Reply Obj. 1: To obey one"s superiors in matters that are essential to virtue is not a work of supererogation, but is common to all: whereas to obey in matters pertaining to the practice of perfection belongs properly to religious. This latter obedience is compared to the former as the universal to the particular. For those who live in the world, keep something for themselves, and offer something to G.o.d; and in the latter respect they are under obedience to their superiors: whereas those who live in religion give themselves wholly and their possessions to G.o.d, as stated above (AA. 1, 3). Hence their obedience is universal.
Reply Obj. 2: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1, 2), by performing actions we contract certain habits, and when we have acquired the habit we are best able to perform the actions.
Accordingly those who have not attained to perfection, acquire perfection by obeying, while those who have already acquired perfection are most ready to obey, not as though they need to be directed to the acquisition of perfection, but as maintaining themselves by this means in that which belongs to perfection.
Reply Obj. 3: The subjection of religious is chiefly in reference to bishops, who are compared to them as perfecters to perfected, as Dionysius states (Eccl. Hier. vi), where he also says that the "monastic order is subjected to the perfecting virtues of the bishops, and is taught by their G.o.dlike enlightenment." Hence neither hermits nor religious superiors are exempt from obedience to bishops; and if they be wholly or partly exempt from obedience to the bishop of the diocese, they are nevertheless bound to obey the Sovereign Pontiff, not only in matters affecting all in common, but also in those which pertain specially to religious discipline.
Reply Obj. 4: The vow of obedience taken by religious, extends to the disposition of a man"s whole life, and in this way it has a certain universality, although it does not extend to all individual acts. For some of these do not belong to religion, through not being of those things that concern the love of G.o.d and of our neighbor, such as rubbing one"s beard, lifting a stick from the ground and so forth, which do not come under a vow nor under obedience; and some are contrary to religion. Nor is there any comparison with continence whereby acts are excluded which are altogether contrary to religion.
Reply Obj. 5: The necessity of coercion makes an act involuntary and consequently deprives it of the character of praise or merit; whereas the necessity which is consequent upon obedience is a necessity not of coercion but of a free will, inasmuch as a man is willing to obey, although perhaps he would not be willing to do the thing commanded considered in itself. Wherefore since by the vow of obedience a man lays himself under the necessity of doing for G.o.d"s sake certain things that are not pleasing in themselves, for this very reason that which he does is the more acceptable to G.o.d, though it be of less account, because man can give nothing greater to G.o.d, than by subjecting his will to another man"s for G.o.d"s sake. Hence in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. xviii, 7) it is stated that "the Sarabaitae are the worst cla.s.s of monks, because through providing for their own needs without being subject to superiors, they are free to do as they will; and yet day and night they are more busily occupied in work than those who live in monasteries."
_______________________
SIXTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 186, Art. 6]
Whether It Is Requisite for Religious Perfection That Poverty, Continence, and Obedience Should Come Under a Vow?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not requisite for religious perfection that the three aforesaid, namely poverty, continence, and obedience, should come under a vow. For the school of perfection is founded on the principles laid down by our Lord. Now our Lord in formulating perfection (Matt. 19:21) said: "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all [Vulg.: "what"] thou hast, and give to the poor,"
without any mention of a vow. Therefore it would seem that a vow is not necessary for the school of religion.
Obj. 2: Further, a vow is a promise made to G.o.d, wherefore (Eccles.
5:3) the wise man after saying: "If thou hast vowed anything to G.o.d, defer not to pay it," adds at once, "for an unfaithful and foolish promise displeaseth Him." But when a thing is being actually given there is no need for a promise. Therefore it suffices for religious perfection that one keep poverty, continence, and obedience without.
vowing them.
Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (Ad Pollent., de Adult. Conjug. i, 14): "The services we render are more pleasing when we might lawfully not render them, yet do so out of love." Now it is lawful not to render a service which we have not vowed, whereas it is unlawful if we have vowed to render it. Therefore seemingly it is more pleasing to G.o.d to keep poverty, continence, and obedience without a vow.
Therefore a vow is not requisite for religious perfection.
_On the contrary,_ In the Old Law the Nazareans were consecrated by vow according to Num. 6:2, "When a man or woman shall make a vow to be sanctified and will consecrate themselves to the Lord," etc. Now these were a figure of those "who attain the summit of perfection,"
as a gloss [*Cf. Moral. ii] of Gregory states. Therefore a vow is requisite for religious perfection.
_I answer that,_ It belongs to religious to be in the state of perfection, as shown above (Q. 174, A. 5). Now the state of perfection requires an obligation to whatever belongs to perfection: and this obligation consists in binding oneself to G.o.d by means of a vow. But it is evident from what has been said (AA. 3, 4, 5) that poverty, continence, and obedience belong to the perfection of the Christian life. Consequently the religious state requires that one be bound to these three by vow. Hence Gregory says (Hom. xx in Ezech.): "When a man vows to G.o.d all his possessions, all his life, all his knowledge, it is a holocaust"; and afterwards he says that this refers to those who renounce the present world.
Reply Obj. 1: Our Lord declared that it belongs to the perfection of life that a man follow Him, not anyhow, but in such a way as not to turn back. Wherefore He says again (Luke 9:62): "No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of G.o.d."
And though some of His disciples went back, yet when our Lord asked (John 6:68, 69), "Will you also go away?" Peter answered for the others: "Lord, to whom shall we go?" Hence Augustine says (De Consensu Ev. ii, 17) that "as Matthew and Mark relate, Peter and Andrew followed Him after drawing their boats on to the beach, not as though they purposed to return, but as following Him at His command."
Now this unwavering following of Christ is made fast by a vow: wherefore a vow is requisite for religious perfection.
Reply Obj. 2: As Gregory says (Moral. ii) religious perfection requires that a man give "his whole life" to G.o.d. But a man cannot actually give G.o.d his whole life, because that life taken as a whole is not simultaneous but successive. Hence a man cannot give his whole life to G.o.d otherwise than by the obligation of a vow.
Reply Obj. 3: Among other services that we can lawfully give, is our liberty, which is dearer to man than aught else. Consequently when a man of his own accord deprives himself by vow of the liberty of abstaining from things pertaining to G.o.d"s service, this is most acceptable to G.o.d. Hence Augustine says (Ep. cxxvii ad Paulin. et Arment.): "Repent not of thy vow; rejoice rather that thou canst no longer do lawfully, what thou mightest have done lawfully but to thy own cost. Happy the obligation that compels to better things."
_______________________
SEVENTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 186, Art. 7]
Whether It Is Right to Say That Religious Perfection Consists in These Three Vows?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not right to say that religious perfection consists in these three vows. For the perfection of life consists of inward rather than of outward acts, according to Rom.
14:17, "The Kingdom of G.o.d is not meat and drink, but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." Now the religious vow binds a man to things belonging to perfection. Therefore vows of inward actions, such as contemplation, love of G.o.d and our neighbor, and so forth, should pertain to the religious state, rather than the vows of poverty, continence, and obedience which refer to outward actions.
Obj. 2: Further, the three aforesaid come under the religious vow, in so far as they belong to the practice of tending to perfection. But there are many other things that religious practice, such as abstinence, watchings, and the like. Therefore it would seem that these three vows are incorrectly described as pertaining to the state of perfection.
Obj. 3: Further, by the vow of obedience a man is bound to do according to his superior"s command whatever pertains to the practice of perfection. Therefore the vow of obedience suffices without the two other vows.
Obj. 4: Further, external goods comprise not only riches but also honors. Therefore, if religious, by the vow of poverty, renounce earthly riches, there should be another vow whereby they may despise worldly honors.
_On the contrary,_ It is stated (Extra, de Statu Monach., cap. c.u.m ad monasterium) that "the keeping of chast.i.ty and the renouncing of property are affixed to the monastic rule."
_I answer that,_ The religious state may be considered in three ways.
First, as being a practice of tending to the perfection of charity: secondly, as quieting the human mind from outward solicitude, according to 1 Cor. 7:32: "I would have you to be without solicitude": thirdly, as a holocaust whereby a man offers himself and his possessions wholly to G.o.d; and in corresponding manner the religious state is const.i.tuted by these three vows.
First, as regards the practice of perfection a man is required to remove from himself whatever may hinder his affections from tending wholly to G.o.d, for it is in this that the perfection of charity consists. Such hindrances are of three kinds. First, the attachment to external goods, which is removed by the vow of poverty; secondly, the concupiscence of sensible pleasures, chief among which are venereal pleasures, and these are removed by the vow of continence; thirdly, the inordinateness of the human will, and this is removed by the vow of obedience. In like manner the disquiet of worldly solicitude is aroused in man in reference especially to three things.
First, as regards the dispensing of external things, and this solicitude is removed from man by the vow of poverty; secondly, as regards the control of wife and children, which is cut away by the vow of continence; thirdly, as regards the disposal of one"s own actions, which is eliminated by the vow of obedience, whereby a man commits himself to the disposal of another.
Again, "a holocaust is the offering to G.o.d of all that one has,"
according to Gregory (Hom. xx in Ezech.). Now man has a threefold good, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 8). First, the good of external things, which he wholly offers to G.o.d by the vow of voluntary poverty: secondly, the good of his own body, and this good he offers to G.o.d especially by the vow of continence, whereby he renounces the greatest bodily pleasures. The third is the good of the soul, which man wholly offers to G.o.d by the vow of obedience, whereby he offers G.o.d his own will by which he makes use of all the powers and habits of the soul. Therefore the religious state is fittingly const.i.tuted by the three vows.
Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (A. 1), the end whereunto the religious vow is directed is the perfection of charity, since all the interior acts of virtue belong to charity as to their mother, according to 1 Cor. 13:4, "Charity is patient, is kind," etc. Hence the interior acts of virtue, for instance humility, patience, and so forth, do not come under the religious vow, but this is directed to them as its end.
Reply Obj. 2: All other religious observances are directed to the three aforesaid princ.i.p.al vows; for if any of them are ordained for the purpose of procuring a livelihood, such as labor, questing, and so on, they are to be referred to poverty; for the safeguarding of which religious seek a livelihood by these means. Other observances whereby the body is chastised, such as watching, fasting, and the like, are directly ordained for the observance of the vow of continence. And such religious observances as regard human actions whereby a man is directed to the end of religion, namely the love of G.o.d and his neighbor (such as reading, prayer, visiting the sick, and the like), are comprised under the vow of obedience that applies to the will, which directs its actions to the end according to the ordering of another person. The distinction of habit belongs to all three vows, as a sign of being bound by them: wherefore the religious habit is given or blessed at the time of profession.
Reply Obj. 3: By obedience a man offers to G.o.d his will, to which though all human affairs are subject, yet some are subject to it alone in a special manner, namely human actions, since pa.s.sions belong also to the sensitive appet.i.te. Wherefore in order to restrain the pa.s.sions of carnal pleasures and of external objects of appet.i.te, which hinder the perfection of life, there was need for the vows of continence and poverty; but for the ordering of one"s own actions accordingly as the state of perfection requires, there was need for the vow of obedience.
Reply Obj. 4: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 3), strictly and truly speaking honor is not due save to virtue. Since, however, external goods serve instrumentally for certain acts of virtue, the consequence is that a certain honor is given to their excellence especially by the common people who acknowledge none but outward excellence. Therefore since religious tend to the perfection of virtue it becomes them not to renounce the honor which G.o.d and all holy men accord to virtue, according to Ps. 138:17, "But to me Thy friends, O G.o.d, are made exceedingly honorable." On the other hand, they renounce the honor that is given to outward excellence, by the very fact that they withdraw from a worldly life: hence no special vow is needed for this.
_______________________
EIGHTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 186, Art. 8]
Whether the Vow of Obedience Is the Chief of the Three Religious Vows?
Objection 1: It would seem that the vow of obedience is not the chief of the three religious vows. For the perfection of the religious life was inaugurated by Christ. Now Christ gave a special counsel of poverty; whereas He is not stated to have given a special counsel of obedience. Therefore the vow of poverty is greater than the vow of obedience.
Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 26:20) that "no price is worthy of a continent soul." Now the vow of that which is more worthy is itself more excellent. Therefore the vow of continence is more excellent than the vow of obedience.
Obj. 3: Further, the greater a vow the more indispensable it would seem to be. Now the vows of poverty and continence "are so inseparable from the monastic rule, that not even the Sovereign Pontiff can allow them to be broken," according to a Decretal (De Statu Monach., cap. c.u.m ad monasterium): yet he can dispense a religious from obeying his superior. Therefore it would seem that the vow of obedience is less than the vow of poverty and continence.
_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Moral. x.x.xv, 14): "Obedience is rightly placed before victims, since by victims another"s flesh, but by obedience one"s own will, is sacrificed." Now the religious vows are holocausts, as stated above (AA. 1, 3, ad 6). Therefore the vow of obedience is the chief of all religious vows.
_I answer that,_ The vow of obedience is the chief of the three religious vows, and this for three reasons.
First, because by the vow of obedience man offers G.o.d something greater, namely his own will; for this is of more account than his own body, which he offers G.o.d by continence, and than external things, which he offers G.o.d by the vow of poverty. Wherefore that which is done out of obedience is more acceptable to G.o.d than that which is done of one"s own will, according to the saying of Jerome (Ep. cxxv ad Rustic Monach.): "My words are intended to teach you not to rely on your own judgment": and a little further on he says: "You may not do what you will; you must eat what you are bidden to eat, you may possess as much as you receive, clothe yourself with what is given to you." Hence fasting is not acceptable to G.o.d if it is done of one"s own will, according to Isa. 58:3, "Behold in the day of your fast your own will is found."
Secondly, because the vow of obedience includes the other vows, but not vice versa: for a religious, though bound by vow to observe continence and poverty, yet these also come under obedience, as well as many other things besides the keeping of continence and poverty.
Thirdly, because the vow of obedience extends properly to those acts that are closely connected with the end of religion; and the more closely a thing is connected with the end, the better it is.
It follows from this that the vow of obedience is more essential to the religious life. For if a man without taking a vow of obedience were to observe, even by vow, voluntary poverty and continence, he would not therefore belong to the religious state, which is to be preferred to virginity observed even by vow; for Augustine says (De Virgin. xlvi): "No one, methinks, would prefer virginity to the monastic life." [*St. Augustine wrote not _monasterio_ but _martyrio_--to "martyrdom"; and St. Thomas quotes the pa.s.sage correctly above, Q. 124, A. 3, and Q. 152, A. 5].
Reply Obj. 1: The counsel of obedience was included in the very following of Christ, since to obey is to follow another"s will.
Consequently it is more pertinent to perfection than the vow of poverty, because as Jerome, commenting on Matt. 19:27, "Behold we have left all things," observes, "Peter added that which is perfect when he said: And have followed Thee."
Reply Obj. 2: The words quoted mean that continence is to be preferred, not to all other acts of virtue, but to conjugal chast.i.ty, or to external riches of gold and silver which are measured by weight [*_Pondere,_ referring to the Latin _ponderatio_ in the Vulgate, which the Douay version renders "price."]. Or again continence is taken in a general sense for abstinence from all evil, as stated above (Q. 155, A. 4, ad 1).