 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
We all have within us that vague and generalidea of the religious life which enables us to recognize it when it is described as a life directed to personal perfection, or a life seeking union withGod. Under this twofold aspect it is met with in all ages and places: everysoul possesses an inclination to good, and an inclination towardsGod. There are everywheresouls that willingly follow these inclinations and consequently religioussouls. Sometimes they attach more importance to the tendency to self-perfection, sometimes to the tendency towardsGod; in other words, to the ascetic tendency or the mystical tendency; but sinceGod is the end of man, the two tendencies are so similar as to be practically one. If the Creator has put into oursouls the principle of religious life, we must expect not only to find it, more and less intense, in every religion, but also to see it reveal itself in similar ways. We should not be surprised if outside thetrue Church there should bepersons devoted to contemplation, solitude, and sacrifice; but we are notobliged to conclude that ourChristian practices are necessarily derived from theirs, since theinstincts ofhumannature sufficiently account for the resemblance. Such an explanation would not explain the origin of these practices: if we are indebted for the monasticism of Pachomius to the worshippers of Serapis, where did they find their inspiration? Nor would the explanation account for the results: whence comes it that monachism has covered not only the East, andAsia, but also Africa,Europe, and the whole of the West?
In our days the historical derivation of certain usages is a thing of small importance; we may admit without hesitation any connexion which isproved, but not one which is merely assumed. TheIsraelites may have borrowed fromEgypt the practice ofcircumcision, which was the sign of their covenant withJehovah; and so certain ascetic practices, even if they had apagan origin, were nevertheless, as employed by ourmonks and religious,Catholic andChristian in meaning and inspiration. Moreover, not everydoctrine or practice of afalse religion is necessarilyerroneous or reprehensible; there may be great nobility of character amongBuddhistmonks orMussulman dervishes, as there may be faults sullying the monastic or religious habits worn in thetrue Church.
We need not here present a comparative analysis of theChristian religious life and the religious life of non-Christians, nor even compare our religious with the servants ofGod in theOld Testament (seeANCHORITES;ASCETICISM;BUDDHISM;ESSENES;MONASTICISM). But how are we to recognize thereligious life of thetrue and Divine religion? Not by bodilymortifications, which may be surpassed in severity by those of the fakirs; not bymystical ecstasies and raptures, which were experienced by those initiated into the Greek and Oriental mysteries, and are still met with amongBuddhistmonks and dervishes; not even by the faultless lines of all the plans ofCatholic religious life, forGod, who desires progress even in HisChurch, has permitted rough beginnings, experiments, and individual mistakes; but even thepersons making these mistakes possess in thetrue religion the principles which ensure correction and gradual improvement. Besides, in its entirety, thereligious life of thetrue religion must appear to us to be in conformity with the moral and sociallaws of our present existence, as well as with our destiny; its intentions must appear sincerely directed towards personal sanctification, towardsGod, and the Divine order. The tree must everywhere be known by its fruits. Now,Catholic religious lifeinfinitely surpasses all other ascetic systems by thetruth and beauty of thedoctrine laid down in so many rules and treatises, and by the eminentsanctity of its followers such as Saints Anthony, Pachomius, Basil Augustine, Colombanus,Gregory, and others, and finally, especially in the West, by the marvellous fruitfulness of its work for the benefit ofmankind. After these preliminary observations, we may confidently look for thetrue religious life in the Gospel.
We cannot regard as essential everything that we find in the full development of religious life, without ignoring historical facts or refusing them the attention they deserve; and we must correct the definitions ofScholastic writers, and lessen some of their requirements, if we wish to put ourselves in harmony with history, and not be compelled to assign to religious a later origin, which would separate them by too long a period from the first preaching of the Gospel which they profess to practise in the most perfect manner. The Scriptures tell us that perfection consists in thelove ofGod and our neighbour, or to speak more accurately, in a charity which extends fromGod to our neighbour, finding its motive inGod, and the opportunity for its exercise in our neighbour. We say "it has its motive in God", and for that reasonChrist tells us that the second commandment is like to the first (Matthew 22:39); "and the opportunity for its exercise in our neighbour", as St. John says: "If any man say, IloveGod, and hateth his brother, he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother, whom he seeth, how can heloveGod, whom he seeth not?" (1 John 4:20). TheNew Testament warns us of the obstacles to this charity arising from an attachment to and desire of created things, and from the cares caused by their possession, and, therefore, besides this precept of charity, our observance of which is the measure of our perfection, theNew Testament gives us a general counsel to be disengaged from everything contrary to charity. This counsel contains certain definite directions, among the most important of Which are the renunciation of riches, of carnal pleasure, and of allambition and self-seeking, in order to acquire a spirit ofvoluntary submission and generous devotion to the service ofGod and our neighbour.
AllChristians are bound to obey theseprecepts, and to follow the spirit of these counsels; and a fervour like that of the firstChristians will enable them to free themselves from attachment to earthly things in order to set their affections onGod and the things ofheaven; while the remembrance of the shortness of this life facilitates the sacrifice of wealth and natural pleasures. The first converts ofJerusalem acted on this principle, and sold their possessions and goods, laying the proceeds at the feet of the apostles. But experience, by whichChrist wished His faithful to be taught, soon corrected theirerrors on the Subject of the future of the world, and showed the practical impossibility of a complete renunciation by all members of theChurch.Christiansociety can no more continue without resources and without children than thesoul can exist without the body; it has need of men engaged in lucrative professions, as well as ofChristian marriages andChristianfamilies. In short, according to the designs ofGod who bestows a diversity of gifts, there must also be a diversity of operations (1 Corinthians 12:4, 6). Every kind of career should be represented in theChurch, and one of these should include those who make profession of the practice of the Evangelical counsels. Suchpersons are not necessarily more perfect than others, but they adopt the best means of attaining perfection; their final object and supreme destiny are the same as those of others, but they are charged with theduty of reminding others of that destiny and of the means of fulfilling it; and they pay for this favoured position by thesacrifices which it entails, and the benefit which others derive from their teaching and example. This life which, in view of the great precept, follows the Evangelical counsels, is called the religious life; and those who embrace it are called religious.
At first sight, it would seem that this life ought to unite in itself all the counsels scattered through the Gospels: that would indeed be the religion of counsels; and certainly, the more fully it inspires the desire and furnishes the means of following the Evangelical counsels, the more fully is it a religious life; but a perfect realization of those counsels is impossible to man; the opportunity of practising them all does not present itself in every man's life, and one would quickly be worn out if he attempted to keep them all continually in view. We soon learn to distinguish those that are more essential and characteristic, and more calculated to ensure that freedom from whatever hinders thelove ofGod and of our neighbour, which should be the distinguishing mark of the perfect life. From this point of view, two counsels are put prominently forward in theNew Testament asnecessary for perfection, namely the counsel of poverty: "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor" (Matthew 19:21), and the counsel of perfect chastity practised for the sake of thekingdom of heaven (cf.Matthew 19:12, and1 Corinthians 7:37-40, and the commentary ofCornely on the latter).
These two counsels teach us what we have to avoid; but it remains for a man to fill his life with acts of perfection, to followChrist in His life of charity towardsGod andmen, or, since this would be perfection itself, to devoted his life to an occupation which will make it tend towards union withGod or the service of his neighbour; Religious life then is made perfect by a definite profession either of retirement and contemplation or ofpious activity; The profession, negative as well as positive, is placed under the control and direction ofecclesiastical authority, which is entrusted with theduty of leading men in the ways ofsalvation andholiness. Submission to this authority, which may interfere more or less as times and circumstances require, is therefore anecessary part of religious life. In this is manifested obedience as a counsel which governs and even supplements the two others, or rather as a conditional precept, to be observed by all who desire to profess the perfect life. The religious life which is pointed out to us by the Evangelical counsels is a life of charity and of union withGod, and the great means it employs to this end is freedom and detachment from everything that could in any manner prevent or impair that union. From another point of view it is a devotion, a specialconsecration toChrist andGod, to whom everyChristian acknowledges that he belongs.St. Paul tells us: "You are not your own" (1 Corinthians 6:19); and again "All [things] are yours, and you areChrist's, andChrist isGod's" (1 Corinthians 3:22, 23).
TheChristian virgins were the first to profess a life distinguished from the ordinary life by its tendency to perfection; continence and sometimes the renunciation of riches, attached them specially toChrist. (SeeNUNS.) The Fathers of the first century mention them, and those of the second century praise their mode of living. Shortly after the virgins appeared those whomClement of Alexandria (Pædagog., I, 7, in P.G., VIII, 320) calledasketai and whom theLatin Church called "confessores". They also made profession of chastity, and sometimes of poverty, as in the case ofOrigen andSt. Cyprian. In the Liturgy, they took rank before the virgins, and after the ostiarii or door-keepers.Eusebius (Church History III.37) mentions among the "ascetics" the greatestpontiffs of the first ages,St. Clement of Rome,St. Ignatius of Antioch,St. Polycarp, and others.
We find in the third century the first distinct traces of the kind of life in which thereligious profession becomes by degrees perfected and brought under rule, that of themonks. The note which characterizes them at first is their seclusion from the world, and theirlove of retirement. Till then virgins and ascetics had edified the world by keeping themselves pure in the midst of corruption, and recollected in the midst of dissipation; themonks endeavoured to edify it by avoiding and contemning all that the world esteems most highly and declares indispensable. Thus the life of the solitary and themonk is a life of austerity as well of retirement. The world which sent travellers (cf. the "Lausiac History" ofPalladius) to contemplate them was astonished at the heroism of their penance. The religious life took the form of awar against nature. Thepersecution ofDecius (about 250) gave thedesert its first greathermit, Paul ofThebes; otherChristians too sought refuge there from their tormentors. Anthony, on the contrary, at the age of 20 years, was won by that appeal which saddened and discouraged the rich young man of the Gospel, "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor" (Matthew 19:21). He had disciples, and instituted the monastic villages, in which seekers after perfection, living retired from the world, found comfort and encouragement in the example of brethren following the same profession.St. Pachomius, a contemporary of St. Anthony, brought all hismonks together under one roof, thus founding the cenobitic life.
Paul, Anthony, and Pachomius gave lustre to thedeserts ofEgypt. We need not dwell here upon the parallel development ofSyrian monasticism, in which the names of Hilarion, Simeon Stylites, and Alexander the founder of theacoemeti, were famous, or on that ofAsia Minor, or give an account of the dawn of monastic life inEurope and Africa. Our task is only to depict the main features of religious life and its successive transformations. From this point of view, special mention is due to the great lawgiver of the Greekmonks,St. Basil. Comparing the solitary and the cenobitic life, he points out one great advantage in the latter, namely the opportunity which it offers for practising charity to one's neighbour; and while deprecating excessivemortifications into which vanity and evenpride may enter, he exhorts the superior to moderate the exterior life reasonably. St. Basil also permitted hismonks to undertake theeducation of children; although he was glad to find some of these children embracing the monastic life, he wished them to do so of their own accord and with fullknowledge, and he did not permit the liberty of a son or daughter to be restrained by an offering made by theparents.St. Augustine in the common life which he led with theclergy ofHippo, gives us, likeSt. Eusebius at Vercelli, a first outline of canonical life. He institutedmonasteries ofnuns, and wrote for them in 427 a letter which, enriched with extracts from the writings ofSt. Fulgentius, became therule known by the name of St. Augustine. St. Columbanus, anIrishmonk (d. 615), under whose name a very rigid rule was propagated inIreland, was the apostle and civilizer of several countries ofEurope, notably ofGermany.
After this rapid glance at the origin of the religious life we may now consider its principal characteristics.
The life of themonks, more systematized than that of the Virgins and ascetics, was, as such, entirely directed to their personal sanctification: contemplation and victory over the flesh were bound above all to lead to this result. Themonks did not aspire toHoly orders, or rather they desired not to receive them.St. John Chrysostom exhorted them to be animated byChristian charity which willingly consents to bear heavy burdens, and without whichfasting andmortification are of no profit at all.
As goodChristians, they owed obedience to theirbishop in religious matters, and their profession, if they rightly understood its spirit, made prompt and complete submission easy. But religious obedience, as we understand it now, began only with the cenobitical life, and at the time of which we speak there was nothing tooblige the cenobite to remain in themonastery. The cenobitic life was also combined with the solitary life in such a way that, after a sufficient formation by the common discipline, themonk gaveproof of his fervour by retiring into solitude in order to fight hand-to-hand against the enemy of hissalvation, and to find in independence a compensation for the greater severity of his life.
Poverty then consisted for thehermits in the renunciation of worldly goods, and in the most sparing use of food, clothing, and all necessaries. The cenobites were forbidden to enjoy any separateproperty, and had to receive from their superior or theprocurator everything they needed for their use; they were not, however, incapable of possessingproperty.
Having once entered the religious life, the virgin, the ascetic, and themonk felt a certainobligation to persevere. Marriage or return to the world would be such inconstancy as to merit the reproach ofChrist, "No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for thekingdom of God" (Luke 9:62). Still we have no evidence to prove that there was a strictobligation, and there were novows properly so called: even for virgins, the passages fromTertullian andSt. Cyprian, on which somepersons rely, are capable of another interpretation. Certainly awoman who was bound toJesus Christ by a profession of virginity, and fell intosin, was liable to very severe canonical penalties; butSt. Cyprian who regarded such aperson as an adulterous bride ofChrist, permitted the marriage of such as were not able to observe continency (see Koch, "Virgines Christi" in "Texte und Untersuchungen", 1907). The oldestdecretal we possess, that of St. Siricius to the Bishop Himerius (385), brands withinfamy the carnal intercourse ofmonks and virgins, but the question of a regular marriage is not considered (C. XXVII, q. 1, c. 11, or P.L., XIII, 137). Schenute, it istrue, introduced a form ofvow, or rather ofoath, of which the Coptic text has been discovered; but the very reflections which he made before introducing it appear to show that it had no other effect than to secure the execution even in secret of theobligations already contracted by entrance into themonastery: thesevows therefore may be compared to thevows made atbaptism. No term is specified for their duration, but Leclercq (in Cabrol, "Dict. d'arch. chrét.", s.v. Cénobitisme) presumes that theobligation continued during the term of residence in themonastery. The text is as follows, taken from theGerman translation of Leipolt: — "Covenant. I promise (or I swear) beforeGod in His holy temple, in which the word that I have spoken is my witness, that I will not defile my body in any way, I will not steal, I will not bearfalse witness, I will not lie, I will not do wrong in secret. If I break myoath, I am willing not to enter into thekingdom of heaven, although I were in sight of it. [On this passage, cfr. Peeters, in "Analecta Bollandiana", 1905, 146.]God, before whom I have made this covenant, will then destroy my body andsoul inhell, for I should have broken theoath of allegiance that I have taken." And later on occurs this passage: "As for contradiction, disobedience, murmuring, contention, obstinacy, or any such things, these faults are quite manifest to the whole community" (Leipolt, "Schenuti von Atripe" in "Texte und Untersuchungen", 1903, p. 109).
The canons of the Council ofGangra (330) first introduced thelaw relating to regulars by the recommendations which they address to virgins, continentpersons, and those who retire from worldly affairs, to practise more faithfully the generalduties ofpiety towardsparents, children, husband or wife, and to avoid vanity orpride. Other particular councils, that of Alexandria (362), of Saragossa (380), the Fifth Synod of Africa (401), and a council held underSt. Patrick inIreland (about 480), decided other matters connected with the religious life. The GeneralCouncil of Chalcedon (451) makes the erection ofmonasteries dependent on the consent of thebishop. The Councils of Arles (about 452) and Angers (455) sanction theobligation of perseverance. The sameCouncil of Arles and the Synods of Carthage held in 525 and 534 forbade any interference with theabbot in the exercise of his authority over hismonks, reserving tobishops theordination ofclerics in themonastery, and theconsecration of the oratory.
We have now arrived at the sixth century. It will benecessary to go back a little in order to notice the immense influence of St. Basil (331-79) over thereligious life of the East and the West. The principles which he lays down and justifies in his answers to thedoubts of the religious ofAsia Minor, that is in what are called the shorter and longer rules, inform and guide the religious of the present day. St. Benedict was inspired by these as well as by the writings ofSt. Augustine and Cassian in writing his rule, which from the eighth to the twelfth century regulated, it may be said, the wholereligious life of the West. In order to put an end to the capricious changes from one house to another, the patriarch of Westernmonks introduced thevow of stability, which bound themonk to remain in the house in which he made his profession. The reforms of themonasteries in the tenth and eleventh centuries gave rise to aggregations ofmonasteries, which prepared the way for the religious orders of the thirteenth century. We may mention theCongregation of Cluny founded by St. Odo (abbot from 927 to 942) which, in the twelfth century grouped more than 200monasteries under the authority of theabbot of the principalmonastery, and of the Congregation ofCîteaux, of the eleventh century, to which theTrappists belong, and of whichSt. Bernard was the principal light. Less for the sake of reform than of perfection, and of adapting to a special end the combination of the cenobitic anderemitic life, St. Romuald (d. 1027) founded theCamaldolese Order, and St. John Gualbert (d. 1073) the Congregation of Vallombrosa. From the eleventh century also (1084) date theCarthusians, who have needed no reform to maintain them in their pristine fervour. St. Basil and St. Benedict were expressly concerned only with personal perfection, to which their disciples were to be led by leaving the world and renouncing all earthly wealth and natural affections. Their life was a life of obedience andprayer, interrupted only by work. Theirprayer principally consisted in singing theDivine Office. But when it wasnecessary, themonks did not refuse to undertake thecure of souls; and theirmonasteries have given to theChurchpopes,bishops, and missionarypriests. We need only recall the expedition organized bySt. Gregory the Great for the conversion ofEngland. Study was neither ordered not forbidden: St. Benedict, when he accepted in hismonasteries children offered by theirparents, undertook the task ofeducation, which naturally led to the foundation ofschools and studies.Cassiodorus (477-570) employed hismonks in the arts andsciences and in the transcription ofmanuscripts.
Manybishops endeavoured to imitateSt. Augustine andSt. Eusebius, and to live a common life with theclergy of their Church. Rules taken from the sacred canons were even drawn up for their use, of which the most celebrated is that ofSt. Chrodegang,Bishop ofMetz (766). In the tenth century, this institution declined; the canons, as theclergy attached to a church and living a common life were called, began to live separately; some of them, however resisted this relaxation of discipline, and even added poverty to their common life. This is the origin of the canons regular.Benedict XII by his Constitution "Ad decorem" (15 May, 1339) prescribed a general reform of the canons regular. Among the canons regular of the present day, we may mention theCanons Regular of the Lateran or St. Saviour, who seem to date back toAlexander II (1063), thePremonstratensian Canons founded bySt. Norbert (1120), and theCanons Regular of the Holy Cross founded at Clair-lieu, near Huy, inBelgium, in 1211. The canons regularex professo unitedHoly orders with religious life, and being attached to a church, devoted themselves to promoting the dignity of Divine worship. Withmonks,Holy orders are accidental and secondary, and are superadded to the religious life; with canons as with the clerks regular,Holy orders are the principal thing, and the religious life is superadded to theHoly orders.
Theheretics of the end of the twelfth and beginning of the thirteenth century reproachedchurchmen with theirlove of riches, and the laxity of their lives;St. Dominic and St. Francis offered on the contrary the edifying spectacle of fervent religious, who forbade their followers the possession of wealth or revenues, even in common. Themendicant orders are marked by two characteristics: poverty, practised in common; and the mixed life, that is the union of contemplation with the work of the sacred ministry. Moreover, themendicant orders present the appearance of a religious army, the soldiers of which are moved about by their superiors without being attached to any particularconvent, and recognize ahierarchy of local, provincial, and general superiors. The order, or at least the province, takes the place of themonastery. Other important points may be noticed: themendicant orders are founded only by favour of an expressapprobation of thesovereign pontiff, who approves their rules or constitutions. They adopt the form ofvows which relates explicitly to poverty, chastity, and obedience, which was occasioned by the famous dispute in theFranciscan Order. TheFranciscans were founded by St. Francis in 1209; they are now divided into three orders recognized as really belonging to the common stock:
TheDominicans, orFriars Preachers, go back to 1215. Since 1245, theCarmelites, transplanted fromAsia intoEurope, have formed a thirdmendicant order.Alexander IV added a fourth by his Constitution "Licet" (2 May, 1256) which united under the name ofSt. Augustine several congregations ofhermits: these are theHermits of St. Augustine. TheServites were added in 1256 as a fifthmendicant order; and there are others. (SeeFRIAR.)
Before we pass to a later period, it isnecessary to mention certain institutes of a quite special character. Themilitary orders date from the twelfth century, and while observing all the essentialobligations of religious life, they had for their object the defence of the cause of Christ by force of arms; among these were the Knights of Malta, formerly called theEquestrian Order of St. John of Jerusalem (1118), the Order ofTeutonic Knights (1190), the Order ofKnights Templars (1118), suppressed byClement V at the Council of Vienne (1312), at the urgent request of the King ofFrance, Philippe-le-Bel.
The misfortunes ofChristendom were the cause of the foundation of orders vowed to the most excellent works of mercy, namely, the Redemption of Captives; the Trinitarians (Order of theMost Holy Trinity), andMercedarians (Order of Our Lady of the Redemption of Captives). Both these date from the thirteenth century, the first being founded by St. John of Malta andSt. Felix of Valois, the second bySt. Peter Nolasco and St. Raymond of Pennafort. They follow theRule of St. Augustine and aremendicant orders.
The hospitaller orders are specially devoted to the relief of bodily infirmities; most of them are of comparatively recent origin. The most celebrated of all, theOrder of Brothers of St. John of God, dates from 1572; the Cellite Brothers were approved byPius II in 1459; theBrothers Hospitallers of St. Anthony were approved byHonorius III in 1218.
Themendicant orders were one of the glories of the laterMiddle Ages. Fresh needs led in the sixteenth century to a new form of religious life, that of the clerks regular. These arepriests first of all, even in respect of their mode of life, and their dress: they have no peculiarity of costume; they undertake allduties suitable topriests, and attend to all the spiritual necessities of their neighbour, especially theeducation of the young, which themendicant orders had never attempted. Being clerks and not canons, they escaped at the same time the inconvenience of having a title ofhonour and of being bound to any particular church; many of them take avow not only not to seek forecclesiastical dignities, but even not to accept them. The first were theTheatines, founded in 1524 bySt. Cajetan and Cardinal Peter Caraffa, laterPaul IV; then came theBarnabites, or Regular Clerics of St. Paul, founded in 1533 bySt. Anton Maria Zaccaria; theClerks Regular of Somascha, founded bySt. Jerome Emiliani, and approved in 1540, the same year which saw the beginning of theSociety of Jesus. We may mention also theClerks Regular Ministering to the Sick, called Camilians after their founder, St. Camillus de Lellis (1591). Several institutions of clerks regular, notably theSociety of Jesus, make profession also of poverty in common and are thus at the same time clerks regular andmendicant orders.
Till the sixteenth century, the orders of the West were distinguished by their object, their hierarchical organization, their patrimonial system, and the number of theirvows; but the nature of thevows remained the same. Thevows, at least the essentialvows of religion, were perpetual, and made solemn by profession. Even when the tertiaries of St. Dominic and of St. Francis began to form communities, they distinguished themselves from the first and second orders by the rule they adopted but not by the nature of theirvows, which remained solemn. The tertiarynun communities of St. Dominic received (1281-91) a rule from theDominican general, Munio of Zamora; and communities, both of men and ofwomen, were founded in the thirteenth century with the tertiary Rule of St. Francis. In this way, manyworks of charity were prevented. But in the sixteenth centuryLeo X by his Constitution "Inter cetera", 20 Jan., 1521, appointed a rule for communities of tertiaries with simplevows, according to which those only who promisedclausura wereobliged to observe it.St. Pius V rejected this class of congregation by his two Constitutions, "Circa pastoralis" (29 May, 1566), and "Lubricum vitæ genus" (17 November, 1568). They continued, however, to exist, and even increased in number, first tolerated, and afterwards approved by thebishops; and subsequently recognized by theHoly See, which, in view of the difficulties of the circumstances, has for more than a hundred years ceased to permit solemnvows in new congregations. These are the religious congregations of men andwomen to whomLeo XIII gave their canonical charter by his Constitution "Conditæ a Christo" (8 December, 1900). We may mention here an innovation introduced by St. Ignatius, who in theSociety of Jesus imposed simplevows for a period preceding the solemnvows, and associated with the fathers professed by solemnvows,priests andlay brothers bound by simplevows only.
TheEastern Church, even that part of it which has remained in communion withRome, has never known the life and many-sided vitality of the orders of the West: we find in it Monks of St. Anthony, and others ofSt. Pachomius; almost all themonasteries areBasilian. As thepriests of theGreek Rite are not compelled to leave the wives whom they have legally married, and ascelibacy is neverthelessobligatory for thebishops, the latter are regularly chosen from among themonks. From another point of view, the unchanging East shows us in themonks of the present day, the institutions of the first ages of cenobitic life.
In our rapid survey of the different religious orders, we have seen something of the evolution of the religious life. The Gospel clearly shows us virginity and continence as means, and charity as the end; persecutions necessitated retirement and a first form of life entirely directed towards personal sanctification; community life produced obedience; the inconveniences caused by frequent change of residence suggested thevow of stability; the excessive multiplication and diversity of religious institutes called for the intervention of thesovereign pontiff and his expressapprobation of rules; the needs ofsoul and body grafted the practice of corporal and spiritual works of mercy upon personal sanctification, and joined the reception ofHoly orders toreligious profession; while the exigencies and difficulties of modern times caused the making of simplevows antecedent to, or in substitution for, solemnvows.
In all these stages, the profession of the Evangelical counsels has been most carefully regulated by theChurch. In the existing structure, some parts are fixed and regarded as essential, others are accidental and subject to change; we may then ask what is essential to fully developed religious life. The religious state, to be perfect, requires;
The religious state then is defined, as the mode of life, irrevocable in its nature of men who profess to aim at the perfection ofChristian charity in the bosom of theChurch by the three perpetualvows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.
The religious state may exist in the proper sense without solemnvows, asGregory XIII showed in his Constitutions "Quanto fructuosius" (2 July, 1583) and"Ascendente Domino" (25 May, 1584), declaring that the scholastics of theSociety of Jesus were really religious; without community life, for thehermits were religious in the strictest sense of the word; without oral or written profession, since until the time ofPius IX, even tacit or implied profession was considered sufficient; without express and formalapprobation byecclesiastical authority, as this has only been insisted upon since theFourth Lateran Council (1215), confirmed by theSecond Council of Lyons (1274). Before this time it was enough not to have been repudiated byecclesiastical authority. However, in actual practice, the express intervention ofecclesiastical authority is required; this authority may be that of theApostolic See or of thebishop. Many institutes exist and flourish with theapprobation of thebishop alone; but, since the Motu Proprio "Dei providentis" (16 July, 1906), thebishop before establishing an institute must obtain the writtenapprobation of theHoly See.
Again, theChurch, while not condemning the solitary life, no longer accepts it as religious. Formerly, a religious did not necessarily form a part of an approved institute; there werepersons simply called professed, as well as professed in such an institute or such amonastery. At the present day, a religious always begins by entering some approved religiousfamily; only in exceptional cases of expulsion or final secularization, does it happen that a religious ceases to have any connexion with some particular institute, and in such cases thebishop becomes his only superior. TheChurch insists on the use of a habit, by which the religious are distinguished from secularpersons. A distinctive habit is always required fornuns; theclerical habit is sufficient for men. Those approved institutes whose members may be taken for seculars out of doors, lack that public profession which characterizes the religious state, in the sight of theChurch, according to theDecree of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 11 August, 1889.
The question has long been discussed whether the religious state involves a donation of oneself, or whether thevows, as such, are sufficient. By such donation the religious not only binds himself to be poor, chaste etc., but he no longer belongs to himself; he is theproperty ofGod, as much as and even more than a slave was formerly theproperty of his master. To show that this alienation of oneself is notnecessary, it is sufficient to observe that if every religious ceased to belong to himself either for the purpose of marriage, or for the possession ofproperty any contrary acts would be null and void from the beginning; now this nullity has not always existed, and does not exist for all religious at the present day. In reality then the religious state consists strictly in the perpetual engagement, the source of which is found at present in the threevows.
The formal intervention of theChurch has the effect of introducing the religious life into the public worship ofCatholicism. As long as the promise or thevow remains a purely personal matter, the religious can offer himself toGod only in his own name; his homage and hisholocaust are private. TheChurch, in ratifying and sanctioning his engagement, deputes the religious to profess in the name of theChristian community his complete devotion toGod. He isconsecrated especially by solemn profession, like a temple or aliturgicalprayer, to givehonour toGod.
In practice, when offering himself toGod, the religious also contractsobligations to the order whose child he becomes. Does the religious state in itself contemplate any suchobligation of submission to an organizedsociety, or to a director or confessor? There is nothing more natural, it istrue, than that aperson, who does not profess himself perfect but a simple aspirant after perfection, should choose for himself a master and guide; but even this does not seem to be essential. The ancienthermits were free from all such subordination; even thepope may be a member of a religious order: the only essential obedience seems to be that which every man owes to the hierarchical Church, and to those whom she clothes with her authority.
The essential unity of the religious life is consistent with a great variety which is one of the glories of theChurch, and permits a larger number of men to find areligious profession adapted to their needs and dispositions, and multiplies the services which religious render toChristiansociety andmankind in general. Besides the common end of religious life, which makes it aschool of perfection, the different orders have special objects of their own, which divide them into contemplative, active, and mixed orders. The contemplative orders devote themselves to union withGod in a life of solitude and retirement; the active orders expend their energy in doing good to men. If their activity is spiritual in its objects and requires contemplation for its attainment, they are mixed orders; such as those which are devoted to preaching and highereducation. The orders keep the name of active order if they devote themselves to corporal works of mercy, such as the care of sickpersons andorphans. The dominant note of their mode of life gives us, as we have seen,clerical, monastic,mendicant, military, and hospitaller orders. Thevows divide them into orders with simplevows and solemnvows: even the number ofvows differs in different institutes. There remain still two other points of difference which require to be considered, namely the juridical condition, which distinguishes religious orders from congregations, and the rule.
If the monastic life has sometimes appeared incompatible with those sacred functions which drew themonk out of his silence and retreat (seeDecree of Gratian, c. XVI, q. 1, c. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11), the simple division into contemplative and mixed orders shows the mistake of thosepersons who have represented the religious life as inconsistent with the sacred ministry, as ifpiety were opposed to charity, orapostolic zeal did not presuppose and foster thelove ofGod. Thiserror, which had already been refuted bySt. Thomas in his "Contra impugnantes religionem", ch. iv, directed againstWilliam of St. Amour, was renewed in theJansenistpseudo-Council of Pistoia and condemned by the Constitution"Auctorem Fidei" of 1794, prop. 80. In the course of the last century, Verhoeven, a professor ofLouvain, in a pamphlet entitled "De regularium et sæcularium juribus et officiis", maintained that, according to the spirit of theChurch, religious ought not to take any but a secondary and supplementary part in the sacred ministry, and only when thesecular clergy were not sufficiently numerous for the work. His opinion was refuted by an anonymous work, entitled "Examen historicum et canonicum libri R. D. Mariani Verhoeven", written by FathersDe Buck and Tinnebroeck, S.J., as opposed to experience, since religious perfection aids apostolic work; to tradition, as so many great missionary enterprises have been conducted by religious; to canon law, which approves of orders established for the purpose of the sacred ministry, and consider religious as fitted for the most important functions.
Religious as well as seculars may be called to the episcopal office, to thecardinalitial dignity, and even to thepapal throne. With the exception of themendicant orders, they may be appointed asvicars general: of the minorbenefices, some are secular which should be given tosecular priests, some are regular, to which regulars should be appointed:Premonstratensian Canons, however, may be placed in charge of secularparishes. In cases ofdoubt,benefices are presumed to be secular, but the rule of exclusion from secularparishes affects only regulars under solemnvows. Missionary enterprise for the propagation of the Faith is usually entrusted to religious, and they may occupyuniversity chairs, and be employed in the sacred ministry as well as seculars (cf. Vermeersch, "De religiosis institutis et personis", 1, n. 495).
It is now established thatbishops andcardinals chosen from a religious order do not cease to be religious, and are just as much bound by all the rules and observances compatible with their dignity and functions as a religious who is aparishpriest. A religious who is aparishpriest may be deprived of his office either by thebishop or by the superior of his order.
According to its more or less complete realization, the more or less fullapprobation which is given to it, and the juridical condition which results for those who practise it, the religious life gives rise to religious orders or congregations.
The expression "ordo monasticus" at first denoted a class ofmonks, as "ordo virginum" denoted a class or virgins, and "ordo sacerdotalis", the class ofpriests. The first founders, St. Basil and St. Benedict, thought not so much of establishing an order as of drawing up a plan of individual life, common to the use ofmonks who desired to be directed in their aspirations after perfection. Eachmonastery was independent, and was not even bound to a definite rule; the community was left free to change the observance, and a certain option could be allowed to themonks to choose which of several rules they would follow. The reforms of Cluny andCîteaux prepared the way for the religious order in the present sense, by making all themonks subject to the authority of one supremeabbot. A century later, St. Francis and St. Dominic united their disciples in one vast association with an interior hierarchical organization of its own, and recognizable even outwardly by the identity of rule, dress, and life. From that time forward, each religious order has been a corporation of religious approved by theChurch. And since we distinguish institutes bound by solemnvows and approved by thesovereign pontiff from institutes with simplevows, the expression "religious order" has been naturally applied exclusively to institutes with solemnvows. The religious order then is, properly speaking, an institute fully approved by theHoly See, and having solemnvows of religious life. This fullapprobation for the whole Church calls into action the magisterial office of thepope, for in giving it thepope not only declares that there is nothing in the mode of life which is hurtful tomorals or propriety, but assures the faithful that it is calculated to leadsouls to Evangelical perfection (cf. Francisco Suárez, "De religione", VII, II xvii, n. 17).
From the point of view of their organization, the religious orders owe their division into two great classes to their very origin. The oldest, derived frommonasteries formerly quite independent, leave to each religious house a certain authority under a perpetualabbot. Themonks or canons also belong to a particularmonastery, and special rules are made for changes, temporary or permanent, among the subjects. Such are theBlack Benedictines andCistercians, and canons regular. Many for a long time have only arch-abbots, visitors of themonasteries forming a congregation (see below), and presiding over the chapter of that congregation,Leo XIII gave theBenedictines their abbot-primate, who holds office for twelve years. These same orders have no provincial superiors; the visitors more or less take their place; but the powers of the abbot-general and the visitor, while they differ in different orders, are limited to certain cases, so that the localabbot remains the real ordinary superior, almost in the same way as thebishop suffragan of anarchbishop has all the authoritynecessary for the administration of hisdiocese. In the newer orders on the contrary, the superiors (except in theSociety of Jesus) are not appointed for life, but for a term of six or twelve years; the religious are not attached to amonastery, but to a province; and the houses are so little independent of each other that some refuse to recognize in the local superior the quality of aprelate invested with ordinaryjurisdiction, though most religious writers give him this position.
In all religious orders we find the chapter, whether it be the chapter of themonastery to limit the monarchical authority of theabbot and fill a vacancy, or the general chapter, to appoint for the fixed term a new superior-general, to receive the accounts of the preceding administration, and, within permitted limits, to modify the constitutions which have not the force of pontificallaws and to pass new decrees for the whole order. The election of the superior-general is by secret ballot (Council of Trent, sess. XXV, c. vi) and generally requires the confirmation of thepope. The same chapter also elects thegeneral councils, consisting of definitors-general, or assistants, and generally also the procurator-general. In most orders, the procurator-general, who is the representative of the order in all dealings with theHoly See, is a real superior, and sometimes even a sort of vice-general, who takes the place of a general deceased, absent, or incapacitated: among the DiscalcedCarmelites and theHermits of St. Augustine and in theSociety of Jesus, he possesses nojurisdiction.
Under the superior-general, the orders not anterior to the thirteenth century have provincial superiors, who administer the affairs of the province with the assistance of a council. Sometimes they are appointed by the provincial chapter, and the local superior by the local chapter; sometimes the superior-general in council makes all important appointments. The provincial chapter or provincial congregation has then nojurisdiction, and can only send deputies to the general or the chapter general, in order to make known their wishes. In all places where the canonical Office is recited in choir, there is a conventual or local chapter, which does not exist in the orders and congregations of more recent foundation. Among theCapuchins, the provincial is appointed by the provincial chapter, and in his council appoints the local superiors. The local superior, like theabbot, is assisted by a second, who takes his place in case of absence or incapacity: he is called prior in theabbeys, or sub-prior where the superior is called prior; otherwise he is termed minister. The local superior is called guardian among theFranciscans; elsewhere he isrector, superior, prior, orprovost. The provincial and general of theFranciscans are called minister-provincial and minister-general. To replace the ordinary superiors temporarily the constitutions of orders provide vicars, vice-provincials, and vice-rectors.
The superiors have always a power of private or domestic order, called dominative, which permits them to command their subjects, and to administerproperty according to the rules of the institute; and the first superior of theconvent, by appealing to thevow or distinctly making known his intention, can command under pain of mortalsin. Moreover, if they bepriests, the principal superiors of religious orders possess the doublejurisdiction of theforum internum and theforum externum, which makes them the ordinaryprelates of their subordinates. Such are certainly the generals andprovincials, and, according to an at least probable opinion, the first local superiors also. They havejurisdiction to appoint confessors, approved by the ordinary, to reserve cases to themselves (thoughClement VIII limited this power), to inflict spiritual censures or punishments, and to absolve or dispense from them: their power ofdispensation with regard to their subordinates is the same asbishops generally have over their diocesans. Various privileges are conferred upon them in addition, and their powers are often extended by temporaryindults, which pass, as a matter of right, from the generals of orders to those who replace or succeed them. The legislative power ordinarily exists only in the chapter general: the judiciary power of theprelates does not extend to causes and offences which are cognizable by the Holy Office. Theprelates are at the same time fathers bound to watch over the spiritual welfare of their children, heads of the community, who are empowered to make general provision for the good order of the common life, and magistrates invested with a part of thatpublic authority which Christ gave to HisApostles, when He said "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you." This authority is derived from theHoly See; and, as it is ordinary, it may be delegated.
In theory it extends to thespiritual direction of inferiors; but for a long time theHoly See has shown a desire to separate the direction of theconscience from the direction of outward conduct, or at least to take away all appearance of coercion from the former; thus theprelate may hear the confessions only of those who formally express a desire to be absolved by him, and for the regulation of Communions, the religious is bound to take the advice only of his confessor. In every house several confessors should be appointed, who can easily in any particular case obtainjurisdiction over reservedsins, if they have not ordinarily thenecessary faculties; theprelate, however, may, according to the rule, be occupied with the direction of consciences outside the confessional; this is forbidden only in the case of lay superiors, safeguarding always the liberty of inferiors to open their minds to their superiors (even whenlaymen).
The temporal administration is subject to the generallaws which forbid the alienation of immovableproperty, and of movableproperty of great value, and which also discountenance wastefulness and rash contracts or borrowings (see the Constitution "Ambitiosæ"; Extrav. comm. un., De rebus ecclesiasticis non alienandis, III, 4, and the Instruction "Inter ea" of 30 July, 1909). Theprelate must administer like a prudent head of afamily, and take care that the funds are safely and productively invested. As was stated in the articleNUNS, theprelate'spower of jurisdiction often extends tomonasteries of the second order.
Outside its own body, the order has thesovereign pontiff as superior possessing the plenitude of authority; he has the power to suppress a religious order, as he can call it into existence. Thus at theSecond Council of Lyons (1274),Gregory X suppressed the orders which came into existence after the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), andClement XIV in 1773 decreed thesuppression of the Society of Jesus. Sometimes an order which has been extinguished rises again from its ashes. The order ofPiarists, or Scuolopi, founded by St. Joseph Calasanctius, which was abolished byInnocent X in 1664, was re-established byClement IX; andPius VII in 1814 restored universally theSociety of Jesus, which had remained in existence in White Russia (see Heimbucher, "Die Orden und Kongregationen", 101, 102, and the authors cited in Vermeersch, "De religiosis institutis et personis", I, n. 99). Thepope, a fortiori, may modify the constitutions, appoint superiors, and, in short, exercise all powers that exist in a religious order.
Thepope exercises his ordinary control through the Sacred Congregation of Religious, which, since the Constitution "Sapienti", of 19 June, 1908, is the only congregation occupied with the affairs of religious orders. Formerly, the religious of the missions were under the direction of thePropaganda, which has now no authority over them except as missionaries; the others were under the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, which was abolished by the Constitution "Sapienti". There was also the Congregation of Discipline and Reform of Regulars, which was principally occupied with the maintenance and restoration of interior discipline in orders of men, and the Congregation of the State of Regulars, established byInnocent X in 1652, which was replaced underInnocent XII by the Congregation of Discipline, and re-established byPius IX in 1847, to advise on the measures to be taken in the circumstances of the time formonasteries of men. After having issued some very important decrees on the subject of letters testimonial and simple profession, it ceased to work; andPius X suppressed both these congregations by his Motu proprio of 26 May, 1906. The authoritative interpretation of the disciplinary decrees of theCouncil of Trent gave the Congregation of the Council a power over regulars, which it used largely before the nineteenth century; but at present its authority is limited to thesecular clergy. The Congregations of the Holy Office and the Index exercise over religious, as well as over the rest of thefaithful, their power of judgingpersons charged with offences coming under the Holy Office, and of censuring books and other publications.
Most orders have a cardinal protector. The institution goes back to the time of St. Francis, who recognizes in him a governor, a protector, and a corrector; he is appointed by thesovereign pontiff. Since the time ofInnocent XII (Constitution, "Christi fideium", 17 February, 1694) he has ceased to have ordinaryjurisdiction; he is therefore nothing more than a benevolent protector, who from time to time receives delegated powers.
Religious orders are exempt from episcopaljurisdiction, and in spite of exceptions to this privilege, created by theCouncil of Trent and later, the exemption remains the rule and the exception must beproved. The exemption is above all personal, and also local: religious are not under the orders of thebishop, and theirmonasteries and churches, unless these beparochial, cannot be visited by him. TheHoly See, however, in practice does not permit the rule of local exemption to be extended to secularpersons during their stay in aconvent: onlyfamiliares, that is, those who as oblates or even as servants live in theconvent as if they were part of the religiousfamily, benefit by it. The question whether pupils who are boarders in theconvent may be calledfamiliares is open to dispute. According to theCouncil of Trent, thebishop has over religious ajurisdiction sometimes ordinary, sometimes delegated in the name of theHoly See, sometimesbishops may act also, as special delegates of theHoly See; the expression is somewhat obscure, but the object appears to have been to give thebishop an incontestable right to interfere in certain cases (see Vermeersch, "De relig. inst. et pers.", I, n. 968). As the exemption of regulars is not active, that is, as it does not give independent power over a fixed territory, regulars are subject to thebishop in all that concerns the administration of thesacraments to seculars, and the direction of suchpersons, due respect being paid to certain privileges attached to churches and colleges. Especially for theabsolution of seculars, they must be approved by thebishop of the place in which confessions are heard. Besides this, thebishop may interfere to permit the erection of aconvent, to approve the renunciation ofproperty made before solemn profession, to test the vocation ofnuns, to approve or condemn the publications of regulars, to control, if not to refuse, collecting from house to house, to summon regulars to processions, and settle questions of precedence, toconsecrate the churches of regulars, to pontificate in them, to fix the stipends of Masses, and prescribe the Collects. His name must be mentioned in the Canon of the Mass; he decides all causes which concern the Faith; he may also in certain cases exercise over regulars his coercive power.
But (at least in regard to certain orders specially exempted) it would be incorrect to say that whenever thebishop may interfere, he may also inflict censures. It is admitted also that, at least with the permission of his superior, the religious may ask thebishop to exercise some of his dispensing power, in his favour, and it is understood that theLentenindults and generaldispensations from abstinence apply to such regulars as are not bound by a specialvow to fast or abstain. According to the principle laid down, regulars may gain theindulgences granted by thebishop. Except mitredabbots, who confer thetonsure andminor orders on their inferiors, regular superiors must apply to thebishop for theordination of their subjects: for this purpose they give dimissorial letters, by which they present their subjects to thebishop with thenecessary certificates, to receiveHoly orders from him. Except in the case of some particular privilege, the dimissorial letters should be sent to thebishop of the place in which theconvent is situated, and regulars can only apply to anotherbishop in case the former does not hold his usual ordinations, or if he consents to waive his right.
Exemption is the principal privilege of religious orders; the others are chiefly powers ofabsolution, and spiritual favours. Among all themendicant orders, and practically among all religious orders properly so called, there exists a communication of privileges. This communication makes all favours, granted to one order only, common to all, if they are not extraordinary in their nature, or granted for some very special reason, or only for a certain term of years, or finally if no express provision forbids the communication. Thus the privilege, granted to theSociety of Jesus, of having domesticoratories orchapels on the authorization of the religious provincial alone applies to all religious orders. Religious orders profit even by privileges granted to congregations. But at the present time the application of the principle of communication must be made withprudence, especially in the case ofindulgences.
For the reception of subjects and the taking ofvows, seeNOVICE;POSTULANT. All thevows of religious orders are ordinarily perpetual, though there are exceptions; moreover, a simple profession must precede the solemn profession, otherwise the latter is null and void. Thedispensation fromvows, even from simplevows, is reserved to theHoly See. But the superior-general, by the dismissal of religious with simplevows, who have not received major orders, may ordinarily remove theobligation of thosevows. Those who are professed with solemnvows, evenlay brothers, are very rarely dispensed from them; it is easier for them to obtain anindult authorizing them to live in the world, bound by theirvows. Theindult of secularization may be temporary or perpetual; the latter alone finally separates the regular from his order: he then owes obedience to thebishop. The regular who has made solemnvows or who by privilege has received some major order before making thesevows, can be expelled only if, after a thrice-repeated warning, he still proves incorrigible in some grave and public fault. When expelled, he incurs a suspension from which theHoly See alone can free him. Even one who has been set free, if he is inHoly orders, is not at liberty to leave the house until he has found abishop willing to accept him in hisdiocese, and some means of honest livelihood: strictly speaking, the acceptance should be final, but in practice this is not insisted upon. If he leaves the house without doing what is required, he is suspended until he has fulfilled both conditions.
The regular may also, in theory, migrate from one order to another more severe; from this point of view, theCarthusian Order is the most perfect. In practice, failing the consent of the superior-general of both the orders in question, these migrations take place only with the authorization of theHoly See. The professed regular who migrates into another order makes hisnovitiate afresh therein, but retains his first profession until he has made solemn profession in his new order. Until that time, if he does not persevere in the second order, he must take his former place in the order he has quitted; and even then if, in addition to the essentialvows of religion, his first profession has laid any specialobligations upon him, for instance that of not accepting anyecclesiastical dignities, theseobligations are not removed by his new profession. (For theobligations of religiousvows, seeVOW;OBEDIENCE, RELIGIOUS;POVERTY; and for the enclosure, seeCLOISTER.)
If an order has a special habit, the members are strictly bound to wear it, and if any of them puts it off without good cause, he incurs anexcommunication not reserved (Const. "Ut periculosa", 2 Ne clerici vel monachi, in 6 iii, 24). Thisexcommunication appears to exist in spite of the Constitution "Apostolicæ", because it concerns the interior discipline of orders, but it applies only to those who are professed under solemnvows. Theobligation to retain the habit extends also tobishops of the order, if they are not canons or clerks regular.
Most orders are bound to recite the Office in choir, and say the conventual Mass. Theobligation of choir, at least the graveobligation, binds the community and the superior, whoseduty it is to see that the Office is recited in common. But the religious professed under solemnvows, who do not assist in choir, are bound from the day of their profession to recite the Office in private, even if they are not inHoly orders. Thisobligation does not apply tolay brothers, or topersons professed under simplevows.
In connexion with certain orders of men, there are also orders ofwomen, instituted for similar objects, and in this respect sharing in the same evolution. We say "in this respect", for the rigours of the enclosure imposed uponnuns under solemnvows (seeCLOISTER) necessarily prevented any organization formed after the model of themendicant orders or clerks regular. Orders ofwomen have sometimes an existence, and even an origin, independent of any order of men. This is the case especially with the more recent orders, such as the Sisters of the Visitation and theUrsulines. Very often they are connected by their origin and their rule with an order of men. The first monastic rules, which did not contemplate the reception ofHoly orders, were as suitable forwomen as for men: thus there wereBasilian andBenedictinenuns, simply following the Rules of St. Basil and St. Benedict. Neither the rule of themendicant orders nor that of the clerks regular was suitable towomen. St. Francis first, and then other founders, wrote a second rule for the use ofnuns who thus constituted a second order, placed normally under thejurisdiction of the superior-general of the first order (seeNUNS).
The grant of a third rule to secularpersons gives rise to the third orders. At times it happens that these tertiaries are established in community under this rule; they are then religious, ordinarily members of a congregation with simplevows. But, as we said above, there were communities of this character with solemnvows, and there is a regularThird Order of St. Francis, which goes back to the fifteenth century and which received modified constitutions fromLeo XIII (20 July, 1888).
The associations of secular tertiaries are also called orders; they owe this to the fact that they profess theChristian life under an approved rule: but these are secular orders; and religious, even those under simplevows, cannot validly belong to them. By his entrance into a religious order, anovice ceases to be a secular, and seeks after Evangelical perfection, which is not the contradictory ofChristianjustice, but is a realization of it in an eminent degree. It has also been held that aperson who has been a member of a third order before becoming a religious at once resumes his place in it, if he legitimately returns to the world. No one can belong to several third orders at the same time. Not all religious orders have third orders attached to them; but those which recognize an order ofnuns as their second order generally have tertiaries also. Thus there are noBenedictine orJesuit tertiaries: theBenedictines have no second order, and theJesuit rule expressly forbids the Society to have an institute ofnuns under its authority. In later times the Oblates of St. Benedict have been assimilated to tertiaries. Third orders are distinguished from confraternities, in as much as the former follow a general rule of life, while the members of confraternities are associated for some special purpose ofpiety or charity: thus they often include both religious andlay persons, and the sameperson may be a member of several confraternities. (As to theThird Order of St. Francis, and the name of Order, see the Constitution "Auspicato" of 17 Sept., 1882, and "Misericors Dei filius" of 23 June, 1883.)
The wordreligio is more strictly reserved for institutes with solemnvows. As the religion ofprecepts and the religion of counsels were considered distinct grades of theChristian religion, the rules of life laid down according to the counsels were calledreligiones. The SecondCouncil of Arles, 452, can. 25, spoke of the profession of the monastic life asprofessio religionis.
There has been much change in the meaning of this word. It formerly denoted the whole body of religious living in amonastery: in this sense we find it in Cassian (Collations, 2nd preface) and in theRule of St. Benedict (chap. xvii). The edifying spectacle presented by themonastery of Cluny under St. Odo (d. 942) induced manymonasteries inFrance to beg theholyabbot to accept their supreme direction, and he undertook to visit them from time to time. Under his first two successors, numerousmonasteries ofFrance andItaly observed the usages of Cluny, while others were reformed bymonks of Cluny. At the death of St. Odo, sixty-fivemonasteries were under the rules of Cluny and thus formed a congregation, the members of which were no longer the individualmonks, but themonasteries. In a similar manner, the union ofmonasteries withCîteaux produced the Congregation ofCîteaux: but here the celebratedcarta caritatis, drawn up in a general chapter ofabbots andmonks held atCîteaux in 1119, placed the supreme direction ofCistercianmonasteries under theAbbot ofCîteaux, and realized a much greater unity which prepared the way for the religious orders of a later period (see "Carta caritatis" in P.L., CLXVI, 1377). Themonasteries ofPremonstratensian Canons were early grouped in circles (circarias), at the head of which was a "circator" whose office resembled that of theprovincial of more recent orders. TheAbbot of Prémontré Dominus Præmonstratensis, was a real abbot-general:
Innocent III, by his Constitution "In singulis", which waspromulgated at the Fourth Council of the Lateran, and forms ch. vii, t. 35, bk. 3 of theDecretals, ordered that a chapter ofabbots and independentpriors of every kingdom or province should be held every third year, to ensure the fervour of the observance, and to organize the visitation of theabbeys in order to prevent or correct abuses. TheCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXV, c. viii) made congregations ofmonasteries general, orderingmonasteries to unite themselves into congregations, and to appoint visitors having the same powers as visitors of other orders, under pain of losing their exemption, and being placed under thejurisdiction of the localbishop. There have, however, been also important reforms inaugurated by onemonastery, and adopted by many others, without leading to the formation of a congregation. Such was that of WilliamAbbot of Hirschau (d. 1091), who wrote the Constitutions of Hirschau, the wise provisions of which, in some measure borrowed from Cluny, were adopted by about 150monasteries having no other bond of union than a spiritual community ofprayers and merits.
In 1566,St. Philip Neri founded inRome an association ofpriests who were not bound by anyvow; being unable for that reason to call it an order, he called it theCongregation of the Oratory.Cardinal de Bérulle in 1611 founded a similar institute, the FrenchCongregation of the Oratory.St. Vincent de Paul, the founder of theLazarists, or Priests of the Mission, while introducing into his institute simplevows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and stability, insisted that it should be called secular. Thesevows are not followed by any act of acceptance by theHoly See or the institute. His association was called a congregation, as we see from theBull ofAlexander VII, "Ex commissa" (22 Sept., 1655). Thus it became usual to designate as congregations those institutes which resembled religious orders, but had not all their essential characteristics. This is the ordinary meaning generally accepted, though somewhat vague, of the word "congregation". Before long, the genus congregation was divided into several distinct species.
First in order of dignity come the religious congregations properly so called. They have all the essentials of religious life, the three perpetualvows, and theapprobation ofecclesiastical authority. They are even approved by theHoly See. They lack only one accidental characteristic of an order, namely the solemnity of thevows. Such are the Congregations of the Most Holy Redeemer, of the Passion of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary (or Picpus Fathers), which have even the privilege of exemption. Institutes with perpetualvows approved by episcopal authority closely resemble the congregations properly so called. Religious congregations in the wider sense of the word are institutes which have no perpetualvows, or lack one of the essentialvows, or which even have novows properly so called. Thus the Daughters ofSt. Vincent de Paul make only annualvows, and as each year is completed they are free to return to the world. The Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Africa, or White Sisters, form a religious congregation properly so called, but theWhite Fathers, on the contrary, are not bound by anyvows, but take only anoath of obedience. We have spoken above of theLazarists andOratorians. The religious congregations improperly so called are sometimes designatedpious congregations orpioussocieties.
Institutes are divided, according to the quality of their members, intoecclesiastical congregations, consisting principally ofpriests andclerics, and lay congregations, most of whose members are not inHoly orders. Thus theOrder of St. John of God, though mainly composed oflaymen, includes a certain number ofpriests devoted to the spiritual service of itshospitals and asylums; while the Congregation of Parochial Clerics of St. Viator is composed ofpriests and teaching brothers placed on the same footing as religious. Several religious congregations are called tertiaries of St. Francis, St. Dominic, or some other religious order; some of these date from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries; others are more recent, such as the ThirdOrder of St. Dominic founded byLacordaire, which is devoted to teaching. But they must be regularly affiliated by the superior of the first order. This affiliation does not imply any dependence or subordination to the first order, but it requires as general conditions the observance of the essential points of the rule of the third order, and a certain similarity of habit: in the matter of the habit, however, manydispensations have been granted — see the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences of 28 Aug., 1903, and 22 March, 1905, theDecree of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars of 18 March, 1904, the Rescript of 30 Jan., 1905, and the Indult of 18 Nov., 1905, of the same Congregation (cf. Periodica de religiosis et missionariis, I, 15, p. 40; 54, p. 147; 59, p. 152; II, 102, p. 57).
As to thelaw by which they are governed, religious congregations are divided into congregations dependent on theHoly See, and those under episcopal authority. The latter are strictlydiocesan or interdiocesan, according as they are confined to a single diocese, or are scattered over several.Leo XIII, by his Constitution "Conditæ" of 8 Dec., 1900, gave to the congregations their official character; and a set of regulations of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, of 20 June, 1901, known by the name of Normæ, traces the general lines on which theHoly See wishes the new institutes to be constructed and the old ones reorganized.
Before a congregation can be placed under pontifical government, it must have received aDecree, in which commendation is bestowed on the congregation itself, and not merely on the intention of the founder and the object of the institution; then follows aDecree confirming the existence of the congregation, and approving its constitutions, first by a trial of some years, and then finally. Before the Constitution "Sapienti" (29 June, 1908), by whichPius X reorganized theRoman Curia, two congregations were occupied with theapprobation of new institutes, the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, and theCongregation of Propaganda; the latter approved those institutes which were founded in missions and in countries subject to itsjurisdiction, and those intended exclusively for foreign missions. Since the Constitution "Sapienti", the new Congregation of Religious alone has the power ofapprobation, and the religious of the whole world are under itsjurisdiction: If they are missionaries, they owe obedience also to thePropaganda in all matters connected with their missionary character.
Except theapprobation of tertiary communities (of both the sexes) with simplevows by the Constitution "Inter cetera" ofLeo X (20 Jan., 1521) to which we have already alluded, the formalapprobation of a religious institute with simplevows by theHoly See does not date back very far: theBrief ofClement XI "Inscrutabili" (13 July, 1703), approving the Constitution of the English Virgins (Institute of Mary), is perhaps the first instance in the case ofwomen, whileBenedict XIV in 1741 approved the Congregation ofPassionists. But on 26 March, 1687,Innocent XI, by his Constitution "Ecclesiæ Catholicæ", erected the hospitaller confraternity of theBethlehemites into a congregation, andClement VIII, on 13 Oct 1593, approved with simplevows theClerks Regular of the Mother of God. These two congregations were transformed into religious orders, the one by a Constitution ofClement XI (3 April, 1710), and the other by a Constitution ofGregory XV in 1621: but later, in consequence of adecree of the Spanish Cortes, theBethlehemites were gradually extinguished. Institutes improperly called religious have been approved since the seventeenth century: we have already mentioned theOratorians, approved in 1612, and the Priests of the Mission, approved in 1632: to these may be added theSulpicians, approved in 1642, theEudists in 1643, and theSecular Priests of theVenerable Holzhauser in 1680. For a long time theHoly See, while approving the constitutions ofnuns, refused to recognize the institutes themselves. Theapprobation formerly contained certain qualifying words, "citra approbationem conservatorii" ("withoutapprobation of the institute"), which have now disappeared. Ordinarily theHoly See proceeds by steps; it requires first that the institute shall have existed for some time under theapprobation of the ordinary, then it approves the constitutions for some years, and last of all grants a finalapprobation. Religious congregations also receive a cardinal protector, whose office is more important in the case of an institute ofnuns.
Although established under pontifical government, religious congregations are not free from thejurisdiction of thediocesan ordinary. Congregations of men owe him the common obedience of all thefaithful, and ofclerics, if their members aretonsured or inHoly orders. Use, rather than positive law, permits the superiors, beingpriests, to consider themselves as quasi-parishpriests of their religious subordinates. For confessions even of their own subjects, they must be delegated by thebishop; and all approved confessors of thediocese may absolve these religious, who are subject also for reserved cases todiocesan law. The temporal administration is withdrawn from the authority or the ordinary; this is the case also with institutes ofnuns. Certain institutes are entirely exempt from episcopaljurisdiction; such are thePassionists, the Missionary Fathers of the Sacred Hearts, or Picpus Fathers, and theRedemptorists. Without being strictlyprelates, the superiors of an exempt institute, beingpriests, receive from theHoly See thepower of jurisdiction in addition to the governing power belonging to all superiors, male orfemale. (For a comparison of these religious with regulars properly so called see the dissertation of Fr. Salsmans, S.J. in Vermeersch, "Periodica de relig. et miss., " V, p. 33). It is to be remarked that the exemption of theconvent does not always imply the exemption of the church. Sometimes the authority of a superior-general of a congregation of men extends to a congregation of sisters of a similar institute; but in practice theHoly See no longer approves of any but independent congregations. Whether exempt or not, congregations may never be established in adiocese, and may not open a new house, without the permission of thebishop.
Congregations approved by theHoly See have the organization of religious orders: and the less rigorous enclosure of institutes with simplevows even permits the sisters to be organized in the same manner as orders of men. We find then at the head of the institute a superior-general assisted by a council, which, in the more important matters, must approve the measures proposed; then ordinarily provincial superiors with their councils, and local superiors. The superior-general, his councillors, and the procurator-general are always appointed by the general chapter. In fact, in congregations as in religious orders, the general chapter is the supreme power. It can, however, neither change the constitutions nor makelaws properly so called; its orders remain in force until the chapter following. The general chapter meets for the election of the superior-general; if this takes place only every twelve years, there may be a meeting of the chapter after six years for the transaction of business. With this exception the chapter is not summoned without the consent of theHoly See. Besides the general and his councillors, the secretary-general, procurator-general,provincials, and two delegates appointed by the provincial chapter take part in this chapter. If the congregation is not divided into provinces, the superiors of important houses and one delegate from each house take the place of theprovincials and delegates of the provincial chapter. The latter consists of theprovincial, his councillors, and the superiors of important houses, accompanied by a delegate from each house. The provincial chapter has ordinarily no other appointment to make than that of delegates to the chapter general. This chapter receives the accounts of the general administration, elects by secret ballot the general and his assistants or councillors, and deliberates over all important affairs of the congregation. Sometimes thesovereign pontiff, who may appoint directly to all offices, reserves to himself theright to confirm thenomination of the superior-general. The latter is generally elected for six or twelve years: in the Society of the Sacred Heart, the election is for life. Ordinarily he makes provision in his council for all charges which are not within the discretion of the chapter general. Every three years he is bound to submit to theHoly See an account in the form prescribed by theDecree of 16 June, 1906.
Whether apriest or not the superior, as head of the house, has authority over all who live in it, and derives from thevow of obedience his power to command according to the approved constitutions. He is recommended, especially if he is not a superior-general or provincial, to make moderate use of his faculty to command in virtue ofholy obedience. Sometimes even he can do this only in writing. Although he controls the temporal administration, theHoly See requires that a separateperson shall have charge of the accounts, even in the houses, and that a third shall deal with expenditures. TheHoly See insists also that all valuables shall be kept in a chest with a triple lock, so that it can be opened only by means of three separate keys, which are to be kept by the superior, theprocurator, and one of the councillors. In respect of their temporal administration, the congregations are independent of thebishop, but they are bound to observe the rules prescribed by theHoly See, especially the precautions taken for the preservation of dowries and other funds (see theDecree "Inter ea" of 30 July, 1909, Vermeersch, "Periodica" 331, V, p. 11). Even without belonging to an exempt congregation, the superior, if apriest, obtains without difficulty the faculty of giving his subjects dimissorial letters for ordinations; and if such faculty is granted him, then, in respect of the certificates to be delivered, the competentbishop etc., the rules are the same for congregations as for religious orders.
We have treated of the admission of subjects, the novitiate, and simple profession under the titles:NOVICE;POSTULANT; andRELIGIOUS PROFESSION. Ordinarily, and always in the more recent orders, temporaryvows for some years preceded perpetualvows: thesevows, even temporary, are reserved to theHoly See. While the superior has the power to dismiss religious who have not made perpetualvows, he has not always the power to release them from theirobligations, and in that case it isnecessary to have recourse to theHoly See. Religious who have received any of the major orders in the institute, and those who have made perpetualvows, cannot be dismissed without the formalities prescribed for the dismissal ofpersons professed with solemnvows. Dismissal involves a suspension which is reserved to theHoly See; and thevoluntary departure of a religious who, as a religious, has been admitted toHoly orders, even of one whose temporaryvows have expired, is not regular unless he has found abishop and means of subsistence. The sanction is the same as for one professed with simplevows in a religious order. Secularization is seldom granted to members of a religious congregation, but recourse is had todispensation fromvows. Migration from one congregation to another cannot take place without the consent of theHoly See, and it is usual to ask for that consent before entering a religious order, though there is no law forbidding such entrance.
After the Constitutions ofSt. Pius V, which were opposed to simplevows, theHoly See could only tolerate congregations without solemnvows. Such congregations naturally desired to be under the control of someecclesiastical authority, which could only be that of thebishop: by degrees a custom grew up which gavebishops an incontestable right to approve religious congregations, and this right received express recognition from the Constitution "Conditæ" ofLeo XIII (8 Dec., 1900), the first part of which is wholly devoted to thediocesan congregations: its first articles contain a solemn warning against the rash creation of new ones, and any excessive increase in their number. More recently the Motu proprio "Dei providentis" (16 July, 1906) declared the necessity of pontifical authorization before any episcopalapprobation. When it is desired to form a new congregation, the ordinary forwards to the Sacred Congregation of Religious the name of the founder, the object of the foundation, the name and title chosen for the new institute, a description of the habit to be worn by thenovices and professed members, the work to be undertaken, the resources, and the names of similar institutes existing in the diocese. When once the consent ofRome has been obtained, thebishop may authorize the institute, respecting all things decreed by theHoly See; and in revising the constitutions, he will take care that they are always in conformity with the Normæ of 1901. It is to be remarked that in theDecree of 1906, the expression "religious institute" has a very wide meaning, and by the terms of thatDecree, this procedure is to be followed for all associations, whose members have a distinctive name and habit and devote themselves to their own personal perfection, or to works ofpiety or charity:vows are not required. But, on the other hand, the institute thus formed remains episcopal; the ordinaries exercise over it all therights mentioned in the Constitution "Conditæ" (ch. i), except theright to modify anything that theHoly See has specially laid down.
This Constitution formulates the principle of full and exclusive submission to thebishop; from which we conclude that therights of thebishop are limited only by the principle of naturaljustice and equity, which demands respect for acquiredrights; by the nature of the institute, which must give its religious the means of making progress towards perfection according to theprecepts of the Gospel; and by the plain exceptions of pontifical law. We say "the plain exceptions", because Decrees of theHoly See, which do not clearly refer todiocesan institutes, only give directions tobishops without restraining their power; moreover, in the immense variety of cases, prescriptions which are useful to institutes under pontifical government would be very troublesome to those whose life isdiocesan; and the latter in the immediate control of thebishop often find the same security that theHoly See seeks to give by a new regulation to congregations dependent upon itself.
We have now to distinguish betweendiocesan andinterdiocesan institutes.
Congregations which exist in but onediocese are dependent only on a singlebishop: he approves the institute, authorizes the erection of new houses, may forbid the extension of the institute into another diocese, and may for sufficient reasons close a house, or suppress the institute itself: but he must take care, during the liquidation, not to violate the canonicallaws concerning the disposal and alienation ofecclesiastical property. He may receive subjects himself, visit the houses to inquire into the religious discipline and temporal administration, and reserve to himself the approval of the most important acts. The Constitution "Conditæ" requires the superior in aconvent ofwomen (and we may say the same of male superiors) to be appointed by election; thebishop may not only preside at the election, but also confirm or annul it; and when any grave cause prevents the holding of a regular election, he may, while awaiting a favourable opportunity for assembling the electors, even make provision for the internal government of the institute. He is bound, however, except in case of express provision in the constitutions, to leave the hands of the superior free to administer the institute and even to transfer the members (Reply of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 9 April, 1895).
If the institute has houses in severaldioceses, eachbishop has authority over the houses in his own diocese; the consent of all isnecessary to touch the institute itself. Ordinarily the difficulties which may be created by this situation may be removed by asking for pontificalapprobation for the institute. Often also thebishop of thediocese of origin, in order to prevent difficulties and disputes, refuses to allow the extension into otherdioceses, unless it is agreed that he shall have full authority over thereligious life of the institute.
In institutes under episcopal authority the ordinaryjurisdiction is vested in thebishop, never in the superior: the latter has the ruling power which is given him by thevows, and the internal authority which he possesses as head of the house. Thevows, except thevow of perpetual chastity, if it has been absolutely taken, are not reserved to theHoly See. The dismissal of subjects does not require the formalities prescribed by theDecree "Auctis admodum" (4 Nov., 1892) which has been mentioned in connexion with orders and congregations properly so called; and the religious inHoly orders do not incur the suspension inflicted by thatDecree on those who are expelled, or on those who departvoluntarily without having found abishop or means of subsistence. In fact, the members of these institutes have always theirbishop, who has taken the responsibility of ordaining them. Exception however, must be made if the institute has obtained anindult permitting the superior to deliver to his subjects letters ofordination which bind only the institute: in such a case a subject who left the institute having received major orders in this manner, would be suspended until he had found abishop and means of subsistence.
The question has been raised whether members of an episcopal institute are really in the religious state, provided, be it understood, that they are bound by the three perpetualvows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Our answer is in the affirmative, because thebishop, being the ordinary authority instituted by Christ himself, truly givescanonical institution to the association.
To complete our description of the religious life, we have now to deal with the rule orconstitutions by which religious are governed.
In the earliest times, the youngermonks were accustomed to seek and follow the advice of some oldermonk in order to realize the ideal of monastic life; and very soon those who were renowned for their wisdom andholiness saw their instructions observed by a large body of disciples. Others drew up a rule of life for the use of candidates for the life of perfection. The necessity for such a rule chiefly affected the cenobites, for whom it wasnecessary also to organize common life and a hierarchical constitution.
The first rules were plans of perfect life, with details differing according topersons, times, and places, but framed upon the Gospel as their common fundamental rule. The firstmonks found their first rule in theActs of the Apostles, iv, 32-5, where we are told how the owners ofpropertyvoluntarily gave it up for the benefit of the whole community: this passage was called the rule established under the Apostles (St. Possidius, "Life of St. Augustine", c. v., in P.L., XXXII, 37). When intended foranchorites, the rules contained only individual counsels; those intended for cenobites dealt also with the entrance into themonastery, the probations, thehierarchy, obedience, and common life. Sometimes they were codifications of received usages, observed and subsequently collected by the disciples of some famousmonks, sometimes they were the authentic work of thesaint whose name they bore; not to mention the mixed character of certain rules composed with the help of authentic writings, but first published without any intention of making them a rule properly so called.St. Pachomius gradually compiled, according to the varying needs of the times, a body of rules, the authentic text of which is not now in existence; certainmanuscripts give us more information on the subject of the rules of his disciple, Schenut. We possess theRule of St. Benedict; the Rules of St. Basil andSt. Augustine are of the mixed class. The answers of St. Basil to the questions of themonks form the first; the second consists in great measure of extracts from a letter addressed bySt. Augustine in 423 to thenuns ofHippo (Ep. 211 in P.L., XXXIII, 960-5). Of the first class are the rules which are circulated under the names of Saints Anthony, Isaias, Serapion, Macarius, Paphnutius, and others. We need not wonder that legend has attributed to some of the rules a superhuman origin: the Rule ofSt. Pachomius, for instance, soon after its appearance, was said to have been dictated or even written on tablets by anangel; hence it acquired the name of the "Angel's Rule". These rules had no binding force, except sometimes for the inhabitants of amonastery during the term of their residence. In manymonasteries various rules were observed: the monastic life did not derive its unity from the rules.
As orders began to approach more nearly to the modern form, and new ones were established having their own special objects in addition toreligious profession, each institute had its own rule, which was in fact a plan of life after the spirit of the Gospel, imposed on the religious to help them work in common for the special objects of their institute. Such a rule is identified with the institute itself, and theobligation to persevere in the latter includes theobligation to observe the former. The rule takes this form among the canons regular, and more definitely in themendicant orders. The Roman Council of 1139 recognized three rules, those ofSt. Benedict,St. Basil, andSt. Augustine; and theFourth Council of the Lateran (1215) refused to recognize any religious institutes which did not observe a rule approved by theHoly See.Innocent III andHonorius III afterwards approved the Rule of St. Francis. Thus a new note was added to the rule, theapprobation of theHoly See; and the rule became a canonical law, governing the religious, although in the beginning it was only a private compilation. A new step has recently been taken: until 1901, theHoly See was content to examine thelaws of new institutes without troubling much over details; but as in the progress of legislation certain clauses were repeated and new ones introduced in their place, it was decided in 1901 to enact a more uniform type of rule for new institutes: thus the Normæ of 28 June, 1901, were drawn up, to be a common mould for the formation of all new institutes with but few exceptions. Henceforth the rules will be mainly the work of theHoly See, and all congregations will be, as regards their chief lines, organized in the same manner. The substance of the rule has also been greatly changed. In the beginning it was simply a short code of asceticism, with such directions as werenecessary for the organization of common life; and in the orders properly so called, there were added to this code the regulations required by the special object of each institute: at present asceticism and the rule of life are kept distinct, and the only things to be treated of in the rule are the points of common observance.
In canonical language we distinguish between rules and constitutions: history easily explains this terminology. As already stated, the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), c. Ne nimia. De religiosis domibus, etc. (iii, 36) confirmed by theSecond Council of Lyons (1479) c. Reigionum un., ibid. in 6 (iii, 12) had forbidden new foundations of orders. The prohibition was understood in this sense that no order should be constituted under a new rule; and thesovereign pontiffs themselves insisted on the adoption of an old rule for the institutes they approved. Therefore, following the example already set in the eleventh century by St. Romuald, who adapted theRule of St. Benedict to theeremitical life, the founders chose a rule already received in theChurch, adding such prescriptions as were required by the special object of their institutes. These prescriptions were called "constitutions". The term "rule" is, therefore, at present used only to denote one of the ancient rules, and more particularly the four great rules, each of which serves as a fundamental law to many institutes, namely;
The more recentlaws not only those which contain decisions on special points, but also those which apply only to particular orders or congregations, are properly called constitutions; the rule is always recommended by its antiquity: where there exist both a rule and constitutions, the rule, without having any greater force, nevertheless contains the more general and consequently more stable elements, which are also common to many religious orders or congregations. From this point of view, institutes are classified as follows: the more ancient orders, if not reformed, have only the rule of their founder; most orders have both rules and constitutions, and venerate the author of the rule as a soft of patriarch; while some orders and many congregations with simplevows have constitutions which with them take the place of a rule. TheRule of St. Basil's governs mostmonks of theGreek Rite; theRule of St. Benedict is the principal rule of the Western Monks; and was called simply "the Rule". It governed also somemilitary orders, such as those of Alcántara, and theTemplars. TheRule of St. Augustine is common to the canons regular, theHermits of St. Augustine, and many institutes whose special object required a somewhat less strict form of government: thus theFriars Preachers, theServites, and theReligious of St. John of God have this rule besides their own special constitutions. Many congregations of hospitallers of both sexes are governed in the same manner. The Rule of St. Francis is observed by the three branches of his first order; the second order and many congregations of tertiaries also follow a rule of the same saint. TheCarmelites, the Minims, theSociety of Jesus, thePassionists, and theRedemptorists all have their own constitutions only.
At the present day the rules and constitutions are ecclesiastical laws, and thereforeobligatory, at least in their preceptive parts: but theobligation varies. In the Rule of St. Francis, for instance, some articles bind under mortalsin, others under venialsin; that of theCarmelites binds under venialsin only: and Francisco Suárez considers (De religione, VIII, I, iii, n. 8) that without some special indication expressed or implied in cases ofdoubt we must presume a venialobligation. Apparently theRule of St. Benedict and certainly the Constitutions of theFriars Preachers and theSociety of Jesus do not bind directly, except to the acceptance of the penance imposed for their infringement; nor is this spontaneous fulfilment of the penance always binding inconscience. Even then, the rule is a law, not a pure counsel: if a religious should profess himself independent of it, he would commit a grave offence against obedience; if he disobeys, he deserves reproof and punishment, and it rests with the superior to impose undersin the observance of each point of the rule. Moreover, in the motive which leads to a violation of the rule, or in the effect of such violation, there is generally an irregularity which makes the act a venialsin.
In very early times, there were collections of rules; we may mention that which in the language of the period,St. Benedict of Aniane (d. 821) called the "Concordia regularum", which was republished with additions by the librarianHolstenius (d. 1661) atRome in 1661 and inParis in 1663. Brockie brought out a more perfect edition (Augsburg, 1759), which is reproduced in P.L., CIII, 393-700.Thomas of Jesus, aCarmelite, published (Antwerp, 1817) commentaries on most of the rules.
If we wish to compare the different religious institutes from the point of view of their relative perfection, the excellence of the object gives the first rank to the mixed institutions, and to the contemplative institutes priority over the active. Perfection depends upon the harmonious combination of the means employed towards the end, the quality of the works to which the institute is devoted, and even the number of its means of action. The strictness of the observance, by putting further away theoccasions of sin, is another reason of superiority, and above all, the strictness of obedience, which is now considered as the principalobligation of religious life. However, by canon law, respect is paid rather to the outward austerity of the life, and theCarthusians are considered the most perfect from that point of view. Institutes consisting ofclerics and those with solemnvows have for this reason a certain superiority over lay institutes and those with simplevows.
VERMEERSCH,De religiosis institutis et personis, I (ed. 2. 1907); II (ed. 4, 1909); IDEM,Periodica (from 1905); HEIMBUCHER,Die Orden und Kongregationen der katholischen Kirche (Paderborn. 1907-08); BASTIEN,Direct. canon. à l'usage des congrég. à v ux simples (Maredsous, 1911); MOLITOR,Religiosi juris capita selecta (Ratisbon. 1907).
APA citation.Vermeersch, A.(1911).Religious Life. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12748b.htm
MLA citation.Vermeersch, Arthur."Religious Life."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 12.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1911.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12748b.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Douglas J. Potter.Dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.