possible to provide for this necessity by seeking alms within the locality, the district, or the diocese in which these religious live, they are not to accord them more ample authorization' (c. 622, § 8). Superioresses, too, should not entrust the collection of alms to others than professed subjects of mature age and character (c. 623). In regard to the method to be followed in collecting, and the discipline to be observed by those engaged in it, religious are commanded to conform to the regulations of the Singulari quidem.

It must be remembered that there is no prohibition whatever against receiving alms which are spontaneously offered, or even against looking for them by letter; the rules with which we have just dealt are concerned merely with religious who travel about from place to place and appeal in person for assistance.1

ON PASSING TO ANOTHER INSTITUTE

Under the new discipline no religious can pass to another, even stricter, Institute, or from one independent monastery to another, without authorization from the Apostolic See' (c. 632). So far as Institutes of women are concerned, this will involve very little change. The restriction always affected nuns, on account of the enclosure; and, as it was embodied in the Normae," we may conclude that for sisters also it was, generally speaking, obligatory. As religious are such only while their vows continue, it follows that, on the cessation of temporary vows or dispensation of perpetual ones, this prohibition no longer obtains.

When a religious, with the necessary permission, passes to another Institute, she is bound to make the usual novitiate. Her position, however, differs very much from that of the ordinary novice. Whilst the rights and particular obligations which she had in the former Institute cease indeed, yet her vows continue, and she is bound to obey the new Superioresses and the new Mistress of Novices in virtue of the vow of obedience. She is also bound to return to the old Institute, if, at the expiration of novitiate, she fails to make profession in the new one. In the case, however, in which a religious passes from one independent convent or monastery to another of the same Order, a new novitiate or profession is not necessary (c. 633).

1 Cf. Vermeersch, op. cit., n. 372, etc.

§ 61.

Generally speaking, it is required that temporary should precede perpetual profession. Canon 634, as we have had already occasion to remark, excepts the case of those who, after having taken perpetual vows in one Institute, join another. Although in these circumstances the temporary profession is not even permitted, the Superioress may, however, prolong the period of probation, but not beyond one year after the completion of the novitiate.

The effects of joining another convent or another Institute enumerated in Canon 634 are produced, in the former case, on the day of transition, in the latter, on the day of the new profession. A brief summary of them will suffice:

1°. All the rights and obligations of the former convent or Institute are lost, all those of the new convent or Institute are assumed.

2o. The former convent or Institute retains all the property which it has already acquired through the religious. With the disposition of the dowry and its interest, and also of any other personal property which the religious may possess, we have already dealt in a former article.

As to the new Institute's right to compensation for expenses involved in the novitiate, the general rule, given in Canon 570, § 1, of which we have already treated, must be followed.

According to the final Canon of this section, if a nun with solemn vows, lawfully, in accordance with the foregoing regulations, makes her profession in a religious Congregation, the solemnity of her vows is by that very fact abolished, unless an apostolic indult expressly determine otherwise.

ON ABANDONING RELIGION

Religion may be abandoned under various circumstances. First of all, it is quite clear that those who have taken only temporary vows, may freely leave when the term of their vows has expired. It is further stated that 'the Institute, for just and reasonable motives, can exclude religious from renewing temporary vows or from making profession of perpetual vows, not, however, because of illhealth, except it be clearly proved that the religious, before profession, had fraudulently hidden or dissimulated the illness' (c. 637).

Hence, for such exclusion, no special process is required:

certainty as to the existence of the cause, however obtained, will suffice. Nor is any appeal in the strict sense permitted, though, of course, against any action of the kind recourse to the Holy See, without the suspensive effect, may be always made. The prescription in regard to ill-health is reminiscent of a similar regulation in the old discipline for those who had taken simple triennial vows in strict Orders.1 We shall see later on that the Code requires greater formalities for the dismissal of temporarily professed religious prior to, than for their exclusion after, the expiration of their temporary vows.

Religious may also leave their Institute in virtue of the indult of a Superior. If the indult allows them to remain outside temporarily, it is called an indult of exclaustration; if perpetually, an indult of secularization. Even the local Ordinary may grant these indults for diocesan Congregations; for Institutes approved by the Holy See, however, the Roman authorities alone are competent (c. 638).

The effects of the temporary indult are very little changed. According to Canon 639, 'whoever has obtained from the Apostolic See the indult of exclaustration, remains bound by her vows and the other obligations of her profession compatible with her state; but she must put off the religious habit; she shall be without active and passive voice during the period expressed in the indult, but she enjoys the merely spiritual privileges of her Institute, and she is subject, not to the Superioresses of her own Institute, but to the Ordinary of the diocese in which she resides, and this even by virtue of the vow of obedience.'

Some important modifications, however, have been made in regard to the indult of secularization :—1°, Religious who are perpetually secularized will in future be freed altogether from their vows; and 2°, as a direct consequence, it follows that, should they, in virtue of an Apostolic indult, re-enter the Institute, they are obliged to make a new novitiate and profession. Under the old discipline the vows were unaffected, and, consequently, no new novitiate or profession was required. Otherwise, the effects of the perpetual indult are unchanged :-1°. A perpetually secularized religious is still cut off altogether from her Institute, and, in regard to the use of the Sacraments, is in the same position as a laic. 2°. She is not bound to

1 Decret. Sanctissimus, 12 Jun., 1858, n. v.: 'Nemo autem ex causa infirmitatis post professionem votorum simplicium superventae dimitti poterit.'

recite the Divine Office, even though the choral obligation existed in the Institute, nor to observe any of the other rules and constitutions (c. 640).

Whoever leaves her Institute, whether on the expiration of the term of temporary vows, or by virtue of an indult of secularization, or whoever has been dismissed, cannot seek compensation for services rendered by her to the Institute (c. 643, § 1). The justice of this regulation will be evident, if it be remembered that a religious, in virtue even of the temporary vow of poverty, transfers her services entirely to the Institute, so that she is no longer capable of acquiring anything for herself by her own industry. We have already seen that when a religious leaves her Institute under any of these circumstances she has a right to receive the dowry which she brought with her when entering. 'If, however, a religious has been received without any dowry, and cannot provide for herself out of her own resources, the Institute should, in charity, give her what is necessary for her to return safely and becomingly to her home, and provide her, in accordance with natural equity, for a certain time, to be determined by mutual consent, or, in the case of disagreement, by the local Ordinary, with the means of living decently' (c. 643, § 2). The reasonableness of some such arrangement is self-evident. The Normae required provision to be made only for the journey home, but clearly this did not meet all the needs of the case. Battandier, in discussing this point, held that the Institute was bound to pay the expenses of the journey home, even though the religious had a dowry. This certainly will not hold in the new discipline.

Religion may be also abandoned by apostasy and flight. Hitherto, these terms, in their strict sense, could be employed only in connexion with the abandonment of an Order with solemn vows; under the Code, however, they have a wider application. According to Canon 644, § 1, an apostate from religion is one who, having made profession of perpetual vows, whether solemn or simple, unlawfully leaves the religious house with the intention of not returning, or who, with the intention of withdrawing herself from religious obedience, though she has left the house lawfully, does not return to it.' It is further added that this perverse intention is legally presumed when the 1§ 200.

21.c., n. 325.

3 Vermeersch, op. cit., n. 340, etc.

religious, within a month, has neither returned nor manifested to her Superior her intention of returning' (c. 644, § 2). This presumption of law did not exist under the old discipline. Its special value consists in this, that it relieves Superiors from the burden of proving the existence of the intention of not returning to the Institute, should the question of inflicting punishment upon the crime of apostasy arise. It is scarcely necessary to remark that, if the intention of not returning really exists, the crime is complete from the very first moment of departure.

On the other hand, a fugitive is one who, without the permission of her Superiors, deserts the religious house, but with the intention of returning to the Institute (c. 644, § 3). Though this definition is none too clear, still, on the analogy of the old discipline, we presume that flight and apostasy differ only in regard to intention. A fugitive is to be distinguished from one who leaves the house secretly for a special occasion and returns immediately; the former withdraws herself from obedience to the Superioress and from the common exercises and observances, the latter does not.

'Neither apostate nor fugitive is freed from the obligation of her rule and vows, and must without delay return to her Institute' (c. 645, § 1). The Superiors must seek them with solicitude, and receive them if they return animated by a sincere repentance; but as to apostate and fugitive nuns, the local Ordinary shall prudently see to their return, and the Regular Superior also in the case of an exempt monastery' (c. 645, § 2).

DISMISSAL

Ipso facto Dismissal.-There are certain crimes to which the punishment of dismissal from the Institute is attached ipso facto. In these cases, however, although no demnatory sentence of any tribunal is required, still the higher Superioress, with her Chapter or Council, in accordance with the constitutions, must give a declaratory sentence as to the existence of the crime, and must preserve all the evidence regarding it in the register of the house. The crimes to which the penalty of dismissal is attached in the Code are:-1°, Public apostasy from the Catholic faith; 2°, Flight from the monastery or convent with a person of the opposite sex; 3°, Marriage, attempted marriage, or even the so-called civil marriage (c. 646). The