Scripturae), "he who exchanges a temporary service for the perpetual service of religion is in no way guilty of breaking his vow."
Moreover it may be reasonably stated that also by entrance into religion a man obtains remission of all his sins. For if by giving alms a man may forthwith satisfy for his sins, according to Dan.
4:24, "Redeem thou thy sins with alms," much more does it suffice to satisfy for all his sins that a man devote himself wholly to the divine service by entering religion, for this surpa.s.ses all manner of satisfaction, even that of public penance, according to the Decretals (x.x.xIII, qu. i, cap. Admonere) just as a holocaust exceeds a sacrifice, as Gregory declares (Hom. xx in Ezech.). Hence we read in the Lives of the Fathers (vi, 1) that by entering religion one receives the same grace as by being baptized. And yet even if one were not thereby absolved from all debt of punishment, nevertheless the entrance into religion is more profitable than a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, as regards the advancement in good, which is preferable to absolution from punishment.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 189, Art. 4]
Whether He Who Has Vowed to Enter Religion Is Bound to Remain in Religion in Perpetuity?
Objection 1: It would seem that he who has vowed to enter religion, is bound in perpetuity to remain in religion. For it is better not to enter religion than to leave after entering, according to 2 Pet.
2:21, "It had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it to turn back," and Luke 9:62, "No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of G.o.d." But he who bound himself by the vow to enter religion, is under the obligation to enter, as stated above (A. 3).
Therefore he is also bound to remain for always.
Obj. 2: Further, everyone is bound to avoid that which gives rise to scandal, and is a bad example to others. Now by leaving after entering religion a man gives a bad example and is an occasion of scandal to others, who are thereby withdrawn from entering or incited to leave. Therefore it seems that he who enters religion in order to fulfil a vow which he had previously taken, is bound to remain evermore.
Obj. 3: Further, the vow to enter religion is accounted a perpetual vow: wherefore it is preferred to temporal vows, as stated above (A.
3, ad 3; Q. 88, A. 12, ad 1). But this would not be so if a person after vowing to enter religion were to enter with the intention of leaving. It seems, therefore, that he who vows to enter religion is bound also to remain in perpetuity.
_On the contrary,_ The vow of religious profession, for the reason that it binds a man to remain in religion for evermore, has to be preceded by a year of probation; whereas this is not required before the simple vow whereby a man binds himself to enter religion.
Therefore it seems that he who vows to enter religion is not for that reason bound to remain there in perpetuity.
_I answer that,_ The obligation of a vow proceeds from the will: because "to vow is an act of the will" according to Augustine [*Gloss of Peter Lombard on Ps. 75:12]. Consequently the obligation of a vow extends as far as the will and intention of the person who takes the vow. Accordingly if in vowing he intend to bind himself not only to enter religion, but also to remain there evermore, he is bound to remain in perpetuity. If, on the other hand, he intend to bind himself to enter religion for the purpose of trial, while retaining the freedom to remain or not remain, it is clear that he is not bound to remain. If, however, in vowing he thought merely of entering religion, without thinking of being free to leave, or of remaining in perpetuity, it would seem that he is bound to enter religion according to the form prescribed by common law, which is that those who enter should be given a year"s probation. Wherefore he is not bound to remain for ever.
Reply Obj. 1: It is better to enter religion with the purpose of making a trial than not to enter at all, because by so doing one disposes oneself to remain always. Nor is a person accounted to turn or to look back, save when he omits to do that which he engaged to do: else whoever does a good work for a time, would be unfit for the kingdom of G.o.d, unless he did it always, which is evidently false.
Reply Obj. 2: A man who has entered religion gives neither scandal nor bad example by leaving, especially if he do so for a reasonable motive; and if others are scandalized, it will be pa.s.sive scandal on their part, and not active scandal on the part of the person leaving, since in doing so, he has done what was lawful, and expedient on account of some reasonable motive, such as sickness, weakness, and the like.
Reply Obj. 3: He who enters with the purpose of leaving forthwith, does not seem to fulfil his vow, since this was not his intention in vowing. Hence he must change that purpose, at least so as to wish to try whether it is good for him to remain in religion, but he is not bound to remain for evermore.
_______________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 189, Art. 5]
Whether Children Should Be Received in Religion?
Objection 1: It would seem that children ought not to be received in religion. Because it is said (Extra, De Regular. et Transeunt. ad Relig., cap. Nullus): "No one should be tonsured unless he be of legal age and willing." But children, seemingly, are not of legal age; nor have they a will of their own, not having perfect use of reason. Therefore it seems that they ought not to be received in religion.
Obj. 2: Further, the state of religion would seem to be a state of repentance; wherefore religion is derived [*Cf. Q. 81, A. 1] from _religare_ (to bind) or from _re-eligere_ (to choose again), as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x, 3 [*Cf. De Vera Relig. lv]). But repentance does not become children. Therefore it seems that they should not enter religion.
Obj. 3: Further, the obligation of a vow is like that of an oath. But children under the age of fourteen ought not to be bound by oath (Decret. XXII, qu. v, cap. Pueri and cap. Honestum.). Therefore it would seem that neither should they be bound by vow.
Obj. 4: Further, it is seemingly unlawful to bind a person to an obligation that can be justly canceled. Now if any persons of unripe age bind themselves to religion, they can be withdrawn by their parents or guardians. For it is written in the Decretals (XX, qu. ii, can. Puella) that "if a maid under twelve years of age shall take the sacred veil of her own accord, her parents or guardians, if they choose, can at once declare the deed null and void." It is therefore unlawful for children, especially of unripe age, to be admitted or bound to religion.
_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (Matt. 19:14): "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to Me." Expounding these words Origen says (Tract. vii in Matth.) that "the disciples of Jesus before they have been taught the conditions of righteousness [*Cf.
Matt. 19:16-30], rebuke those who offer children and babes to Christ: but our Lord urges His disciples to stoop to the service of children.
We must therefore take note of this, lest deeming ourselves to excel in wisdom we despise the Church"s little ones, as though we were great, and forbid the children to come to Jesus."
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2, ad 1), the religious vow is twofold. One is the simple vow consisting in a mere promise made to G.o.d, and proceeding from the interior deliberation of the mind. Such a vow derives its efficacy from the divine law. Nevertheless it may encounter a twofold obstacle. First, through lack of deliberation, as in the case of the insane, whose vows are not binding [*Extra, De Regular. et Transeunt. ad Relig., cap. Sicut tenor]. The same applies to children who have not reached the required use of reason, so as to be capable of guile, which use boys attain, as a rule, at about the age of fourteen, and girls at the age of twelve, this being what is called "the age of p.u.b.erty," although in some it comes earlier and in others it is delayed, according to the various dispositions of nature. Secondly, the efficacy of a simple vow encounters an obstacle, if the person who makes a vow to G.o.d is not his own master; for instance, if a slave, though having the use of reason, vows to enter religion, or even is ordained, without the knowledge of his master: for his master can annul this, as stated in the Decretals (Dist. LIV, cap. Si servus). And since boys and girls under the age of p.u.b.erty are naturally in their father"s power as regards the disposal of their manner of life, their father may either cancel or approve their vow, if it please him to do so, as it is expressly said with regard to a woman (Num. 30:4).
Accordingly if before reaching the age of p.u.b.erty a child makes a simple vow, not yet having full use of reason, he is not bound in virtue of the vow; but if he has the use of reason before reaching the age of p.u.b.erty, he is bound, so far as he is concerned, by his vow; yet this obligation may be removed by his father"s authority, under whose control he still remains, because the ordinance of the law whereby one man is subject to another considers what happens in the majority of cases. If, however, the child has pa.s.sed the age of p.u.b.erty, his vow cannot be annulled by the authority of his parents; though if he has not the full use of reason, he would not be bound in the sight of G.o.d.
The other is the solemn vow which makes a man a monk or a religious.
Such a vow is subject to the ordinance of the Church, on account of the solemnity attached to it. And since the Church considers what happens in the majority of cases, a profession made before the age of p.u.b.erty, however much the person who makes profession may have the use of reason, or be capable of guile, does not take effect so as to make him a religious (Extra, De Regular., etc. cap. Significatum est.).
Nevertheless, although they cannot be professed before the age of p.u.b.erty, they can, with the consent of their parents, be received into religion to be educated there: thus it is related of John the Baptist (Luke 1:80) that "the child grew and was strengthened in spirit, and was in the deserts." Hence, as Gregory states (Dial. ii, 3), "the Roman n.o.bles began to give their sons to the blessed Benedict to be nurtured for Almighty G.o.d"; and this is most fitting, according to Lam. 3:27, "It is good for a man when he has borne the yoke from his youth." It is for this reason that by common custom children are made to apply themselves to those duties or arts with which they are to pa.s.s their lives.
Reply Obj. 1: The legal age for receiving the tonsure and taking the solemn vow of religion is the age of p.u.b.erty, when a man is able to make use of his own will; but before the age of p.u.b.erty it is possible to have reached the lawful age to receive the tonsure and be educated in a religious house.
Reply Obj. 2: The religious state is chiefly directed to the atta[in]ment of perfection, as stated above (Q. 186, A. 1, ad 4); and accordingly it is becoming to children, who are easily drawn to it.
But as a consequence it is called a state of repentance, inasmuch as occasions of sin are removed by religious observances, as stated above (Q. 186, A. 1, ad 4).
Reply Obj. 3: Even as children are not bound to take oaths (as the canon states), so are they not bound to take vows. If, however, they bind themselves by vow or oath to do something, they are bound in G.o.d"s sight, if they have the use of reason, but they are not bound in the sight of the Church before reaching the age of fourteen.
Reply Obj. 4: A woman who has not reached the age of p.u.b.erty is not rebuked (Num. 30:4) for taking a vow without her parents" consent: but the vow can be made void by her parents. Hence it is evident that she does not sin in vowing. But we are given to understand that she binds herself by vow, so far as she may, without prejudice to her parents" authority.
_______________________
SIXTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 189, Art. 6]
Whether One Ought to Be Withdrawn from Entering Religion Through Deference to One"s Parents?
Objection 1: It would seem that one ought to be withdrawn from entering religion through deference to one"s parents. For it is not lawful to omit that which is of obligation in order to do that which is optional. Now deference to one"s parents comes under an obligation of the precept concerning the honoring of our parents (Ex. 20:12); wherefore the Apostle says (1 Tim. 5:4): "If any widow have children or grandchildren, let her learn first to govern her own house, and to make a return of duty to her parents." But the entrance to religion is optional. Therefore it would seem that one ought not to omit deference to one"s parents for the sake of entering religion.
Obj. 2: Further, seemingly the subjection of a son to his father is greater than that of a slave to his master, since sonship is natural, while slavery results from the curse of sin, as appears from Gen.
9:25. Now a slave cannot set aside the service of his master in order to enter religion or take holy orders, as stated in the Decretals (Dist. LIV, cap. Si servus). Much less therefore can a son set aside the deference due to his father in order to enter religion.
Obj. 3: Further, a man is more indebted to his parents than to those to whom he owes money. Now persons who owe money to anyone cannot enter religion. For Gregory says (Regist. viii, Ep. 5) that "those who are engaged in trade must by no means be admitted into a monastery, when they seek admittance, unless first of all they withdraw from public business" (Dist. liii, can. Legem.). Therefore seemingly much less may children enter religion in despite of their duty to their parents.
_On the contrary,_ It is related (Matt. 4:22) that James and John "left their nets and father, and followed our Lord." By this, says Hilary (Can. iii in Matth.), "we learn that we who intend to follow Christ are not bound by the cares of the secular life, and by the ties of home."
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 101, A. 2, ad 2) when we were treating of piety, parents as such have the character of a principle, wherefore it is competent to them as such to have the care of their children. Hence it is unlawful for a person having children to enter religion so as altogether to set aside the care for their children, namely without providing for their education. For it is written (1 Tim. 5:8) that "if any man have not care of his own ... he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
Nevertheless it is accidentally competent to parents to be a.s.sisted by their children, in so far, to wit, as they are placed in a condition of necessity. Consequently we must say that when their parents are in such need that they cannot fittingly be supported otherwise than by the help of their children, these latter may not lawfully enter religion in despite of their duty to their parents.
If, however, the parents" necessity be not such as to stand in great need of their children"s a.s.sistance, the latter may, in despite of the duty they owe their parents, enter religion even against their parents" command, because after the age of p.u.b.erty every freeman enjoys freedom in things concerning the ordering of his state of life, especially in such as belong to the service of G.o.d, and "we should more obey the Father of spirits that we may live [*"Shall we not much more obey the Father of Spirits, and live?"]," as says the Apostle (Heb. 12:9), than obey our parents. Hence as we read (Matt.
8:22; Luke 9:62) our Lord rebuked the disciple who was unwilling to follow him forthwith on account of his father"s burial: for there were others who could see to this, as Chrysostom remarks [*Hom. xxvii in Matth.].
Reply Obj. 1: The commandment of honoring our parents extends not only to bodily but also to spiritual service, and to the paying of deference. Hence even those who are in religion can fulfil the commandment of honoring their parents, by praying for them and by revering and a.s.sisting them, as becomes religious, since even those who live in the world honor their parents in different ways as befits their condition.
Reply Obj. 2: Since slavery was imposed in punishment of sin, it follows that by slavery man forfeits something which otherwise he would be competent to have, namely the free disposal of his person, for "a slave belongs wholly to his master" [*Aristotle, Polit. i, 2].
On the other hand, the son, through being subject to his father, is not hindered from freely disposing of his person by transferring himself to the service of G.o.d; which is most conducive to man"s good.
Reply Obj. 3: He who is under a certain fixed obligation cannot lawfully set it aside so long as he is able to fulfil it. Wherefore if a person is under an obligation to give an account to someone or to pay a certain fixed debt, he cannot lawfully evade this obligation in order to enter religion. If, however, he owes a sum of money, and has not wherewithal to pay the debt, he must do what he can, namely by surrendering his goods to his creditor. According to civil law [*Cod. IV, x, de Oblig. et Action, 12] money lays an obligation not on the person of a freeman, but on his property, because the person of a freeman "is above all pecuniary consideration" [*Dig. L, xvii, de div. reg. Jur. ant. 106, 176]. Hence, after surrendering his property, he may lawfully enter religion, nor is he bound to remain in the world in order to earn the means of paying the debt.
On the other hand, he does not owe his father a special debt, except as may arise in a case of necessity, as stated above.
_______________________
SEVENTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 189, Art. 7]
Whether Parish Priests May Lawfully Enter Religion?
Objection 1: It would seem that parish priests cannot lawfully enter religion. For Gregory says (Past. iii, 4) that "he who undertakes the cure of souls, receives an awful warning in the words: "My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, thou hast engaged fast thy hand to a stranger"" (Prov. 6:1); and he goes on to say, "because to be surety for a friend is to take charge of the soul of another on the surety of one"s own behavior." Now he who is under an obligation to a man for a debt, cannot enter religion, unless he pay what he owes, if he can. Since then a priest is able to fulfil the cure of souls, to which obligation he has pledged his soul, it would seem unlawful for him to lay aside the cure of souls in order to enter religion.