RELIGION — Original of the religious profession or "obedience" of the monk Gregory (1039 or 1040), together with the attestation of the altar dedication found by Cardinal Antonio Barberini (18th century), in the church of S. Agata dei Goti — Rome.
The juridical character of the religious profession (r.) ensures that its members, upon enrollment, belong to a true canonical state, namely the religious state.
Those enrolled in an r. are called religious.
In canon law, the r. is regarded as a collegial moral person, possessing the rights and duties proper to every ecclesiastical moral person. Unlike other moral persons, however, an r. cannot arise from a private agreement among the faithful; it must be erected by the Church (can. 488). The competent authority for erecting an r., except in the case of Orders, is the local bishop, who, for the validity of the act, must have the prior consent of the Holy See (can. 492). For the erection of an Order, which, moreover, is not ordinarily done today, this power belongs solely to the Holy See. The present prescription of the Code of Canon Law steers a middle course between the prohibition issued to bishops by Pius X in the motu proprio *Dei Providentis* of 16 July 1906, no. 1 (Fontes iuris canonici, III, no. 675), and the previously recognized and admitted free faculty granted by Leo XIII in the constitution *Conditae a Christo* of 8 December 1900 (ibid., no. 644). The act of erection must be embodied in a written decree signed by the bishop, although an oral decision, if documented, may have validity (S. Congr. of Religious, 30 November 1922, in AAS, 14 [1922], pp. 644–46). Once founded, the r. is by its nature perpetual (can. 102); nevertheless, an r. ceases to exist by provision of the Code of Canon Law (can. 493) if for a hundred years it has had no members; suppression, however, is within the exclusive competence of the Holy See (can. 493; cf. AAS, 25 [1933], p. 147; 27 [1935], p. 48).
Another essential element of the r., as a means and customary practice for attaining its end, is the religious vows. These are promises made to God to refrain from the free use and administration, or even ownership, of any temporal goods (vow of poverty); to refrain from marriage and to live in perpetual chastity (vow of chastity); and to obey the legitimate superiors of the society (vow of obedience). Some r. add to these three common vows others, such as serving in missions, teaching without charge, and so forth. The promises that constitute the vows must be public, that is, accepted by a legitimate ecclesiastical superior on behalf of the Church (can. 1308 § 1). Acceptance of the promises by the legitimate superior takes place through a public act called religious profession. The scope and particular modalities that define the obligations and duties of a member of an r. are to be gathered from the constitutions and rules of the society itself.
The juridical bond uniting a member to the religious society must, at least in intention, be perpetual. For this reason the Code of Canon Law (can. 488 § 1) stipulates that a member of an r. must take perpetual or temporary public vows, to be renewed upon expiration, unless the member intends to withdraw from the r.
The Code of Canon Law supplements the definition of r. by specifying its end, namely the obligation incumbent upon members to strive for evangelical perfection. The evangelical precept bids one “to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48; Mk 10:2), and the fullness of perfection is love, charity (cf. Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 184, art. 1, ad 2). Yet Jesus Christ Himself, both by His words (Mt 19:21; 11:12) and by His example (Mt 8:20; Lk 9:58), showed that one can love the heavenly Father in diverse ways and through different paths. One may tend to the love of God while bound to the married state, in the exercise of the duties that such a state entails; one may freely use one’s goods in just and charitable stewardship; one may order one’s life independently, in a sequence of reasonable time and occupations. But one may also love God by living in perfect chastity, in complete poverty, and in absolute obedience. This form of life is objectively more perfect, and he who lives it is said to strive for evangelical perfection because he commits himself to putting into practice the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience. This way of life is not imposed by Jesus Christ on anyone, but is a free counsel, for it demands in those who embrace it a voluntary and complete self-giving to the service of God. When such a will to evangelical perfection becomes, in a certain manner, stable through vows or public promises of poverty, chastity, and obedience according to the constitutions and rules of a society, then one has an r. in the canonical sense.
Besides the general, fundamental, and common end, every r. must propose for itself a special end for the good of the Church and of human society; this particular end is an essential condition for the granting by the Holy See of any new foundation. The multiplicity and diversity of special ends correspond directly to the variety of human needs: proper priestly ministry, missions, education, teaching, assistance to the poor, to workers, vocational training, care of the sick, protection of orphans, shelter for the elderly, and so forth. Nor will the needs of society ever be so restricted and limited as to justify absolute opposition to new foundations of r., provided these present signs of vitality.
It should be noted that the necessity of a special end does not respond solely, nor principally, to the requirement of occupation in obedience to the universal law of work, but aims—its fundamental meaning lying here—to give concrete form and manner in which the members of a given r. are to strive for evangelical perfection.
Division. — The generic term r. applies to various bodies which, though essentially sharing the same elements—vows, authority, powers, etc.—nevertheless, by reason of these very elements, differ in some particulars and take different names. First, there are r. of men and r. of women. With regard to vows, one must distinguish Orders from Congregations. An Order is a religious society in which solemn vows are taken; a Congregation, on the other hand, is any religious society in which, in fact and in law, only simple vows are taken. A solemn vow is one that the Church recognizes as such; otherwise the vow is simple (cf. can. 1308 § 2). Between the two there is no essential difference. The distinction relates to effects and does not concern the nature of the vows, which remains the same. With regard to effects, it may reasonably be said that the consecration of solemn vows is more profound than that of simple vows. This is affirmed in the recent constitution *Sponsa Christi* of 21 November 1951: “Solemn vows, which imply a more rigorous and profound consecration to God than do other public vows, constitute the necessary and principal canonical note of Orders” (cf. AAS, 43 [1951], p. 11).
For particular effects of solemn and simple vows V. CHASTITY; OBEDIENCE; POVERTY.
It is not essential to the nature of an Order that every one of its members take solemn vows. Among the Jesuits, for example, not all pronounce solemn vows; moreover, in every Order a period of temporary simple vows necessarily precedes the solemn profession (cf. can. 574). If, by apostolic indult, all the members of an r. take only simple vows while the constitutions require solemn vows, the r. retains its title and character.
Religion — Original of the religious profession or obedience of the monk Gregory (1039 or 1040), together with the attested altar dedication found by Cardinal Antonio Barberini (17th century), in the church of S. Agata dei Goti — Rome.
Religious orders. This is the very frequent situation in which nuns in Belgium, Holland and France have found themselves. It is important to note here the meaning of the terms first Order, second Order and third Order. The first Order is that which traces its origin directly to the founder: thus the Dominicans, the Franciscans, the Carmelites; the second Order is the Order of nuns who intend to live by the same Rule as the first Order, according to the same spirit: for example, the Dominican nuns, the Poor Clares, the Carmelite nuns; the third Order, finally, groups together those lay people who wish to share in the Rule or spirituality of the Order, as far as their state of life allows: for example, the Third Order of St Dominic, the Third Order of St Francis, the Carmelite Third Order. Many Third Orders have gradually evolved to the point of constituting a distinct religious institute in their own right. Thus the Regular Third Order of St Francis and various Third Orders which became female congregations (cf. Third Order).
In ancient times only Orders corresponded to the concept of a religious institute. After the 1917 Code of Canon Law, religious congregations also definitively assumed the same designation.
With regard to jurisdiction, religious institutes are distinguished as exempt and non-exempt. An exempt religious institute is one which is not subject to the jurisdiction of the local Ordinary, except in cases expressly provided for in the Code; thus, for example, the care of souls always belongs to the jurisdiction of the Ordinary. The major Superiors of an exempt religious institute have the power of jurisdiction in both the internal and external forum and are designated in canon law as Ordinaries (cf. can. 198). An exempt religious institute is a kind of small personal diocese. By contrast, a non-exempt religious institute is subject to the local Ordinary, except in cases provided for in the Code. Nevertheless, even in non-exempt religious institutes the bishop may not interfere in the government of the Institute, although he retains a certain duty of oversight over lay congregations (cf. can. 618 § 2).
Religious Orders are exempt by right (can. 615); congregations can only be exempt by privilege (cf. can. 618 § 1). Thus the Passionists, the Redemptorists, the Verbites are exempt although they are simple congregations. In practice, a clerical congregation which is not exempt is often less dependent on the Ordinary than a lay Order which is exempt (cf. Exemption).
With regard to approval, there are religious institutes of pontifical right and religious institutes of diocesan right. Religious institutes of pontifical right have at least received the decree of praise; those which have not yet obtained this decree are of diocesan right. The normal procedure in the process of approving a religious institute involves the following successive steps: a) the bishop first approves the religious life in the form of a pious association (cf. can. 684 and following); b) subsequently, if the trial period has been positive and if the Holy See permits, he may erect the new foundation as a true religious institute (cf. can. 492); c) the new Institute remains under the jurisdiction of the bishop, who oversees its spiritual and temporal development; during this time the congregation remains diocesan and is governed by constitutions and statutes approved by the bishop; d) when the new foundation extends beyond the limits of the diocese, it usually becomes opportune to seek pontifical approval. Through the local Ordinary of origin and with the recommendations of all the bishops in whose territory the new Institute has houses, the matter is presented to the Sacred Congregation of Religious, which gradually grants the religious society the status of a religious institute of pontifical right. The first step towards pontifical approval is the decree of praise, by which the Holy See, in a document recalling the origin and purpose of the Institute, commends the new foundation. This is followed by the approval of the constitutions for a trial period and then the definitive pontifical approval.
With regard to the quality of their members, religious institutes are clerical or lay. In a clerical religious institute, a good number of the members are in holy orders. It is sufficient that the priests hold the government of the Institute even if the laity are more numerous. Female religious institutes, naturally, are all lay; male Orders are for the most part clerical religious institutes.
We should also recall some minor distinctions:
with merely delegated powers to the extent deemed useful and necessary for the development or activities of the group. These groupings go under the name of delegations, autonomous groups, regions, visitations, etc. They fall outside the norms of the Code of Canon Law and are determined solely by the law of the individual religious institutes.
More common, however, is the case in which the central government exercises a mediated power over all the individual houses and members, and between the General Curia and the individual houses there exist intermediate parts of the religious institute, recognized or organized in their essential elements by the Code itself. These intermediate parts are ordinarily called provinces, but they may have other names, such as inspectors, visitations, custodies, etc.; they must possess those common juridical characteristics established by the Code which are at the same time the necessary prerequisites for their constitution, competence for the religious institute but subject to confirmation by the Holy See. Among the principal requirements are: the existence of several religious houses whose economic stability guarantees the development of the works of the province; a sufficient number of members from which a Superior of the grouping may be chosen with ordinary rights and duties, albeit vicarious, such as the power to receive into the Institute and to admit to first profession, etc. These superiors are designated in canon law as major Superiors (can. 488 § 8). Every province has the right to have houses for recruitment, novitiates and studentates; however, the union of several provinces for such purposes is not excluded.
In centralized religious institutes, Chapters are of particular importance as organs of extraordinary government. They may be general, when they bring together representatives of the whole religious institute for elections and for legislation on the most important matters; they are provincial if they include only representatives of the provinces. Provincial Chapters generally do not have legislative power today, but in some cases they do have the power to elect to provincial offices and, generally, to present candidates for offices and to discuss matters pertaining to the province, which are then submitted for approval to the central government. The individual houses in centralized religious institutes are governed by a Superior with ordinary powers, varying according to the circumstances and in direct relation to the greater or lesser degree of centralization; however, these powers are always of an executive nature and do not, as a rule, extend to the admission into the Institute or, still less, to profession. Dependence on the central authority does not prevent provinces and even individual houses from having juridical personality, both in canon law and in civil law (can. 531); naturally, the power of action, ownership and administration is regulated by the constitutions of the religious society.
In some centralized religious institutes there also exist bodies superior to the provinces, the so-called 'assistances', which, according to the individual constitutions of the religious institute, have either an administrative character or a particular role of interest before the central government. Generally, assistances are not moral persons (cf. Codex Iuris Additicii Filiorum Immaculati Cordis B. M. V., Rome 1940, nn. 59 ff., 154 ff.).
A common characteristic of non-centralized religious orders is the independence and autonomy of each individual house, whose superior is therefore a major superior, with the rights and duties contemplated by the Code of Canon Law (can. 488 § 88). This system is especially used among monks and canons regular. Its origin lies in the fact that monasteries were considered as portions and their offices, like birth, were dependent in external matters on the bishop and in internal matters on the abbot. But in the West, as monasteries multiplied and followed the same rule, a movement toward centralization naturally arose, especially when the need for reform of monasteries for greater holiness and more effective apostolate became pressing. Thus there arose the federative movements of St. Benedict of Aniane (v.), Cluny (v.), Cîteaux (v.), etc. From all these movements, to which were added dispositions of the supreme pontiffs, there arose very different systems of government intended to safeguard the principle of autonomy, while at the same time creating a central government which, with at least moral authority, would be able to ensure the maintenance of the spirit and traditions of the order. The impetus in this direction can be well documented by the history of the Order of Black Benedictines, which culminated in the confederation established by Leo XIII on 12 July 1893 with the brief *Summum semper* (Fontes iuris can., III, no. 619), and was further defined in the *Lex propria* of the Benedictine Confederation of 21 March 1952, published with the brief of Pius XII, *Pacis vinculum* (AAS, 44 [1952], p. 520; cf. Ph. Schmitz, *Histoire de l'Ordre de St Benoit*, Maredsous 1942-47).
Apart from the peculiarities mentioned, in non-centralized orders there is the right of acceptance of members, of their formation in the novitiate, of houses of study for aspirants to the priesthood, of dismissal, etc., in each individual monastery.
While among male orders the federative movement increasingly asserted itself, among nuns and canonesses and regulars the stricter principle of isolation remained in force almost everywhere. Indeed, one must go back to the attempts of St. Peter Fourier to find examples of federations among independent monasteries. Even the monasteries of the Second Orders of the Mendicants, which were the true revolutionaries of the centralized system, had no more than a vague and immediate dependence on the First Order, without the possibility of constituting themselves into federations or congregations. The superior of houses *sui iuris* of nuns is therefore, in canon law, not only called a major superior, but also a supreme superior.
The Holy See currently favors a centralization in the orders and monasteries of women, based on a reasonable adaptation of the concept of federation to modern exigencies. The constitution *Sponsa Christi* of Pius XII of 21 November 1951 (AAS, 43 [1951], pp. 5-22) precisely indicates the laws according to which monasteries of the same rule or of the same spirit may federate, while leaving to each its autonomy which tradition has always justly defended, in view of the particular conditions of the contemplative life.
Religious orders have their own system of recruitment which ordinarily provides for houses of aspirancy, of postulancy and of novitiate, houses for young professed, houses of retirement, etc. The administration of the goods of a religious order is regulated by its own norms which specify in concreto the general canonical prescriptions (v. BENI ECCLESIASTICI).