vero p ad religiosos , eadem

Con re atio vindicet uid uid i m is sionarios g g sibi q q relig osos qua ,

in ul m ts i id ui s os su o . u d re sive uti g , sive simul p tang t Q q vero li iosos s in ulos sum tos attin i t g qua tales , sive uti g , sive simul p g , ad Congregationem religi osorum negotiis p ra epositam rem ittat ” 2 2 relin uat aut q . From this it seems that the approval o f Re li i ou s g Institutes , other than purely missionary Communities and O . Con r. those of the riental Rite , is no longer proper to the S g de Prop . Fide . These two exceptions are verified by the S .

n r Co g . de Prop . Fide approving the Constitutions o f the Ar m enia n Mechitha rists 1 909 Mis sona r in , and the y Society o f Maryknoll in the United States in In concluding this chapter it may be expedient to re fer briefly “

. n to Institutes whose status is doubtful The Const . Co d itae a

n n 9 r 6 r lo a e co s c a t. c f . . 1 00 e o . . C tti O . c . a S , P , O e , pi ti ili I , ; j , , p ; p l 3 o c. . 2 0 , p .

' d r i 6 9 c . e de Au 1 09 n c . . o . d the e l i S . a ta o C P F , e . aud s e D r p , g , D r ppr ” b ationis u 1 5 1 9 1 5 y . , J l , 42 RELIGIOU S CONGR EGA TI ON s

Christo makes no infringement on existing customs and p rivi “ i r ri lu m u fa c l ti u s v el leges : Nihil pen tu s d e oga vo s de u ta b privi legi is im m em orabli aut secula ri consuetudine confi rm a ti ” s . I f , therefore , an Institute , possesses no positive proof of

ontifical p approbation , it must be considered a diocesan Institute , for the Bishop ’s ordinary rights cede only to positive proof to the contrary . Again , what of approved Institutes over which “ the Bishop has exercised full j urisdiction since the Const . Con ” d ita e a Christo ? It is a principle of Canon law that j urisdiction can be acquired by custom ; and probably ten years suffice for this . I f , therefore , a Bishop has exercised j urisdiction over an approved Institute for ten years , it follows that notwithstanding “ ” laud is eta robationis the Decretum pp , the Institute is truly dio “ cesan .

2‘ Verm eersch dic l . P e o a Vo . . ri , VIII , p I N TH EIR EXTERNAL RELATI ONS 43

CHAPTER IV

R ENTRANCE INTO A RELIGIOUS CONG EGATION .

Entrance into a Religious Congregation is the admission o f a

m i candidate in due form by competent authority . This y also be called external vocation to the Religious state . No one has o a strict right to be admitted into a Religious S ciety , no matter how holy his intention or how urgent his desires . Pius X has sanctioned this truth in regard to the sacerdotal state : “ Nem inem habere unquam ius ullum ad ordinationem antecedenter ” 1 ffi ad liberam electionem Episc0 pi . What is here a rmed o f 2 the ecclesiastical state holds also for the Religious state . S u eriors p , consequently , violate no principle of justice by re fusing admittance to any candidate . But may this not be an infringe m ? Verm eersch ent on the right o f a divine vocation says , in commenting on the decision o f the Roman commission in rega rd “ to vocations : Ips is ( superioribus ) integrum est ex utilitate Instituti de a d m is sione s ententiam ferre quae

et vocationem erficit effecit nullum ius violat , quae p quatenus sola u i m i r l i tqu squa re vera s t e ig osus . Etfit utquis sa ncte m oveatur ta etend um tam en ad s tum p religiosum , qui iu r ll r interd um in ir ste epe atu . Deus ipse desideria sp atquae ope re c m leri rm ittit v luntatem o p non pe . Quare theologi o 519 11 1 a vol ” 3 1 i in untatc benepla citi ( 111 1111 d stguunt.

im Anyone , however , who is not hindered by an ecclesiastical

to n pediment may be admitted Religious li fe . O the part o f the postulant , no more than a good intention and a firm resolution o f

2 itterae ex S ec e ar a S a us u 2 1 9 1 . L r t i t t , J ly , 2 i i l 26 h er od ca vo . . 2 Verm eersc s . , P , VI , p , q 3 2 4 bid . . 6 . I , p 44 RELIGIOUS CONGREGATIONS

God in a r a serving that st te together with the necessary mo al , ment l

and physical qualities , is required . This is clearly stated by the “ decision of the same Roman Commission : Nihil plus in ordi

o ti t vocetur re uiri rectum inten nand , rite ab Episcopo , q quam t1onem simul cum idoneitate in iis gratiae etnaturae d otibus te

o et r V robitatem d octrinae sufficientiam p sita , per ea n itae p ac

com robata s em fundatam etsacerd otii m 11nera p , quae p faciant fore recte obire eiusd em que obligationes sancte servare queat; esse ” l n um egregie auda d . Certainly no more is demanded for the

h : . Ve rm eersc Religious state Fr . says of these conditions “ Haec qui habea tingressum in religionem postulare

eteo laudabilius ostulabit potest , immo p quo in dicto statu con ” 4 se uatur . silia Christi magis presse q Aside , therefore , from ’ o s G d s grace which begin , accompanies and perfects every good “ act , internal vocation proper is more the result o f deliberation ” ’ according to the principles o f reason and faith than the efl ect of individual aspiration or the internal movements of the Holy “ r Ghost . In extraordina y cases , however , supernatural light may be so abundantly shed upon the soul as to render deliberation ” unnecessary . As to the Priesthood the contrary is expressly denied by the Holy See : Conditionem quae ex parte Ordinandi

uae ue Vocatio S acerd otalis a ellatur ne ua uam debet attendi , q q pp , q q

et r consistere , saltem necessario de lege ordinaria , in inte na

uad am a s iratione subiecti s eu invitam entis q p Spiritus Sancti , ad ” 5 i n m sacerdotium neu du .

a s The mental , physical and moral qualities , or the above men “ tioned id oneitas iis et Letter expresses it , the in gratiae naturae

dotibus re osita et r robitatem d octrinae ffi p , per ea n vitae p ac su ” cientia m com robata p , are provided for by natural and ecclesiasti cal law in the form o f impediments which render the Religious “ n profession i valid or illicit respectively .

i Ib d . i tsu a . L . c it , pr I N TH EIR EXTERN AL RELATIONS 45

Formerly the Religious profession in an Institute other than the approved Orders was both illicit and invalid in virtue of 6 ha s s ecclesia stica l law . But this prohibition long since pas ed into n a s the . e desuetude was seen in last chapter It , therefore , e d no longer be reckoned with a s an impediment All Religious Insti ” tutes approved by Bishop or by Pope are per se open to the aspirant to the Religious life .

use so The perfect o f reason , however , is essential for the Religious profession that its absence constitutes a natural im pediment which in no wise can be dispensed with . It matters little whether its cause be immaturity or a physical defect . The weighty obligations assumed in Religion require full deliberation ,

becom the lack o f which , by the natural law , bars a person from

to ing a Religious . It is hardly necessary to refer the antiquated custom of parents Offering children to Religion in fulfillment of “ ” v O a ow . These blates never became Religious except by their own free act upon attaining the use o f reason . This ancient cus

is tom has no practical value today , since it merely a question of 7 history and Opposed to all ecclesiastical practice and legislation . On the contrary the Church requires in the candidate for Re li ion g an age and a development which , under normal circum stances , insure not only full use o f reason , but also stability o f character . The Council of Trent demands that the Solemn pro fession of Religion be not made before the completion of the

Sixteenth year ( Sess . XXV , c . Pius X forbids lay Brothers to make the perpetual profession before their thirtieth 7 year Jan . , Truly , neither o f these laws directly include Congregations . But they are at least di

r i l ectve . v 6 . o . 11 8 . 2 for all Religious Institutes ( Wernz , o c III ,

and in note Moreover , in the absence o f a general law i for Religious Institutes in this matter, the Holy See s accus tom ed to insert the law of Regulars in the special indults o f ap

7 S u a . c. . 1 . pr II , pp , 1 8 7 “ r taliu m v l 11 628 and in note We n I u s Dec e o . . r z , , III , 4 6 R ELIGIO U S CONGREGATIONS

i r Battan r . . . c . d e . proval ( We nz , o ; , o c n In Institutes o f

S ee clerics , however , the Holy requires to be observed not only the , age limit of Trent but also the completion o f the gy mnasium “ ” D cr Aucti m m course of studies ( e . S . C . de Rel . super s a d od u 6 7 art . , Sept . , In countries which have not the Italian system o f education and grading , this would be equivalent to the completion of those studies which precede the philosophical course

Verm eersch according to the particular systems ( , Periodica , vol .

V , p .

But a not all persons capable of choosing the Religious st te ,

One the have access to it . cannot become a participant of spiritual favors o f the Church unless he be I n communion with

infi l x m m ni . d e s e co u Her Hence , since , heretics , schismatics and cated are incapable of receiving the graces o f Religion , while they

so remain , they are by ecclesiastical law forbidden to be incor 8 rat i po ed into a Relig ous Institute . There are other persons whose duties in life prevent them from

O . entering Religious rders and Institutes Among these , persons in wedlock may be considered as taking the first place . Common law , however , makes some exceptions especially in favor of the “ ” se Re strict Orders . Thus per a married person could enter li i n a o . g with the consent of the other p rty Again , i f one had

forfeited the rights of Marriage by adultery or by apostasy , the “ ” ositis onendis is other party , p p , free to choose the Religious 9 state . Some Canonists are not at all certain that this regulation in Common law may be vindicated in favor of Religious Congre 1 0 gations . The same uncertainty prevails in extending the privi leges of Common law which grants persons in wedlock two months within which they may choose the Religious state provided the

8 25 1 89 8 in n ec l T 4 tRR . Nov . a . c . . I . 28 . . EE. e D eer . S C , , , A l V I, p ; l 29 5 Wern o . c. vo . . . z , , III , p

9 2 bastianelli d e e s . 37 0 . e n 1 . c . n . 6 8 S e W r z . , ; , P r , p

1 0 45 Ba tandier o n t . c. . 58. n 1 ie o . c. . e . . c. as W r z ; B t , , p ; , , p

48 RELIGIOU S CONGREGATION S

” " 1 i a tur . Since this privilege refers to the perfect Relig ous st te , nstitutes in e o of o ert hastit I , which the three p rpetual v ws p v y , c y “ and o ed en not : o ne enso b i ce are made , are excluded N us p ns ” “ ’ as a as n l on u ss é n cc r le e aux p , s ys B tie , que p i e te dre p ivi g ’

d es e n e tn . m ete tas . associations pr tres qui p les trois voeux . p ex l l le . e es s e . S Lazarists , pr tres de St ulpice , etc , mobile de la dispense ” 1 7 r fais ant défaut . The Holy See excepts from the general p ivi lege students of some Pontifical Colleges and priests orda ined “ ” i i ni As sub titulo m ss o s . to the students of such Pontifical

e n : n etn Coll ges the following oath must be take Spo deo i ro ,

uandiu com m orabor etostuam studiis me , q hoc in collegio , p q , sive ex letis uavis discessero re p , sive , secus , q de causa , inde , nulli ligiosae familiae aut societati vel congregationi regulari nomen daturum in ea rum ro fessionem em issurum , nec ulla p , sine spe ” 8 li n 1 a ciali Apostolicae Sedis ce tia . A simil r oath is generally ” 1 9 n m i i ni take by candidates for the priesthood sub titulo s s o s . : Eis Mi Wherefore the Holy See has declared , qui hoc titulo ( sionis raestiti iuram enti interdicitur Re ) sunt ordinati , vi p in ” 2 li n n i 0 gio em i gred absque venia S . Sedis . Consequently the oath is licit and binding even in prej udice o f a higher state . ’ But from the S . Congregation s response it is evident that clerics ordained under the mission - title must be considered as making a voluntary renunciation of the privilege granted by Common

a s law rather than not participating in the same . Ordinarily civic duties do not take precedence of the Religious li fe . It is unbecoming, to say the least , that , in times o f peace ,

m n X Ead e Co st E quo . 1 in rn l 9 6 n 2 2 5 no e e o . c . o 2 d no e 1 ou O. c. . W v . . a p t ; z , , III , p t ( ) B ix 459 R . e io . e n 28 1 837 . c. . s ons . . t . a . o S C EE . p p RR J , 1 ” ”

R m P on ifi 53 r . on . u m tces une 28 1 8 n t. . . d e o s u o . I s C t Q , J , ; r S C p p d e r l 27 1 87 1 s en 53 in n 2 Th i a en a o . c. e . e t F A . o oa h s i , p i , ; B ti , , p t t k “ ” from the Relatio Annualis Vicesim a S eptim a of the Josephinum Ponti

fical o e e Colum us O io . C ll g , b , h 1 ° n d e o Fid e r l 27 1 87 1 s . . . . f al . . 204 S . o . I tr C Pr p , Ap i , ; C B t III , p 2° d m n n 0 a e s . 1 . E I tr . I N T H EI R EXTERNAL RELATIONS 49 aspirants for the Priesthood or for Religion should be compelled to render m 1lita ry service to the S tate and thereby to postpone re Or to desert a higher state . But when governments no longer

the ex em tionis c fr . gard rights o f the Church ( Privilegium p ,

s i n i II eba ta ell . . S , de Pers , prudence suggests that these rights be not asserted as long as no direct Violation o f Divine rights is i involved . This policy seems to have inspired the new leg slation S r i o f the Church forbidding persons , ubj ect to military se v ce , to make the perpetual profession in Religious Orders and Insti tutes O , or to receive Holy rders be fore this service has been 2 1 rendered . Even when the military demands cover but a few i ? 2 months , the Relig ous profession must be delayed There is

iz u v . O one exception to the law , , Religio s candidates for rders , whose course of studies is within one year of completion , may make the perpetual profession , provided they take an oath of serving on the foreign Missions until such time that their lia ili 2 3 b ty to military service has elapsed . In this category o f personal obligations which prevent one

u from embracing the Religious li fe , comm tative j ustice also must be mentioned . Thus the Canons of the Church prohibit the re ception of insolvent debtors and of persons involved in litiga 2 4 tions . Cases , however , may occur which exclude absolutely any possibility of satisfying justice . Such would certainly re ceive S he m the benign consideration o f the Church , for looks ore

to the moral than to the social conditions and necessities o f man ,

u especially when these do not include personal t rpitude .

Y et n the social attitude cannot be altogether ig ored , not even

. by Religious Institutes Nor does the Church ignore it . This is 2 5 evinced especially in the case of illegitimacy . Generally

2 1 “ Reli u n 1 1 9 1 n e a s a . 1 . I t r q , J , ” R n i R d e el. F e 1 1 9 1 es o s . 2 b . . o . C p S ,

d 11 6 Ibi . , . . n Cu m d e om n u 6 S u s o s . s Nov 2 1 586 m en C b . C e ixt V, t i , , ; l t VIII , “ ons I n su rem r 2 1 602 l 628 629 C . a e n n A W . c . . . t p , p il , ; r z, , , ” ' 1 fil . 1 8 . d es n . t C , X e . by . Co s . Cu m d e om n bu s Nov. 26 , tit pr ; t i , ,

1 587 . 50 RELIGIOU S CONGREGATIONS

illegitimacy , and even widowhood by the particular decrees of 2 6 approval a re made impediments to Religious Congregations . S ff ince no general law exists to this e ect , Religious Institutes are governed solely by their constitutions , except Institutes o f priests . O Illegitimacy is an impediment to Sacred rders , and therefore it f necessarily e fects Congregations of clerics . Quite different is the attitude of the Church towards personal

re and public crime . The Sacred Canons explicitly forbid the 2 7 c tion ep o f applicants publicly stained . The Papal Constitutions

Y et n refer directly to Religious Orders . there can be o doubt that the honor of other Institutes demands this same prohibition a s will appear from the following regu lations . Pius X laid down the rigid law for all Religious Institutes o f men that they may not receive any applicant who has been guilty of any offense which entailed dismissal from an Institute o f “ Nullim d A tlicae t o e . os o e learning ; , absque speciali venia S p , s ub nu llitatis rofes sionis ex ci iantu r poena p , p postu

colle iis laicis Ob inhonestos lautes , qui e g etiam mores vel ob alia ” 2 8 x l i fu in crimina e pu s er t. Under a separate decree the same 2 9 law has been extended to Congregations of women . Evidently “ ” the term Collegium cannot be applied to elementary schools , for “ ” i n ecclesiastical langu age Collegium is generally predicated of a society o f persons acting as a moral unit and connected with some 3 0 sort o f common life . It would appear , then , that in the present l “ ” aw Collegium refers properly to institutes of higher education .

The law , however , Speaks in general terms , and there fore col leges , and universities , whether conducted by clerics or laics ,

- by Catholics or non Catholics , are comprised in the late decrees . A further and more stringent precept obtains in case o f d ism is

5

l n i n 55 Batta d er o . c . . as en o . n 8 n l n c . c 0 s n 7 5 We . . . La ot . . r z, ; , , ; B ti , , ; , “ " m n N 26 1 587 Ad om n m ns Cu d e om us ov. a u 2 t. 1 Co . b , R Oc t i , ; , , 1 588 .

2” d e R eli i s i cc es a 7 9 . E s e . 1 09 cc . S . o s . D r C g , l i Chri ti , S pt , “ ” “ 4 n tis s im us an . 1 9 1 0 . ee . a c D r S , J , " El l Verm eersch P er od ca vo . . , i i , V, p I N TH EI R EXTERNAL R ELATIONS 5 ]

sal from vocational schools . The same decrees j ust quoted forbid the reception Of postulants who have been expelled ” uacum ue m c q q ratione fro E clesiastical and Religious seminaries , R e a d . colleges , n domestic school for girls Ecclesiastical and ligi ous seminaries and colleges are determined not by the status o f the teaching faculty , but by the aim of the students attending I im these schools . f the students o f an Institute are preparing St mediately for the Ecclesiastical or Religious ate , the present law would certainly find its full application . If , however , the student body were preparing for various avocations in li fe , such Insti

’ tufesVerm eersch thinks could hardly be considered ecclesiastical 3 1 or Religious colleges . But this impediment refers not only to m oral guilt , but also to mental inability o f any cause j ustifying i 3 2 expuls on . The same ecclesiastical impediment accompanies compulsory dismissal from Religious Congregations or Orders . Henceforth no Novice or Religious o f either s ex who ha s been expelled from a Religious Institute or has obtained a dispensation from the t vows , can enter ano her Institute or another province of the 3 3 same Institute without the special permission of the Holy See . It is necessary to make a fewobservations on these new regu l ns R li i atio . is . e os of the S C de g , since they entail such severe consequences . There is question of dismissal or expulsion in

a ae ivalentr the various impediments . Now virtual ( qu e ) dis ’ u 1 e . missal or exp lsion , . , advice to leave on one s own accord in order to avoid formal expulsion , is tantamount to an explicit

re dismissal , and,there fore , such a postulant may not be licitly c iv d R eli u e e o s e. S into any g Institut ince , however , such pro ced u re would not be a direct Violation of the law , but as Canonists “ ” sa y , an evasion in frandem legis , the Religious pro fession would be valid , but not licit . I f , then , one were advised to discontinue

Verm eers r l 4 ch e od ca . 5 , P Vo . . i i , V , p “2 “ d nd Res onsi d R l . a l 9 1 o . . e e r 5 1 0 S . . Ibi p C , Ap i , “ “ “ ” eer c e i i i i im i . c s r s c n D E l a Ch t t S a ctss us c t. 52 R ELIGIOUS CONGREGATIO N S his or her studies or leave a Religious Institute for other reasons ff th e than to avoid dismissal , such a one would not be e ected by la w ; for voluntary egress from a school or Religious Institute is no impediment to j oining a Religious Society . Nevertheless a sworn testimony is required to show that such a one has not “ ” 3 4 iv l n er been formaliter vel aequ a e t dismissed . Nor are postu

' lants included in the decree , but Novices in the strict sense and

i u Religious who have made the Relig o s profession . Again there is reference only to mental or moral causes which effect the dismissal . Consequently , merely physical causes such as ill t health , etc . , form no legitimate basis for incurring the penal y

- o f the law . Finally the oft quoted principle of Canonists that ’ Rome s legislation for Religi ous must be restricted exclusively to Institutes directly under her authority unless the contrary is explicitly stated , finds application here . Hence we may safely sa y , then , that the above precepts of Pius X do not extend to

. u diocesan Institutes This does not , however , excl de them from being at least directive norms which Bishops would do well to 3 5 impose on S ocieties under their j urisdiction . A final impediment to entering a Religious Institute o f the

u Western Ch rch is the Oriental Rite . N 0 person o f the Oriental Rite can be admitted into a Community o f the Occidental Rite 3 withou t the special p erm isson of the Holy See 6 and the written ’ 3 7 testimony of the postulant s proper Bishop . In case o f lay e i Brothers and Sisters , how ver , recourse to the Holy See s te “ 3 8 . quired only for a formal transfer to the Latin Rite . I f , there a O t fore , candidate does not formally surrender the riental Ri e , he or she wou ld be obliged to follow the same Rite in case dis e ff missal or voluntary egress from the Institute were ver e ected .

“4 “D l i ec rato . d e R l r l 5 1 9 a S C . e . A 1 0 . p i , 5

d em erm er h ri l 54 99 1 24 . b V e sc Pe od ca vo . . I i ; , i , V, pp , , c d e r d e une 1 1 885 c . S . . o . . D r C P p Fi , J , “ itA ri i m i i r 30 1 89 4 itterae t. entl d n l i m o . L . os O a u a s Ecc es a u N v L p g t , , ;

P rae fe ti . 9 c S C . d e P ro . F d e u ne 1 5 1 1 2 . p i , J , ” Verm ch r i i eers e od c ol. 245 246 P a V . . . , , VI pp , I N TH EIR EXTERNAL RELATION S 53

This procedure , however , could not be followed by candidates O for Sacred Orders . No rder or Institute , irrespective of its c O anonical status , may ordain a subj ect of the riental Rite with out the special perm ission of the Holy See .

The question now arises in regard to all these impediments ,

'

- how an I ns titute may know of their existence or non existence . For this purpose the Holy See h as imposed the Obligation on all Religious Congregations of demanding testim onial letters from ’ “ t the postulant s Bishop or Bishops . The decree Romani Pon i ” ” “ ifices z uocum ue O n r a says on this matter In q q rdine , Co g eg tionc iis , Societate , Instituto , Monasterio , domo , sive in emit ta ntur llem nia e habitum vota S o , siv simplicia nemo ad admittatur absque testim onialibus litteris tum Ordinarii o riginis

O ostula ns ex letum d ecim um tum etiam rdinarii loci , in quo p post p

a etatis sua e m o ra tus Ord 1nar1 1 quintum annum ultra annum fuerit ,

rae fatis litteris testim onialibus ex uisiverint a er in p q , eti m p

in form ationes ostula ntis ualita tibus referre d ebeant secretas de p q ,

e us natalibus aeta te m oribus a de j , , , vita , fam , conditione , edu t O e rum . o catione , scientia , etc E sciant rdinarii con scientiam ex ositorum onerata m nec super veritate p remanere , ips is unquam liberum esse huiusm odi testimoniales litteras . de ” negare . Here we notice that the testimonials must contain the necessa ry information pertaining to all the impediments touched upon in this chapter . Nor can it be said that this law h a s passed “ ” ua estionum 1 906 into desuetude , for the Elenchus q , issued in and Outlining a certain number o f questions which must be re e t s “ ported upon ev ry third year , s ate in the tenth question de ” “ a d m is sis : I nstitutis Reli ionum litterae g , num testimoniales per Decretum Romani P ontifices praescripta e in singulis cas ibus ” “ ” x i f rin e ed tae ue t. a P ontifices s p This said decree , Rom ni , doe n not seem to refer to diocesa Institutes , nor to approved Insti 4 0 “ tute . n s of women Nor does the Const . Co ditae a Christo

R l r D cr . d e e a ib n 25 e . S . C u us a . 1 848 . g , J , lli ti n o . c . d e n 33 S eba s a e Pe s . . 4 . , , r , 54 RELIGIOU S CONGREGATION S

ex plicitly speak o f these except in reference to testimonial let “ n 1 ters for I stitutes of Priests . In regard to diocesan Institutes , “ ” “ n itae : uellis habitum . Co d however , the Const a Christo says De p

e tenibu s iis robatione ex leta religiosum p , item de quae p p , emis

isco us sin ulatim certior fiteiusdem erit et surae sint vota , Ep p g illas ” 4 2 r de more ex plora re etsi nihil obstat a dm itte e . Practically this obligation includes the information required by the testimonials ; for how else could a Bishop j udge whether anything obj ectionable

? As as to the candidate exists to approved Institutes , the “ Elenchus manifests the will of the Holy See , and makes no distinction between Institutes of women and men . Therefore it would seem to follow that these , too , must demand testimonials m a o f before receiving postulants . NO doubt the Ro an approv l the individual Communities makes ample provisions for th e e n same . At any rate testimonials are demanded o f ach postula t

has who left a vocational school , college , seminary , or Religious 4 3 Institute according to the decrees quoted above . Ordinarily testimonials o f B aptism and Confirmation are also “ ” 1 901 required of postulants . The Normae o f make special “ mention o f them . But there does not seem to be a special law f a to this ef ect , yet the approved constitutions gener lly demand 4 5 them . H Many , no doubt , find these various prescriptions of the oly S ee o sa . But irks me and inconvenient , not to y severe at times all must admit that they redound to the greater security and glo ry of that state which has produced so many Saints in the Church ff throughout the di erent centuries . The history of Religious Orders and Congregations but too plainly shows that as an Insti

6 C . n . . II, ” 7 C . n . . I , “ “ De r i i i c s . Ecc es a C r s i and ancts sim u s l h t S .

No rm ae 57 , Art. . ' n l i We . c . n n B i h o e a ste o . c. Ba ndi . tta er r z, , t , , p n l tO . . 44 La s o c . . , , p

R ELIGIO U S CONGREGATIONS

CHAPTER V .

TH E BOND OF RELIGIOUS LIFE.

a s e The Religious State may be defined the mode of li f , ir

ih its hom inum e s to a im revocable nature , o f men ( ) who prof s at the perfection of Christian Charity in the bosom of the Church ” 1 t. by the three perpetual vows o f poverty , chastity and obedien e In this precise form the Religious State is the invention of the u s u . s Ch rch Chri t , the Author o f perfection , proposed the co n els but left the mode o f their observance to the individual and the a a Church . If they are to fo rm the found tion of a special st te o f r n sta li fe , some device must be reso ted to in order to i sure

ilit is the b y in their observance . Stability or permanency first “ ” i e t. requisite of any state . The very word state sugg sts Se “ ‘ ’ : est bastianelli says Status a stare , quidem vivendi modus cum

e r l . m a nen i . vo p ta ex causa non facile mutabili sed perenni ( o. c ? II , p . How can this be procured

Chr s t wa o i t has lef the y of Christian perfection opti nal , and consequently no authority can make it obligatory . A firm reso lution ut or a promise may ensure some sort o f stability , b hardly n an irrevocable state . There remai s , however , the possibility o f i nvoking God in confirmation o f a prom ise or directing the h promise immediately to Him . Thus a fourfold method o f O serving the counsels or striving after perfection is presented to man : the state of perfection may be inaugurated first by a mere e c r solution sustained only by the bond of charity ; se ondly , by it a promise to a legitimate superior , which would add least the

o obligation of fidelity ; thirdly , by an ath or lastly by a vow ,

Verm eers ch a oli c Enc lo edi c a eli ious . . C th y p , R g I N TH EI R EXTERNAL R ELATIONS either of which would strengthen the promise by the bond of

has a s Religion . Each of these been chosen the bond of Re ligious li fe in Societies approved by the Church . In Religious Institutes which are based on the mere bond o f

a fi rm charity , no more can be required o f postulants th n the “ ” promise of perseverance Billuartdefines a propositum as an

voluntatis d eliberatae d e actus , quo quis vult quidem facere id ” 2 d eliberatsed num uam illud . quo , q obligat se ad faciendum I f at any time one should for sufficient reason desist from r con ’ “ ” tn s e in ing in this state of mind , it could not per be imputed “ ” 3 a s om issio s e est eccatum . to him sin , for propositi per non p The “per se ” is essential when applying this principle to Religious

e Institutes as will be seen below . Entering such an Institut signifies something more than an intention to do something , it involves a tacit bilateral contract of not inflicting any inj ury .

m Therefore , such Institutes have much in com on with that class which binds its members by a promise of perseverance . But the com parative instability o f the Religious life in such Institutes prevents it from being a true state in the strict meaning of that term .

r Those Institutes which exact a formal promise of perseve ance , oblige themselves to provide for all the spiritual and temporal necessities o f their members as also not to dismiss members with

out a just and grave reason . The postulant in turn pledges per severance and a mode o f li fe in harmony with the principles of 4 I a s i . n the Institute , so not to g ve just cause for dismissal , virtue of this mutual and onerous contract a strict obligation in j ustice “ : P rom is sionem e rsevera ntia e acce ta nd o i i im arises p p , ips a v c ss sese obliga vitad gerend am de membro suo convenientem curam ;

” i Rel. m m vo l d 1. d S u a eo . . s . a . e Th l , IV t IV,

ldin um m a o vol n 209 No S The . . . . , l , II ,

Re l rib l 465 d e u a us vo . . ou s . B ix, g , II , p II , p q ‘ 58 RELIGIOU S CONGREGATI O NS

ita utverus ex istatcongregationem inter etipsius membra onero ” n ctu 5 sus co tra s .

an a If this promise is confirmed by o th , another obligation of

iz ev is n v . pers erance added to the co tract , , the obligation o f

n is u e . r ligio By an oath , God invoked as a witness to the tr th of the present promise and as a bail and surety of its execution ; not indeed in the sense that He assumes the Obligation of ful

fi n a - fulfillm enta s lli g the contract , but th t He considers its non a

ff d is r . Go di ect o ense against Himsel f By an oath , furthermore , i mplicitly asked to mani fest , either in this li fe or in the next , the

. h truth o f what is said The violation then , of t is promise , to

W has hich God added His authority , is not only an infringement

of justice , but also of reverence due to God . The oath , there 6 m . fore , ust give greater stability to the Religious life But neither the onerous contract nor the oath can give irre Vocability to the Religious profession The promise is entirely S e ubj ect to the contracting parties , for nihil tam natural , quam ” 7 d em e c lli atm eo o u . g nere quodque dissolvere , quo g And the oath necessarily follows the nature of the contract : Accessorium ” i n i 8 naturam s equ co gru tprincipalis . For this reason the true foundation o f the Religious state cannot be had in the promise

vow . or the oath , but must be sought in the “ The Scholastics define the vow as a p rom issio Deo facta de ” 9 “ ” bOno m eliori ; butfor our purpose the de bono m eliOri is um circ scribed by the evangelical counsels of perpetual poverty ,

a s a chastity and obedience , the definition of the Religious st te 1 0 . observ indicates While Christ gave many counsels , yet the

3 i l ou . T 2 6 c ua e . m T S o c. o . c li 6 . a . b . . 1 5 t l h n u , ; , c S . A o s s B x r z , r t , , ; p i o . l . c b 2 . T ac . c. 4 . , III , r t , l i No n . d o . vol 24 c . s . , , . II , p 8 q R i i e . 35 u s c s . g j r vili , ” ° Re 42 g . Jun , in 6 “

- S t. om as um m a 88 1 2 S u . 1 . a . . Th , , II , II , q uare De e i i ne r c li S o a . b C 2 a i . . e tanelli D , R g , T , S b s e R e u z l t VII, ii ; , g laribu s n 3 1 9 , . . 9 I N T H EI R EXTERNAL R ELATI ONS 5

ance o f all o f them is not necessary for the state of perfection . of r The great O bstacles to perfection are the care things tempo al , the pleasures of the flesh and the free exercise of personal liberty . f e is The free and permanent renunciation O thes necessary , but 1 1 m also suffi cient for acquiring Christian per fection . The pro ises made in a Religious Institute insure permanency , for God de “ : vovisti m e m oreris mands the fulfillment o f vows Si quid Deo , i i ” 1 2 And redd ere dis licet ei infid elis etstulta rom s s o . , p enim p “ h : o uand am obli ationem im ortat St . T omas says V tum q g p

et eo voto quis Deo obligatur ex justitia modo , quo ” 1 3 iustitia ad Deum esse potest . There fore the double obligation o f justice and fidelity towards God b inds one to adhere to such. a prom ise o f perseverance in Religion . We might ask why a greater stability is achieved through the “ ” v t S e ow than the oa h . Authors dispute whether per the vow

Re or oath imposes the greater obligation . Both are acts o f li i n The O . g vow creates an obligation of fidelity , and the oath , tn that of reverence towards God . The one promises some hi g

' o to God , the other invokes His authority to confirm a pr mise to t . vow o man But when the and oath appertain the Religious li fe ,

is there no doubt that the vow induces the greater stability , for

' is is nl it the promise itself while the oath o y accessory . And then the Church has always laid greater stress upon the VOW and d “ a ispensation from it requires graver reasons .

m re ct a . As a pro ise made to God , the vow is a pu ly internal But the natural law dictates that i f it is to be adj udicated in the external forum , it must be made public ; and i f it is to become the foundation o f a state in li fe , it is very becoming that some it1 5 ‘ solemnity be attached to . Thus vows have eVer been divided

l b ti n li c e . l . . erm e r i S ua c. S e as a e V e ch D Rel n P r n s e . s . et e so s r z, ; , l , I t , T m 1 o c . a 1 1 . . I , , . 1 2 6 cc . . E l C . l “ m m 88 u a . . 1 S u . a . . , II II , q ,

d e r li 6 e b . 1 2 i ua u . t l S O e to . n 2547 N din l . c . o . G. r z , J II , , ; j , , ; , 1 t. om a s . c . u 88 7 S Th , , . a . . q , 60 RELIGIOU S CONGREGATION S

i into private and public . But in regard to Relig ous life , vows have received the appellation of Solemn and Simple according : to the special specification o f the Church . Boni face VIII says “ Illud solum votum debere dici sollem ne quod solem

z rofes sionem ni atum fuerit per su sceptionem S S . Ordinis aut per p expressam vel tacitam factam alicui de religi onibus per Sedem

A ostolicam a rob atam attend entes p pp Nos , quod voti ” 1 6 sollem nita s ex sola in stitutione ecclesiae est inventa . With the introduction of Religious Congregations the Simple vows b e 1 7 came the foundation and bond of these Institutes . The S ociety 1 - 8 of Jesus prescribed both Solemn and Simple vows . Pius IX prescribed that the Religious Orders of men make the Simple “ vows for three years after the Novitiate and then the Solemn . 2 0 Leo XIII extended the same to Orders of women .

vow is The obligation , however , of the Solemn and Simple the same . Celestine III maintained that votum simplex non ~ ” 2 1 ll m n so e e . A minus obligat apud Deum quam nd Fr . Ver “ sollem nia et s e differunt meersch says , vota privata inter non tam intrinseca quam accidentali etex trin s eca accessione a uctori ” 2 2 tatis . But the Church h as attached an additional power to the Solemn vow in the form of an invalidating impediment to 2 3 v the acts opposed to the Solemn ow . Since this incapacitating effect of the S olemn vow emanates simply from the Church ’s u f a thority , it follows that She can also a fix it to the Simple vow . This has been done by Her for instance in the case of Simple 2 S S o 4 vows made by the cholastics in the ciety of Jesus .

Un c d e o in . o C i . v t “

ons . n e cetera an 20 1 521 uam vis us a une 28 1 7 48 C t I t r , J . , ; Q j t , J . ; ” Conditae a C o Dec 8 1 900 s . . hri t , , 1 ' “

ons . nd ente om in 1 5 84 sce o . C t A D , D e r. RR r 9 c . et . a c 1 1 857 S . . EE . C , M h , Decr et M 3 9 2 . S . C . EE . RR a 1 0 . , y , 2 ’ 6 i l i i C . X . u c er c . , q

De r l I n i t e er . T m e . s t. t s c P , o . . . I , I “ ”

fr. u r C o us s l. c . C rp J i , “ n i o s . scend en e om no cit C t A t D , . I N TH EI R EXTERNAL RELATIONS 61

In order that the Simple vows may form a permanent bond in

a . Religious Congregations , it is necessary that they be perpetu l

Many Institutes exact only temporary vows . Consequently , in

r . these the true nature of the Religious state is sac ificed This , f however , in no wise a fects the Religious li fe according to the

h as evangelical counsels . Wherefore the Holy See approved such Institutes and given them a place in her Common law . A still greater departure from the Religious state is made by those Institutes which have not the three ” substantial vows of

Religion , but make only one or the other , be it temporary or perpetual . Leo XI II acknowledged these Institutes in the gen “ ” eral Charter for Religious Congregations , but in the following year recommends the three substantial vows ; thi s is evidenced by “ ” the Normae which are destined to constitute the gu iding prin i l A 1 0 “ c es . rt. 2 p for all Congregations In we read , Tria tantum

l m itten a ex c uso a d d . substantialia ( vota ) quarto , sint The ex ception to the fourth vow is evidently to preclude the multiplica

as tion of obligations . Many I nstitutes , for example the Jesuits ,

Friars Minor , Clerks Regular , Passionists , Nuns of St . Clare and others , make a fourth vow . The Council o f Trent approved o f

‘ n r i n this custom . But for Co g egatO s the Holy See has evidently u n fo nd a fourth vow inexpedie t . The vows of Religion entail severe obligations which generally bind for li fe . Wherefore the Church takes the greatest care that sufficient time and opportunity are afforded the candidates to con sider well the responsibilities . The Council o f Trent prescribes 2 6 at least one year o f probation for Regulars , and the same law is generally extended to Congregations approved by Rome . The 7 2 Normae ( Art . ) permit the time of probation to be pro tracted to at least two years i f deemed expedient . After this period o f deliberation there can remain little room for ignorance or error in the mind of the Novice . Nevertheless should a sub

25 S es s . c. . , I

S ess . 25 . 6 2 RELIGIOU S CONGREGATIONS

n vow s tantial error i regard to the obj ect of the exist , it would “ vitiate the same : Vota quae I n aliqua religione appro

em ittuntur intercesserit o substan bata , irrita non esse , nisi err r i l ” 27 ta is . So in like manner would the vows ordinarily be null Bill rt n . ua i and void if one were forced to make them says , “ speaking o f the vow : Votum sive simplex sive sollem ne em issum

incussu ex tor uend um illud ex metu gravi inj uste ab homine ad q , ” 2 8 iure positivo estnullum . No general principles are adducible for interpreting the scope . ff o f the vows o f the di erent Institutes . The rules , constitutions and customs o f every Society are the natural guides , except o f course in m atters regarding the vow o f chastity . Here no di v i s the ol ergence of Opinion or practice s possible . Sometime H y st See , or the Institute with the permission o f the Holy See , insi s is upon a stricter observance of the vows . It generally held that n if t such innovatio s , hey are really contrary to the established e n n practice , do not ordinarily bind the members who hav bee livi g r f under the old ules and customs , but af ect only those who make t 2 9 heir vows a fter these changes . While the rules and constitution interpret the scope of the vows , yet they themselves are not included in the obligations as

1 sumed by the vows , unless this should be clearly stated . Bou x

: oboedientiae says Regula non obligat Vi voti , nisi id in ea clare ex rim itur et utsic p ideo propria obligatio regulae , ,

oboedientiae sed et non ex voto , ex propria ratione legis prin i ii ” 3 0 c s e us est . w as p j , colligenda It shown above that n t in the rules ordinarily do o bind under s . Must we then conclude , since neither the vow of obedience nor any precept make the rules of an Institute obligatory in conscience , they are only a counsel and , therefore , their observance or Violation Op

”

i n 88 . tt o . . n 41 35 D i i i . c d e ure tu tta s . O e . e Lu o e s j , , ; g , J J , D p XXII , 2' f r l. . i lli l 385 o b tne o . . c sse t. I ar . I 1 8 cfr e a I t c. . S s a v , Di r V, , ; , , p , e x ce ion i en r l l pt s to th s g e a aw. erm eer h e i l V sc iod ca vo . . , P r , VII , p D R l rib l 546 e e u a us vo . I . g , I , p .

R I I GI OU S RE 64 E . CONG GATIONS

CHAPTER VI .

EGREss FRO M A RELIGIOUS IN STITU TE.

The bond of Religion differs essentially from that of Sacred

Orders and Matrimony . In the present economy of Divine r O M is in Providence , the bond of Sac ed rders and atrimony “ is se dissoluble , while that of Religion per perpetual , but for j ust and proportionately grave reasons may be dissolved and its obligation dispensed with or commuted . The present chapter , r there fore , pu poses to investigate the general obligation o f per severance , and the canonical regulations regarding dispensation and dismissal .

so - Religious , properly and improperly called , are obliged to persevere in virtue of the mutual promise made in the Religious profession . This supposes some sort of a promise . I f a Con

re ation g g were to allow egress at will , there could be no question of a strict obligation to persevere , unless ecclesiastical law in gen eral or some external right of j ustice would be violated thereby . By the Religious pro fession the candidate surrenders himself to the Society which in turn accepts his promise and obliges itsel f to provide for all the necessaries o f sou l and body : I ntervenit

roin d e utrin ue onerosu s p contractus q , religiosum erga congrega tionem obli ans uta bstrahen o votis lae a tur g ; ita , d etiam a , d ius con re ationi si reli iosus g g acquisitum , g , ipsa invita , eam d erelin

li ant s quat . Quia hoc modo g ex natura ua contractus onerosi ilib t” 1 “ u e . o con re ati n q This d ctrine applies equally , quoad g g o es

essentiam habentes sed interv nit status religiosi non , in quibus e ” 2 u u ram entum ve a ut rom is sio ersevera ntia e vot m , j p p . We find

De R ol II 62 oui e v . . 1 . B x, g , , p i l 464 ou . c. . . B x, , p I N TH EIR EXTER NAL RELATIONS 6 5

here a true application of the rule laid down in the Sacred Canons :

Mutare quis consilium non potest I n alterius pra ej udicium .

This , however , supposes that the promise or vows are valid and no higher duty intervenes . But what i f the invalidity o f the

” profession be invoked ? According to the Council of Trent an ecclesiastical trial may be instituted contesting the validity of the Religious profession within five years from the day of the pro f i n es s o . The nature and procedure o f this j udicial trial were

4 u clearly defined by Benedict XIV . All this , however , refers g ly

I n to Regulars . In diocesan Institutes the Bishop would “ ” 5 vestigate and decide the case sola facti veritate inspecta .

ro fes But in approved Congregations , i f the nullity o f the p sion were sought , the solution would remain with the Holy

See , unless the constitutions of the said Congregation made special provision for such cases . Bastien says in

: um roces étre this regard En tous cas , si p doit entamé , ’ ’ au — e s il a faudrait recourir Saint Si ge , s agit des congregations p ’ ” 6 rouvees . z u p par lui Wern thinks , however , that i f the n llity o f the profession were desired by either the Religious or Institute , it would be more expedient to resort to dismissal and dispensa “ : Utlurim um huiu sm odi tion of vows p causae , quibus persona religiosa vel institutum religiosum pra etend un tnullitatem s im plicis p rofes sionis etpostulant solutionem vinculi contra cti cum

etliberationem votis ex ediuntu r instituto religioso a , potins p per Viam dism is sionis etd ispensationis saltem ad cautelam datae ” 7 s ervatis le ibus etd ecretis ontificii u g proprii instituti p s . S ch a dismissal according to the present discipline renders entrance f into another institute very di ficult , i f not impossible . For this reason we prefer the solution o f Bastien and deem it more ex

3 in 6 e a ur 42 . R gul J . 4 4 M r 4 1 7 8 . D R l ri n i d a am a . 1 9 e u a bus Co s . es s . c e S S XXV, . , g ; t t , , 1 1 48 2 r illi . n RR n 1 1 858 Ba o . c . . t . u e at cc . . . EE. e D r S C , J , ; g , , 9 8 O. c. . . , p 7 l 67 3 O. c. vo . 11 . . , III , 66 RELIGIOU S CONGR EGATION S

e ient a th e p d to refer the c se to the Holy See , unless constitutions f O fer an alternative . But there are instances in which even the valid profession can not prevent one from leaving a Religious Congregation . In a previous chapter it was said that the duty of providing for one ’s nearest of kin takes precedence of the obligation in Religion . The same holds in cases of extreme necessity when egress from the Religious Congregation is the only means of providing ade

’ ' quately for the preservation of one s health or other similar d II ties . In such instances the Community is generally able and willing to come to the assistance of its members , even with extraordinary

u no means ; but were it not , there wo ld be violation o f any rights 8 in leaving an Institute . Furthermore the S acred Canons formerly permitted Religious O 9 in the strict sense to enter a stricter rder at will This , how “ v : O etti e er , is contrary to present practice Nunc in praxi , says j , “ ” r iri r 1 0 semper equ tu venia a Sancta Sede . As to Religi ous “ ’ : il Congregations , Bastien says faut donc ici s en référer aux ’ ’ ’ l in stitut t cc constitutions de e voir qu elles exigent . D apres E a . v tR . e e . la pratique en vigueur la S congregation des g , telle ‘ ’ 61 le au — e que la montrent les Normae a , recours Saint Si ge est ” 1 1 de rigueur .

Under ordinary circumstances , then , the general principles hold that egress from a Religious Congregation without the consent o f

u the Instit te or the dispensation o f the Holy See is illicit . Thi s

o is the c mmon teaching of all Theologians and Canonists . Bouix says and demonstrates : Quoties intervenitp rom iss io persever

Con re atione acce tata con re atio consentiat antiae a g g p , nisi g g ipsa , nemo praeter summum P ontifi cem potest ullum congregationis membrum liberum facere , sive a dicta promissione , sive a jura

s

i n . n . 86 m . Ba ste o . c t. s 89 ns o . c t. o us , , ; S Tho a , u . 1 S A h , II , II , q ; lp ,

67 - 7 0 11 . . ” 8 3 1 li C . 1 . X . b . . , tit , III n 39 89 D n in 3 1 li . O . c . e e s . b o f ecre A T a s . ; , _ g li it III D t l 1 9 6 O . c . . I N TH EIR EXTER NAL RELATIONS 67

” 1 2 r n i mento aut votis eam fi m a tbu s . This refers to diocesan as 3 “ 1 Condita e well as approved Institutes . When the Const . a ” “ ' sod alitatum d ioecesana rum Christo says , Episcopo alumnas ” “ dim ittendi cavend um professas potestas , it immediately adds , tam en ne istiusm odi remissione ius a lienum laed atur ; laed atur ” 1 4 in ii m r ri i s i n i n i sc s od e ato bu s fiatu te ue d s se te tbus . autem , Si id q “ ” The powers of a Bishop , and , a fortiori , of an inferior cleric ,

ra e u dicium over vows , oaths and promises extends only citra p j ” f tertii . The Sovereign Ponti f , however , is the supreme admin istrator over all the possessions and rights o f Religious Congre

ations his g , and , there fore , can dispense a Religious from obliga tion toward the Community , notwithstanding the dissent o f its superiors .

- This , then , gives the key note to the dispensing powers of the

' Bishops , priests and the various superiors in the respective Con “ ” i n re ato s . g g The Bishop , ceteris paribus , can dispense from all vows ( except that o f perpetual chastity ) in diocesan Insti 1 5 tutes . When diocesan Institutes are spread throughout several .

Bisho of dioceses , the p the motherhouse cannot reserve this right to himself in prej udice to the Bishops in whose diocese a branch “ o f the Community resides and labors : Dispensatio votorum pro m onialibus d om orum filialium in d ioeces i ex is tentium diversa ab

com etit illa , in qua degit domus princeps , p Ordinario domus fili li ” 1 6 a s . But the vows o f approved Congregations are re 1 7 . One served to the Holy See general exception , however , must

Viz be mentioned, . , the vows of Religious who have performed “ military service : Quod Si ipsi iuvenes a votorum vinculo se re lax a ri d es id erent etant su eri , aut sponte p , facultas fit p oribu s prae

‘ l O . c . vo 466 4 e . c. . . t. , , S A h . o . c. lib . 3 T ac . 2 c. S ua o , II p ; lp , , , r t , ; r z , Tom 2 T r 6 l . ib . 6 5 ac c. 1 , t . , , . ‘3 l ou . c. . 463 B ix, , p . on s n itae . Co d a s o 1 8 c. . a . . C t Chri t , i Ib d . R n i es o s o S . . et . 21 9 3 EE 1 03 nua . 1 90 p C . RR A A . Eccl . pril , ( l , p “ n i o s . Cond te a a s o . . a . 2 C t Chri t , C II . 68 R ELIGIOUS CONGREGATIONS

i ri ribu s eneralibus A ostolicae e d icts . e . S u e o ( i , p g ) tamquam p S dis d ele atis solvendi si a atu r I nstitutis clericalibus : g , vota , g de Si s it I nstitutis laicorum censea ntur vero res de , vota soluta per i ” 1 8 littera s S uperiorum quibus licentia eis fit ad saeculum red eund . Outside of this instance the Religious superior can ordinarily neither dispense from the vows nor grant permission to the R e li ious re- vow g to enter the world , for the obligation of the can “ ” be fulfilled only in the Congregation . It was said ordinarily , for no cognizance is here taken o f the powers conferred by par ticula r constitutions , nor of the right to dismiss a Religious for

n . j ust reasons . This latter exception will be treated prese tly Of course in Institutes whose members make no profession o f

ff . vows , the question is quite di erent Unless their constitutions reserve the right o f permitting a Religious to leave the Society to the Holy See , the superior could confer the necessary permis sion . In diocesan Institutes the regulations o f the Ordinary must be consulted . But with the dispensation from vows or with the permission o f superiors to leave the Institute neither unconditional liberty nor all previous rights are restored to the Religious . We have seen that the dispensation from vows constitutes an impediment O to entering another Congregation or rder , unless a special per f i mission o the Holy See s obtained . In addition to this the Council of Baltimore closes the door of the priesthood to teach “ ing Brothers o f the United States : Nem inem qui in hac Con

re atione em iserit g g ( Brothers of Christian Schools ) prima vota , etd ein d e uacum ue con re ationi valedix erit q q de causa g g , in provin ciarum nostra rum s em ina ria tamquam sacrorum ordinum candi

dis ensati n e C n re ti ni o . o a o s a d m itti datum sine p S g g posse . Idem statuunt n Concilii F ratribus Xaverianis ( Patres hui s ) de , Fran ciscalibu s aliisque quibus lege sua sacerdotium ambire vetitum ” 1 9 est . Furthermore Leo XIII forbids clerics who have re

D d ecr. R l . n S . C . e e a 1 1 91 1 , J . , . f i m 11 99 . o a o e . III C B lt r , . I N TH EIR EXTERNAL RELATIONS 69

' ceived a dispensation from their vows to leave the Congregation before they have found a Bishop to receive them , and a canonical

’ “ : o ex eant title to insure the means o f support Ex claustr non ,

’ don'ec Episcopum ben'evolum receptorem invenerintetde eccle

i tic rovid erint sus ensi m aneantab s a s o patrimonio sibi p , secus p

r inum orri i tur exercito susce torum o d . Quod g quoque ad p p ‘

v tr m sim licium - uovis rofessionis alumnos o o u p temporalium , qui q p

fuerintSo ela sum sis vinculo iam luti , ob p tempus , quo vota ab j p ” n 2 0 e ff fueruntnu cupata . This regulation se ms to a ect directly “ only clerics of approved Congregations o f Simple vows : Qui i ” in S acris Ordinibus constituti etvotis sim plicibu s obstrict. The “ A c is a d c . u t Holy See , however , is wont to extend the D cr ” a modum to other Communities of clerics . When , therefore , p proved or diocesan Societies have received from the Holy See a

v l h im pri i eged title o f ordination , their Obligations or in regard to dismissing clerics m ust be sought in the special indult rather than in the Common law . To discourage clerics still more from deserting the Religious

benefice f li fe , Pius X has barred their way to any secular , o fice

i . o f d gnity or responsibility within the diocese ; viz , from any

f benefice a u o fice or , especi lly in Basilica and Cathedral Ch rches ,

' from any teaching or administrative office in ecclesiastical sem

I narI es , and also in universities which enj oy the Apostolic faculty f of conferring degrees , from any o fice in the Episcopal Curia , and finally from the office of visitator or moderator of any Re li i u g o s Society . And that their example may not influence or

n co - sca dalize their quondam religious , they may not fix their domicile in places where the deserted Community conducts Con" 2 1 Vents or houses . These prohibitions extend primarily to R e i O lig ous rders and Congregations o f perpetual vows , but now “ votis tem oraneis also to all other Institutes , Si Religiosi p , vel iuram ento persevera ntia evel supra dictis p rom is sionibus per sex

r"’ Decr A ctis ad m od um 4 92 . u o , N v. , 1 8 . “

D r d e Rel . um m i ec . . C no un 1 9 9 . S C s e 5 1 0 , ri , J , . 7 0 R ELIGIOU S CONGR EGATION S

” 2 2 r n integros annos ligati fue u t. Diocesan Institutes are not included in this declaration of the Sacred Congregation . They are absolutely and exclusively under the Bishop ’s jurisdiction except when the contrary is expressly stated and therefore he

- could promote ex members to the respective positions . The “ fact that the Dccr . Cum minoris refers only to voluntary egress , does not place a premium on ex pulsion and dismissal as would ”

ff S . seem at first sight . S everer laws a ect uch

Like the individual , every society possesses the right o f self

- de fense and sel f preservation . Therefore it may repel and punish an unj ust aggressor . I f then a Religious commits crimes which are gri evously detrimental to the moral or material wel fare o f the Institute , the Congregation must have the right not only to punish the criminal , but also to expel him , i f no other means has ff served to e ect amendment . In the case o f diocesan Institutes , i O this right , by positive leg slation , is vested in the rdinary “ Episcopo alumnas sodalitatum dioecesana rum professas dimit ” 2 4 tendi potestas est . No explicit reference is made to Insti tutes f O men nor to Societies which haveno vows . But evidently

as is is as long an Institute diocesan , the Bishop the natural

neces superior , and therefore also the competent judge to inflict sary punishment on delinquents . With the approval of a Con

re ation i th su g g , however , this r ght devolves upon e, Religious “ : P raesidum est dim ittere perior tirones ac professos ,

‘ iis tam en servatis quaecum que ex instituti legibus pontificiisque ” 2 d ecretis s rv ri 5 e a oportet. The sentence o f dismissal in Insti tutes of women becomes effective only on the confirmation o f the 2 6 Holy See . Furthermore the Holy See does not wish that the

Declaratio et x tensio d ec e m n r E Cu M o s A 5 1 9 1 0. r ti i i , pril , Verm eersch e iodica vol 41 and 1 26 2 , P , . , . s . Ca e o o . c. . 21 r V pp q ; p ll , , p ,

onst Conditae a ri 1 . o 8 C C s c. . a . . h t , d em 2 a c. 1 . Ibi , , . 2" De r c t . A 4 . S . C . EE e u . 2 1 887 Ma 22 1 89 5 i en . RR as o . c. . g , ; y , ; B t , , p 1 24 W n l 3 e o . c. vo 7 9 ; r z , , . III , p . .

7 2 R ELIGIOU S CONGREGATIONS

crimes or by the condemnatory sentence of a legitimately con ff “ ” stituted tribunal . The o enses entailing ipso j ure dismissal

: ff are apostasy from Faith , apostasy from the Institute ( e ective at only a fter three months ) , elopement , and finally marriage or

“ ff r tempt atmarriage . But even in these o enses a declarato y i sentence is required by the law . In other cr mes gravity o f mat ter and malice o f will must be dem onstrated by a judicial process

before ej ection from the Institute can be inflicted . The gravity of matter must be adjudged according to the importa nce of the law and the penalty sanctioning it together with the amount o f

u on act al inj ury , whether moral or material , inflicted the Com

munity .

m n the The court which sits in j udg e t , must consist o f superior

general and a board o f four members . In case some Congrega tion ’s organization does not provide an advisory board for the

general direction , each case must be referred to the Holy See .

u is The decision o f this co rt definitive , yet appeal to the Holy 1 S e e . e . , according to the regular Canons , is always admissible , , ten days under ordinary circumstances are allotted to have re

course to the Roman Congregations for Religi ous . That the rights of the Institute and the accused be adequately “ ” “ ” defended , a promotor j ustitiae and a defensor rei must be i . s appointed The former designated by the Congregation , while the accused may choose his own advocate ; but should he fail to

so do , it devolves upon the Institute to assign one . The mode of procedure begins with the local superior—provin

i l - c a v . , or quasi pro incial Three admonitions and corrections

u is . m st have proven futile , before a preliminary trial instituted

ff — or ff In this trial the o ense better o enses , for three specifically different crimes or their equivalents must be imputable— and

u malice m st be demonstrated . The means o f demonstration are

viz the ordinary ones o f Canon Law , . , voluntary con fession , two l re iable and sworn witnesses , documents and other available aids .

After the charges have been duly authenticated and proven , the acts of the preliminary process are communicated to the general direction which will prepare the case and noti fy the accused to I N TH EIR EXTERNAL RELATIONS 7 3

prepare a de fense on the charges o f the promotor j ustitiae . On the day designated the cause will be adj udica ted and decided “ n accordi g to the merits of the proof , after both the promotor ” “ ” j ustitiae and defensor rei have been given ample time and opportunity to de fend their causes . Evidently the Religious cannot be ostracized from the Society a be fore a decision has been handed down . In extraordinary c ses , f however , which do not su fer delay on account o f imminent s a foceed c ndal or grave loss to the Institute , the provincial may p single - handed in applying measures which will ward off the threatened evil and only subsequently submit the case to the ordinary j udicial process . The effects accompanying j udicial dismissal consist in perpetu al su spension for cle rics and the prohibition to receive any other

Orders without the permission of the Holy See . All the dis

onl rohibited a ffiliat missed and expelled members are not y , p from in a g themselves to another Community , but are rendered inc pable

of making a valid profession , and, consequently of participating in the spiritual favors of any Religious Community approved by the Holy See . Apparently the censures inflicted by Common law upon the Regulars for the commission o f the above crimes which entail ipso j ure dismissal , are not by the new law ex tended to Religi ous Congregations . The decree mentions spe cifically only the suspension and impediment to enter another In 3 2 stitute r , and therefore neither abrogates nor extends the censu es of Common law . O t In case those dismissed are clerics , the rdinarius originis e O ” the c rdinarius loci o f suspended lerics must be notified . The

his Bishop , however , cannot by ordinary power dispense from 3 3 the censure , but recourse to the Holy See is necessary . These new regu lations do not appertain to Institutes o f laics “ ” with temporary vows , nor to Institutes in which an oath or a

l . 284 rm fr . e n . c vo W o . . s . Ve er ch o d l C e s e ca vo . r z , , VI , p q ; , P ri i , VI p 47 sq . ] 22 1 Verm eer ch c e n . c . V0 . . l 0 W o s . . vo 5 O . . r z , , VI , p ; , , VI , p . 7 4 R ELIGIO U S CONGREGATIONS

‘ mere promise of pers everance is made . These are still governed by the general p rincples stated above or by their special constitutions ” D r sin lae ec . u approved by the Holy See . The Cum g evidently places Institutes of laics with perpetual vows on the same basis with Institutes of clerics in regard to dismissing members— one o f the very rare instances . in Canon law in which the power of 3 4 true j urisdiction is conferred upon laics . For Institutes of Sisters with perpetual Simple vows the laws governing dismissal have received some modification by the same decree , but are not identified with those of Institutes of men . The four offenses entailing “ ipso jure ” dismissal are not extended to Nuns and Sisters . Certainly these crimes together with any f grave , external , and public o fenses which have rendered the O person incorrigible , warrant dismissal , but the local rdinary must veri fy the malice and gravity o f the crime and the Holy

See must confirm the sentence , before a Nun or Sister in perpetual

im Vows may be ej ected from the Institute . Only in cases of mediate danger of grave scandal or loss to the Community may ’

O . Butsub se the rdinary supply the Holy See s confirmation ,

S . quently , the entire case must still be presented to the Congrega R tion for eligious . The power of dismissal in Institutes of women is naturally vested in the superior and presumably in the superior general ,

n As in In although the law makes no special distinctio . stitutes o f men , the advisory board of the Congregation has a definitive voice which must be expressed by a secret ballot , before ej ection from the Institute becomes legal .

Legitimate dismissal does not in itsel f dispense from the vows . “ ” n i The Const . Co d tae a Christo reserves the vows of approved

Institutes to the Holy See . But one may sa fely presume that the Holy See will grant the necessary dispensation in conj unction with the confirmation of the sentence of dismissal . I f not , the Re li i ou s g would owe obedience to the Ordinary .

m h Ver eersc , l. c. I N TH EIR EXTER NAL RELATIONS 7 5

These same regulations extend likewise to Nuns with Solemn “ ” vows , but not to Sisters with only temporary Simple vows . The latter are still governed by the Old discipline explained above

ff . which , after all , di ers little from the new The same , a fortiori , must be said o f Institutes without vows and all diocesan Insti r tutes whether they make perpetual or tempora y vows . The entire affair of both voluntary and compulsory surrender o f the Religious life is o f such supreme importance for the indi vidual that ordinarily it should be considered only as a last fesort and as the only means to avoid a greater evil . The Church realizes this more clearly than any Theologian or Canonist has ever been able to point out . Wherefore She safeguards the

a nd strives Religious li fe with the greatest supervision t to remove , or at least render remote , every danger tha threatens it from the f world without . She destroys the hopes and allurements O ecclesiastical rights , privileges , and honors which too Often blind the intellect and weaken the will in their native prerogatives of

. au rectitude and stability She , moreover , circumscribes the thorit y o f superiors that it may not be exercised unto destruction ,

edification but of souls destined to Li fe Everlasting . Thus in a ll things She shows Hersel f the kind Mother in bearing with the weaknesses o f Her children , and the mighty defender O f j ustice , right , and authority . 7 6 RELIGIOU S CONGREGATIONS

A CH PTER VII .

TH E RELATION OF CONGREGATIONS TO TH E HOLY S EE.

The supreme authority over the Religious li fe and Religious ff Institutes is vested by divine commission in the Roman Ponti . To him is entrusted the direction of the faithful not only in the wa y of precepts , but also in the path of counsels . He can , there

is neces fore , prescribe by general and particular laws whatever sary or useful for the conservation and development o f the

Religious life . But since the Religious life is only of counsel and obligatory only in virtue o f and according to the term s o f the

the contract , papal authority is limited to the Obligation assumed by the Religious pro fession : Le pouvoir d u S overain Ponti fe estdonc limité par les termes memes d u contrat de profession ’ qui varie selon les instituts ; mais cc pouvoir peut s ex ercer sur

u ce le ce e to t que religieux a promis , sur tout qui est necessair ’ le etle e sur pour maintien de la discipline lien de l tat religieux , ’ tout ce qui a rapport a la nature on a la fin particuliere d un ” 1 institut .

On ec The Institutes themselves , the other hand , are purely

clesia stical corporations , and for that very reason the inalienable right o f supreme administrative power resides in the Roman ff hi Ponti . Hence s absolute control over them is limited only

a by n tural j ustice and equity . The Pope , therefore , may not only

d is impose new obligations on an Institute , but may also alter or

a solve Community . In our rapid historical survey O f Religious Congregations i above , we have seen that the number of such Institutes s legion .

ien L 2 t O c . . Ba s . , p I N TH EI R EXTER NAL R ELATIONS 7 7

f There can be no question , then , that the Roman Ponti f would as sume personal and immediate direction and government of them . It is well known that the Church h as varied Her mode of gov ernm entthroughout the ages according to Her development and the constantly changing conditions of society . Hence we nat u rally expect to find that the Holy See ha s also exercised her supervision and authority over Religious Institutes in diverse ways ff at di erent times . For many centuries the Holy See appointed Cardinal Protectors for each Institute and bestowed on them full j urisdiction in all matters concerning the individual Religious a s also the Institute . “ : oboedi Thus the Rule of St . Francis of Assisi prescribes Per entiam a in un o m inistris ut etant d haec j g , p a Domino Papa

Ca rdinalibus unum de sanctae Ecclesiae qui sit gubernator , pro ” tector etcorrector istius fraternitatis . Mani festly this includes true j urisdiction and even a superior j urisdiction to that o f the ’ r Order s prelates . So also do the words o f Sixtus IV confe a real power of j urisdiction on the Cardinal Protector o f the Car “ m elites : In quibuscum que causis per eos ( nempe Carmelitas )

‘ m ovendis uacum ue ex co itari eis q q ratione vel causa quae g posset , ” 2 n m inistrentj ustitiae com plem e tum . Other Orders made Simi lar provisions .

Gradually , however , the Holy See diminished the powers o f th his f ha s e Cardinal Protector until o fice become , according to 3

l . aw . Common , a mere honorary one The Const o f Innocent “ fi li m 1 7 I d e u . XI Christi ( Feb , deprived him o f all j urisdiction and administrative power and le ft him only the empty honor o f some formalities when visiting the Community and o f

o having his coat o f arms over the p rtals o f the Institute . But the office o f mediation between th eI Society and the Holy See a constitutes tod y the chief prerogative of the Cardinal Protector . Ordinarily an Order or Congregation seeks f avors or j ustice

’ 1 61 8 n . . P lliza rio anua e re . rac . 8 c . Cfr . e T , , , M l g , t 3 1 67 ets . l . ou o . c. vo . B ix, , II , p q 7 8 RELIGIOUS CONGREGATIONS

n from the Holy See through the Cardinal Protector . Still eve this is frequently unnecessary on account of the superior gene ral residing near the Roman Cu ria . S O in turn the Holy See gen erally entrusts to the Cardinal Protector the execution o f all “ rescripts : Cardinalibus P rotectoribus Ordinum com m ittuntur rescri ta a Ordinem res iciunt: eis re p , qu e u niversu m p alia vero ” mitti vetitum est. Furthermore in regard to the members of “ the Community Bouix aptly remarks : Ex eo vero quod Cardinalis Protector j urisdictionaliter religiosorum causis etnegotiis sese in erere ne ueat cum iis im g q , non sequitur non posse in sese

m iscere est eta dvocatus . quatenus protector , id , adj utor , amicus

i sius officium est Immo hoc p , praesertim ubi tutandi sunt religiosi

in u rii res i nibu s u re ab j s etOpp s o . Agit autem tprotector qui

i i m n r - u s tus uva e aestat. n q j p Quod Si Cardinalis Protector , no re uirentibus invitis reli i onis raelatis dirim end a ne otia q aut g p , g a rro et inducit ertu rbafiiones sublatas voluit sibi g , eas p , quas l g

n Innoce ti us XI I . — I f , therefore , today the Cardinal Protector for the practice o f the Holy See to appoint Cardinal Protectors for Religious Institutes still obtains— possesses any j urisdiction over Religious

Institutes , he derives it not from Common law , but from a Special grant o f the Holy See , or from the constitutions o f the respective 5 n Institute . Freque tly the Holy See is wont to bestow Special faculties on the Cardinal Protector of Communities o f women .

r We have a ve y recent incidence of this . Pius X conferred actual governing powers upon the Cardinal Protector o f the Order o f “ — ii rn i n . : m ona ster ube ato em attinet St Clare Ad Proto g quod ,

‘ d ecernim us utposthac habeatur tanquam Vicarius natus Cardi nalis P rotectoris sera hic vel Legati , Minister provincialis p ae r vinciae a p o Santa Clara , incolumi Ministri generalis is The Holy Father here conferring actual j urisdiction , or rather

i z ri C l c n 6 1 3 B z a o e a e . a . , l t , p 5 R l nstvol . 69 rm rsch d e e . n l 11 . 8 Ve ee ou l . e c. vo II I c W O . . B ix, r z , , I , ; , , 397 I , p . . “ 9 2 9 1 1 . rief uam uam Au . B , Q q , g ,

80 R ELIGIOU S CONGREGATION S

the nineteenth century , Pius IX formed another Congregation “ ” 9 in m Congregatio super statu Regularium O rd u . This third division in the government of Religious Institutes resulted in still greater con fusion . The competency o f each was not clearly

~ d efined nor . , their obligations determined

0 ff f : T this state o f a airs were added still more di ficulties First , “ ” by the fact that the Congregatio Concilii interpreted the laws “ ”

Con re atio P . o f the Council of Trent ; then , the g g de rop Fide supplied the other Congregations in mission territories and in “ O Con re atio ne otiis the riental Church ; and , finally , the g g pro g ” eccles iasticis ex traordina riis attended to all the affairs for the

Religious in Russia and South America . Little wonder then that such a practical Pontiff as Pius X saw the necessity of reform i in the methods o f conducting the administration o f Relig ous . “ ” n r ti ni 26 1 9 06 . . Co e a o By the Const S g g ( May , ) Pius X abolished the two above - mentioned Congregations of Innocent

X II and Pius IX , and trans ferred all matters concerning Religious to the one Congregation of Bishops and Regulars . But with the 1 908 reform of the entire Roman Curia in , this Congregation

R e disappeared , and the part o f its competency appertaining to “ ligious became vested in the new Congregatio de S od alibus R e ” “ li iosis : I sius m od era ri uid uid g p enim est , pro recta disciplina , q q ” ° in i 1 Religiosos utriusque sexus attg t. In the following words the territorial j urisdiction o f this Congregation is outlined still more “ i l C n re atio in i ex pl cty : Haec S . o g g indicium sibi v d catde iis u S od ales tant m , quae ad religiosos utriusque sexus tum solem nibu s sim licibu s votis adstrictos et uam vis S , tum p , ad eos qui , q ine votis tam en a unt Reli iosorum item u e , in communi vitam g more g , q Tertios O saecula res ad rdines , in universum pertinent , sive res ” a atur e rum i 1 1 o al is . g inter religiosos ipsos , sive habita ratione cum The personnel o f this Congregation consists of a Cardinal pre

° Ubi m um n 1 7 1 47 ons . u e 8 . C t pri , J , “ ” i ns 29 1 908 on s . S a en co o une . C t p ti ili , J , 1“

d em Art. 5 n . a s . Ibi , P r I , , I IN TH EI R EXTER NAL RELATION S 81

e - u fe t , secretary , sub secretary , associate Cardinals , cons ltors and f 1 9 1 5 — some minor o ficials . In eighteen Cardinals , twenty nine consu ltors and thirteen minor officials were enumerated as con i 1 2 s titutng the entire Congregation . To facilitate the handling o f the great amount of work that devolves upon this Congregation , it has been divided into three divisions . Distinct Commissions , f O therefore , regulate the a fairs of Religious rders , of Religious

Congregations for men , and o f Religious Congregations for

a rovin f o f women . Finally a special Commission for the pp g

u all New Institutes and their Constit tions , as was mentioned in

Chapter V , has been appointed recently . The first three Com “ m ittees , or Congresses , purpose to prepare the respective mat y ter for deliberation in the entire Congregation , to carr out the result of these deliberations according to required formalities , f and , in minor a fairs , to decide controversies and grant favors 1 3 on their own authority .

Not a universal j urisdiction , however , has been entrusted to “ is this Congregation . Its competency defined in the terms : Est

com etens cau sis autem tribunal p in omnibus , quae ratione disci

lina e seu ut lined dis ci linari a untur p , , dici , solet , in p g , religioso

a ctore cetera e sodali sive convento sive ; ad S acr . Rom . Rotam ” 4 r n f n n 1 e u td e ere d ae s pecta tes . As to questions affecting R e “ li ious g and Bishops , the Congregation for Religious ea omnia sibi m od erand a a ssum it is co o s et , quae sive inter Ep p religiosos ” sodales intercedunt 1 5 utriusque sexus , sive inter ipsos religiosos . Hence all administrative and discipline matters are subj ect to the f Congregation for Religious , but j udicial a fairs to the S acred

Rota . In the new papal Constitution and its accompanying Norm ae ” “ ” communes and Normae peculiares , no clearly defined dis

12 “ P ntifi i 1 9 1 5 nnua o o c o . A ri , 1 3 “ ” N o m e ecu a es u ne 29 1 9 08 a . r p li r , J , “ ” n 2 ons . S a en co s o a s . a 5 n . C t pi ti ili , P r I , . , . d em Ibi . 82 R ELIGIOUS CONGR EGATIONS

“ tinction between disciplinary and j u dicial procedure is made . Oj etti thinks that all disputes between a member and his Com “ ” munity ai' e to be decided in via disciplinaria ; while contro versies arising between di ff erent Institutes or between Institutes “ ” iudicii and Bishops must be treated per modum , and therefore ” t u by the Sacred Rota . The lat er s pposition has been verified “ ” in ul e 1 6 . s a in a case in But by the Deer Cum g ( May , “ ” the Congregation for Religi ous ha s also received a true

a s j udicial j urisdiction , in far as it has been constituted the com petent tribunal for receiving and deciding the appeals in all cases of expulsion and dismissal of Religious . Then by a late

c de ision the S . Consistorial Congregation determined that not the ” R el ious Con re atio Concilii Congregation for g , but the g g pos 1 9 sesses the competency o f awarding secular parishes to Religious . Finally a certain j urisdiction over Religious is proper to the new “ ” Congregatio de S em ina riis etde S tudiorum Univers itatibus ; in t those cases , viz . , where Religious conduc Seminaries or Univer

a ertainin to sities . In all matters pp g these institutes o f learning “ etiam si re ntur the new Congregation oversees and directs , ga a i i i li ” 2 0 rel g os s S oda bus . Reference has already been made to the limitation placed upon the j urisdiction of the Congregation for Religious in mission “ : territories . We merely repeat them Quod vero spectatad n r ti i n d ales Co e a o . e . Co r. S o . religiosos , eadem g g ( , g de Prop

vindicatuid uid R Mis siona rios t Fide ) sibi q q eligiosos qua , sive u t ” 2 1 sin ulos sum os . g , sive simul p tangit The principal method employed by the Holy See to insure prudent administration and legislation for Religious Institutes by the Sacred Congregation , is the triennial report from each

“ 1 0 i De om ano Cur a 0 ets . O ett . j , R i , p q 6 m 1 0 . b d e . I i , p i in P h r n I ri m e P n r m 9 1 9 9 e t oe o u u 2 0 . t Dec s . a . u u S . Ro a , , y , J l , 9 1 5 C. u 5 1 . ee . . C . D r S , J ly , “

v . o u o r o , No M t pr p i _ “ i 6 n n c ns o a art. 5 ons . a e o . . C t S pi ti il , p rt I , , I N TH EIR EXTERNAL RELATIONS 83

was Institute . Formerly the Holy See accustomed to insist on but e 1 906 it this in the particular indults of approval , Sinc has o become an obligation o f Common law . The details o f this rep rt have been completely outlined and prescribed in ninety eight “ questions : Modus etratio conficiendi relationem omnibus et sin u lis a s ectat g , d quos p , communi lege This account together with the detailed report of Ordm ari es exacted “ ” ff he upon thei r ad limina visit , ordinarily a ords tbasis for Pon tifical direction o f and legislation for Religi ous Institutes . v Som etime , howe er , it may happen that the Roman ordinances b are not rought to the knowledge o f some Religious Institutes ,

the O d or they may be disregarded at times . Wherefore r inaries are made responsible for the due promulgation and Observance “ n r a i of Roman decrees for Religious : Haec igitur S . Co g eg to Ne otiis Re i ioso um S od alium ra e os ita sum m ere g l g r p p , op com m end atReverendis jsimis locorum Ord ina riis eorum qe delegatis s eu l d e utatis Mona steria Monialium d om um sui p ad , praesertim , quae

I u rI S constituunt eneralem S u erioris sam h abentut , nec g p , noti

d ecretorum ster m ed end orum i re o , tiam , etiam in p ur quae v tam li iosam res iciu tefficaciter evul ent g p n , g inter Religiosas Familias et s dioece ana a S l I rre serinttol In tituta quoque s , d abusus , qui p , leu dos ad bonum la rgiu s diffund end um etuniform itatem in rerum ” 2 3 can nica rum servanti tin n m o ob a ubique ob e da . The mind of the Holy See , there fore , is . that even diocesan Institutes be di rected by the regulations for approved Institutes , not indeed in the sense that they always constitute strict laws for diocesan O Congregations , but that the rdinaries at least endeavor to con form diocesan Institutes as much as possible to the government of approved Communities . But above all , the Holy See insists that the Ordinaries supervise the reception and observance o f

ontifical p laws by approved Institutes although they be exempted .

h as What here been said o f general laws and prescriptions , holds also to a great extent for rescripts . In many instances

22 D r d R l 6 906 ec . . C e e . u 1 1 . S . , J ly , D r R l 3 9 d e e u 1 1 0 . ec . S . C . . , J ly , 84 RELIGIOUS CONGREGATIONS the Holy See is want to transmit and execute also its particular “ orders through the Bi shop : S . C . solet in Executores deputare

isco os etO rescri tis Ep p , rdinarios Nullius etiam in p pro Regu la ribu s a atur alienationibu s sa ecula riza , Si g de clausura , de , de tionibus reli iosorum erectione novorum conventuum g , de ac In i i stitutorum etquoad Moniales in omnibus rescr pts . Si vero a atu r ne otiis ex ecutionem com m ittere S u erioribus g de g , p regu laribu s m ona sterii , nempe vel Generali , vel provinciali vel abbati ” 2 4 x i prout rei a d iuncta e gunt. I f this is the practice of the Holy

See in regard to Regulars , we can safely suppose that the same custom prevails in favor of Congregations . In the following pages it will appear more in detail that the Ordinaries possess a far greater authority over Religious Con gregations than merely that of promulgating and executing Roman f . O decrees For Regular rders this su fices , because they are entirely exempted from the Ordinary ’s j urisdiction and are placed directly under the exclusive j urisdiction o f the Holy See . This is not the case in Congregations . The Holy See , indeed , assumes the direct and immediate government o f approved Institutes in the manner explained , but at the same time it preserves as much of the ordinary Episcopal authority as is compatible with the nature o f these Communities . But this will be developed in the subsequent chapter .

24 rr 6 3 a o ec anea . 1 . Bizz i , C ll t , p I N TH EIR EXTERNAL RELATIONS 85

CHAPTER VII I .

TH E RELATION OF CONGREGATIONS To TH E ORDI NARY .

A threefold standard must be considered in determining the “ relation of Religious Institutes to the local Ordinary . By Ordi ” in is nary the present chapter understood the Bishop , Abbas A Nullius , Vicar postolic and Pre fect Apostolic ; for the relation of each to Religious Congregations within their j urisdiction , “ ” 1 ceteris paribus , is identical . The triple standard arises from

- the canonical status o f an Institute as diocesan , inter diocesan , or a s an approved Congregation . The general laws regarding the Ordinary ’s jurisdiction over the respective Communities within his diocese are clearly laid

A S s down in Canon law . to dioce an Institutes , the Const . Con “ dita e a Christo states : Eae una ind uctae sunt atq ue vigent ” n r A tistitum sacrorum aucto itate . No l ess clear is the decree “ ” Dei pro videntis in regard to inter - diocesan Congregations :

s od alita s uam vis d ecursu tem oris lures dioecesas Instituta , q p in p

ff f ontificiae a robationis audis di usa , usque amen , dum p pp aut l ” caruerit rdinariorum uris dicti ni O o sub aceat. testimonio , j j “ ontifical is d sub With p approval , however , an Institute place re im ine Moderatoris Ordinariorum g generalis , salva j urisdictione ” n n tA stlic rum n i 2 . Ca o um e o o a sttti n m ad formam S p Co u o u . The limitations this approval puts on the powers o f the Ordinaries “ must be collected ex ipsa d ecernend i ratione Sedi Apostolica e

eiusm odfi consociati nibus a r n 'i consueta in o pp oba d s . Hence the general principle as to all Religious Congregations is this :

1 rm er h d ca ol 0 - 43 Ve e sc e o v . 2 , P ri i , VII , pp . . 2 n 5 m De r c . . 9 3 c . C . a o e n . , ; III B lti r , . 3 “ ” d ite n Cons . Con a a s o i the nt d ucti n o o . t Chri t , i r i Ib d em . 86 R ELIGIOU S CONGREGATIONS

The Ordinary possesses full jurisdiction over them in both the in ternal and external forum except in those matters expressly ex empted by the Holy See . NO one doubts that the Ordinary may confer j urisdiction on i a clerics of Relig ous Institutes , for , potest quis per lium , quod ” sa potest facere per We y clerics , because the “ ut ne otia tracta re Sacred Canons prescribe , laici ecclesiastica g ” 6 r um n But O non p a es a t. the rdinary possesses no powers con trar y to the Common law . d The same j urisdiction , however , may also be conferre by la is w . custom . This an accepted principle of ecclesiastical Authors dispute as to the length o f time required for a legiti

ma s b . O te cu tom to confer j urisdiction , but it is a pro able pinion 7 tn f i that e years su f ce . Hence some Religious Societies may readily have acquired a certain exem ption from episcopal j uris diction in virtue of custom . This power of Ordinaries and custom I s Invoked especially ’ when determ ining Religious Communities exemption from parochial obligations . Some authors are reluctant to restrictthe ’ : Non i pastor s ordinary rights , but Wernz says solum ndulto et d n s ed apostolico legitima consuetu i e , etiam statuto Episcopo

fi eri o e utcom m unita s d vel o p t st , quae am religiosa conservat rium vel convictus m a f arochiam m aneant vel si ilia institut , licet in ra p , a cura ordinaria parochi ex im antur etproprio capellano subii ” 2 ciantu r Canonists in general hold that Religious Congrega tions a re exempt by custom from the jurisdiction o f the pastor 9 in whose parish they are situated .

The o t H ly See , however , may certainly exempt Ins itutes from the j urisdiction o f both Bishop and pastor and confer on them for d e e A all the necessary powers an in epend nt governm nt . S to

5 e u a u s 68 in R g l J ri , 6 i D u i i u l . Ca . 2 e d c b s b . p , j , X , II 7 h l Verm eersc o c. vo . , . , VII , p 8 l n 828 O. c . vo . . . , II , “ 3 4 6 i D 349 3 5 and 0 ou e Re ol . a s en o . c. n . v . . B ti , , . ; B x, g , II , p

88 R ELIGIOU S CONGR EGATION S

Conditae j udgment . But in spite of all this , the Const . a Christo “ states : Semel approbatae sodalitates ( by the Bishop ) ne ex tin u antur ravibus n etcons entientibus E isco is g nisi g de ca sis , p p , ” “ ositis i i n f rin l . u d to e ue t. . . q orum in ( c , art Apparently , p ” onendis p , this supposes the right of abolishing an Institute when ff Spread into di erent dioceses . Why , then , a Bishop Should pos sess a lesser power towards purely diocesan Societies is difficult to see . A definite limitation , however, is placed upon the powers o f

O . each rdinary , when an Institute extends over several dioceses N 0 Community may establish houses in another diocese without 1 5 O the consent o f the respective Bish Ops . But when the rdinaries “ ” “ a quo etad quem have given this consent nihil de ipsius natura etle ibus liceat sin ulorum isco orum g mutari , nisi g Ep p consensu , i ” 1 6 quoru m in d oecesibus aedes habeat. For the Institutes in “ : the United States , the Council of Baltimore adds Hae communi

filiales i sius conventionis et tates , p vi , quoad internum regimen ad m inistrationem m aneantsub oboedientia superioris vel superi ” 1 7 ris sa c nvent ri a rii o e o us p m . ’ Besides limiting the Bishop s power in diocesan Institutes , the Holy See has enj oined several positive duties towards them . The one respecting the reception of members has already been referred to . Then , he is obliged to preside over the election o f s uperiors in Communities of Sisters 1 8 and promulgate all decrees

a s regarding Religious Communities as w also stated before .

The partial exemption , however , from Episcopal j urisdiction which approved Institutes enj oy by a Special grant of the Holy

S ee . is common to all Religious Congregations of Simple vows , b u tit refers exclusively to the internal administration and gov “ e rnm ent: Certam a liquam Congregationem approba ri s ub re im ine Mod eratoris Ord inariorum g generalis , salva j uris

ns . n ite o c 1 n 4 Co Co d a a Ch s . . . t ri t , , 5 d em n . Ibi , . "

9 3 . a n . III , C . B lt . , , ‘2 “ n dit 1 9 ons . Co ae a s o c. n C t Chri t , , . . I N T H EI R EXT ERNAL R ELATIONS 89

” i num 1 9 Constituto . i i n a n num etA ost. d cto e ad formam S . C o p

The main relations , both temporal or spiritual , of an approved Institute with the outer world are strictly regulated by the Holy

S ee and in many instances are subj ect to the local Ordinary . O Thus , in the first place , may be mentioned the right o f rdi naries to permit or prohibit the establishment of a new Religious 2 0 O . house , Church , or ratory Evidently a permission once granted and acted upon , begets rights in j ustice which no Bishop may

o violate with impunity . In case the Community wishes tcon f inue its residence in the diocese , the Bishop would ordinarily be obliged to appeal to the Holy See before he could expel a

Congregation from his diocese . Strict j ustice would seem to dictate this . The same may be deduced from a parallel case in R 357 e . . Bouix ( De j ure g , Vol II , p Again by the general Canons the Church forbids the alienation “ ” o f ecclesiastical property ( res im m obles vel mobiles pretiosa e ) 2 1 ff without the consent of the Holy See . This law a ects also

" Religious Congregations , and binds them under censure o f ex 2 3 communication ( latae sententiae ) . Where Bishops have special

us e faculties to dispense from this law , they may likewise them

2 1‘

. m in favor o f Religious Institutes The com on opinion , how

1 I n ever , o f Canonists maintains that no valid custom can ar se 2 5 prejudice to this law of alienation o f property . The chief rea “ son for this opinion seems to be the clause non Obstantibus con ” suetu dinibu s im m m rabilib s m etiam e o u . But the sa e clause has been affi xed to other laws and also to the various decrees o f the

C . o f Trent , yet , in spite o f it , some o f the Tridentine regulations

d em ntod uc on and c n 1 . Ibi , I r ti . II , . 22 “ n di a e n 3 Co t a s o . c . . Chri t , II , 5 3 lib . . 1 . in eteod . 1 . Cons Am i i . to 46 8 C , , X , b sae 1 . tit III ; t ,

n . 4 lib in c. u . . x trar . ( tit , III E 22 i d terae . F d e t Arch t . e o . f L S C o . o P , wau ee an . 1 5 1 903 . r p i p Mil k , J , “ A d 4 3 Cons . . S e s s er. n . . t p i , , I n am e e e Ar h f s to c . o wau ee l tt r p Mil k .

e i n 29 - O tto . c . . 5 . en 3 s a s o . c. . 1 9 Wern l. o . c . vo n . j , , q ; B ti , , p ; z , , III , “ 1 60 Danni l m m l ba e u e . 80 S . o vo . ; , Th . . l , III , p 90 R ELIGIOU S CONGREGATIONS

have passed into desuetude . Hence the great Canonist Bouix “ f t sa el constrained to y , Non video cur consuetudo haec pro ” 2 6 h r r legitima non abe etu .

Closely akin to the law of alienation of ecclesiastical property ,

“ and subj ect to the same penalties , are the late regulations for bidding Religious Institutes to contract any debts or assume any economic Obligation which exceeds lib ella e ) Without the special consent o f the Holy See 2 7 Through the

. C. Apostolic Delegate at Washington , D , the Holy See has granted an extension of this maximum sum to Communities in the United S tates provided they Obtain this facu lty from their respective “ BishO : p I , therefore , ( the Apostolic Delegate) in virtue o f r the said rescript , he eby authorize , for a period of ten years , “ Ordinaries the of the dioceses of the United States , onerata f eorum conscientia amen , to permit the Religious Communities o f their respective dioceses to contract debts up to the sum o f francs without having recourse to the Holy

S ee . It is , however, to be understood that all other provisions

“ ” 2 3 of the above decree remain in force . We can hardly sup pose that the Holy See intends to inconvenience Communities to such an extent that they must recur to Rome for permission in ’ Order to contract ordinary debts which the Institute s normal in come du ring the year can readily meet . For the decree purposes to check the growing abuses aeris alieni inconsulto etintem pcr ” i i n i 2 9 ate susc e d . p Then , too , debts may be more than counter ’ an balanced by Institute s credits which are at its free disposal . “ Thus Verm eersch interprets articl e III : Utnon con sid erand a dicam us nisi debita quae superentpecunia s ettitulos semper com m utabiles quae in libera sint m ona sterii possessione ( ex clus is ” ’ in ca itali us etm onialium d otib s p ro d e p b u ) . Hac ratione

R l l 2 302 De u re e . vo . . . j , , p “ R l n r 30 1 9 09 tio d e e . e e u . I nstruc . C . a S , I t , J ly , ” 93 N 1 9 1 5 c e ew . ov . . E R vi , p , , “ ” 22 i l 1 5 i n t e i d c vo . . I nstru cto I terea c . P o a . , , r i , V, p 2° i 5 iod l . 1 . er ca vo . P , V, p I N TH EI R EXTER NAL RELATION S 9 1

sed h abeat ecunias monasterium quod habeat fr . liberas p ” 3 0 neratum censeatur. fr . nullo debito o Another privilege and custom which is subj ect to great abuses l u among Re igious , and , there fore , strictly reg lated by ecclesiasti

la w Of . cal , is the collecting alms In this matter the Council o f “ Trent subj ects Religious to the authority of Bishops : Quibus

is co is eleem os nas a a caritatis ( Ep p ) etiam y tque oblat sibi subsidia ,

rorsu s fid eliter colli endi d atu r nulla p mercede accepta , g facultas , ut coelestes h os thesauros uaestum tandem ecclesiae non ad q , sed ” 3 i in lli nt 1 ad p etatem ex erceri omnes vere te ga . The Tridentine

h as law for Regulars been extended to all Religious , and in the case o f approved Societies the further obligation o f obtaining 2 2 the explicit perm I S S I On o f the Holy See has been added . But pontifical Institutes a s well as diocesan are required to have the permission o f the local Ordinary be fore they may collect alms from the faith ful even when this is their ordinary means o f

e h s re sustenance . The m re fact that an approved Institute a ceived permission from the Apostolic See , either in the approved

Constitutions or by a special concession , does not exempt it from “ the j urisdiction o f the Ordinary in this matter ; Religi osi

‘ Con re ationum P ontificii uaeritandi g g juris , qui privilegium q eleem os nas r ria rum n i uti n y neque vi p op Co stt o um a S . Sede a p

robata rum vi A ostolicae concessionis uad ent p neque p g , veniam

A ostolica e d ebentut uaestuationes instituere p Sedis impetrare , q valeant; pra eterea licentiam per suos Superiores ab Ordinario ” 2 3 in r n loci obte e tene tur. The same decrees lay down specific d r t s- ti n i ec ions for the proper regulation o f all alm collec g .

These Specifications do not include Mendicant Orders . I f the Church ha s prescribed so minutely these outer relations o f Congregations in material things , the conclusion lies very

l” I bid em .

“1 2 1 9 S es s . , c. . D ecr . t in l . S . C EE e S u ari u d em 27 1 896 RR q a ch ee . , g i , M r , ; D r “ d Rel D l m i S . . e . e e ee os n s N 2 9 C ov . 1 1 08 . , y , , ” D D . l i ecr e e eem o s n . n I s c . . y , II , 92 RELIGIOUS CONG REGATIONS

near that She has not b een remiss in tracing even with a much greater solicitude and exactness the relations in things spiritual or quasi —spiritual on the pa rt of both Bishop and Congrega tions . Thus the Bishop is obliged to seek the consent o f the Holy See and observe the formalities o f Canon law in order to trans fer the government of a diocesan seminary or gi ve a “ parish permanently to 3 Religious Congregation : Imo m e re li iosis con re ationum votorum sim licium ha g quidem g g p , nisi e isco us licentia beant speciale privilegium , potest p p sine sedis ” 3 4 A a ostolicae sem ina ria re enda . S p g tradere to parishes , the general law o f alienation of ecclesiastical property would already forbid this , even i f there were no other regulations . But the “ Council of Baltimore states explicitly : Consultorum item re

uiretur ut seu arochia q consilium , quando id agitur , missio p trad atur alicui familiae religiosa e ; quo in casu necessaria erit ” 3 5 etiam venia S . Sedis . Bishops , however , possess full power for sufficient reasons to divide parishes that belong to Religious 3 6 and award the new parishes to secular priests . Some authors ’ wou ld impose the duty of seeking the Chapter s consent also for but the division of a parish , since Bishops possess this power not only in virtue o f their ordinary j urisdiction , but also by a

ontifical p grant , it seems that they can proceed without the con oi 2 7 sent the Chapter or o f the consultors in Mission countries . Canonists generally admit that a legitimate custom contrary to “ ” Bene la citum A ostolicum the law requiring the p , p for these trans fers is quite valid . Bouix j ustifies such a custom for 3 8 . France But where the permission o f Rome must be sought , ilii . C nc S . o the C , as mentioned above , has the power to confer it , while the S . C . de Rel . grants the necessary faculties to the Re li ious g in case their Constitutions prohibit parochial work .

" i 34 9 ett . n 1 Bar lli 26 O o c. . i n to . c 7 o l 7 a . II u o c. vo . 35 . j , , g , , ; B ix, . , , p . l n 20 o f a . . III C . B t 3 2 3 2 etti . nn . 2 O o . c 0 0 8 j , , , . tti 3 26 Oj e , o . c. , n. 0 . D l e Rel . 357 u e Vo . Verm e r h . d a l , , e sc P e o c Vo . . 4 s . j r II p , ri i , II , p q I N TH EIR EXTER NAL RELATIONS 93

This does not imply that the law forbidding Regulars to as sume diocesan offices is extended also to Religious o f Congre ti n n c a o s . O g the contrary , they are free , with the onsent o f their superiors , to take charge not only o f parishes , but of any diocesan office provided their Constitutions do not prohibit it . 2 9 In this latter ca se recourse to the Holy See would be necessary . In regard to the office o f preaching within diocesan parishes some special observations are necessary . Not only by divine s command , but also by the explicit Canons o f the Church , i the office of preaching the Word o f God committed to the Bishops .

I f a Religious or Secular is to announce the Divine Message , 4 0 he can do so only with a commission from the local Ordinary . ’ Regulars strictly s o called must seek the Bishop s permission to " preach outside o f their own Church 1 How much more then does this become a duty o f the m embers o f Religious Congregations " For announcing the Word o f God in Religious houses of Com

nities n i a m u Co d te . , the papal Constitution says ( a Christo , c II , “ 8 erit t a ri i a . ) Horum ( Episcopi ) sacerdotes ipsos e a s c s d es g ” n i ni nare eta co c o bu s probare . Evidently this appertains chiefly and directly to Institutes of women and o f lay Brothers , for in

Institutes o f clerics , the general faculties granted to their priests would include also the right and in fact the duty of preaching the Gospel to the inmates . But more than a mere permission to preach is demanded by i P “i i later legslation . ius X prescribed that us urandum praestare d ebentReligiosi qui sacris concionibus h abendis des ” tinantur e a r bationem in 4 2 coram o a quo pp o obtent.

This oath refers to Modernism . By a still later decree the Holy See requires that no Bishop may approve or permit a Religious to preach within his diocese unless he present testimonials in

l . c ou . B ix, 3 T 1 5 1 lib . h n e 5 2 . . t s s . c C . . . I C e , tit X , ; , S , , . . l T n . C . e c. r t, “ i i m 9 n . An tstu e . 1 1 1 0 o s . t D 7 9 0 C S Dcc . . C . S C. ec 1 1 1 . t , , pt , ; r S , . 94 R ELIGIOU S CONGREGATIONS

i 4 3 regard to h is standing and ability from h s superior. Should any Bishop ever have forbidden a particular Religious to preach t te within his diocese , the superior IS obliged to make men ion of h “ o fact in the testimonials . Furthermore pastors are cautioned n t 4 5 to invite Such a one into their parish . It may be questioned whether the Ordinaries ’ jurisdiction over all Religious extends also to the power of compelling them to l partake in diocesan processions . The Counci of Trent and later 4 “ decrees from Rome assert this right for Bishops over Regulars “ but in regard to other associations Oj etti says : Com pelli non pos suntad intervenien dum p roces sionibus a ssociationes alia e re li iosae se velint con fra g d haec quoque , si , etsi non sint stricte ” 4 7 ternitates m i s s h abent. locu in p i Bastien , however , claims that Bishops can compel members of Religious Congregations to par in t take diocesan processions , even by inflic ing ecclesiastical cen 4 8 sure . Perhaps the golden mean lies nearer the truth , viz . , in f cases where Religious hold parochial or diocesan o fices , they are at the bidding of Bishops . ’ Truly the Ordinary s powers over Religious embraces the right

: to inflict censures In foro autem externo , eidem ( Episcopo) ” subsunt s ectat quod p ad censuras , but the Apostolic Constitution “ Antistites d elibus Suis im immediately adds , quas sacrorum fi ” 2 ertir 0 p e queant . This faculty hardly proves that Bishops can force Religious to take part in processions . In fact Rome has repeatedly answered that Ordinaries overstep their powers when they attempt to compel even secular clerics who possess no benefi ce 5 1 or Religious Confraternities to participate in processions .

De Ea d em d ec . c 1 7 1 9 1 tR e on io . c s s S . C C . S e . 1 9 1 0 . l , , 0 ; p . , pt

Ibid . d Ibi .

e . 25 1 3 De r R s s c R . De 1 2 9 02 S . c . C . et , ; S EE , c. , 1 . 329 O . c. n . 8 M n c l , ; o . E c . vo . X . 2 1 1 6 . l , I , pp , n O. c . 41 0 sq .

Ibid . i ons . Cond tae a C s o c a 5 C t hri t , . II, . . tti l c Oj e , . .

9 6 R ELIGIOU S CONGR EGATIONS

The same law that leaves to the Ordinary the erection o f

r chapels , also rese ves the right of celebrating the Sacrifice o f the Mass therein to him : Episcoporum sunt iura sac i ” fieri d om esticis sacell S . rum in This , however , does not include the rubrics that must be followed in celebrating the Holy Sac r ifice . Until recently very many Communities possessed Special M privileges not only in the celebrating of the ass , but also in f O . the recitation o f the Divine fice At present the new law ,

‘ “ m atter rea d s : common to all Congregations in this , Congre

r ata etub gationes seu Instituta utriusque sexus a S . Sede app ob s re im ine ra esidis constituta si recitationem g unius p generalis , ad ” 5 ffi i n n r ha ea n 9 i te ea tu b t . . O c D , proprium pariter Kalendarium Hence the Bishop cannot exercise any j urisdiction over the Cal endar in such approved Institutes . On the contrary , Institutes which are either not under a general Of direction , or are not obliged to recite the fice , have been com pelled to surrender all their privileges and conform their rubrics : Con re ationes et to those of the respective diocese g g Instituta ,

O auctoritate a robata quae sive rdinaria sive Apostolica sint pp , tam en com reh end antur a ra ra ho raecedenti d ebent non p p g p p , uti

Kalend a rio Dioecesano iaceta d ditis iux ta Offi , pronti , Rubricas . ” i li ri r ciis quae psis pecu a te concessa ( Ibidem ) . In both regula is Of but tions there question directly only of the Divine fice , no one doubts that they apply equally to the Holy Sacrifice . Som e

' hesitancy might be feltin regard to parishes entrusted to Re li i u g o s . But the same law holds good in the celebration o f Mass in parish Churches permanently or indefinitely assigned to the

Congregations . The Bishop of Seckau asked the S . C . R . upon “ this question and received the following reply : Si pa rochia sit reli iosae eius d em monasterio vel domui g incorporata , aut mon a sterii s eu domus curac in perpetuum vel ind efinitum tempus con

vel com m unitas i sam a rochialem ecclesiam credita , apud p p divina

era a t R eli iosorum a dhi atur p g , in Missis Kalendarium g semper be ;

r R ric e Dec . ub a S . R . c. Feb. 28 1 9 1 4 . , , , I N TH EIR EXTER NAL R ELATIONS 97

v tu r secus item in Missis Kalendariu m Dioeces anum semper se e . The privilege or exception that the first class of Institutes mentioned enj oy , does not exempt Religious from celebrating within their Institutes or their parishes the principle diocesan feasts , such as o f the dedication o f the Cathedral , of its patron

res ec or titular feast , and o f the principal patron feasts of the p 6 1 a n tive diocese . These must be celebrated by all Religious d,

A S e . therefore , in them the dioc san calendar must be followed i to titular or patron feasts of the parishes entrusted to Relig ous , “ : Com m unita s R eli iosorum Rome has said g , quae cuidam pub lica e officium titula ris ecclesiae fuit addita , tenetur ad patroni ” 6 2 c v m he huiu s Ecclesiae etper totam o ta a . Evidently t sam e rubrics would obtain in regard to the celebration o f the Holy

Sacrifice of the Mass . On the other hand , Institutes which are now obliged to follow the diocesan calendar , still enj oy the privilege o f celebrating the Special feasts of the Community with the accustomed solem nities “ in the same manner as heretofore : Uti d ebentKalend a rio Dioe cesano a dditis iux ta Rubricas officn s quae ipsis peen lia riter concessa ( supra ) . ’ ? A limitation, however , on the Bishop s powers must be men i n RI to ed in regard to the conservation o f the . Sacrament in — in these semi public Oratories . Benedict X IV requires a papal 6 3 2 4 dult for this . Canonists hold that this law is still in force except in places where a contrary custom has obtained the force O is o f law . rdinarily the Holy See wont to grant the permis 1 sion of conserving the B . Sacrament in the Chapel only upon the condition that the Holy Sacrifice is celebrated at least once

es onsum . C. . 22 1 9 1 0 . S . R p , R , Apr , “ ” Rubricae F eb 28 1 9 1 4 , . , .

A r 7 1 87 6 . . C . . . S R p ,

n m i 30 1 7 49 o s . ua v s us o . C t Q j t , April ,

6‘ 2 9 n i ti c . n . 05 . n n n O e to . s Ca o s e Co . a s e o . j , , q ; t t B ti , 3 n . 5 8 . 98 R ELIGIOU S CONGREGATION S

‘ 6 5 a week . If no conditions are stipulated in the indult , Doctors 6 6 maintain that the Holy Sacrifice must be celebrated every day . 1 Quite the contrary obtains in the right of exposing the B .

S acrament for public adoration . Here Bishops retain their “ ordinary j urisdiction : Episc0 porum sunt iura Sacra

m mentum augu stum proponi palam venerationi fid eliu . From “ ” venerationi fidelium the phrase palam , authors deduce the right 1 for Religious to expose the B . Sacrament without Episcopal permission when none but members of the Community are pres 6 2 ent . In fact this distinction between public and private or — quasi private religious service is quite constant throughout the entire Constitution of Leo X III . Immediately upon stating the “ f : E isco orum law of public Exposition , the Ponti f adds p p simi ”

estsollem nia etsu licationes . liter pp , quae publica sint , ordinare Now it is evident from what has already been said that the Bishop ’s powers hardly extend to compelling Religious to partake in public processions and other Similar religious functions . But w a u ere Community to inaug rate a public procession , they would ’ certainly require the Ordinary s permission according to this regu lation . Nor can the rights of Bishops to ordain public prayers include also the prayers o f the C" ommunity , for these are gener ally provided for in the Rule of the Society which the Holy See ’ has acknowledged . There fore it seems that Bastien s opinion i ' g ven above in regard to the exposition o f the B1. Sacrament would follow quite naturally . Frequently pious souls establish certain foundations or be queath certain sums of money in the form o f legacies to Re ligious Communities for the purpose of providing for divine worship or for some works o f charity . The administration of these indeed appertains to the Congregations . But they are ac

‘5

D cr. . . Ma 1 4 1 8 9 e S R C . 8 . y ,

“2 “ e i c n 2060 M n l O tto . . . o . cc . 9 B E vo . . 51 . ee C j , , ; l XIII , p r . S . . EE et F e 9 1 9 04 Decr b . Ma 1 4 1 889 RR . . . . S R . C . . y , ndi ons . Co tae a s o . n 1 C t Chri t , C II , . . “8 n n 361 a s e o . c. . . B ti , ,

1 00 RELIGIOUS CONGREGATIONS

i eat eccatum a vg , num contra clausuram p , num s cra ” 7 2 i i n r menta a equa stataque frequentia susc p a tu . “ ” The inquiry here referred to is not intended to convey the idea that the Ordinary may proceed to enforce correction in case abuses are discovered ; ordinarily he would have to refer the “ a re t S ee . mat er to the Holy Furthermore , Institutes of clerics

s ub not included in this episcopal inspection , although they are ’ ect t ff j to Bishops jurisdiction in most spiri ual a airs , for the “ : alum na eve sodalitatum m following laws are general Alumni haru , ”

ttinet otestati subsunt. ad forum internum quod a , Episcopi p “ iiS s iritualia subd untu r And again , In quae ad p pertinent sodali ” 7 5 n r tates Episcopis dioeces ium in quibus versa tu .

To the inte rnal forum and things Spiritual belong pre - eminently

S . the acraments Since custom , i f indeed not special indults , has exempted Religious Congregations from the jurisdiction o f O local pastors , practically nly two Sacraments require considera

iz v . O . tion , , Penance and Holy rders Ordinarily no occasion for the administration of Baptism or Matrimony in the Chapel o f Religious Communities presents itsel f . But in case o f exception the pastor in whose parish the chapel is Situated , could validly assist or delegate the permission

n r to assist at Matrimony in the Religious Chapel . ( S . Co g . de

S a cram entis 1 0 AS a , March , to the becomingness of d

o i ministering the Sacrament Matrimony in Religious Chapels , there can be no question . Canonists generally hold that it is un at Of law ful least in Institutes women and in Seminaries . ( Fer l ” e . reres , los Esponsales y Matrimonio , p The Provincial Council of Valentia explicitly forbids the administration o f Mat

' rim on Con re ations o f y in churches o f Regulars , of g g , Colleges and in all Institutes of women and in Seminaries without the special

F rre . e res . . is permission o f the Bishop ( See , l c ) But it use

i Ib d .

Ibid .

d . c . n 5 et8 Ibi , II , . . I N TH EIR EXTER NAL RELATION S

less to develop the discipline on Matrimony . The laws regarding n P enance are o f greater impo rta ce . No further re ference need be made to the fact that Institutes “ of clerics possess no j urisdiction in foro interno , unless they receive it from the Ordinary . By way of exception Rome has a conferred Special powers on some Congreg tions , as for example the Congregations o f Passionists and Redemptorists . But this h only confirms te general law . Nor is it necessary to discuss at length the right of Religious to confes s their Sins to any duly authorized priest , when they are outside o f their Institute . There

wa s . was a time when this not allowed These prohibitions , how

Re ever , have been revoked and general liberty given to every li ious his g , whether male or female , to make or her confession to any priest possessing ordinary j urisdiction , when lawfully or unlawfully they happen to be outside o f their own Community house 7 “ But the regulations or discipline regarding the Sacra ment of Penance within the Religious houses is of prime im portance for Bishop and priest . “ sodalitates m uliebres desi nabit Leo XIII prescribed , Si sint , g item Episcopus sacerdotes a con fes sionibus turn ordinarios tum ” ordinem norm am Constitutionis P a storalis curae extra , ad a

d eces sore editae d Benedicto XIV Nostro , ac ecreti Quemad ” m odum dati a sacro Consilio Episcopis etReligiosorum ordinibus rae osito 1 7 decem bris 1 890 p p , die anno ; quod quidem decretum vivorum consociationes sacris ad etiam pertinent , qui minime ” 7 7 1n1t1an r F h tu . rom t is it follows that the tribunal of Con fession in Institutes o f priests is administered by the superiors “ : resb tero rum soda litiis conscientia of the Community In p y , de ” 8 ni r si e 7 U p ae d s cognoscent . All the laws of Leo XIII and his predecessors which are still in force in regard to the con fessions of Nuns and Sisters have

7 ° ’ D r 23 0 . Au 899 ec . . . . 1 : e d e R l S D e . . C , S C . e . Cum d e S acra m en g r , ” talibus F eb 3 1 9 1 3 R A . cc . . l 5 1 9 C . e . u S . 1 3 , , ; D r , g , .

n Cond itae a s 11 o s . o c . 8 C Ch , . . t ri t II ,

d . n 7 c . 7 Ibi . , II , 1 02 R ELIGIOU S CONGREGATION S been generalized and codified by the Holy See in the decree ” “ Cum de sacram entalibus visum estin unum colligere Decre ” 7 9 tum . According to this decree o f the Sacred Congregation , “ ” “ ex traordi it devolves upon the Ordinary to provide ordinary , ” “ ” nary , and some Special confessors for every Religious house “ ” sa be of Nuns and Sisters within his diocese . We y house , cause no obligation rests upon the Bishop to assign Special con fes sors to Sisters who confess in the parish Church , though per

a s . haps it would be advisable , a rule , to do SO I f Bishops made t ’ this provision , hen these confessors could hear the Sisters con fessions also in their parochial convent in case of illness or some 8 0 other extraordinary circumstances . The ordinary confessor is appointed by the Bishop for the f . O term of three years course , it is understood that a plurality o f regular confessors may be assigned . In fact it would be necessary in large Communities . In such event the extent o f each i ndividual confessor ’s faculties would naturally rest with the Bishop who would certainly express the limitations , if any , in the commission . The ordinary confessor , however , may not be reappointed ‘unless the scarcity of priests demand it or the maj ority of Sisters for good reasons desire it . Certainly this limitation would not include ordina ry confessors design ated for 8 1 the Confessions of Sisters in the parish Church . These de pend solely on the will of the Bishop . But the law provides that the ordinary confessor may not be made extraordinary within a hi year from the expiration of s term . In virtue of the office of ordinary confessor no right is con f ferred to meddle with the internal a fairs o f the Community .

This would not only be imprudent , but also in direct violation o f the law of the Holy See . The two forums are strictly separated and no reason will j usti fy their blending . I f a priest is the

is moderator of a Community or house , he thereby excluded from

cc l d e Re. m . S . . Cu d e S acram entalibus F eb 3 1 9 C , . 1 3 . D r , , s h i i Verm eer c e d ca l . 93 o vo s . , P r , VII , p . q Res nsi RR 2 o o . . t . u 0 1 87 5 S . e EE . p C , J ly ,

“ 1 04 R ELIGIOU S CON GREGATI ON S

C the om o f the n d for onfession , cust conve t could not be disregarde without good reason . The prescriptions for the extraordinary confessor are very

Similar to those for the ordinary . The Holy See demands that

‘ ' the Bishop assign eXtra ordirI a ry confessors for every Com “ ” nn m ean a t munity pluries in a o . This would certainly least “ : twice a year . The Council of Baltimore says Extraordinarius saltem bis vel ter in anno ad confessiones omnium ex cipiend a s ” r 2 3 i r se p a esentabit. The Plenary Counc l of Quebec presc ibes the “ same : Bis vel ter in anno confessarius extraordinarius concedi ” 2 4 m niali u r m sim lici m debet o b s etiam voto u p u . No specified time for the duration of the term o f Office is given by the Holy See or particular Councils so far as could be determined from works consulted . The Bishop is at full liberty in all regulations con cerning the extraordinary , except that the qualities required for d the ordinary , Should also be insisted on for the extraor inary con fes r B so . Again , the ishop may not appoint an ordinary con fes sor m a within a year to the same Institute , nor y he delegate hi a Religious without the consent o f s superior . Finally a certain number of special confessors must be d esig f na ed whom the Sisters may call to hear their confessions , when for any reason they prefer notto confess to the ordinary con f s r e so . S ince this privilege may easily be abused , it rests with the individual confessor to exercise the greatest prudence in treating such souls in order that what is granted for the greater u liberty o f conscience , may not revert to the detriment o f Religio s or o f their Community . O For very special reasons approved by the rdinary , a Nun or S ister could obtain a particu lar father confessor ; but Since this mu st necessarily be o f very rare oc currence it suffices to

o kn w that the Holy See provides even for such extreme cases , bu t ud leaves it to the Bishop to j ge of the individual case .

8 3 I l I I a t. n 9 7 . o f r n . . e e XXV c 1 0 R S s s . . . d e e , C , C T . B ; t, , , g P l f e 2 . . o ue c 11 . 7 0 fr h C . a so Verm eer c er o d c l C b , s P a vo . I Q ; l , i i , VII 89 p . . I N TH EIR EXTERNAL RELATIONS 1 05

These regulations are intended as the ordinary norms for Com

seriOUS m unities o f women . But in cases of Sickness , even though

“ there exists no danger o f death , a Sister may summon any priest having faculties within the diocese as o ften as She sees fit. . The ’ Church s mission on earth is the salvation o f souls . There fore she puts no limits on her children in questions of conscience , f and especially not when a flictions , the natural harbingers of the

Life to come , bear them down .

The new decree nowhere explicitly , states that the validity o f the con fessions within the convent depends upon this episcopal 8 5 it. approval . Seemingly , however , the regulations suppose

‘ Barrett says on this point : Specialis d eputatio ab ipso Ordinario ex i itur et ad validim tem con fessa rio g , quidem , pro domus ordi

con fessa rio ro istis nario , pro domus extraordinario , p sacerdoti bu s unicui ue reli iosae a s si natis sin ulae vocent q domui g g quos g , pro uno isto speciali con fes sa rio ob peculiarem causam in con ” 86 f ri i l es sa um hab tua em petito . d a udientia Some authors , indee , thought that the decree In 3 1 9 1 3 Au . ( g , ) which gives to any approved con fessor the faculty o f validly hearing the confessions o f Religious even within the

u s . Religious house , included also Religio s Institute o f women 8 7 But the general opinion o f Canonists denies this .

In speaking of the new laws regarding confession in convents , Verm eersch draws attention to the fact that Special approbation or j urisdiction is necessary only when the Nun or Sister wishes e to con fess within her own Convent . If , th n , a Religious were visiting another Convent , an approved confessor could validly

8 8 ‘ and licitly absolve her in the Convent Chapel . S uch a case might become practical , especially where the chaplain would be called on to hear the con fessions o f visiting Sisters . Having ,

e e ex er th r fore , the ordinary approval from the Bishop , he could

h Verm eersc c . 92 . o . . , p “ e - m M r 23 ab tti a e o . T e d 7 1 2 S C o . o . h E . . . B rr tt, p l , it , p 8 4 d . . 7 0 . Ibi , p l 92 O. c . vo . . . , VII , p 1 06 R ELIGIOUS CONGREGATION S

u cise his fac lty in regard to visitors , but not in regard to the resident Sisters of the Convent . The regulations or the Sacrament of Penance are not altogether dissimilar to those of the Sacrament of Holy Orders . The Holy S ee prescribes certain conditions which the Bishop must carry out be fore he may licitly ordain a Religious . These conditions are the ordinary ones o f Canon law . Religious Congregations possess no general privileges of Ordination like the strict Orders . Hence the Ordinary may not ordain a Religious unless the latter

s dim is sorials pre ent the required testimonials , , and canonical title O o f rdination , or proof that the Congregation has received a 8 9 Special privilege which exempts it from this requirement . I f , O however , an Institute possess a Special privilege o f rdination , “ Les u i un then , supérieurs des Instituts q ont obtenu indult

' sub ets ou r leu r Spécial de faire ordonner leurs j p propre compte , ’ peuvent donner les lettres dim is soriales a l Evequ e d u diocese ou ” 9 le e 0 se trouve monast re . “ Aucti a m d um 4 s d o . By the decree ( Nov , the Holy S ee forbids the conferring of Sacred Orders on Religious before

Verm eers ch they have made their perpetual profession . thinks that this is obligatory only when the candidate is promoted to “ b ” O su . Holy rders titulo privilegiato Therefore , he concludes , a Religious could be ordained prior to the perpetual profession 9 1 under a regular title , as for instance under the title of patrimony . In addition to the ordina ry testimonials which are demanded

O h a s for Holy rders , the Holy See seen fit to exact testimonials also from the pastors in whose territory a Religious has been 9 2 located for three months or more o f military service . This was

re ferred to more fully in the fourth chapter . O rdination , moreover , may not be conferred on Religious ,

t s tatuta nisi , prae er alia a jure , professi testi

i 6 n . Cond tae a i c . Co s C s o I a . t hr t , . I , 90 ten c 23 as o. . . 7 . B i , , p Verm r ch ri l ee s e od ca Vo . , P i , V, p 9a “ ” i De r . d R l n R li n 1 1 9 1 1 R s on d e c . S C . e e . e e uas a . e s os P . , I t r q , J , ; p R l F 1 1 9 2 e . , eb . , 1 .

1 08 R ELIGIOU S CONGREGATIONS

When all the prerequisites for the reception of the Sacrament of O Holy rders have been complied with , the superior o f the Congregation must formally present the candidate to the Bishop 9 9 i for ordination . The fact that one is a Relig ous does not exempt him in ordination from the obligation of promising obedience to

vow the Bishop , nor o f making the Solemn o f chastity , even though the Religious may have already bound himsel f by the 1 0 0 perpetual vow o f chastity . This is due chiefly to the canoni cal status o f Religious Congregations . They are subj ect to the ordinary j urisdiction of the Bishop in all things Spiritual . In conclusion it is necessary to draw attention to certain dele gated powers which Ordinaries receive from the Holy See . It is impossible for the Holy See to exercise direct jurisdiction over the entire government of Religious Societies . The very nature of some , especially of Institutes of women , requires a closer supervision . The Council o f Trent commanded Ordinaries to supervise the reception of their candidates and the observance o f

the . Cloister Papal laws , as has been noticed , ever and anon repeat the Tridentine admonitions and add many other provi ff sions . The Ordinary is responsible for the due and e ective pro m l i n u gato o f these decrees . But as a Special delegate o f the

h e Holy See , is obliged to safeguard freedom of conscience and the unrestricted access to the Sacrament of Penance according to “ ” n li the decree Cum de sacram e ta bu s . The fact that an Insti is O tute of women under the j urisdiction of an exempted rder , makes no infringement on this right of Bishops . Where his ordinary j urisdiction fails to supply the necessary power , a dele r gated ight comes to his assistance . An equally importa nt duty rests upon Ordinaries to preside as a Papal Delegate over Con vents or Chapters when the various offices are assigned in Com 1 niti 1 0 m u es . fr of Sisters To these , particular delegations are e quently added according to the peculiar“ nature o f some Institutes

2° nd ite t 6 on s Co a a s o a . . . C C t hri , C . II , 24 239 as en o . c. . . B ti , pp , i on . nd te r n 1 . s Co a a C s o . C t h i t , C I, . I N TH EIR EXT ER NAL RELATIONS 1 09

f and the va rying circumstances o f di ferent countries . These special faculties can be learned only from the respective indults .

This , then , finishes the purpose o f the present treatise . An effort has been made to outline the Religious Congregations ’ ex ternal relations , both canonically and historically . This led to the investigation of their nature , origin and development ; o f their foundation and ecclesiastical approval ; of the reception ,

ontifical bond , and expulsion of members ; and finally of their p

" and episcopal government . Considering the limitations and frailties o f human nature , the writer can hardly hope that his Sincere and laborious efforts have detected every truth or escaped every mistake . Hence the kind indulgence o f the reader is c solicited , i f errors or Short omings have crept into this short treatise . T B M V . . E . 1 1 0 RELIGIOUS CONGREGATIONS

1 1 2 R ELIGIOU S CONGR EGATIONS

t UT ER Li es o f S a n s . B L , v i

l d e oto . o Vo . G m . e . LLERI I u y . Co Th , BA N , r p l II v ni ue S TIEN i ec o e Cano q . BA , D r t ir f rm en u nd ran en T es e n . e u au RE O Die ba rm h err. S chw A B N AN , t r i B z g K k

pfl aege . m BELLI ZARI U S anua e Re u a u . , M l g l ri

'

l . BI zzARI Ana ec a Vo . , , , X , l t IV, V VI VII I

' ’ ' ' nnue . O C H Du d ro d ex ister d e con e a ons rel . non reco s B U E, it gr g ti i d o De R el io sis et e o . BI LLU ART S um m a S . Th os . , , g v t

d am en a s . T Mor . un BOU UILLON heo . F Q , l t li i 2m e G d e C anon ue d d . BATTANDI ER u q , , i it BOUDI N H ON Les Con e a i ons Re euses A r ic es in Le Canon s e , gr g t ligi , t l i t 2 Con em o a in Vol . 25 26 7 . t p r , , ,

BUGDALE Monasticon An ca num . , gli

P O De u a om ana . CAP ELL , C ri R

’ ‘ C RLIER L I nca acité d e ece o r d es con e a ion re i eu ses etd e eurs A , p r v i gr g t l gi l

m em bres .

im CRAI S S ON Des Com m unau és a oeu s es . , t v x pl ' — i RIS uaes ones canon co c i es d e s a u e oso . DA , Q ti i iv l t t r lig i ne D B D ex em to . E UCK, e p i d e fem m e D A Ins uc ons aux com m unau és e . s s . ECH M P S , tr ti t r l g

m i n EB EY Re io u s O d e s of Wo en n the U ed S tates . D , lig r r it R m na D LU C Relatio Cu ae o a e . E A, ri ’ i DEBUCK De e a re i eu en e que a u X X s ec e. , l t t lig x B lgi I l ’ 5t e t" BA m m e or. d D ANNI LE S u u a o . M , l Th l h i

I A S TI CA VI W Vo . 5 1 1 9 14 . Ec ES L RE E l , , i i n d e . rd nato e. T a Can. O G S RR c . S A PA I, r t

RR T ac n d e . uc . G S I . Ca . S S E h A PA , r t i G U ET En s onas c L fe. ASQ , gli h M t i

M r n . lit GE RI Consu a on o . Ca . NNA , lt zi i

- D P l De r m d m m B R t u a od u . R CO U E as ae st. c e e F AN H , p Q

R - Z d e et n e a i n l d fem m e ar s E E Les an O d s o o s re . e s H V BA IN, gr r r C gr g t , P i

1 889 .

R n r i n I n r - x HEU S E Co e a o , A . ch Le . , g g t rt Ki H I B H n n K n r nd M U C O d e u d o . o s . a E ER . , r g V l I II G r c d u e th om n ou r HILLIN P o e r a te R a C ts . ”

OH M oca ons 2 ols . H , V ti , v

H O N Die barm h erz e ern n B r m c w s vo e . a o ro eu L S a s . , , h t h ilig K rl OD R D Bei htateram tin F rauenkloestern E a s c v . J , OD R Da m m n n m n E s S a e vo os e d u c O d ensf auen. J , l Al r h r r T R i d . n i m l ed n un en f . t r li nn n E E E n s ae . e . Mae erord en u d K I , B g g i tritt g enos n a f en e se sc u sc . Oesterr u . d ei G . c w . h t D t h . S h z D m i li e n OH R e on a um etr ce . Co re ation m m uli r m E n e u confe s ri . K , t g g u s a o I N TH EIR EXTERNAL R ELATIONS 1 1 3

n r tn f m n LAN S LOTS H and oo for Re i ou s C o e a o s o Wo e . , B k l gi g g i l m n r l n e a o c s e . LENORM A NT De A ssoc a o s e . d a s C h , i ti t li i m m n n d e i eu LE EVNE La Con fes s on etla Co u o es g . J , i i r l i x

S S I U S Dis utatio d e s a u tae d eli end o etre o so in res su . LE , p t t vi g ligi g 3 d ed t n d e . r . LU CIDI De s ato e C . . , Vi it i , V M ( i ) i d e s sa . r l Can . Y P ae . MAN , M i P r l an . d e oc sacr s . Y ae . C s MAN , l i in i ne n d ato . l Ca d e . Or Y P rae . S MAN ,

ELOT De Ordinibu s etCon r . Re . M , g lig D e o nses anon u e et ratu es su r le ou e nem en EY R O . P . R s C q q M NA , p i p i g v r t

i r eu a oeu s m es 2 vol etd evo r s d es eligi ses v x i pl . P i n m IC H ELETTI u s a u . M , J N RDELLI Le Con e a ion reli i s e d i oti sem ci n ei ra o r con i A , gr g z i g v pli pp ti “ o n l n i te d i eo n vescovi s eco d o a boll a Co d a L e XIII . i R N R GNA De u e rac co e . E VE , j r P t g

i m im li i m R NA De I nstitut votoru s c u . NE VEG , s p

l ri r m reli ionem in rediendi NILLES De b e ta e c e co u . , li r t g g 3 l ra o . NOLDI N S um m a Theo . o s , s , l M li v ifi ii m r et u P ontc . O ETTI S yno s s Re u Mo . s J , p i r J ri

O ETTI De Rom ana Cur a . J , i D m in m i P SSERI I d e S e tu a e ho u statbu s etoffic s . A N , x l , ii

P E I ZA RI U S a nua e Re . LL , M l g

i il ii m P EYRI NI S De r v e s R e u a u . , p g g l ri

l i n r re l ri PI T P ra e ecto es u s u a s . A , j i g P N M n h m und arari kult tu s . REU S CH E , oe c S

‘ R D RI e n re r tcanonicae O E CU S ua s o es u a es e . , Q ti g l T RI RO A e . Mor e u m . U S Th o . R a u , l g l ri

AB TT - RR m n m 23 r e d I TT o e d u e M r . t. S E E C Th o . o d BA , p i , l ( i )

- R P r ele ti ne 3 3 6 S TI LEIT E a c o s L . . AN N , , , t

‘ i n l S A UVES TRE Le Co n re a o s re . , g g t D n n r li i n F r n n n h f en S CH E S e eu e e oese au e e os se sc a t . L , r g g

M A ZGR B R u a n n m n m R m 43 CH o d . 1 8 U s cu u e su e o L . . S L E E C . . b , J i iv r , it i III

r l F r n n ens h f n n C H U Die neu . e S e r . au e os s c a te un ih r ie e e d . e u n . PPE, g B z h g z r r n O tsp fa re .

C H Di l l n r F r n n n h bs tverv tun d . eu e e aue e o s sc a ften S U E e S e a . . se PP , g r lig g

n i Di z e n Bish f u d Verh aeln Z . ihr s s oe sa o .

H n d . e n eu F r en n n h f n C U tud e ueb . e e te . S E S . e . au o ss sc a PP , i r lig r g B A TI A N I P r el cti ne 2 l l i S S L a e o s . . d ed . Vo . De Re r bu . E EL C . . a s . u a s , J it I P r II g S C H U E DaS Wes en und Rechtsverh aeltnis s e d e r n eu eren F rauen enos PP , g n h ften se sc a .

H R R nd u d n - l. 69 8 n ie zi a c . c e ec 8 8 0 . a a d S E E es Vo . G , H b h Kir h r ht II , p r z L p g, 1 89 8 .

S P REI TZEN H OFER Die En w c u n d es en Moen htm c u . , t i kl g Alt 1 1 4 RELIGIOUS CONGREGATIONS

T T 88 . . H OM S I . S A , II , I , q

U REZ De i ute etsta u reli ionis a s . 2a . S A , v rt t g ( P r )

R m 4 T 7 d R l e d e o. To . 1 ac e e . t o U Z . S A E , r t , V t

TOU C H ET La secularisa on des con re anistes d e an le droi canon. , ti g g v t t l n i n c m m e rel TYCK N o ices s o ue sur es co re ato s eto unants . , t hi t riq g g i 33 t . ES EN us . ecc . P . T . VAN P , J l I, D i l i m l ri ri tofii ci i s ERH O VE e re u ar um ets aecu ar u c e corum u bus e . V E N, g l j 2 R d R l tn . v V RM EE S CH e e . e s o s . E , I t l i VERM EERS CH e ious Cato ic Enc . , R l g ; h l y i i 7 l VERM EERS CH e od ca o s . , P r , v ’ TE U Les lois d e l E lise sur la confession etla com m union d es te VI A , g li i g euses . RNz u Dec retlium T m W s a o . I E . , J , II

UNIVERSITAS CATH OLI CA A M ERI CA E

WAS H I NGTONI I . . , D C

TH O OGI CA S . FACULTAS E L

1 91 5 - 1 91 6

T I T ULI

I I . N . . HORA IX A . M DIE V JU A D MCMXVI i De Potestate Legislativa Ecclesiae Cath ol ca e . i i De Legi slatoribu s Ecclesia stc s .

i rum De Obj ecto Legum Ecclesia stca .

i i m De I nterp retatione Legum Eccles astca ru .

De Corpore Juris .

De R egulis Juris in Genere .

n r P ntific m De Decretis Rom a o u m o u .

i n r i Con re ato um . De Dec ets S S . g g

n ifi cis De Electione Romani P o t .

De Civili Veto seu Exclusiva .

R m n Dic trii De o a a e Curiae as e s in Genere .

De Congrega tione Negotiis R eligiosa rum S od alium r si P a epo ta .

n r i n C e at e . X III . De o g g o de Propaganda Fide

‘ Vica rii De s Apostolicis .

De Cardinali P rotectore super Ordines etCongrega tioneS .

u ribu is c rum i De J s Ep opo Ordinandi Relig osos .

isc o rum R li i i I n i i De Ep op Jurisdictione in e g os s sttuts .

C ad tri i c m De o j u o bu s Ep s oporu .

P a roch o B i m i De quoad Sacramentum apts .

P a roch o De quoad Sacramentum Matrimonii .

P r De a och o quoad Religiosas Congregationes .

De Potestate P a rochi qu oad Au diend a s R eligiosorum etR eli iosa rum g Con fessiones .

Cleric ru m I n re ien i R eli i nem De Privilegio o g d d g o .

De T ra ns itu Religiosorum etR eligiosa rum ad Aliud I n i m sttu tu .

‘ x em i ne Reli i s m r in m I n i XXV . De E pto g o oru O d u et sttu

torum . i R li i i I nstittis De Usu Kalend ari in e g os s u . i De S aecularizatione R eligiosorum Cler corum . i i De Tertiis Ordinibus La c s .

n fr rn i De Co ate itatbus .

r i De O atori s .

Ali n i n ccl i i r m De e ato e Bonorum E es astco u . i i i De Lege Contrahendi Debita in R elig osis I nsttuts .

De Sepultura Ecclesiastica .

De I ii Quae P raem itti B ebent Celebrationi Matri

m oni i .

Di ri i De Impedimento spa tats Cultus . Vi De Impedimento s etMetus .

l n i i De Impedimento C a d estn tatis j uxta Ne Temere .

A ta i De Impedimento e ts .

n i De Impedimento Publicae H o estats .

n i ni iri i De Impedimento Cog ato s S p tual s .

r n c i n De T a sa to e .

De Foro Competenti .

r i i De A b tr s .

A v c ti De d o a s .

Te ti De s bus .

De Judiciis in Cansis Ex pulsionis etDim is sionis Re li i s rum g o o .

De Dolo .

Contum n i De ac a .

De Delicto Ecclesiastico Eiusque Constitutivis in

Genere .

Concu rsu P lurium m De Personarum in Idem Delictu .

De Applicatione Legis P oenalis Ad Delicta Eccle S ia i stca .

A V I T .

F i . rerik u Celest ne A s was born o f D tch parents at Essen , Ger

9th 1 6 he his 87 . many , March , When was four years of age parents emigrated to the United States and established their per~

O . manent domicile at Corning , hio Here he received his early

‘ d r e ucation in the State school , but completed the prima y grades

’ P ro i l in the a c a school o f St . Bernard s parish under the guidance

o f the Sisters of Charity of Nazareth , Kentucky . Upon the

six - success ful completion o f the year academic and collegiate , course with the Fathers of the Most Precious Blood of College

’ ville , Indiana , St . Joseph s College conferred on him the degree .

9 t. of Bachelor of Arts in 1 06 . In the same year he entered S

Charles Seminary of the S ociety of the Most Precious Blood .

2l st1 9 1 1 December , , the Society presented him to His Grace ,

the Most Reverend Henry Moeller , Archbishop o f Cincinnati

for ordination to the Priesthood . The following year he entered

- t e the Catholic University o f America for a post gradua e cours ,

choosing for his maj or study Canon Law under the direction o f

Dr . Creagh , and subsequently of Dr . Bernardini ; and for his

minors , Moral and Sacramental Theology under Dr . Melody and

. O . . I n Dr Kennedy , P He attended , moreover , the course in

trial d u s . . Ethics of Dr Ryan Gladly , therefore , does he avail h imsel f of this occasion o f publicly thanking the various teachers

- for their valuable assistance and never failing kindness .