RELIGIONE (NEL DIRITTO CANONICO). - I. NO-
NOTION. — In canon law, r. signifies a society approved by the legitimate ecclesiastical authority, in which the members, according to the constitutions and rules of the society itself, make public vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, with the general purpose of attaining evangelical perfection and the specific purpose of carrying out a determinate work of apostolate.
(Pontifical Institute, commission for the customary archival arrangement)
RELIGIONE — Original of the religious profession or “obedience” of the monk Gregorio (1039 or 1040), together with the certificate of the dedication of the altar found by Cardinal Antonio Barberini (17th century), in the church of S. Agata dei Coti — Rome.
The juridical character of r. means that its members, upon enrollment in it, belong to a genuine canonical state, the religious state.
Those enrolled in an r. are called religious.
In canon law, r. is regarded as a collegial moral person, with the rights and duties proper to every ecclesiastical moral person. Unlike other moral persons, however, r. cannot come into being through the private agreement of the faithful, but must be erected by the Church (can. 488). The authority competent to erect an r., except when it is a religious Order, is the local bishop, who must nevertheless, for the validity of the act itself, have the prior consent of the Holy See (can. 492). For the erection of an Order, which moreover does not ordinarily occur today, only the Holy See is competent. The present prescription of the CIC follows a middle course between the prohibition against erecting new r., issued to bishops by Pius X in the motu proprio Dei Providentis of 16 July 1906, n. 1 (Fontes iuris can., III, n. 675), and the freedom previously enjoyed and admitted by Leo XIII in the constitution Conditae a Christo of 8 December 1900 (ibid., n. 644). The act of erection must take the form of a written decree signed by the bishop, although an oral decision, if documented, may have legal force (S. Congr. of Religious, 30 November 1922, in AAS, 14 [1922], pp. 644–46). Once founded, r. is by its nature perpetual (can. 102); nevertheless, an r. ceases to exist by provision of the CIC (can. 493) if for one hundred years there has not been even a single member; suppression, on the other hand, falls exclusively within the competence of the Holy See (can. 493; cf. AAS, 25 [1933], p. 147; 27 [1935], p. 482).
Another essential element of r., as the common means of attaining its end, is religious vows. These are promises made to God to remain detached from the free use and administration, or even from ownership, of any temporal good (vow of poverty); not to contract marriage and to live in perfect chastity (vow of chastity); and to obey the legitimate Superiors of the society (vow of obedience). Some r. add other vows to these three common ones, such as serving in the missions, teaching free of charge, and so forth. The promises that constitute the vows must be public, that is, accepted by a legitimate ecclesiastical Superior in the name of the Church (can. 1308 § 1). The acceptance of the promises by the legitimate Superior takes place through a public act called religious profession. The scope and particular modalities that give concrete form to the obligations and duties of a member of an r. are to be derived from the constitutions and rules of the society itself.
The juridical bond uniting a member to the religious society must be, at least intentionally, perpetual. For this reason the CIC (can. 488 § 1) establishes that a member of an r. must make perpetual or temporary public vows, which must nevertheless be renewed when their period of duration has expired, unless the member intends to withdraw from the r.
The CIC completes the definition of r. by specifying its end, namely, the obligation on the part of its members to strive for evangelical perfection. The evangelical precept proposes “to be perfect as the Father who is in heaven” (Mc. 10, 2; Mc. 5, 48); and the fullness of perfection is love, charity (cf. Sum. Theol., 2a-2ae, q. 184, a. 1, ad 2). But Jesus Christ himself, through his words (Mc. 19, 21; 11, 12) and by his example (ibid. 8, 20; Lc. 9, 58), demonstrated that the heavenly Father can be loved in different ways and by different paths. The person bound to the married state must strive toward the love of God through the exercise of the duties entailed by that state; the person who freely uses his goods must do so through just and charitable administration; the person who orders his own life independently must do so through a reasonable succession of time and occupations; but God can also be loved by living in perfect chastity, complete poverty, and absolute obedience. This form of life is objectively more perfect, and the person who lives it is said to strive for evangelical perfection because he undertakes to put into practice the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience. It is a form of life imposed by Jesus Christ on no one, but free and counseled, because in the person who embraces it it requires a voluntary and complete dedication to the service of God. When this will toward 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, one has r. in the canonical sense.
In addition to the general, fundamental, and common end, every r. must set 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 every new foundation. The multiplicity and diversity of special ends is directly related to the variety of human needs: the priestly ministry properly so called, missions, education, teaching, assistance to the poor and to workers, training in trades, care of the sick, protection of orphans, shelter for the elderly, and so forth. Nor will the needs of society ever be so narrow and limited as to justify absolute opposition to new foundations of r., provided that these present themselves with signs of vitality.
It should be noted that the necessity of a special end responds neither solely nor principally to the need for an occupation in obedience to the universal law of work, but aims to give concrete form—and herein lies its fundamental significance—to the form and manner in which the members of a particular r. must strive for evangelical perfection.
II. DIVISION
The generic term “religious institute” is applied to various bodies which, although essentially possessing the same elements—namely, vows, authority, powers, etc.—nevertheless differ in some particular by reason of these very elements and take different names. First of all, there are institutes of men and institutes of women. With regard to vows, a distinction must be made between Orders and Congregations. An Order is a religious institute in which solemn vows are professed; a Congregation, on the other hand, is any religious institute in which, in fact and in law, only simple vows are professed. A solemn vow is one which the Church recognizes as such; otherwise the vow is simple (cf. can. 1308 § 2). There is no essential difference between the two. The distinction concerns their effects and not the nature of the vows, which remains the same. With regard to their effects, it may rightly be said that the consecration involved in solemn vows is deeper than that involved in simple vows. This is affirmed in the recent constitution Sponsa Christi of 21 Nov. 1951: «Solemn vows, which entail a more rigorous and profound consecration to God than the other public vows, constitute the necessary and principal canonical mark of Orders» (cf. AAS, 43 [1951], p. 11).For the effects in particular of solemn and simple vows V. CASTITÀ; OBEDIENZA; POVERTÀ.
It is not essential to the nature of an Order that each of its members profess solemn vows. Among the Jesuits, for example, not all pronounce solemn vows; moreover, in every Order a period of temporary simple vows necessarily precedes solemn profession (cf. can. 574). If, by apostolic indult, all the members of a religious institute profess only simple vows, whereas the constitutions would require solemn vows, the institute retains the title and character of an Order. This was very frequently the situation in which the nuns in Belgium, Holland, and France found themselves.
The meaning of the terms first Order, second Order, and third Order should be noted here. The first Order is the one that goes back directly to the founder: thus the Dominicans, Franciscans, and Carmelites; the second Order is the Order of nuns who intend to live according to the same rule as the first Order, in the same spirit: for example, the Dominican nuns, the Poor Clares, and the Carmelites; finally, the third Order groups together those lay people who desire to share in the rule or spirituality of the Order, insofar as this is permitted by their state of life: for example, the Third Order of s. Dominic, the Third Order of s. Francis, and the Carmelite Third Order. Many Third Orders gradually developed to the point of constituting a distinct religious institute in their own right. Thus the Regular Third Order of s. Francis and various Third Orders that became women’s Congregations (v. TERZ'ORDINE).
In ancient times only Orders corresponded to the concept of a religious institute. After the CIC, religious Congregations too definitively assumed the same designation.
With regard to jurisdiction, religious institutes are distinguished as exempt and non-exempt. An exempt institute is one that is not subject to the jurisdiction of the local Ordinary, except in cases expressly provided for in the CIC; thus, for example, the care of souls always belongs to the jurisdiction of the Ordinary. The major Superiors of an exempt institute possess the power of jurisdiction in the internal and external forum and are designated in law by the name of Ordinaries (cf. can. 198). An exempt institute is a kind of small personal diocese. Conversely, a non-exempt institute is subject to the local Ordinary, except in the cases provided for by the CIC. Nevertheless, even in non-exempt institutes the bishop may not interfere in the government of the Institute, although he always retains a certain duty of supervision over lay congregations (cf. can. 618 § 2);
Orders are exempt by law (can. 615); Congregations can be exempt only by privilege (cf. can. 618 § 1). Thus the Passionists, Redemptorists, and Verbites are exempt even though they are simple Congregations. In practice, a non-exempt clerical congregation is often less dependent on the Ordinary than an exempt lay Order (v. ESENZIONE).
With regard to approval, there are religious institutes of pontifical right and of diocesan right. Institutes of pontifical right have received at least the decree of praise; those that have not yet obtained this decree are of diocesan right. The normal procedure in the approval of a religious institute involves the following successive acts: a) the bishop first approves the religious life in the form of a pious association (cf. can. 684 and amendments); b) subsequently, if the trial has proved successful and if the Holy See permits it, 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 supervises its spiritual and temporal development; during this period 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 is ordinarily appropriate to request pontifical approval. Through the local Ordinary of its place of origin, and with commendatory letters from all the bishops in whose territory the new Institute has houses, the matter is submitted to the Holy Congregation of Religious, which gradually transforms the religious society into an institute of pontifical right. The first step toward pontifical approval is the decree of praise, by which the Holy See, in a document recalling the origin and purpose of the Institute, praises the new foundation. This is followed by approval of the constitutions for seven years and then by definitive pontifical approval.
With regard to the status of their members, religious institutes are clerical or lay. In a clerical institute, a substantial part of the members are priests. It is sufficient that the priests hold the government of the Institute even if the lay members are more numerous. Women’s religious institutes are naturally all lay; men’s Orders are for the most part clerical institutes.
RELIGIONE — First National Congress of United States Religious (1922). Moment during the celebration of some of the 600 Holy Masses celebrated each morning at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana).
a) contemplative, active, and mixed religious institutes. Contemplative institutes devote themselves principally to prayer, meditation, and ascetic exercises. Active institutes consecrate themselves more particularly to external works: preaching, teaching, care of the sick, etc. Mixed institutes seek to harmonize contemplative life with active life in a fruitful unity. Evidently, these divisions should not be understood in a rigid sense. Contemplative institutes do not completely renounce every form of apostolate, and institutes of active life do not neglect prayer. But it is understandable, for example, that the apostolate of a Trappist should differ essentially from that of a missionary; b) Mendicant and non-mendicant Orders. In strictly mendicant Orders, neither individuals nor the institute as a whole may own property. Legal capacity is excluded, as provided by can. 532. Only the Franciscans and Capuchins belong to this category. The other mendicant Orders admit a certain degree of ownership. Thus the Carmelites possess property as an Order, but the individual houses have no legal capacity. Among the Jesuits, some houses may own property.
Finally, mention may be made of the division of religious institutes according to the four great Rules: a) Rule of Basil (v.), followed by the Eastern religious institutes; b) Rule of St. Benedict (v.), adopted by the Benedictines, Camaldolese, Cistercians, Carthusians, etc.; c) Rule of St. Augustine (v.), taken as the fundamental norm by the Regular Canons, Premonstratensians, Trinitarians, Theatines, etc.; d) Rule of St. Francis (v.), followed by the Franciscans, Conventuals, Capuchins, etc.
III. ORGANIZATION
Every society requires an organization, a government, an authority. The Church, a supernatural society of a special character, is divided into particular societies that have their own organization. Although all religious institutes have a certain common organization, they nevertheless differ as centralized and non-centralized institutes. The former have a central government that commands the entire institute and its individual parts, as well as all the individual members of the institute. This government is immediate when the institute is not divided into intermediate parts but admits only a general curia and individual houses. In this first case, however, there may be groups of members over whom the central government places a Superior with merely delegated powers, to the extent deemed useful and necessary for the development or activities of the group. These groupings are known as delegations, autonomous groups, regions, visitations, etc. They fall outside the norms of the CIC and are determined solely by the law of the individual institute.More frequent, however, is the case in which the central government exercises mediated authority over all the individual houses and all the individual members, while between the general curia and the individual houses there exist intermediate parts of the institute, recognized and organized in their essential elements by the CIC itself. These intermediate parts are ordinarily called provinces, but they may have other names, such as inspectorates, visitations, custodies, etc.; they must possess those common juridical characteristics established by the CIC, which are at the same time the necessary prerequisites for their establishment, a matter within the competence of the 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 province’s works; a sufficient number of members from among whom a Superior of the grouping may be chosen, with ordinary rights and duties, even if exercised vicariously, such as accepting candidates into the institute, admitting them to first profession, etc. In law these Superiors are called Major Superiors (can. 488 § 8). Every province has the right to have houses for recruitment, novitiate, and studies; nevertheless, the union of several provinces for this purpose is not excluded.
In centralized institutes, Chapters have particular importance as organs of extraordinary government. They may be general when they assemble representatives of the entire institute for elections and legislation concerning the most important affairs; they are provincial when only representatives of the provinces take part. Provincial Chapters today generally have no legislative power, but in some cases they elect provincial officials and, generally, present candidates for offices and discuss questions proper to the province, which are then submitted for approval to the central government. The individual houses in centralized institutes are governed by a Superior with ordinary powers, differing according to the circumstances and corresponding to the lesser or greater degree of centralization; these powers, however, are always purely executive and ordinarily do not extend to admission into the institute, still less to profession. Dependence on the central authority does not prevent the provinces or even the individual houses from possessing juridical personality, both in canon law and in civil law (can. 531); naturally, the power to act, own property, and administer it is regulated by the constitutions of the religious society.
In some centralized institutes there also exist bodies superior to the provinces, the so-called «assistances», which, according to the individual constitutions of the institutes, have either an administrative character or the particular function of promoting their interests before the central government. Generally, assistances are not moral persons (cf. Codex Iuris additicii Filiorum Immaculati Cordis B. M. V., Roma 1940, nn. 59 sgg., 154 sgg.).
The common characteristic of non-centralized institutes is the independence and autonomy of the individual religious houses, whose Superior is therefore a Major Superior, with the rights and duties contemplated by the CIC (can. 488 § 88). This system is especially in use among monks and Canonici Regolari. Its origin lies in the fact that monasteries were regarded as chosen portions of the dioceses in which they arose, being therefore subject to the bishop in matters belonging to the external forum and to the abbot in the internal forum. In the West, however, as monasteries multiplied and followed the same rule, a movement toward centralization naturally developed, especially when the need arose for a reform of the monasteries to attain greater holiness and a more effective apostolate. Thus there arose the federative movements of S. Benedetto di Aniane (v.), Cluny (v.), Cîteaux (v.), etc. From all these movements, joined by measures issued by the supreme pontiffs, arose highly diverse 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, could ensure the preservation of the spirit and traditions of the institute. The impetus in this direction can be well documented by the history of the Order of the Black Benedictines, which culminated in the confederation established by Leo XIII on 12 July 1893 through the brief Summum semper (Fontes iuris can., III, n. 619), and was defined still more clearly in the Lex propria of the confederated Benedictine Order 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 1942-43).
Apart from the peculiarities mentioned, in non-centralized institutes the right of accepting members, of forming them in the novitiate and in houses of study for aspirants to the priesthood, of dismissal, etc., belongs to each individual monastery.
Whereas among male institutes the federative movement became increasingly established, among nuns and Canoniche Regolari the more rigid isolationist principle remained in force almost everywhere. Indeed, one must go back to the attempts of s. Pietro 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 more or less vague and immediate dependence on the First Order, without the possibility of forming federations or congregations. The Superior of sui iuris houses of nuns is therefore known in canon law not only as a Major Superior but also as a Supreme Superior.
The Holy See currently favors centralization in women’s Orders and monasteries, based on a reasonable adaptation of the concept of federation to modern requirements. The const. Sponsa Christi of Pius XII of 21 Nov. 1951 (AAS, 43 [1951], pp. 3-22) precisely indicates specific laws according to which monasteries following the same rule or sharing the same spirit may federate, while leaving each one that autonomy which tradition has always rightly defended because of the particular conditions of contemplative life.
Religious institutes have their own system of recruitment, which ordinarily provides for houses of aspirandate, probation, and novitiate, houses for young professed members, rest houses, etc. The administration of the goods of a religious institute is regulated by its own norms, which specify in concrete terms the general canonical prescriptions (v. BENI ECCLESIASTICI).