Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 269 (1/2)
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.