[Untitled]

for permission to be established juridically as a secular inst.itute. 27 FRANCIS N. KORTH Review for Religious 16. I~ an association [ull~lls all the requirements for a secular insti-tute, doesit have an option of remaining in its status quo, e.g. as a pio’us union of the faithful, or must it make application for establish-ment as a secular institute? When an association has all the nec.essary requisites, it must apply to Rome for permission to be set up as a secular institute. 17. Who is to make such application to Rome? The local Ordinary (and not. a mere titular BishOp nor a Vicar Capitular orVicar General) is the proper person to make such appli-cation. 18. To whom should the application be sent? ~ The application is to be sent to the Sacred Congregation for Reli-gious, since this Sacred Congregation moderates things pertaining to the juridical state of perfection to-be-acquired. 19. What information is to be forwarded with the application? The Sacred Congregation for Religious wishes to have informa-tion, with the proper adjustments, on all the points required by the Normae (nos. 3-8) issued by the same Sacred Congregation in 1921 in regard to the establishment of religious congregations. The infor-mation to be sent includes, therefore, the following: name and quall-ficati~ ns of the founder, reason for establishing the new secular insti-tute, proposed name of tb~ new institute, number and nature of works proposed as proper to the institute, means of support, list of similar~ institutes in the diocese (if any) with their proper work’s. Six copies of the constitutions must also be sent, as well as coigies of the directory and of other documents which can be of service in showing the spirit of the association. The constitutions would give information ’about the nature of the proposed institute, its proper works, its government, common houses, classes of members, the fo~m of consecration, the bond resulting from incorporation in the insti-tute, training of the members, exercises of piety, and other relevant matter. Besides the above, any further information the Sacred Congrega-tion may require must also be sent. 20. After permission has been obtained from the Sacred Congrega-tion, what is the next step? After permission (the nihil obstat) has been obtained from the .Sacred Congregation, the local Ordinary may proceed to establish the secular institute as an ecclesiastical moral person. Official notice of 28 January, 1952 SECULAR INSTITUTES such establishment is then to be sent to the same Sacred Congrega-tion. 21. What is the juridical status of the new institute? The new secular institute is an ecclesiastical moral person of diocesan right, that is, a diocesan secular institute. 22. Could a diocesan secular institute later receive recognition as a pontifical institute? Yes, after a period of time such papal approval could be obtained. The procedure is similar to that followed for obtaining pontifical approval for a religious co.ngregation or a society of common life, with some necessary adjustments and additions. 23. Wh~t expansion is possible for a secular institute? A secular institute need not necessarily be confined to one dio- Cese

interdiocesan and even universal expansion might be possible. 24. By what laws are secular institutes governed? Secular institutes are governed by: (1) the provisions of the Provida Mater Ecclesia

(2). further provisions, interpretations, or applications of that Apbstolic Constitution made by the Sacred Con-gregation

(3) their own individual constituti6ns (which would embody the regulations of the Provida Mater Ecclesia and the further provisions of the Sacred Congregation, and make them more specific in conformity with the purpose of the institute)

(4) the common law of the Code in matters pertaining to them or to their members and which are not provided for by their own special or proper law. 25. Do the members of secular institutes consequently have the obli-gations, or share in the privileges, of religious or clerics? As a general ru.le, they do not have the obligations nor share the privileges of religious. As fa~ as the obligations and privileges of clerics are concerned, again as a general thing, members of secular in-stitutes who are clerics share those obligations and privileges, while non-clerics do not. 26. What about the novitiate, training of candidates, transfer to another institute, dismissal, suppression of an institute, and the like? A secular institute, even if only diocesan, can be suppressed by the Holy See alone. The other points could be determined in the constitutions of each institute or in future communications from the Holy See. The three existing Roman documents on secular insti-tutes do not treat these points. 29 FRANCIS N. KORTH Review for Religious 27. Which are the three documents referred to in the preceding answer? They are: (1) the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII, Provida Mater Ecclesia, of February 2, 1947

(2) the Motu proprio Primo feliciter of March 12, 1948

and (3) the Instruction Cure Sanctissimus, issued by the Sacred Congregation for Religious on March 19, 1948. Up to the present, these are the main documents about secular institutes. (An English translation of these docu-ments can be found in Bouscaren’s Canon Law Digest: Supplement 1948, pages 63-86). 28. If a secular institute bad been established with the approval ot~ the Holy See prior to the Prouida Mater Ecclesia, do the prou[sions of that Apostolic Constitution apply to such an institute? The Prouida Mater Ecclesia is not retroactive in regard to those secular institutes (any association which fulfills the substantial ’re-quirements, no matter under what form it was approved) which had been previously approved by the Holy See or established after con-sultation with the Holy See, as far as their rights and obligations are concerned, but they now come under the classification of secular in-stitutes. In regard to all other associations the Provida Mater Eccle-sia does apply. 29. One [inal question. Why was the name "’secular institutes" chosen? In the ’deliberations preceding the official recognition of secular institutes as a new juridical state of perfectibn, various names were proposed for the new institution. Among these were: "religious sodalities," "religious unions," "societies without vows and without common life." However, in order to bring out the specific character of the new organizations, the present name, "secular institutes," was happily chosen. That ’name spotlights the fact that members of the new institutes do not live a cloistered life but live in the world and support themselves by the same occupations and employment as do other people. A concluding’remark. As the Holy Father in his Motu proprio (II) emphasized: "... in working out the general as well as the par-ticular organization of all these Institutes, this must always be kept in mind, that in all of them their special and peculiar character as secular Institutes, which is the whole reason for their existence, be clearly expressed. Nothing is to be subtracted from the full profes- 30 January, 19~2 OPEN LETTER TO SELF sion of Christian perfection, solidly based on the evangelical coun-sels, and in substance truly religious

but this perfection is to be exer-cised and professed in the world, and therefore in all things which are licit and which can be brought into conformity with the duties and works of that same perfection, it must be adapted to the secular life. "... [The] apostolate of Secular Institutes is to be faithfully practiced not only in the world, but as of the world, and therefore with avowed aims, practices, forms, and in places and circumstances corresponding t~o this secular condition" (Bouscaren, op. cir., pages 77-78). Open Letter to Sell: Everett J. Mibach, S.J. DEAR SELF: You have often asked me why it is that you make such little progress in the things of God. You complain, dear Self, that you often have clear lights and high aspirations after holiness only to have them vanish like a puff of smoke that never was or like the seed in the gospel withering away before it brings forth the promised fruit that lay pregnant in its husk. You resign yourself to a spiritual mediocrity. You leave, the "why" of it unanswered. I am afraid that you have forgotten, dear Self, a lesson that you were taught many years ago when you first set out in quest of God. -Then it was that you had explained to you the importance of t~delitg in little things.. This means simply: fidelity to grace. As you grew older, but not wiser, you noticed the "great deeds" won the applause of the day. You concentrated your efforts on performing the big things" and have neglected the little ones. Because things seem little you should not account them of no value. A man’s thumb can cover the button that will plunge a bril-liantly lighted city into aconfused darkness. A bronze door weighing several hundred tons can be easily opened because of a little pin in the hinge. Five cents worth of iodine in the thyroid gland keeps this world’s genius from being an idiot. Little things? Yes. Unimportant? Hardly. If you insist, upon spurning the seemingly little things, 31 EVERETT3. MIBACH Review t:or Religious Self, you will never attain to sanctity. Fidelity to little things is the small button that will flood the soul with the light of God’s grace. It is the small pin upon which swing the gates to our eternal glory. Self, think back to some of the little things you have neglected. What far reaching consequences that’ neglect has had! Every time Christ whispers--and He does so constantly to the Christian soul-- He is offering you a greater share in His divine life. He is inviting you to a closer participation in Him. All of His invitations have written upon them R.S.V.P. R3loondez, s’il oous plait. Answer, if you please. You can throw the invitation aside unans~wered, thinking it too unimportant, too inconsequential to merit your serious atten-’ tion. Nothing that Christ invites you to is unimportant. Nothing is inconsequential. Christ is God. His divine life of grace in us is the all-important thing in this life. When He offers you a greater .degree of this divine life, a closer union with Him, do you dare to say that it is unimportant, to say it is a little thing? I have told you, Self, that Christ is constantly whispering to your soul. Do you not hear Him? Do you not know what I mean by the "whisper of Christ"?Can it be that you have never, experienced it? Of course you have. Because you have told me of your aspira-tions that were still-born. He speaks daily to your intellect, to youi right judgment, to your conscience. Perhaps if we recall together a few of the neglected little ~hings you will better understand what I mean. Remember the day when everything wasgoing so well. You had been living in union with your Divine Guest, turning to Him in the quiet of your soul. And then you found yourself with some "other Christs." The conversation was of many things. Suddenly you thought about a little remark you could repeat about an "absent Christ." It was just a little thing, a word or two, nothing more. A little mocking inflection of innocent words, a little raising of the ey~- brows with a knowing nod--little things in themselves but just enough to start the ball rolling. Like a snow ball rolling downhill, it grew in size as it passed from one to another. How you blushed when you saw the consequences! Before you gave it your little push you had heard Christ’s whisper, "Don’t say that about Me. It is just a little defect and my ’other Christ’ and I are sin-cerely trying to work it out. R.S.V.P." But the thing asked was too small, one or two words held back. Christ would not ask that of you, Self. So you said it because it was just a little thing. Then you went back to find again your Divine 32 Januarv, 1952 OPEN LETTER TO SELF Guest and resume your communing with Him. But He hid Himself from you. Perhaps He went to console His "absent Christ" who was wounded by your infidelity. Do you recall the night 9t supper when the potatoes were burnt? The thought occurred to you to eat them and not complain about it. That was Christ’s invitation: "My other Christs are suffering. Won’t you fill.up my sufferings in union with theirs? R.S.V.P." And you answered, "This is’nothing. What a foolish thought! That is for novices. I’ll do some real penance tomorrow." But you had turned your back on the invitation of the moment. Christ offered you a greater share in His life and you refused it. That unguarded look, that littl~-~oh, so little--self indulgence in curiosity, that little un-pe~: ceived concession to ease that is known only to.you and your Divine Guest, that little slurring off of modesty, that little lack of silence--and all the time you knew what Christ asked of you. With the timelessness of thought you were able to weigh in the balance what was asked of you. You chose yourself. You could have chosen Christ but you did not. It was too little. Imagine Christ’s life to be bought for a trifle and you refused to buy it! Do you still wonder at .your lack of progress? Self, I want you to stop and think of what a mistake you are making in neglecting these little things. You are stifling the growth of Christ in your soul. He is nourished by your willing acceptance of His graces. He is starved by your refusals. Nothing is too small to offer Christ when He asks for it. "When you hear His voice harden not your heart." You wonder, I know, why it is so very hard at times to give these little things, it should be easy because they are so small. Yet what a struggle it costs you. Don’t look too far for the answer, Self. It is in your very name. You bear in your-self the seeds o’f death. Your very name betrays you. I can promise you, Self, that if you take a firm resolution to be faithful to~ the !ittle things of the present moment you will make progress. Keep saying, "Yes, yes, dear Christ, this little thing" for You, and an increase of Your divine life for me. In giving You this little thing I am giving part of myself to You, my body, my judg-ment, my will. There can be no vacuum in nature, so You must fill up the void with Your sweet presence." God Bless you, Self. " Your constant companion, ME ¯ 33 Cont:emporary Depreclat:ion ot: t:he Religious Lit:e P. De Letter, S.J. OF LATE in many a religious institute, particularly of nuns, scarcity of vocations has provoked a veritable crisis and raised a r~roblem. The ideal of the religious qife, apparently, no longer appeals to the young. They dream of something greater and more modern, more active and efIicient, offering them a better chance of developing their tMents and personality. This practical deprecia-tion of the religious life may be due to many causes, from a worldly spirit with its desire for comfort and of the sensational, up to the specious pretence of more fruitful apostolate and more widespread action. But it is a fact that together with it, and perhaps as its par-tial if not chief cause, echoes are heard of a plain theoretical deprecia-tion of the religious state. However well-intentioned may have been the praise and commendation of another ideal, that of the secular priesthood and of’ the secular apostolate, which gave occasion to this slur on the religious life, the errors involved cannot but be harmful in the long run, even to the other cherished ideal. Religious writers have not failed to take up the challenge and to defend the Catholic idea of the religious state against its detractors. It must have been gratifying to them and to all religious that recently the Holy Father himself took up their defence when he addressed the members of the First Congress for Religious, held in Rome, Novem-ber 26-December 8, 1950) The congress had expressed the wish for a papal pronouncement which would condemn the errors rampant about the state of perfection, and give clear directives for the adapta-tion of the religious life to modern times. In answer to this desire the Holy Father stated in unmistakable language the erroneous opin-ions concerning the traditional idea of the religious life. It is not out-of-place for religious to reflect awhile on the Pope’s teaching about the religious state. This reflection should increase our oivn appreciation of our vocation, and enable us t9 inspire others with the same ideal. The Holy Father deals with five main causes of the present-day 1The Latin text of this allocution is found in the Acta Apost?licae Sedis, 43 (1951), pp. 26-36. 34 DEPRECIATION OF RELIGIOUS LIFE depreciation of the religious life

the first two concern the position of religious priests

the last three concern all religious. They comprise both theoretical and practical errors, to which he opposes the tradi-tional Catholic teaching. He thus indicates both the ill and its cure. The Place of the Religious Clergg within the Church The first cause of undervaluing the religious state, particularly that of the .religious clergy as distinct from the secular clergy, ’is a wrong idea of its place within the Catholic Church. This is mainly a theoretical error but it entails practical consequences. It has been said that the hierarchy instituted by Christ is that of pope, bishop, and parish clergy. The religious state is not of divine origin

it is only an ecclesiastical institution. The religious clergy derives from and is secondary to the secular or diocesan clergy. Religious priests do not exactly fit in the degrees of the normal hierarchical order

they are practically outside the hierarchy. Proof of it is their exemp-tion from the bishops. This theoretical view naturally inclines one to underrate the state of the religious clergy and to consider them as more or less irregular. Should we not rather abide by the normal hierarchical position of the secular or diocesan clergy? A.practical consequence, logically flowing from this pr~mise, would divert aspirants to the priesthood grom the cloister and direct them to the seminary. To this partly erroneous view the Pope opposes what may be called the first papal decision in the age-long rivalry between secular and regular clergy. The Church, he says, is hierarchical by divine institution, that is, composed of clerics and laity.’ Both of these, clerics and "laity, can enter the religious state which is, it is true, of ecclesiastical origin. Both religious and non-religious can be clerics and priests. But neither of the two pechliar forms of life for the, clergy that exist today, secular or regular, was established by Christ. The divine law does not give the preference to one above the other, nor exclude one or the other. Christ left to His Church the task of ¯ settling their mutual differences and relations, and their respective labors. Accordingly, the religious clergy is not less within ~he hierarchy than the secular clergy. Both religious and secular priests are helpers of the bishop, as determined, for the religious too, by the Code of Canon Law (626-631

454, § 5). At times, especially in the mis-sions, the whole diocesan clergy happens to be religious. This, the Pope says, is not an abnormal situation which should be ended as 35 P. DE LI~TTER Reoieu) t:or Religious soon as possible. Accordingly also, the exemption of religiou~ !s not against the divine institution of the Church nor against the general principle that priests are depqndent on the bishop. For two reasons: first, because even exempt religious depend on the local bishop to the extent determined by canon law

secondly, because they are subject, both by the ruling of the Church law and by virtue of their vow of obedience, to the pope who has immediate ordinary jurisdiction in every diocese and over all the faithful. The practical sequel of this papal teaching is self-evident: reli-gious priests are as much in place in the Church as the secular clergy. The specious pretext for depreciating the religious life of priests, as though it placed them outside the hierarchical order of the Church, vanishes into thin air. Which Is the State of Evangelical Perfection? A second cause of depreciating the religious life is a mistaken idea of the state of evangelical perfection. It is right and necessary to exalt the sanctity of the priesthood and to inculcate in all priests their need of personal holiness required by their saintly fur~ctions. But this well-meant endeavor has sprea.d the idea that the clerical state is a state of evangelical perfection. The clerical state, it has been said, of its nature and by virtue of its divine origin demands that its fol-lowers keep the evangelical counsels. If that were correct, then the clerical state would be preferable to the religious life. A state of perfection instituted by Christ Himself would be, in itself, more essential than the state of perfection which is only an ecclesiastical institution. But, the Holy Father says, it is not fully correct. Before hearing his criticism, it may be well to say that there is something true in the exalted idea of the priesthood and in its connection with the evangelical counsels. This was brought out clearly in two recent documents on the priesthod

one, the great pastoral of the late Cardinal Suhard, Priests among Men

the other, the exhortation of the Pope himself, Menti nostrae, on the sanctity of the priesthood. Both of these show that the spirit and, when pos-sible, the practice of the three evangelical counsels of poverty, chas-tity, and obedience are the ideal setting for the priestly task and for the apostolic ministry. But this does not mean that the priesth.ood itself entails the state of evangelical perfection such as is sanctioned by the three religious vows. A cleric, the Pope teaches, is not bound by divine law to the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Particularly, 36 January, 1952 DEPRECIATION OF RELIGIOUS LIFE a cleric is not bound to them in the" same manner as a’religious is bound by his public vows. A cleric may take these obligations upon himself privately and freely. Even the canonically established law of priestly celibacy for clerics of the Latin rite does not take away the essential difference between the religious and the clerical state. A cleric who is a religious professes evangelical perfection not because he is a cleric but because he is a religious. This important papal teaching means that the state of evangelical perfection is not found without the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience

that these three excellent means for perfection are not just casual and more or less replaceable bY other means or counsels. The many means of sanctification or apostolate which the priestly state includes, however excellent they may be, are not sufficient to establish priests in the state of evangelical perfection. This state sup-poses the three counsels opposed to the threefold concupiscence which St. John names (I John, 2:16) as the great obstacle to charity, the substance of Christian perfection. The Pope confirms this teaching by answering the objection one could draw from the approbation he himself g~ve to secular insti-tutes. His Apostolic Constitution Provida Mater canonically ap-proved these in I947, as one form of the state of perfection. Mem-bers of these institutes, he says, are in the state of perfection, not be-cause they happen to be clerics, but because they ~ire members of an approved institute. As such they follow the three evangelical cdun-sels, even though not being religious or regulars and whilst keeping externally to the secular life. This teaching involves a grave practical cotisequence. It .means that when young men feel drawn to the state of evangelical perfec-tion, and when this attraction, after due scrutiny and probation, proves to be a genuine, divine inspiration, then it would not do just to direct them to the seminary. The Holy Father himself states that the priesthood by itself does not place one in the state of perfection. Only the ~eligious vows do this, or the vows of a society or institute approved by the Church. This teaching cuts at its root any under-valuation of the religious life considered from the viewpoint of Christian or evangelical perfection. Motives/:or Joining or Not doining the Religious Life A third symptom of contemporary undervaluing of the religiotis life is shown in the way the motives for entering the religious state are interpreted. It has b’een said that the cloister is a haven of peace 37 P. DE LETTER Review/:or Religious for the timid who are afraid of’the battles of life in the world--who are what is called escapists. Better pray for grace to be courageous ¯ and stay on in the battle. That means, in plain language, that reli-gious life is not for the courageous but for the faint-hearted. To this imputa.tion the Holy Father takes exception in strong words. Generally speaking, this alleged reason for joining the religious life is false and unjust. The religious vocation demands gre~it courage and devotedness. Proof of it is the history of the religious orders. Another proof is the work done today by religious in the missions, the ministry, hospitals, and education. Most of the religious are fighting the battles of the Church not less than priests or laymen in the world. Why then, the Pope asks, are there few vocations today? Not because of the specious reason just set aside, but because many of the young find it too hard to strip themselves of their freedom by the vow of obedience. The reason vocations are fewer is the. lack of courage to face the real sacrifice involved in the religious vows. Yet some try to justify this refusal of giving up one’s freedom on prin-ciple, a false principle which is a novel error concerning Christian perfection. A new ideal of perfection is being proposed to the young --no longer, as formerly, the sacrifice of one’s freedom for love of Christ, but a controlled freedom: restrict freedom, they say, as far as is necessary, leave it full scope as far as possible. Again, if this novel asceticism is right, then religious life is no longer the better part. But the Pope condemns it in plain terms. Not only is it problematic, he says, whether the new basis of Christian sanctity will prove as firm and fruitful in the apostolate as the old rule of obedience for love of Christ, but that concept contains a serious ~rror regarding the nature of the evangelical counsels whose excellence it slights. The new form of perfection is not of the same spiritual value as the vow of obedi-ence by which one imitates Christ who became obedient unto death. In other words, to place the new ideal of perfection on a par with the religious vows, or even to place it above the ideal of the religious life, is erroneously to depreciate the. state of evangelical perfection. Accordingly, the Holy Father concludes, it is wrong to propose only the new ideal of perfection to one who asks for advice about a vocation. When signs of a vocation to the state of perfection are present in a young person, the ancient ideal of freely immolating one’s freedom by the vow of obedience must be proposed to him. It is contrary to Catholic principles about Christian perfection to ad-vise against it. And so the depreciation of religious life, implied in 38 danuar[l, 195"2 DEPRECIATION OF RELIGIOUS LIFE the exaltation of this new ideal of freedom, rests on an erroneous understanding of evangelical perfection. Depreciation of the Contemplative ,Lille in Favor Action That Yields Results The preceding causes of undervaluing religious !ife are mainly found among non-rellgious. They are errors in the theory about the life and organization of the Church, about the perfection of Christian life, about the meaning of the evangelical counsels

the-oretical errors that dictate the practical advice to look for the better thing, not in the ranks of the world-fleers, but among the courageous warriors who stay in the thick of the world’s battles. Religious themselves easily keep free from these errors but not from the next two causes of the depreciation. The.first oLthese,.consists in. .~y..e..r~[!.ng. external activity which aims at tangible results and in undervaluing interiob-life or the con-templation of the eternal truths. Even religious do not always keep clear of this danger. Stated bluntly, the implicit objection against the religious life, which is always contemplative to a great extent, and in some cases almost exclusively so, comes to this: that contem-plation is useless, or nearly so, for practical results in the work for Christ and His Church

it is mainly a waste of time. Evidently. this grievance is rarely put in this extreme form. But something of it is at the basis of many an "actionist’s" depreciation of religious life. Not so rarely is something of it also in the mind or practice of reli-gious. Is it any wonder? Have we not been warned time and again against the modern heresy of action? Shall we be surprised that even religious who labor in the world without being of the world, imbibe something of the atmosphere in which they live, and that they too, in their active life, either in theory or in practice or in both, exalt action to the detriment of contemplation?’ But on the assumption that action comes first and contemplation second it would logically follow that the state of life in which contemplation takes a large place is less excellent than a life which can be wholly given to the activity of the apostolate. This, again is wrong. The error originates, the Holy Father says, from a mentality of our day which is reflected in the latest phi-losophy, existentialism

this underrates eternal values and is all taken up with the action of the moment and its result. The right manner for the apostolate, after the example of St. Francis Xavier and St. Theresa of Lisieux, is to unite action and interior life. Religious 39 P. DE LETTER’ . Review for Religious ought to grow in interior life in the measure that their action ex-pands. And pure contemplatives are not less necessary for the life of the Church, nor are they less apostolic than active religious. They are needed in the Church to ensure harmony between exterior work and the interior life. It is only when interior life penetrates into our action that reli-gious can counteract, more in deeds than in words, the modern tend-ency to laicize the works of charity. Christian charity is radically different from lay philanthropy. It is incomparably stronger be-cause it draws its spirit and inspiration from the love of Christ. This strength even non-Christians acknowledge and ’appreciate. And that is the direct answer to any depreciation of the religious life. It is up to us religious to take care of this interior inspiration of our exterior action. Unless we do this, we willy-nilly play into the hands of. those who in practice depreciate the religious state. Adaptation of the Religious Life to Modern Needs and Wags A last modern grievance against the religious life is its lack of adaptation to modern needs and ways. The Holy Father faces the objection and strikes .the right balance in answering. The objection, he says, is partly founded. It is true that adaptation is necessary, but it ought to be done in the right way and unite the old and the new. The zeal of young religious--for the objection does not only come from outside the cloister--"to be of their time" is good and legitimate to an extent. Why? Simply because religious foun~lers adapted their institutes to the needs of their own times. But the needs change with the changing times. Their present-day successors have to do as they did

they have to study and to know the aspirations and needs of their contemporaries if they wish to help them. After granting that much, the Pope insists on what must remain unchanged, on what never grows old and is ever new. Such is the patrimony of the Church. The Holy Father recalls his defence of it in his encyclical Humani generis. Another part of that inalienable patrimony is this: the purpose of .the state of perfection is to make saints. This too is ever modern. And it involves this capital truth of Christian asceticism: that the only way to perfection is self-abnegation for love of Christ: Of this eternal truth no adaptation is needed or allowed. Once these substantials are safe, other things regarding the exterior setting of religious life can and must be adapted to the circumstances of the times. Much of this, the Pope says, has been done already

and more was pla~ined in this congress. The 40 danuarg, 1952 DEPRECIATION OF RELIGIOUS LIFE adaptation concerns the w