Obj. 2: Further, what is lawful to one is likewise lawful to all. But if all priests having cure of souls were to enter religion, the people would be left without a pastor"s care, which would be unfitting. Therefore it seems that parish priests cannot lawfully enter religion.
Obj. 3: Further, chief among the acts to which religious orders are directed are those whereby a man gives to others the fruit of his contemplation. Now such acts are competent to parish priests and archdeacons, whom it becomes by virtue of their office to preach and hear confessions. Therefore it would seem unlawful for a parish priest or archdeacon to pa.s.s over to religion.
_On the contrary,_ It is said in the Decretals (XIX, qu. ii, cap.
Duce sunt leges.): "If a man, while governing the people in his church under the bishop and leading a secular life, is inspired by the Holy Ghost to desire to work out his salvation in a monastery or under some canonical rule, even though his bishop withstand him, we authorize him to go freely."
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3, ad 3; Q. 88, A. 12, ad 1), the obligation of a perpetual vow stands before every other obligation. Now it belongs properly to bishops and religious to be bound by perpetual vow to devote themselves to the divine service [*Cf. Q. 184, A. 5], while parish priests and archdeacons are not, as bishops are, bound by a perpetual and solemn vow to retain the cure of souls. Wherefore bishops "cannot lay aside their bishopric for any pretext whatever, without the authority of the Roman Pontiff" (Extra, De Regular. et Transeunt. ad Relig., cap. Licet.): whereas archdeacons and parish priests are free to renounce in the hands of the bishop the cure entrusted to them, without the Pope"s special permission, who alone can dispense from perpetual vows. Therefore it is evident that archdeacons and parish priests may lawfully enter religion.
Reply Obj. 1: Parish priests and archdeacons have bound themselves to the care of their subjects, as long as they retain their archdeaconry or parish, but they did not bind themselves to retain their archdeaconry or parish for ever.
Reply Obj. 2: As Jerome says (Contra Vigil.): "Although they," namely religious, "are sorely smitten by thy poisonous tongue, about whom you argue, saying; "If all shut themselves up and live in solitude, who will go to church? who will convert worldlings? who will be able to urge sinners to virtue?" If this holds true, if all are fools with thee, who can be wise? Nor will virginity be commendable, for if all be virgins, and none marry, the human race will perish. Virtue is rare, and is not desired by many." It is therefore evident that this is a foolish alarm; thus might a man fear to draw water lest the river run dry. [*St. Thomas gives no reply to the third objection, which is sufficiently solved in the body of the article.]
_______________________
EIGHTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 189, Art. 8]
Whether It Is Lawful to Pa.s.s from One Religious Order to Another?
Objection 1: It seems unlawful to pa.s.s from one religious order to another, even a stricter one. For the Apostle says (Heb. 10:25): "Not forsaking our a.s.sembly, as some are accustomed"; and a gloss observes: "Those namely who yield through fear of persecution, or who presuming on themselves withdraw from the company of sinners or of the imperfect, that they may appear to be righteous." Now those who pa.s.s from one religious order to another more perfect one would seem to do this. Therefore this is seemingly unlawful.
Obj. 2: Further, the profession of monks is stricter than that of canons regular (Extra, De Statu Monach. et Canonic. Reg., cap. Quod Dei timorem). But it is unlawful for anyone to pa.s.s from the state of canon regular to the monastic state. For it is said in the Decretals (XIX, qu. iii, can. Mandamus): "We ordain and without any exception forbid any professed canon regular to become a monk, unless (which G.o.d forbid) he have fallen into public sin." Therefore it would seem unlawful for anyone to pa.s.s from one religious order to another of higher rank.
Obj. 3: Further, a person is bound to fulfil what he has vowed, as long as he is able lawfully to do so; thus if a man has vowed to observe continence, he is bound, even after contracting marriage by words in the present tense, to fulfil his vow so long as the marriage is not consummated, because he can fulfil the vow by entering religion. Therefore if a person may lawfully pa.s.s from one religious order to another, he will be bound to do so if he vowed it previously while in the world. But this would seem objectionable, since in many cases it might give rise to scandal. Therefore a religious may not pa.s.s from one religious order to another stricter one.
_On the contrary,_ It is said in the Decretals (XX, qu. iv, can.
Virgines): "If sacred virgins design for the good of their soul to pa.s.s to another monastery on account of a stricter life, and decide to remain there, the holy synod allows them to do so": and the same would seem to apply to any religious. Therefore one may lawfully pa.s.s from one religious order to another.
_I answer that,_ It is not commendable to pa.s.s from one religious order to another: both because this frequently gives scandal to those who remain; and because, other things being equal, it is easier to make progress in a religious order to which one is accustomed than in one to which one is not habituated. Hence in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. xiv, 5) Abbot Nesteros says: "It is best for each one that he should, according to the resolve he has made, hasten with the greatest zeal and care to reach the perfection of the work he has undertaken, and nowise forsake the profession he has chosen." And further on he adds (cap. 6) by way of reason: "For it is impossible that one and the same man should excel in all the virtues at once, since if he endeavor to practice them equally, he will of necessity, while trying to attain them all, end in acquiring none of them perfectly": because the various religious orders excel in respect of various works of virtue.
Nevertheless one may commendably pa.s.s from one religious order to another for three reasons. First, through zeal for a more perfect religious life, which excellence depends, as stated above (Q. 188, A.
6), not merely on severity, but chiefly on the end to which a religious order is directed, and secondarily on the discretion whereby the observances are proportionate to the due end. Secondly, on account of a religious order falling away from the perfection it ought to have: for instance, if in a more severe religious order, the religious begin to live less strictly, it is commendable for one to pa.s.s even to a less severe religious order if the observance is better. Hence in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. xix, 3, 5, 6) Abbot John says of himself that he had pa.s.sed from the solitary life, in which he was professed, to a less severe life, namely of those who lived in community, because the hermetical life had fallen into decline and laxity. Thirdly, on account of sickness or weakness, the result of which sometimes is that one is unable to keep the ordinances of a more severe religious order, though able to observe those of a less strict religion.
There is, however, a difference in these three cases. For in the first case one ought, on account of humility, to seek permission: yet this cannot be denied, provided it be certain that this other religion is more severe. "And if there be a probable doubt about this, one should ask one"s superior to decide" (Extra, De Regular. et Transeunt. ad Relig., cap. Licet.). In like manner the superior"s decision should be sought in the second case. In the third case it is also necessary to have a dispensation.
Reply Obj. 1: Those who pa.s.s to a stricter religious order, do so not out of presumption that they may appear righteous, but out of devotion, that they may become more righteous.
Reply Obj. 2: Religious orders whether of monks or of canons regular are destined to the works of the contemplative life. Chief among these are those which are performed in the divine mysteries, and these are the direct object of the orders of canons regular, the members of which are essentially religious clerics. On the other hand, monastic religious are not essentially clerics, according to the Decretals (XVI, qu. i, cap. Alia causa). Hence although monastic orders are more severe, it would be lawful, supposing the members to be lay monks, to pa.s.s from the monastic order to an order of canons regular, according to the statement of Jerome (Ep. cxxv, ad Rustic.
Monach.): "So live in the monastery as to deserve to become a cleric"; but not conversely, as expressed in the Decretal quoted (XIX, qu. iii). If, however, the monks be clerics devoting themselves to the sacred ministry, they have this in common with canons regular coupled with greater severity, and consequently it will be lawful to pa.s.s from an order of canons regular to a monastic order, provided withal that one seek the superior"s permission (XIX, qu. iii; cap.
Statuimus).
Reply Obj. 3: The solemn vow whereby a person is bound to a less strict order, is more binding than the simple vow whereby a person is bound to a stricter order. For if after taking a simple vow a person were to be married, his marriage would not be invalid, as it would be after his taking a solemn vow. Consequently a person who is professed in a less severe order is not bound to fulfil a simple vow he has taken on entering a more severe order.
_______________________
NINTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 189, Art. 9]
Whether One Ought to Induce Others to Enter Religion?
Objection 1: It would seem that no one ought to induce others to enter religion. For the blessed Benedict prescribes in his Rule (lviii) that "those who seek to enter religion must not easily be admitted, but spirits must be tested whether they be of G.o.d"; and Ca.s.sian has the same instruction (De Inst. Caen.o.b. iv, 3). Much less therefore is it lawful to induce anyone to enter religion.
Obj. 2: Further, our Lord said (Matt. 23:15): "Woe to you ...
because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte, and when he is made you make him the child of h.e.l.l twofold more than yourselves." Now thus would seem to do those who induce persons to enter religion. Therefore this would seem blameworthy.
Obj. 3: Further, no one should induce another to do what is to his prejudice. But those who are induced to enter religion, sometimes take harm therefrom, for sometimes they are under obligation to enter a stricter religion. Therefore it would not seem praiseworthy to induce others to enter religion.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ex. 26:3, seqq. [*St. Thomas quotes the sense, not the words]): "Let one curtain draw the other."
Therefore one man should draw another to G.o.d"s service.
_I answer that,_ Those who induce others to enter religion not only do not sin, but merit a great reward. For it is written (James 5:20): "He who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a mult.i.tude of sins"; and (Dan. 12:3): "They that instruct many to justice shall be as stars for all eternity."
Nevertheless such inducement may be affected by a threefold inordinateness. First, if one person force another by violence to enter religion: and this is forbidden in the Decretals (XX, qu. iii, cap. Praesens). Secondly, if one person persuade another simoniacally to enter religion, by giving him presents: and this is forbidden in the Decretal (I, qu. ii, cap. Quam pio). But this does not apply to the case where one provides a poor person with necessaries by educating him in the world for the religious life; or when without any compact one gives a person little presents for the sake of good fellowship. Thirdly, if one person entices another by lies: for it is to be feared that the person thus enticed may turn back on finding himself deceived, and thus "the last state of that man" may become "worse than the first" (Luke 11:26).
Reply Obj. 1: Those who are induced to enter religion have still a time of probation wherein they make a trial of the hardships of religion, so that they are not easily admitted to the religious life.
Reply Obj. 2: According to Hilary (Can. xxiv in Matth.) this saying of our Lord was a forecast of the wicked endeavors of the Jews, after the preaching of Christ, to draw Gentiles or even Christians to observe the Jewish ritual, thereby making them doubly children of h.e.l.l, because, to wit, they were not forgiven the former sins which they committed while adherents of Judaism, and furthermore they incurred the guilt of Jewish perfidy; and thus interpreted these words have nothing to do with the case in point.
According to Jerome, however, in his commentary on this pa.s.sage of Matthew, the reference is to the Jews even at the time when it was yet lawful to keep the legal observances, in so far as he whom they converted to Judaism "from paganism, was merely misled; but when he saw the wickedness of his teachers, he returned to his vomit, and becoming a pagan deserved greater punishment for his treachery."
Hence it is manifest that it is not blameworthy to draw others to the service of G.o.d or to the religious life, but only when one gives a bad example to the person converted, whence he becomes worse.
Reply Obj. 3: The lesser is included in the greater. Wherefore a person who is bound by vow or oath to enter a lesser order, may be lawfully induced to enter a greater one, unless there be some special obstacle, such as ill-health, or the hope of making greater progress in the lesser order. On the other hand, one who is bound by vow or oath to enter a greater order, cannot be lawfully induced to enter a lesser order, except for some special and evident motive, and then with the superior"s dispensation.
_______________________
TENTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 189, Art. 10]
Whether It Is Praiseworthy to Enter Religion Without Taking Counsel of Many, and Previously Deliberating for a Long Time?
Objection 1: It would not seem praiseworthy to enter religion without taking counsel of many, and previously deliberating for a long time.
For it is written (1 John 4:1): "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of G.o.d." Now sometimes a man"s purpose of entering religion is not of G.o.d, since it often comes to naught through his leaving the religious life; for it is written (Acts 5:38, 39): "If this counsel or this work be of G.o.d, you cannot overthrow it." Therefore it would seem that one ought to make a searching inquiry before entering religion.
Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 25:9): "Treat thy cause with thy friend." Now a man"s cause would seem to be especially one that concerns a change in his state of life. Therefore seemingly one ought not to enter religion without discussing the matter with one"s friends.
Obj. 3: Further, our Lord (Luke 14:28) in making a comparison with a man who has a mind to build a tower, says that he doth "first sit down and reckon the charges that are necessary, whether he have wherewithal to finish it," lest he become an object of mockery, for that "this man began to build and was not able to finish." Now the wherewithal to build the tower, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Laetum ccxliii), is nothing less than that "each one should renounce all his possessions." Yet it happens sometimes that many cannot do this, nor keep other religious observances; and in signification of this it is stated (1 Kings 17:39) that David could not walk in Saul"s armor, for he was not used to it. Therefore it would seem that one ought not to enter religion without long deliberation beforehand and taking counsel of many.
_On the contrary,_ It is stated (Matt. 4:20) that upon our Lord"s calling them, Peter and Andrew "immediately leaving their nets, followed Him." Here Chrysostom says (Hom. xiv in Matth.): "Such obedience as this does Christ require of us, that we delay not even for a moment."
_I answer that,_ Long deliberation and the advice of many are required in great matters of doubt, as the Philosopher says (Ethic.
iii, 3); while advice is unnecessary in matters that are certain and fixed. Now with regard to entering religion three points may be considered. First, the entrance itself into religion, considered by itself; and thus it is certain that entrance into religion is a greater good, and to doubt about this is to disparage Christ Who gave this counsel. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm. c, 2): "The East," that is Christ, "calleth thee, and thou turnest to the West,"
namely mortal and fallible man. Secondly, the entrance into religion may be considered in relation to the strength of the person who intends to enter. And here again there is no room for doubt about the entrance to religion, since those who enter religion trust not to be able to stay by their own power, but by the a.s.sistance of the divine power, according to Isa. 40:31, "They that hope in the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall take wings as eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint." Yet if there be some special obstacle (such as bodily weakness, a burden of debts, or the like) in such cases a man must deliberate and take counsel with such as are likely to help and not hinder him. Hence it is written (Ecclus. 37:12): "Treat with a man without religion concerning holiness [*The Douay version supplies the negative: "Treat not ...
nor with ..."], with an unjust man concerning justice," meaning that one should not do so, wherefore the text goes on (Ecclus. 37:14, 15), "Give no heed to these in any matter of counsel, but be continually with a holy man." In these matters, however, one should not take long deliberation. Wherefore Jerome says (Ep. and Paulin.
liii): "Hasten, I pray thee, cut off rather than loosen the rope that holds the boat to the sh.o.r.e." Thirdly, we may consider the way of entering religion, and which order one ought to enter, and about such matters also one may take counsel of those who will not stand in one"s way.
Reply Obj. 1: The saying: "Try the spirits, if they be of G.o.d,"
applies to matters admitting of doubt whether the spirits be of G.o.d; thus those who are already in religion may doubt whether he who offers himself to religion be led by the spirit of G.o.d, or be moved by hypocrisy. Wherefore they must try the postulant whether he be moved by the divine spirit. But for him who seeks to enter religion there can be no doubt but that the purpose of entering religion to which his heart has given birth is from the spirit of G.o.d, for it is His spirit "that leads" man "into the land of uprightness" (Ps.
142:10).
Nor does this prove that it is not of G.o.d that some turn back; since not all that is of G.o.d is incorruptible: else corruptible creatures would not be of G.o.d, as the Manicheans hold, nor could some who have grace from G.o.d lose it, which is also heretical. But G.o.d"s "counsel"
whereby He makes even things corruptible and changeable, is imperishable according to Isa. 46:10, "My counsel shall stand and all My will shall be done." Hence the purpose of entering religion needs not to be tried whether it be of G.o.d, because "it requires no further demonstration," as a gloss says on 1 Thess. 5:21, "Prove all things."
Reply Obj. 2: Even as "the flesh l.u.s.teth against the spirit" (Gal.
5:17), so too carnal friends often thwart our spiritual progress, according to Mic. 7:6, "A man"s enemies are they of his own household." Wherefore Cyril expounding Luke 9:61, "Let me first take my leave of them that are at my house," says [*Cf. St. Thomas"s Catena Aurea]: "By asking first to take his leave of them that were at his house, he shows he was somewhat of two minds. For to communicate with his neighbors, and consult those who are unwilling to relish righteousness, is an indication of weakness and turning back. Hence he hears our Lord say: "No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of G.o.d," because he looks back who seeks delay in order to go home and confer with his kinsfolk."