Aquinas: summa/english/SS_v.html comparison

comparison summa/english/SS_v.html @ 64:11682db9b870

from auto-split

author	ht
date	Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:43:02 +0000
parents
children

comparison

equal deleted inserted replaced

-:4665e252e26e
+:11682db9b870
+<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" id="SS.v" class="div2">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q182_A4.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183.html"></a>
+<h2 id="SS.v-p0.1">TREATISE ON THE STATES OF LIFE (QQ[183]-189)</h2>
+<div id="SS_Q183" class="div3">
+<a href="summa.SS.v.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183_A1.html"></a>
+<h3 id="SS_Q183-p0.1">OF MAN'S VARIOUS DUTIES AND STATES IN GENERAL (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
+<p id="SS_Q183-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q183-p2"> We must next consider man's various states and duties. We shall consider (1) man's duties and states in general; (2) the
+state of the perfect in particular.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183-p3"> Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183-p4"> (1) What constitutes a state among men?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183-p5"> (2) Whether among men there should be various states and duties?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183-p6"> (3) Of the diversity of duties;</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183-p7"> (4) Of the diversity of states.</p>
+<div id="SS_Q183_A1" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183_A2.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q183_A1-p0.1">Whether the notion of a state denotes a condition of freedom or servitude?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A1-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A1-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the notion of a state does not denote a condition of freedom or servitude. For "state" takes its name
+from "standing." Now a person is said to stand on account of his being upright; and Gregory says (Moral. vii, 17): "To fall
+by speaking harmful words is to forfeit entirely the state of righteousness." But a man acquires spiritual uprightness by
+submitting his will to God; wherefore a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.32.1" target="asv"> Ps. 32:1, </a> "Praise becometh
+the upright," says: "The upright are those who direct their heart according to God's will." Therefore it would seem that obedience
+to the Divine commandments suffices alone for the notion of a state.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A1-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the word "state" seems to denote immobility according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.48" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:48, </a> "Be ye steadfast [stabiles] and immovable"; wherefore Gregory says (Hom. xxi in Ezech.): "The stone is foursquare, and is
+stable on all sides, if no disturbance will make it fall." Now it is virtue that enables us "to act with immobility," according
+to Ethic. ii, 4. Therefore it would seem that a state is acquired by every virtuous action.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A1-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the word "state" seems to indicate height of a kind; because to stand is to be raised upwards. Now one man is made
+higher than another by various duties; and in like manner men are raised upwards in various ways by various grades and orders.
+Therefore the mere difference of grades, orders, or duties suffices for a difference of states.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A1-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> It is thus laid down in the Decretals (II, qu. vi, can. Si Quando): "Whenever anyone intervene in a cause where life or state
+is at stake he must do so, not by a proxy, but in his own person"; and "state" here has reference to freedom or servitude.
+Therefore it would seem that nothing differentiates a man's state, except that which refers to freedom or servitude.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A1-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> "State," properly speaking, denotes a kind of position, whereby a thing is disposed with a certain immobility in a manner
+according with its nature. For it is natural to man that his head should be directed upwards, his feet set firmly on the ground,
+and his other intermediate members disposed in becoming order; and this is not the case if he lie down, sit, or recline, but
+only when he stands upright: nor again is he said to stand, if he move, but only when
+he is still. Hence it is again that even in human acts, a matter is said to have stability [statum] in reference to its own
+disposition in the point of a certain immobility or restfulness. Consequently matters which easily change and are extrinsic
+to them do not constitute a state among men, for instance that a man be rich or poor, of high or low rank, and so forth. Wherefore
+in the civil law [*Dig. I, IX, De Senatoribus] (Lib. Cassius ff. De Senatoribus) it is said that if a man be removed
+from the senate, he is deprived of his dignity rather than of his state. But that alone seemingly pertains to a man's state,
+which regards an obligation binding his person, in so far, to wit, as a man is his own master or subject to another, not indeed
+from any slight or unstable cause, but from one that is firmly established; and this is something pertaining to the nature
+of freedom or servitude. Therefore state properly regards freedom or servitude whether in spiritual or in civil
+matters.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A1-p7">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Uprightness as such does not pertain to the notion of state, except in so far as it is connatural to man with the addition
+of a certain restfulness. Hence other animals are said to stand without its being required that they should be upright; nor
+again are men said to stand, however upright their position be, unless they be still.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A1-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Immobility does not suffice for the notion of state; since even one who sits or lies down is still, and yet he is not said
+to stand.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A1-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Duty implies relation to act; while grades denote an order of superiority and inferiority. But state requires immobility
+in that which regards a condition of the person himself.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A1-p10"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A1-p11"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183_A2.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q183_A2" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183_A1.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183_A3.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q183_A2-p0.1">Whether there should be different duties or states in the Church?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A2-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A2-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there should not be different duties or states in the Church. For distinction is opposed to unity. Now
+the faithful of Christ are called to unity according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.17.21" target="asv"> Jn. 17:21,22</a>: "That they . . . may be one in Us . . . as We also are one." Therefore there should not be a distinction of duties and states
+in the Church.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A2-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nature does not employ many means where one suffices. But the working of grace is much more orderly than the working
+of nature. Therefore it were more fitting for things pertaining to the operations of grace to be administered by the same
+persons, so that there would not be a distinction of duties and states in the Church.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A2-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the good of the Church seemingly consists chiefly in peace, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.147.3" target="asv"> Ps. 147:3, </a> "Who hath placed peace in thy borders," and
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.13.11" target="asv">2 Cor. 13:11, </a> "Have peace, and the God of peace . . . shall be with you." Now distinction is a hindrance to peace, for peace would seem
+to result from likeness, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A2-p4.3" href="./asv.html#Sir.13.19" target="asv"> Ecclus. 13:19, </a> "Every beast loveth its like," while the Philosopher says (Polit. vii, 5)
+that "a little difference causes dissension in a state." Therefore it would seem that there ought not to be a distinction
+of states and duties in the Church.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A2-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> It is written in praise of the Church (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.44.10" target="asv">Ps. 44:10</a>) that she is "surrounded with variety": and a gloss on these words says that "the Queen," namely the Church, "is bedecked
+with the teaching of the apostles, the confession of martyrs, the purity of virgins, the sorrowings of penitents."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A2-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> The difference of states and duties in the Church regards three things. In the first place it regards the perfection of the
+Church. For even as in the order of natural things, perfection, which in God is simple and uniform, is not to be found in
+the created universe except in a multiform and manifold manner, so too, the fulness of grace, which is centered in Christ
+as head, flows forth to His members in various ways, for the perfecting of the body of the
+Church. This is the meaning of the Apostle's words (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.11" target="asv">Eph. 4:11,12</a>): "He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors for the perfecting
+of the saints." Secondly, it regards the need of those actions which are necessary in the Church. For a diversity of actions
+requires a diversity of men appointed to them, in order that all things may be accomplished without delay or confusion; and
+this is indicated by the Apostle
+(
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.12.4" target="asv">Rom. 12:4,5</a>), "As in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office, so we being many are one body in Christ."
+Thirdly, this belongs to the dignity and beauty of the Church, which consist in a certain order; wherefore it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A2-p6.3" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">3 Kings 10:4,5</a>) that "when the queen of Saba saw all the wisdom of Solomon . . . and the apartments of his servants, and the order of his
+ministers . . . she had no longer any spirit in her."
+Hence the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A2-p6.4" href="./asv.html#iiTim.2.20" target="asv">2 Tim. 2:20</a>) that "in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A2-p7">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The distinction of states and duties is not an obstacle to the unity of the Church, for this results from the unity of faith,
+charity, and mutual service, according to the saying of the Apostle (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.16" target="asv">Eph. 4:16</a>): "From whom the whole body being compacted," namely by faith, "and fitly joined together," namely by charity, "by what every
+joint supplieth," namely by one man serving another.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A2-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as nature does not employ many means where one suffices, so neither does it confine itself to one where many are required,
+according to the saying of the Apostle (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.17" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:17</a>), "If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing?" Hence there was need in the Church, which is Christ's body,
+for the members to be differentiated by various duties, states, and grades.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A2-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Just as in the natural body the various members are held together in unity by the power of the quickening spirit, and are
+dissociated from one another as soon as that spirit departs, so too in the Church's body the peace of the various members
+is preserved by the power of the Holy Spirit, Who quickens the body of the Church, as stated in
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.64" target="asv"> Jn. 6:64.</a> Hence the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A2-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.3" target="asv">Eph. 4:3</a>): "Careful to keep the unity
+of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Now a man departs from this unity of spirit when he seeks his own; just as in an earthly
+kingdom peace ceases when the citizens seek each man his own. Besides, the peace both of mind and of an earthly commonwealth
+is the better preserved by a distinction of duties and states, since thereby the greater number have a share in public actions.
+Wherefore the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A2-p9.3" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.24" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:24,25</a>) that "God hath tempered [the body] together that there
+might be no schism in the body, but the members might be mutually careful one for another."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A2-p10"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A2-p11"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A2-p12"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183_A1.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183_A3.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q183_A3" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183_A2.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183_A4.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q183_A3-p0.1">Whether duties differ according to their actions?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A3-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A3-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that duties do not differ according to their actions. For there are infinite varieties of human acts both in
+spirituals and in temporals. Now there can be no certain distinction among things that are infinite in number. Therefore human
+duties cannot be differentiated according to a difference of acts.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A3-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the active and the contemplative life differ according to their acts, as stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q183_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q179_A1.html">Q[179], A[1]</a>). But the distinction of duties seems to be other than the distinction of lives. Therefore duties do not differ according
+to their acts.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A3-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, even ecclesiastical orders, states, and grades seemingly differ according to their acts. If, then, duties differ
+according to their acts it would seem that duties, grades, and states differ in the same way. Yet this is not true, since
+they are divided into their respective parts in different ways. Therefore duties do not differ according to their acts.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A3-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Isidore says (Etym. vi, 19) that "officium [duty] takes its name from 'efficere' [to effect], as though it were instead of
+'efficium,' by the change of one letter for the sake of the sound." But effecting pertains to action. Therefore duties differ
+according to their acts.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A3-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
+<a id="SS_Q183_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q183_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, difference among the members of the Church is directed to three things: perfection, action, and beauty; and according to
+these three we may distinguish a threefold distinction among the faithful. One, with regard to perfection, and thus we have
+the difference of states, in reference to which some persons are more perfect than others. Another distinction regards action
+and this is the distinction of duties:
+for persons are said to have various duties when they are appointed to various actions. A third distinction regards the order
+of ecclesiastical beauty: and thus we distinguish various grades according as in the same state or duty one person is above
+another. Hence according to a variant text [*The Septuagint] it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.47.4" target="asv">Ps. 47:4</a>): "In her grades shall God be known."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A3-p7">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The material diversity of human acts is infinite. It is not thus that duties differ, but by their formal diversity which
+results from diverse species of acts, and in this way human acts are not infinite.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A3-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Life is predicated of a thing absolutely: wherefore diversity of acts which are becoming to man considered in himself. But
+efficiency, whence we have the word "office" (as stated above), denotes action tending to something else according to Metaph.
+ix, text. 16 [*Ed. Did. viii, 8]. Hence offices differ properly in respect of acts that are referred to other persons; thus
+a teacher is said to have an office, and so is a judge, and so forth. Wherefore
+Isidore says (Etym. vi, 19) that "to have an office is to be officious," i.e. harmful "to no one, but to be useful to all."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A3-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Differences of state, offices and grades are taken from different things, as stated above (A[1], ad 3). Yet these three things
+may concur in the same subject: thus when a person is appointed to a higher action, he attains thereby both office and grade,
+and sometimes, besides this, a state of perfection, on account of the sublimity of the act, as in the case of a bishop. The
+ecclesiastical orders are particularly distinct according to divine offices.
+For Isidore says (Etym. vi): "There are various kinds of offices; but the foremost is that which relates to sacred and Divine
+things."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A3-p10"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A3-p11"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183_A2.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183_A4.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q183_A4" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183_A3.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q183_A4-p0.1">Whether the difference of states applies to those who are beginning, progressing, or perfect?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A4-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A4-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the difference of states does not apply to those who are beginning, progressing, or perfect. For "diverse
+genera have diverse species and differences" [*Aristotle, Categ. ii]. Now this difference of beginning, progress, and perfection
+is applied to the degrees of charity, as stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q183_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q24_A9.html">Q[24], A[9]</a>), where we were treating of charity. Therefore it would seem that the differences of states should not be assigned in
+this manner.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A4-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as stated above
+<a id="SS_Q183_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q183_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, state regards a condition of servitude or freedom, which apparently has no connection with the aforesaid difference of beginning,
+progress, and perfection. Therefore it is unfitting to divide state in this way.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A4-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the distinction of beginning, progress, and perfection seems to refer to "more" and "less," and this seemingly implies
+the notion of grades. But the distinction of grades differs from that of states, as we have said above (
+<a id="SS_Q183_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q183_A2.html">AA[2]</a>,3). Therefore state is unfittingly divided according to beginning, progress, and perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A4-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Gregory says (Moral. xxiv, 11): "There are three states of the converted, the beginning, the middle, and the perfection";
+and (Hom. xv in Ezech.): "Other is the beginning of virtue, other its progress, and other still its perfection."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A4-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
+<a id="SS_Q183_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q183_A1.html">(A[1])</a> state regards freedom or servitude. Now in spiritual things there is a twofold servitude and a twofold freedom: for there
+is the servitude of sin and the servitude of justice; and there is likewise a twofold freedom, from sin, and from justice,
+as appears from the words of the Apostle (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.20" target="asv">Rom. 6:20</a>,
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A4-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.22" target="asv">22</a>), "When you were the servants of sin, you were free men to justice . . . but now being made
+free from sin," you are . . . "become servants to God."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A4-p7"> Now the servitude of sin or justice consists in being inclined to evil by a habit of sin, or inclined to good by a habit
+of justice: and in like manner freedom from sin is not to be overcome by the inclination to sin, and freedom from justice
+is not to be held back from evil for the love of justice. Nevertheless, since man, by his natural reason, is inclined to justice,
+while sin is contrary to natural reason, it follows that freedom from sin is true freedom which is united to
+the servitude of justice, since they both incline man to that which is becoming to him. In like manner true servitude is the
+servitude of sin, which is connected with freedom from justice, because man is thereby hindered from attaining that which
+is proper to him. That a man become the servant of justice or sin results from his efforts, as the Apostle declares (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.16" target="asv">Rom. 6:16</a>): "To whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey, whether it be of
+sin unto death, or of obedience unto justice." Now in every human effort we can distinguish a beginning, a middle, and a term;
+and consequently the state of spiritual servitude and freedom is differentiated according to these things, namely, the beginning---to
+which pertains the state of beginners---the middle, to which pertains the state of the proficient---and the term, to which
+belongs the state of the perfect.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A4-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Freedom from sin results from charity which "is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, Who is given to us" (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.5" target="asv">Rom. 5:5</a>). Hence it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q183_A4-p8.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.3.17" target="asv">2 Cor. 3:17</a>): "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Wherefore the same division applies to charity as to the state of
+those who enjoy spiritual freedom.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A4-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Men are said to be beginners, proficient, and perfect (so far as these terms indicate different states), not in relation
+to any occupation whatever, but in relation to such occupations as pertain to spiritual freedom or servitude, as stated above
+<a id="SS_Q183_A4-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q183_A1.html">(A[1])</a>.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A4-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As already observed (A[3], ad 3), nothing hinders grade and state from concurring in the same subject. For even in earthly
+affairs those who are free, not only belong to a different state from those who are in service, but are also of a different
+grade.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A4-p11"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q183_A4-p12"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183_A3.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184.html"></a>
+</div>
+<a href="summa.SS.v.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183_A1.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q184" class="div3">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183_A4.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A1.html"></a>
+<h3 id="SS_Q184-p0.1">OF THE STATE OF PERFECTION IN GENERAL (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3>
+<p id="SS_Q184-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q184-p2"> We must now consider those things that pertain to the state of perfection whereto the other states are directed. For the
+consideration of offices in relation to other acts belongs to the legislator; and in relation to the sacred ministry it comes
+under the consideration of orders of which we shall treat in the Third Part [*XP, Q[34]].
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184-p3"> Concerning the state of the perfect, a three-fold consideration presents itself: (1) The state of perfection in general;
+(2) Things relating to the perfection of bishops; (3) Things relating to the perfection of religious.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184-p4"> Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry:</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184-p5"> (1) Whether perfection bears any relation to charity?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184-p6"> (2) Whether one can be perfect in this life?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184-p7"> (3) Whether the perfection of this life consists chiefly in observing the counsels or the commandments?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184-p8"> (4) Whether whoever is perfect is in the state of perfection?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184-p9"> (5) Whether especially prelates and religious are in the state of perfection?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184-p10"> (6) Whether all prelates are in the state of perfection?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184-p11"> (7) Which is the more perfect, the episcopal or the religious state?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184-p12"> (8) The comparison between religious and parish priests and archdeacons.</p>
+<div id="SS_Q184_A1" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A2.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q184_A1-p0.1">Whether the perfection of the Christian life consists chiefly in charity?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A1-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A1-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the perfection of the Christian life does not consist chiefly in charity. For the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.14.20" target="asv">1 Cor. 14:20</a>): "In malice be children, but in sense be perfect." But charity regards not the senses but the affections. Therefore it would
+seem that the perfection of the Christian life does not chiefly consist in charity.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A1-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further,'it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.6.13" target="asv">Eph. 6:13</a>): "Take unto you the armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect"; and
+the text continues (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A1-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.6.14" target="asv">Eph. 6:14</a>,
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A1-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Eph.6.16" target="asv">16</a>), speaking of the armor of God: "Stand therefore having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breast-plate
+of justice . . . in all things taking the shield of faith." Therefore the perfection of the Christian life
+consists not only in charity, but also in other virtues.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A1-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, virtues like other habits, are specified by their acts. Now it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.1.4" target="asv">James 1:4</a>) that "patience hath a perfect work." Therefore seemingly the state of perfection consists more specially in patience.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A1-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Col.3.14" target="asv">Col. 3:14</a>): "Above all things have charity, which is the bond of perfection," because it binds, as it were, all the other virtues together
+in perfect unity.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A1-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> A thing is said to be perfect in so far as it attains its proper end, which is the ultimate perfection thereof. Now it is
+charity that unites us to God, Who is the last end of the human mind, since "he that abideth in charity abideth in God, and
+God in him" (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.4.16" target="asv">1 Jn. 4:16</a>). Therefore the perfection of the Christian life consists radically in charity.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A1-p7">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The perfection of the human senses would seem to consist chiefly in their concurring together in the unity of truth, according
+to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.10" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:10, </a> "That you be perfect in the same mind [sensu], and in the same judgment." Now this is effected by charity which operates
+consent in us men. Wherefore even the perfection of the senses consists radically in the perfection of charity.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A1-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A man may be said to be perfect in two ways. First, simply: and this perfection regards that which belongs to a thing's nature,
+for instance an animal may be said to be perfect when it lacks nothing in the disposition of its members and in such things
+as are necessary for an animal's life. Secondly, a thing is said to be perfect relatively: and this perfection regards something
+connected with the thing externally, such as whiteness or blackness or
+something of the kind. Now the Christian life consists chiefly in charity whereby the soul is united to God; wherefore it
+is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.3.14" target="asv">1 Jn. 3:14</a>): "He that loveth not abideth in death." Hence the perfection of the Christian life consists simply in charity, but in the
+other virtues relatively. And since that which is simply, is paramount and greatest in comparison with other things, it follows
+that the perfection of charity is paramount in relation to the perfection that
+regards the other virtues.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A1-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Patience is stated to have a perfect work in relation to charity, in so far as it is an effect of the abundance of charity
+that a man bears hardships patiently, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.35" target="asv"> Rom. 8:35, </a> "Who . . . shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? Or distress?" etc.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A1-p10"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A1-p11"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A2.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q184_A2" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A1.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A3.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q184_A2-p0.1">Whether any one can be perfect in this life?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A2-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A2-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that none can be perfect in this life. For the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.13.10" target="asv">1 Cor. 13:10</a>): "When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away." Now in this life that which is in part
+is not done away; for in this life faith and hope, which are in part, remain. Therefore none can be perfect in this life.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A2-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "The perfect is that which lacks nothing" (Phys. iii, 6). Now there is no one in this life who lacks nothing; for
+it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.3.2" target="asv">James 3:2</a>): "In many things we all offend"; and (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.138.16" target="asv">Ps. 138:16</a>): "Thy eyes did see my imperfect being." Therefore none is perfect in this life.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A2-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the perfection of the Christian life, as stated
+<a id="SS_Q184_A2-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, relates to charity, which comprises the love of God and of our neighbor. Now, neither as to the love of God can one have
+perfect charity in this life, since according to Gregory (Hom. xiv in Ezech.) "the furnace of love which begins to burn here,
+will burn more fiercely when we see Him Whom we love"; nor as to the love of our neighbor, since in this life we cannot love
+all our neighbors actually, even though we love them habitually; and habitual love is imperfect. Therefore it seems that no
+one can be perfect in this life.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A2-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> The Divine law does not prescribe the impossible. Yet it prescribes perfection according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.48" target="asv"> Mat. 5:48, </a> "Be you . . . perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." Therefore seemingly one can be perfect in this life.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A2-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
+<a id="SS_Q184_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, the perfection of the Christian life consists in charity. Now perfection implies a certain universality because according
+to Phys. iii, 6, "the perfect is that which lacks nothing." Hence we may consider a threefold perfection. One is absolute,
+and answers to a totality not only on the part of the lover, but also on the part of the object loved, so that God be loved
+as much as He is lovable. Such perfection
+as this is not possible to any creature, but is competent to God alone, in Whom good is wholly and essentially.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A2-p7"> Another perfection answers to an absolute totality on the part of the lover, so that the affective faculty always actually
+tends to God as much as it possibly can; and such perfection as this is not possible so long as we are on the way, but we
+shall have it in heaven.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A2-p8"> The third perfection answers to a totality neither on the part of the object served, nor on the part of the lover as regards
+his always actually tending to God, but on the part of the lover as regards the removal of obstacles to the movement of love
+towards God, in which sense Augustine says (QQ. LXXXIII, qu. 36) that "carnal desire is the bane of charity; to have no carnal
+desires is the perfection of charity." Such perfection as this can be had in this life, and in two ways.
+First, by the removal from man's affections of all that is contrary to charity, such as mortal sin; and there can be no charity
+apart from this perfection, wherefore it is necessary for salvation. Secondly, by the removal from man's affections not only
+of whatever is contrary to charity, but also of whatever hinders the mind's affections from tending wholly to God. Charity
+is possible apart from this perfection, for instance in those who are beginners and in those who are proficient.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A2-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Apostle is speaking there of heavenly perfection which is not possible to those who are on the way.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A2-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Those who are perfect in this life are said to "offend in many things" with regard to venial sins, which result from the
+weakness of the present life: and in this respect they have an "imperfect being" in comparison with the perfection of heaven.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A2-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As the conditions of the present life do not allow of a man always tending actually to God, so neither does it allow of his
+tending actually to each individual neighbor; but it suffices for him to tend to all in common and collectively, and to each
+individual habitually and according to the preparedness of his mind. Now in the love of our neighbor, as in the love of God
+we may observe a twofold perfection: one without which charity is impossible, and
+consisting in one's having in one's affections nothing that is contrary to the love of one's neighbor; and another without
+which it is possible to have charity. The latter perfection may be considered in three ways. First, as to the extent of love,
+through a man loving not only his friends and acquaintances but also strangers and even his enemies, for as Augustine says
+(Enchiridion lxxiii) this is a mark of the perfect children of God. Secondly, as to the intensity of love, which is shown
+by
+the things which man despises for his neighbor's sake, through his despising not only external goods for the sake of his neighbor,
+but also bodily hardships and even death, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A2-p11.1" href="./asv.html#John.15.13" target="asv"> Jn. 15:13, </a> "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Thirdly, as to the effect of love, so
+that a man will surrender not only temporal but also spiritual goods and even himself, for his neighbor's sake, according
+to the words of the Apostle
+(
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A2-p11.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.12.15" target="asv">2 Cor. 12:15</a>), "But I most gladly will spend and be spent myself for your souls."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A2-p12"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A2-p13"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A1.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A3.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q184_A3" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A2.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A4.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q184_A3-p0.1">Whether, in this life, perfection consists in the observance of the commandments or of the counsels?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A3-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A3-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that, in this life, perfection consists in the observance not of the commandments but of the counsels. For
+our Lord said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.21" target="asv">Mat. 19:21</a>): "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell all [Vulg.: 'what'] thou hast, and give to the poor . . . and come, follow Me." Now this
+is a counsel. Therefore perfection regards the counsels and not the precepts.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A3-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, all are bound to the observance of the commandments, since this is necessary for salvation. Therefore, if the perfection
+of the Christian life consists in observing the commandments, it follows that perfection is necessary for salvation, and that
+all are bound thereto; and this is evidently false.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A3-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the perfection of the Christian life is gauged according to charity, as stated above
+<a id="SS_Q184_A3-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Now the perfection of charity, seemingly, does not consist in the observance of the commandments, since the perfection of
+charity is preceded both by its increase and by its beginning, as Augustine says (Super Canonic. Joan. Tract. ix). But the
+beginning of charity cannot precede the observance of the commandments, since according
+to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#John.14.23" target="asv"> Jn. 14:23, </a> "If any one love Me, he will keep My word." Therefore the perfection of life regards not the commandments but the counsels.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A3-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.6.5" target="asv">Dt. 6:5</a>): "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart," and (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A3-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.18" target="asv">Lev. 19:18</a>): "Thou shalt love thy neighbor [Vulg.: 'friend'] as thyself"; and these are the commandments of which our Lord said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A3-p5.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.22.40" target="asv">Mat. 22:40</a>): "On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets." Now the perfection of charity, in respect of which
+the Christian life is said to be perfect,
+consists in our loving God with our whole heart, and our neighbor as ourselves. Therefore it would seem that perfection consists
+in the observance of the precepts.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A3-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> Perfection is said to consist in a thing in two ways: in one way, primarily and essentially; in another, secondarily and
+accidentally. Primarily and essentially the perfection of the Christian life consists in charity, principally as to the love
+of God, secondarily as to the love of our neighbor, both of which are the matter of the chief commandments of the Divine law,
+as stated above. Now the love of God and of our neighbor is not commanded according to a
+measure, so that what is in excess of the measure be a matter of counsel. This is evident from the very form of the commandment,
+pointing, as it does, to perfection---for instance in the words, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart":
+since "the whole" is the same as "the perfect," according to the Philosopher (Phys. iii, 6), and in the words, "Thou shalt
+love thy neighbor as thyself," since every one loves himself most. The reason of this is that "the end of the commandment
+is
+charity," according to the Apostle (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.1.5" target="asv">1 Tim. 1:5</a>); and the end is not subject to a measure, but only such things as are directed to the end, as the Philosopher observes (Polit.
+i, 3); thus a physician does not measure the amount of his healing, but how much medicine or diet he shall employ for the
+purpose of healing. Consequently it is evident that perfection consists essentially in the observance of the commandments;
+wherefore Augustine says (De Perf. Justit. viii): "Why
+then should not this perfection be prescribed to man, although no man has it in this life?"
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A3-p7"> Secondarily and instrumentally, however, perfection consists in the observance of the counsels, all of which, like the commandments,
+are directed to charity; yet not in the same way. For the commandments, other than the precepts of charity, are directed to
+the removal of things contrary to charity, with which, namely, charity is incompatible, whereas the counsels are directed
+to the removal of things that hinder the act of charity, and yet are not contrary to charity, such as
+marriage, the occupation of worldly business, and so forth. Hence Augustine says (Enchiridion cxxi): "Whatever things God
+commands, for instance, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' and whatever are not commanded, yet suggested by a special counsel,
+for instance, 'It is good for a man not to touch a woman,' are then done aright when they are referred to the love of God,
+and of our neighbor for God's sake, both in this world and in the world to come." Hence it is that in the Conferences of the
+Fathers (Coll. i, cap. vii) the abbot Moses says: "Fastings, watchings, meditating on the Scriptures, penury and loss of all
+one's wealth, these are not perfection but means to perfection, since not in them does the school of perfection find its end,
+but through them it achieves its end," and he had already said that "we endeavor to ascend by these steps to the perfection
+of charity."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A3-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In this saying of our Lord something is indicated as being the way to perfection by the words, "Go, sell all thou hast, and
+give to the poor"; and something else is added wherein perfection consists, when He said, "And follow Me." Hence Jerome in
+his commentary on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.27" target="asv"> Mat. 19:27, </a> says that "since it is not enough merely to leave, Peter added that which is perfect: 'And have followed Thee'"; and Ambrose,
+commenting on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.5.27" target="asv"> Lk.
+5:27,
+</a>"Follow Me," says: "He commands him to follow, not with steps of the body, but with devotion of the soul, which is the effect
+of charity." Wherefore it is evident from the very way of speaking that the counsels are means of attaining to perfection,
+since it is thus expressed: "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell," etc., as though He said: "By so doing thou shalt accomplish
+this end."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A3-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says (De Perf. Justit. viii) "the perfection of charity is prescribed to man in this life, because one runs
+not right unless one knows whither to run. And how shall we know this if no commandment declares it to us?" And since that
+which is a matter of precept can be fulfilled variously, one does not break a commandment through not fulfilling it in the
+best way, but it is enough to fulfil it in any way whatever. Now the perfection of
+Divine love is a matter of precept for all without exception, so that even the perfection of heaven is not excepted from this
+precept, as Augustine says (De Perf. Justit. viii [*Cf. De Spir. et Lit. XXXVI]), and one escapes transgressing the precept,
+in whatever measure one attains to the perfection of Divine love. The lowest degree of Divine love is to love nothing more
+than God, or contrary to God, or equally with God, and whoever fails from this degree of perfection nowise fulfils the
+precept. There is another degree of the Divine love, which cannot be fulfilled so long as we are on the way, as stated above
+<a id="SS_Q184_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, and it is evident that to fail from this is not to be a transgressor of the precept; and in like manner one does not transgress
+the precept, if one does not attain to the intermediate degrees of perfection, provided one attain to the lowest.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A3-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Just as man has a certain perfection of his nature as soon as he is born, which perfection belongs to the very essence of
+his species, while there is another perfection which he acquires by growth, so again there is a perfection of charity which
+belongs to the very essence of charity, namely that man love God above all things, and love nothing contrary to God, while
+there is another perfection of charity even in this life, whereto a man attains by a
+kind of spiritual growth, for instance when a man refrains even from lawful things, in order more freely to give himself to
+the service of God.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A3-p11"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A3-p12"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A2.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A4.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q184_A4" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A3.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A5.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q184_A4-p0.1">Whether whoever is perfect is in the state of perfection?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A4-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A4-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that whoever is perfect is in the state of perfection. For, as stated above (A[3], ad 3), just as bodily perfection
+is reached by bodily growth, so spiritual perfection is acquired by spiritual growth. Now after bodily growth one is said
+to have reached the state of perfect age. Therefore seemingly also after spiritual growth, when one has already reached spiritual
+perfection, one is in the state of perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A4-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to Phys. v, 2, movement "from one contrary to another" has the same aspect as "movement from less to more."
+Now when a man is changed from sin to grace, he is said to change his state, in so far as the state of sin differs from the
+state of grace. Therefore it would seem that in the same manner, when one progresses from a lesser to a greater grace, so
+as to reach the perfect degree, one is in the state of perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A4-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a man acquires a state by being freed from servitude. But one is freed from the servitude of sin by charity, because
+"charity covereth all sins" (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.10.12" target="asv">Prov. 10:12</a>). Now one is said to be perfect on account of charity, as stated above
+<a id="SS_Q184_A4-p4.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore, seemingly, whoever has perfection, for this very reason has the state of perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A4-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Some are in the state of perfection, who are wholly lacking in charity and grace, for instance wicked bishops or religious.
+Therefore it would seem that on the other hand some have the perfection of life, who nevertheless have not the state of perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A4-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q184_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q183_A1.html">Q[183], A[1]</a>), state properly regards a condition of freedom or servitude. Now spiritual freedom or servitude may be considered in man
+in two ways: first, with respect to his internal actions; secondly, with respect to his external actions. And since according
+to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iKgs.16.7" target="asv">1 Kings 16:7, </a> "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart," it follows that with regard to man's internal
+disposition we consider his spiritual state in relation to the Divine judgment, while with regard to his external actions
+we consider man's spiritual state in relation to the Church. It is in this latter sense that we are now speaking of states,
+namely in so far as the Church derives a certain beauty from the variety of states [*Cf.
+<a id="SS_Q184_A4-p6.3" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q183_A2.html"> Q[183], A[2]</a>].
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A4-p7"> Now it must be observed, that so far as men are concerned, in order that any one attain to a state of freedom or servitude
+there is required first of all an obligation or a release. For the mere fact of serving someone does not make a man a slave,
+since even the free serve, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.13" target="asv">Gal. 5:13</a>, "By charity of the spirit serve one another": nor again does the mere fact of ceasing to serve make a man free, as in the
+case of a runaway slave; but properly speaking a man is a
+slave if he be bound to serve, and a man is free if he be released from service. Secondly, it is required that the aforesaid
+obligation be imposed with a certain solemnity; even as a certain solemnity is observed in other matters which among men obtain
+a settlement in perpetuity.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A4-p8"> Accordingly, properly speaking, one is said to be in the state of perfection, not through having the act of perfect love,
+but through binding himself in perpetuity and with a certain solemnity to those things that pertain to perfection. Moreover
+it happens that some persons bind themselves to that which they do not keep, and some fulfil that to which they have not bound
+themselves, as in the case of the two sons (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.21.28" target="asv">Mat. 21:28</a>,
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A4-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.21.30" target="asv">30</a>), one of whom when his father said: "Work in my
+vineyard," answered: "I will not," and "afterwards . . . he went," while the other "answering said: I go . . . and he went
+not." Wherefore nothing hinders some from being perfect without being in the state of perfection, and some in the state of
+perfection without being perfect.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A4-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> By bodily growth a man progresses in things pertaining to nature, wherefore he attains to the state of nature; especially
+since "what is according to nature is," in a way, "unchangeable" [*Ethic. v, 7], inasmuch as nature is determinate to one
+thing. In like manner by inward spiritual growth a man reaches the state of perfection in relation to the Divine judgment.
+But as regards the distinctions of ecclesiastical states, a man does not reach the state
+of perfection except by growth in respect of external actions.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A4-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument also regards the interior state. Yet when a man passes from sin to grace, he passes from servitude to freedom;
+and this does not result from a mere progress in grace, except when a man binds himself to things pertaining to grace.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A4-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Again this argument considers the interior state. Nevertheless, although charity causes the change of condition from spiritual
+servitude to spiritual freedom, an increase of charity has not the same effect.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A4-p12"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A4-p13"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A3.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A5.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q184_A5" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A4.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A6.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q184_A5-p0.1">Whether religious and prelates are in the state of perfection?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A5-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A5-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that prelates and religious are not in the state of perfection. For the state of perfection differs from the
+state of the beginners and the proficient. Now no class of men is specially assigned to the state of the proficient or of
+the beginners. Therefore it would seem that neither should any class of men be assigned to the state of perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A5-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the outward state should answer to the inward, else one is guilty of lying, "which consists not only in false words,
+but also in deceitful deeds," according to Ambrose in one of his sermons (xxx de Tempore). Now there are many prelates and
+religious who have not the inward perfection of charity. Therefore, if all religious and prelates are in the state of perfection,
+it would follow that all of them that are not perfect are in mortal sin, as deceivers
+and liars.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A5-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as stated above
+<a id="SS_Q184_A5-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, perfection is measured according to charity. Now the most perfect charity would seem to be in the martyrs, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A5-p4.2" href="./asv.html#John.15.13" target="asv"> Jn. 15:13, </a> "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends": and a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A5-p4.3" href="./asv.html#Heb.12.4" target="asv"> Heb. 12:4, </a> "For you have not yet resisted unto blood," says: "In this life no love is more perfect than that to which the holy
+martyrs attained, who strove against sin even unto blood." Therefore it would seem that the state of perfection should be
+ascribed to the martyrs rather than to religious and bishops.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A5-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) ascribes perfection to bishops as being perfecters, and (Eccl. Hier. vi) to religious (whom he
+calls monks or {therapeutai}, i.e. servants of God) as being perfected.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A5-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
+<a id="SS_Q184_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A4.html">(A[4])</a>, there is required for the state of perfection a perpetual obligation to things pertaining to perfection, together with a
+certain solemnity. Now both these conditions are competent to religious and bishops. For religious bind themselves by vow
+to refrain from worldly affairs, which they might lawfully use, in order more freely to give themselves to God, wherein consists
+the perfection of the present life.
+Hence Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi), speaking of religious: "Some call them {therapeutai}," i.e. servants, "on account of
+their rendering pure service and homage to God; others call them {monachoi}" [*i.e. solitaries; whence the English word 'monk'],
+"on account of the indivisible and single-minded life which by their being wrapped in," i.e. contemplating, "indivisible things,
+unites them in a Godlike union and a perfection beloved of God" [*Cf. Q[180], A[6]]. Moreover, the obligation in both
+cases is undertaken with a certain solemnity of profession and consecration; wherefore Dionysius adds (Eccl. Hier. vi): "Hence
+the holy legislation in bestowing perfect grace on them accords them a hallowing invocation."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A5-p7"> In like manner bishops bind themselves to things pertaining to perfection when they take up the pastoral duty, to which it
+belongs that a shepherd "lay down his life for his sheep," according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.10.15" target="asv"> Jn. 10:15.</a> Wherefore the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A5-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iTim.6.12" target="asv">1 Tim. 6:12</a>): "Thou . . . hast confessed a good confession before many witnesses," that is to say, "when he was ordained," as a gloss
+says on this passage. Again, a certain solemnity of consecration is
+employed together with the aforesaid profession, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A5-p7.3" href="./asv.html#iiTim.1.6" target="asv">2 Tim. 1:6</a>: "Stir up the grace of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands," which the gloss ascribes to the grace of the
+episcopate. And Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v) that "when the high priest," i.e. the bishop, "is ordained, he receives on
+his head the most holy imposition of the sacred oracles, whereby it is signified that he is a participator in the whole and
+entire hierarchical power, and that
+not only is he the enlightener in all things pertaining to his holy discourses and actions, but that he also confers this
+on others."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A5-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Beginning and increase are sought not for their own sake, but for the sake of perfection; hence it is only to the state of
+perfection that some are admitted under certain obligations and with solemnity.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A5-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Those who enter the state of perfection do not profess to be perfect, but to tend to perfection. Hence the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.3.12" target="asv">Phil. 3:12</a>): "Not as though I had already attained, or were already perfect; but I follow after, if I may by any means apprehend": and
+afterwards (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A5-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Phil.3.15" target="asv">Phil. 3:15</a>): "Let us therefore as many as are perfect, be thus minded." Hence a man who takes up the state of perfection is not guilty
+of lying or deceit through not
+being perfect, but through withdrawing his mind from the intention of reaching perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A5-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Martyrdom is the most perfect act of charity. But an act of perfection does not suffice to make the state of perfection,
+as stated above
+<a id="SS_Q184_A5-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A4.html">(A[4])</a>.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A5-p11"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A5-p12"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A4.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A6.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q184_A6" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A5.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A7.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q184_A6-p0.1">Whether all ecclesiastical prelates are in the state of perfection?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A6-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A6-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that all ecclesiastical prelates are in a state of perfection. For Jerome commenting on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Titus.1.5" target="asv"> Titus 1:5, </a> "Ordain . . . in every city," etc. says: "Formerly priest was the same as bishop," and afterwards he adds: "Just as priests
+know that by the custom of the Church they are subject to the one who is placed over them, so too, bishops should recognize
+that, by custom rather than by the very ordinance of our Lord, they are above the
+priests, and are together the rightful governors of the Church." Now bishops are in the state of perfection. Therefore those
+priests also are who have the cure of souls.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A6-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as bishops together with their consecration receive the cure of souls, so also do parish priests and archdeacons,
+of whom a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.6.3" target="asv"> Acts 6:3, </a> "Brethren, look ye out . . . seven men of good reputation," says: "The apostles decided here to appoint throughout the Church
+seven deacons, who were to be of a higher degree, and as it were the supports of that which is nearest to the altar." Therefore
+it would seem that these also
+are in the state of perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A6-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as bishops are bound to "lay down their life for their sheep," so too are parish priests and archdeacons. But
+this belongs to the perfection of charity, as stated above (A[2], ad 3). Therefore it would seem that parish priests and archdeacons
+also are in the state of perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A6-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v): "The order of pontiffs is consummative and perfecting, that of the priests is illuminative
+and light-giving, that of the ministers is cleansing and discretive." Hence it is evident that perfection is ascribed to bishops
+only.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A6-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> In priests and deacons having cure of souls two things may be considered, namely their order and their cure. Their order
+is directed to some act in the Divine offices. Wherefore it has been stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q184_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q183_A3.html">Q[183], A[3]</a>, ad 3) that the distinction of orders is comprised under the distinction of offices. Hence by receiving a certain order a
+man receives the power of exercising certain sacred acts, but he is not bound on this account to
+things pertaining to perfection, except in so far as in the Western Church the receiving of a sacred order includes the taking
+of a vow of continence, which is one of the things pertaining to perfection, as we shall state further on (
+<a id="SS_Q184_A6-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A4.html">Q[186], A[4]</a>). Therefore it is clear that from the fact that a man receives a sacred order a man is not placed simply in the state of
+perfection, although inward perfection is required in order that one exercise such acts worthily.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A6-p7"> In like manner, neither are they placed in the state of perfection on the part of the cure which they take upon themselves.
+For they are not bound by this very fact under the obligation of a perpetual vow to retain the cure of souls; but they can
+surrender it---either by entering religion, even without their bishop's permission (cf. Decret. xix, qu. 2, can. Duae sunt)---or
+again an archdeacon may with his bishop's permission resign his arch-deaconry or parish, and accept a
+simple prebend without cure, which would be nowise lawful, if he were in the state of perfection; for "no man putting his
+hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God" (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.9.62" target="asv">Lk. 9:62</a>). On the other hand bishops, since they are in the state of perfection, cannot abandon the episcopal cure, save by the authority
+of the Sovereign Pontiff (to whom alone it belongs also to dispense from perpetual vows), and this for certain causes, as
+we shall state further on
+(
+<a id="SS_Q184_A6-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q185_A4.html">Q[185], A[4]</a>). Wherefore it is manifest that not all prelates are in the state of perfection, but only bishops.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A6-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> We may speak of priest and bishop in two ways. First, with regard to the name: and thus formerly bishops and priests were
+not distinct. For bishops are so called "because they watch over others," as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei xix, 19); while
+the priests according to the Greek are "elders." [*Referring to the Greek {episkopos} and {presbyteros} from which the English
+'bishop' and 'priest' are derived.] Hence the Apostle employs the term "priests"
+in reference to both, when he says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A6-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.5.17" target="asv">1 Tim. 5:17</a>): "Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honor"; and again he uses the term "bishops" in the same way,
+wherefore addressing the priests of the Church of Ephesus he says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A6-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.20.28" target="asv">Acts 20:28</a>): "Take heed to yourselves" and "to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of
+God."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A6-p9"> But as regards the thing signified by these terms, there was always a difference between them, even at the time of the apostles.
+This is clear on the authority of Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v), and of a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.10.1" target="asv">Lk. 10:1</a>, "After these things the Lord appointed," etc. which says: "Just as the apostles were made bishops, so the seventy-two disciples
+were made priests of the second order." Subsequently, however, in order to avoid schism, it became necessary to distinguish
+even the
+terms, by calling the higher ones bishops and the lower ones priests. But to assert that priests nowise differ from bishops
+is reckoned by Augustine among heretical doctrines (De Heres. liii), where he says that the Arians maintained that "no distinction
+existed between a priest and a bishop."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A6-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Bishops have the chief cure of the sheep of their diocese, while parish priests and archdeacons exercise an inferior ministry
+under the bishops. Hence a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A6-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.28" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:28, </a> "to one, helps, to another, governments [*Vulg.: 'God hath set some in the church . . . helps, governments,' etc.]," says:
+"Helps, namely assistants to those who are in authority," as Titus was to the Apostle, or as archdeacons to the bishop; "governments,
+namely persons of lesser authority, such as priests who have to instruct the people": and Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v) that
+"just as we see the whole hierarchy culminating in Jesus, so each office culminates in its respective godlike hierarch or
+bishop." Also it is said (XVI, qu. i, can. Cunctis): "Priests and deacons must all take care not to do anything without their
+bishop's permission." Wherefore it is evident that they stand in relation to their bishop as wardens or mayors to the king;
+and for this reason, just as in earthly governments the king alone receives a solemn blessing, while others are appointed
+by simple commission, so too in the Church the episcopal cure is conferred with the solemnity of consecration, while the archdeacon
+or parish priest receives his cure by simple appointment; although they are consecrated by receiving orders before having
+a cure.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A6-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As parish priests and archdeacons have not the chief cure, but a certain ministry as committed to them by the bishop, so
+the pastoral office does not belong to them in chief, nor are they bound to lay down their life for the sheep, except in so
+far as they have a share in their cure. Hence we should say that they have an office pertaining to perfection rather than
+that they attain the state of perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A6-p12"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A6-p13"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A5.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A7.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q184_A7" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A6.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A8.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q184_A7-p0.1">Whether the religious state is more perfect than that of prelates?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A7-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A7-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the religious state is more perfect than that of prelates. For our Lord said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.21" target="asv">Mat. 19:21</a>): "If thou wilt be perfect, go" and "sell" all [Vulg.: 'what'] "thou hast, and give to the poor"; and religious do this.
+But bishops are not bound to do so; for it is said (XII, qu. i, can. Episcopi de rebus): "Bishops, if they wish, may bequeath
+to their heirs their personal or acquired property, and whatever belongs to them
+personally." Therefore religious are in a more perfect state than bishops.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A7-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, perfection consists more especially in the love of God than in the love of our neighbor. Now the religious state
+is directly ordered to the love of God, wherefore it takes its name from "service and homage to God," as Dionysius says (Eccl.
+Hier. vi); [*Quoted above A[5]] whereas the bishop's state would seem to be ordered to the love of our neighbor, of whose
+cure he is the "warden," and from this he takes his name, as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei.
+xix, 19). Therefore it would seem that the religious state is more perfect than that of bishops.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A7-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the religious state is directed to the contemplative life, which is more excellent than the active life to which
+the episcopal state is directed. For Gregory says (Pastor. i, 7) that "Isaias wishing to be of profit to his neighbor by means
+of the active life desired the office of preaching, whereas Jeremias, who was fain to hold fast to the love of his Creator,
+exclaimed against being sent to preach." Therefore it would seem that the religious state
+is more perfect than the episcopal state.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A7-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> It is not lawful for anyone to pass from a more excellent to a less excellent state; for this would be to look back [*Cf.
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A7-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.9.62" target="asv"> Lk. 9:62</a>]. Yet a man may pass from the religious to the episcopal state, for it is said (XVIII, qu. i, can. Statutum) that "the holy
+ordination makes a monk to be a bishop." Therefore the episcopal state is more perfect than the religious.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A7-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16), "the agent is ever more excellent than the patient." Now in the genus of perfection
+according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v, vi), bishops are in the position of "perfecters," whereas religious are in the position
+of being "perfected"; the former of which pertains to action, and the latter to passion. Whence it is evident that the state
+of perfection is more excellent in bishops than in religious.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A7-p7">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Renunciation of one's possessions may be considered in two ways. First, as being actual: and thus it is not essential, but
+a means, to perfection, as stated above
+<a id="SS_Q184_A7-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. Hence nothing hinders the state of perfection from being without renunciation of one's possessions, and the same applies
+to other outward practices. Secondly, it may be considered in relation to one's preparedness, in the sense of being prepared
+to renounce
+or give away all: and this belongs directly to perfection. Hence Augustine says (De QQ. Evang. ii, qu. 11): "Our Lord shows
+that the children of wisdom understand righteousness to consist neither in eating nor in abstaining, but in bearing want patiently."
+Wherefore the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A7-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Phil.4.12" target="asv">Phil. 4:12</a>): "I know . . . both to abound and to suffer need." Now bishops especially are bound to despise all things for the honor
+of God and the spiritual welfare of their flock, when it is
+necessary for them to do so, either by giving to the poor of their flock, or by suffering "with joy the being stripped of"
+their "own goods" [*
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A7-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.34" target="asv">Heb. 10:34</a>].
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A7-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> That bishops are busy about things pertaining to the love of their neighbor, arises out of the abundance of their love of
+God. Hence our Lord asked Peter first of all whether he loved Him, and afterwards committed the care of His flock to him.
+And Gregory says (Pastor. i, 5): "If the pastoral care is a proof of love, he who refuses to feed God's flock, though having
+the means to do so, is convicted of not loving the supreme Pastor." And it is a sign
+of greater love if a man devotes himself to others for his friend's sake, than if he be willing only to serve his friend.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A7-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Gregory says (Pastor. ii, 1), "a prelate should be foremost in action, and more uplifted than others in contemplation,"
+because it is incumbent on him to contemplate, not only for his own sake, but also for the purpose of instructing others.
+Hence Gregory applies (Hom. v in Ezech.) the words of
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A7-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.144.7" target="asv"> Ps. 144:7, </a> "They shall publish the memory . . . of Thy sweetness," to perfect men returning after their contemplation.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A7-p10"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A7-p11"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A7-p12"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A6.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A8.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q184_A8" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A7.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q184_A8-p0.1">Whether parish priests and archdeacons are more perfect than religious?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that also parish priests and archdeacons are more perfect than religious. For Chrysostom says in his Dialogue
+(De Sacerdot. vi): "Take for example a monk, such as Elias, if I may exaggerate somewhat, he is not to be compared with one
+who, cast among the people and compelled to carry the sins of many, remains firm and strong." A little further on he says:
+"If I were given the choice, where would I prefer to please, in the priestly office, or in
+the monastic solitude, without hesitation I should choose the former." Again in the same book (ch. 5) he says: "If you compare
+the toils of this project, namely of the monastic life, with a well-employed priesthood, you will find them as far distant
+from one another as a common citizen is from a king." Therefore it would seem that priests who have the cure of souls are
+more perfect than religious.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says (ad Valerium, Ep. xxi): "Let thy religious prudence observe that in this life, and especially at
+these times, there is nothing so difficult, so onerous, so perilous as the office of bishop, priest, or deacon; while in God's
+sight there is no greater blessing, if one engage in the fight as ordered by our Commander-in-chief." Therefore religious
+are not more perfect than priests or deacons.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (Ep. lx, ad Aurel.): "It would be most regrettable, were we to exalt monks to such a disastrous degree
+of pride, and deem the clergy deserving of such a grievous insult," as to assert that 'a bad monk is a good clerk,' "since
+sometimes even a good monk makes a bad clerk." And a little before this he says that "God's servants," i.e. monks, "must not
+be allowed to think that they may easily be chosen for something better," namely the
+clerical state, "if they should become worse thereby," namely by leaving the monastic state. Therefore it would seem that
+those who are in the clerical state are more perfect than religious.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p5">
+<b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is not lawful to pass from a more perfect to a less perfect state. Yet it is lawful to pass from the monastic
+state to a priestly office with a cure attached, as appears (XVI, qu. i, can. Si quis monachus) from a decree of Pope Gelasius,
+who says: "If there be a monk, who by the merit of his exemplary life is worthy of the priesthood, and the abbot under whose
+authority he fights for Christ his King, ask that he be made a priest, the bishop shall
+take him and ordain him in such place as he shall choose fitting." And Jerome says (Ad Rustic. Monach., Ep. cxxv): "In the
+monastery so live as to deserve to be a clerk." Therefore parish priests and archdeacons are more perfect than religious.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p6">
+<b>Objection 5:</b> Further, bishops are in a more perfect state than religious, as shown above
+<a id="SS_Q184_A8-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A7.html">(A[7])</a>. But parish priests and archdeacons. through having cure of souls, are more like bishops than religious are. Therefore they
+are more perfect.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p7">
+<b>Objection 6:</b> Further, virtue "is concerned with the difficult and the good" (Ethic. ii, 3). Now it is more difficult to lead a good life
+in the office of parish priest or archdeacon than in the religious state. Therefore parish priests and archdeacons have more
+perfect virtue than religious.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p8">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> It is stated (XIX, qu. ii, cap. Duce): "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,
+since he is led by a private law, there is no reason why he should be constrained by a public law." Now a man is not led by
+the law of the Holy Ghost, which is here called a "private law," except to something more
+perfect. Therefore it would seem that religious are more perfect than archdeacons or parish priests.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p9">
+<b>I answer that,</b> When we compare things in the point of super-eminence, we look not at that in which they agree, but at that wherein they
+differ. Now in parish priests and archdeacons three things may be considered, their state, their order, and their office.
+It belongs to their state that they are seculars, to their order that they are priests or deacons, to their office that they
+have the cure of souls committed to them.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p10"> Accordingly, if we compare these with one who is a religious by state, a deacon or priest by order, having the cure of souls
+by office, as many monks and canons regular have, this one will excel in the first point, and in the other points he will
+be equal. But if the latter differ from the former in state and office, but agree in order, such as religious priests and
+deacons not having the cure of souls, it is evident that the latter will be more excellent than the former in
+state, less excellent in office, and equal in order.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p11"> We must therefore consider which is the greater, preeminence of state or of office; and here, seemingly, we should take note
+of two things, goodness and difficulty. Accordingly, if we make the comparison with a view to goodness, the religious state
+surpasses the office of parish priest or archdeacon, because a religious pledges his whole life to the quest of perfection,
+whereas the parish priest or archdeacon does not pledge his whole life to the cure of souls, as a bishop does,
+nor is it competent to him, as it is to a bishop, to exercise the cure of souls in chief, but only in certain particulars
+regarding the cure of souls committed to his charge, as stated above (A[6], ad 2). Wherefore the comparison of their religious
+state with their office is like the comparisons of the universal with the particular, and of a holocaust with a sacrifice
+which is less than a holocaust according to Gregory (Hom. xx in Ezech.). Hence it is said (XIX, qu. i, can. Clerici qui
+monachorum.): "Clerics who wish to take the monastic vows through being desirous of a better life must be allowed by their
+bishops the free entrance into the monastery."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p12"> This comparison, however, must be considered as regarding the genus of the deed; for as regards the charity of the doer it
+happens sometimes that a deed which is of less account in its genus is of greater merit if it be done out of greater charity.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p13"> On the other hand, if we consider the difficulty of leading a good life in religion, and in the office of one having the
+cure of souls, in this way it is more difficult to lead a good life together with the exercise of the cure of souls, on account
+of outward dangers: although the religious life is more difficult as regards the genus of the deed, by reason of the strictness
+of religious observance. If, however, the religious is also without orders, as in the case of religious
+lay brethren, then it is evident that the pre-eminence of order excels in the point of dignity, since by holy orders a man
+is appointed to the most august ministry of serving Christ Himself in the sacrament of the altar. For this requires a greater
+inward holiness than that which is requisite for the religious state, since as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi) the monastic
+order must follow the priestly orders, and ascend to Divine things in imitation of them. Hence, other things being equal,
+a
+cleric who is in holy orders, sins more grievously if he do something contrary to holiness than a religious who is not in
+holy orders: although a religious who is not in orders is bound to regular observance to which persons in holy orders are
+not bound.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p14">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> We might answer briefly these quotations from Chrysostom by saying that he speaks not of a priest of lesser order who has
+the cure of souls, but of a bishop, who is called a high-priest; and this agrees with the purpose of that book wherein he
+consoles himself and Basil in that they were chosen to be bishops. We may, however, pass this over and reply that he speaks
+in view of the difficulty. For he had already said: "When the pilot is surrounded by
+the stormy sea and is able to bring the ship safely out of the tempest, then he deserves to be acknowledged by all as a perfect
+pilot"; and afterwards he concludes, as quoted, with regard to the monk, "who is not to be compared with one who, cast among
+the people . . . remains firm"; and he gives the reason why, because "both in the calm end in the storm he piloted himself
+to safety." This proves nothing more than that the state of one who has the cure of souls is fraught with more danger than
+the monastic state; and to keep oneself innocent in face of a greater peril is proof of greater virtue. on the other hand,
+it also indicates greatness of virtue if a man avoid dangers by entering religion; hence he does not say that "he would prefer
+the priestly office to the monastic solitude," but that "he would rather please" in the former than in the latter, since this
+is a proof of greater virtue.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p15">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This passage quoted from Augustine also clearly refers to the question of difficulty which proves the greatness of virtue
+in those who lead a good life, as stated above (ad 1).
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p16">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Augustine there compares monks with clerics as regards the pre-eminence of order, not as regards the distinction between
+religious and secular life.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p17">
+<b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Those who are taken from the religious state to receive the cure of souls, being already in sacred orders, attain to something
+they had not hitherto, namely the office of the cure, yet they do not put aside what they had already. For it is said in the
+Decretals (XVI, qu. i, can. De Monachis): "With regard to those monks who after long residence in a monastery attain to the
+order of clerics, we bid them not to lay aside their former purpose."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p18"> On the other hand, parish priests and archdeacons, when they enter religion, resign their cure, in order to enter the state
+of perfection. This very fact shows the excellence of the religious life. When religious who are not in orders are admitted
+to the clerical state and to the sacred orders, they are clearly promoted to something better, as stated: this is indicated
+by the very way in which Jerome expresses himself: "So live in the monastery as to deserve to be a clerk."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p19">
+<b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Parish priests and archdeacons are more like bishops than religious are, in a certain respect, namely as regards the cure
+of souls which they have subordinately; but as regards the obligation in perpetuity, religious are more like a bishop, as
+appears from what we have said above (
+<a id="SS_Q184_A8-p19.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A5.html">AA[5]</a>,6).
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p20">
+<b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> The difficulty that arises from the arduousness of the deed adds to the perfection of virtue; but the difficulty that results
+from outward obstacles sometimes lessens the perfection of virtue---for instance, when a man loves not virtue so much as to
+wish to avoid the obstacles to virtue, according to the saying of the Apostle (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q184_A8-p20.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.9.25" target="asv">1 Cor. 9:25</a>), "Everyone that striveth for the mastery refraineth himself from all things": and sometimes it is a sign of
+perfect virtue---for instance, when a man forsakes not virtue, although he is hindered in the practice of virtue unawares
+or by some unavoidable cause. In the religious state there is greater difficulty arising from the arduousness of deeds; whereas
+for those who in any way at all live in the world, there is greater difficulty resulting from obstacles to virtue, which obstacles
+the religious has had the foresight to avoid.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p21"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q184_A8-p22"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A7.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185.html"></a>
+</div>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183_A4.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A1.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q185" class="div3">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A8.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A1.html"></a>
+<h3 id="SS_Q185-p0.1">OF THINGS PERTAINING TO THE EPISCOPAL STATE (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3>
+<p id="SS_Q185-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q185-p2"> We must now consider things pertaining to the episcopal state. Under this head there are eight points of inquiry:</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185-p3"> (1) Whether it is lawful to desire the office of a bishop?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185-p4"> (2) Whether it is lawful to refuse the office of bishop definitively?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185-p5"> (3) Whether the better man should be chosen for the episcopal office?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185-p6"> (4) Whether a bishop may pass over to the religious state?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185-p7"> (5) Whether he may lawfully abandon his subjects in a bodily manner?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185-p8"> (6) Whether he can have anything of his own?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185-p9"> (7) Whether he sins mortally by not distributing ecclesiastical goods to the poor?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185-p10"> (8) Whether religious who are appointed to the episcopal office are bound to religious observances?</p>
+<div id="SS_Q185_A1" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A2.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q185_A1-p0.1">Whether it is lawful to desire the office of a bishop?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A1-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A1-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is lawful to desire the office of a bishop. For the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.3.1" target="asv">1 Tim. 3:1</a>): "He that desires [Vulg.: 'If a man desire'] the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work." Now it is lawful and praiseworthy
+to desire a good work. Therefore it is even praiseworthy to desire the office of a bishop.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A1-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the episcopal state is more perfect than the religious, as we have said above (
+<a id="SS_Q185_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A7.html">Q[184], A[7]</a>). But it is praiseworthy to desire to enter the religious state. Therefore it is also praiseworthy to desire promotion to
+the episcopal state.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A1-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.11.26" target="asv">Prov. 11:26</a>): "He that hideth up corn shall be cursed among the people; but a blessing upon the head of them that sell." Now a man who
+is apt, both in manner of life and by knowledge, for the episcopal office, would seem to hide up the spiritual corn, if he
+shun the episcopal state, whereas by accepting the episcopal office he enters the state of a dispenser of spiritual corn.
+Therefore it would seem praiseworthy to
+desire the office of a bishop, and blameworthy to refuse it.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A1-p5">
+<b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the deeds of the saints related in Holy Writ are set before us as an example, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.15.4" target="asv"> Rom. 15:4, </a> "What things soever were written, were written for our learning." Now we read (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A1-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.6.8" target="asv">Is. 6:8</a>) that Isaias offered himself for the office of preacher, which belongs chiefly to bishops. Therefore it would seem praiseworthy
+to desire the office of a bishop.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A1-p6">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19): "The higher place, without which the people cannot be ruled, though it be filled becomingly,
+is unbecomingly desired."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A1-p7">
+<b>I answer that,</b> Three things may be considered in the episcopal office. One is principal and final, namely the bishop's work, whereby the
+good of our neighbor is intended, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.21.17" target="asv"> Jn. 21:17, </a> "Feed My sheep." Another thing is the height of degree, for a bishop is placed above others, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.24.45" target="asv"> Mat. 24:45, </a> "A faithful and a wise servant, whom his lord hath appointed over his family." The third is something resulting from these,
+namely reverence, honor, and a sufficiency of temporalities, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A1-p7.3" href="./asv.html#iTim.5.17" target="asv">1 Tim. 5:17, </a> "Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honor." Accordingly, to desire the episcopal office on account
+of these incidental goods is manifestly unlawful, and pertains to covetousness or ambition. Wherefore our Lord said against
+the Pharisees (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A1-p7.4" href="./asv.html#Matt.23.6" target="asv">Mat. 23:6,7</a>): "They love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues, and salutations
+in the market-place, and to be called by men, Rabbi." As regards the second, namely the height of degree, it is presumptuous
+to desire the episcopal office. Hence our Lord reproved His disciples for seeking precedence, by saying to them (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A1-p7.5" href="./asv.html#Matt.20.25" target="asv">Mat. 20:25</a>): "You know that the princes of the gentiles lord it over them." Here Chrysostom says (Hom. lxv in Matth.) that in these
+words "He points out that it is heathenish to seek precedence; and thus by comparing them to the gentiles He
+converted their impetuous soul."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A1-p8"> On the other hand, to desire to do good to one's neighbor is in itself praiseworthy, and virtuous. Nevertheless, since considered
+as an episcopal act it has the height of degree attached to it, it would seem that, unless there be manifest and urgent reason
+for it, it would be presumptuous for any man to desire to be set over others in order to do them good. Thus Gregory says (Pastor.
+i, 8) that "it was praiseworthy to seek the office of a bishop when it was certain to bring one
+into graver dangers." Wherefore it was not easy to find a person to accept this burden, especially seeing that it is through
+the zeal of charity that one divinely instigated to do so, according to Gregory, who says (Pastor. i, 7) that "Isaias being
+desirous of profiting his neighbor, commendably desired the office of preacher."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A1-p9"> Nevertheless, anyone may, without presumption, desire to do such like works if he should happen to be in that office, or
+to be worthy of doing them; so that the object of his desire is the good work and not the precedence in dignity. Hence Chrysostom*
+says: "It is indeed good to desire a good work, but to desire the primacy of honor is vanity. For primacy seeks one that shuns
+it, and abhors one that desires it." [*The quotation is from the Opus Imperfectum in Matth. (Hom. xxxv),
+falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom.]
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A1-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Gregory says (Pastor. i, 8), "when the Apostle said this he who was set over the people was the first to be dragged to
+the torments of martyrdom," so that there was nothing to be desired in the episcopal office, save the good work. Wherefore
+Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19) that when the Apostle said, "'Whoever desireth the office of bishop, desireth a good
+work,' he wished to explain what the episcopacy is: for it denotes work and not honor:
+since {skopos} signifies 'watching.' Wherefore if we like we may render {episkopein} by the Latin 'superintendere' [to watch
+over]: thus a man may know himself to be no bishop if he loves to precede rather than to profit others." For, as he observed
+shortly before, "in our actions we should seek, not honor nor power in this life, since all things beneath the sun are vanity,
+but the work itself which that honor or power enables us to do." Nevertheless, as Gregory says (Pastor. i, 8), "while
+praising the desire" (namely of the good work) "he forthwith turns this object of praise into one of fear, when he adds: It
+behooveth . . . a bishop to be blameless," as though to say: "I praise what you seek, but learn first what it is you seek."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A1-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> There is no parity between the religious and the episcopal state, for two reasons. First, because perfection of life is a
+prerequisite of the episcopal state, as appears from our Lord asking Peter if he loved Him more than the others, before committing
+the pastoral office to him, whereas perfection is not a prerequisite of the religious state, since the latter is the way to
+perfection. Hence our Lord did not say (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.21" target="asv">Mat. 19:21</a>): "If
+thou art perfect, go, sell all [Vulg.: 'what'] thou hast," but "If thou wilt be perfect." The reason for this difference is
+because, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. vi), perfection pertains actively to the bishop, as the "perfecter," but to the
+monk passively as one who is "perfected": and one needs to be perfect in order to bring others to perfection, but not in order
+to be brought to perfection. Now it is presumptuous to think oneself perfect, but it is not presumptuous to tend to
+perfection. Secondly, because he who enters the religious state subjects himself to others for the sake of a spiritual profit,
+and anyone may lawfully do this. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19): "No man is debarred from striving for the
+knowledge of truth, since this pertains to a praiseworthy ease." On the other hand, he who enters the episcopal state is raised
+up in order to watch over others, and no man should seek to be raised thus, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A1-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.5.4" target="asv"> Heb. 5:4,
+</a>"Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God": and Chrysostom says: "To desire supremacy
+in the Church is neither just nor useful. For what wise man seeks of his own accord to submit to such servitude and peril,
+as to have to render an account of the whole Church? None save him who fears not God's judgment, and makes a secular abuse
+of his ecclesiastical authority, by turning it to secular uses."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A1-p12">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The dispensing of spiritual corn is not to be carried on in an arbitrary fashion, but chiefly according to the appointment
+and disposition of God, and in the second place according to the appointment of the higher prelates, in whose person it is
+said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.4.1" target="asv">1 Cor. 4:1</a>): "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God." Wherefore a man
+is not deemed to hide spiritual corn if he avoids
+governing or correcting others, and is not competent to do so, neither in virtue of his office nor of his superior's command;
+thus alone is he deemed to hide it, when he neglects to dispense it while under obligation to do so in virtue of his office,
+or obstinately refuses to accept the office when it is imposed on him. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19): "The love
+of truth seeks a holy leisure, the demands of charity undertake an honest labor. If no one imposes this burden upon us, we
+must devote ourselves to the research and contemplation of truth, but if it be imposed on us, we must bear it because charity
+demands it of us."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A1-p13">
+<b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As Gregory says (Pastor. i, 7), "Isaias, who wishing to be sent, knew himself to be already cleansed by the live coal taken
+from the altar, shows us that no one should dare uncleansed to approach the sacred ministry. Since, then, it is very difficult
+for anyone to be able to know that he is cleansed, it is safer to decline the office of preacher."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A1-p14"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A1-p15"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A2.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q185_A2" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A1.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A3.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q185_A2-p0.1">Whether it is lawful for a man to refuse absolutely an appointment to the episcopate?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A2-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A2-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is lawful to refuse absolutely an appointment to the episcopate. For as Gregory says (Pastor. i, 7),
+"Isaias wishing to be of profit to his neighbor by means of the active life, desired the office of preaching, whereas Jeremias
+who was fain to hold fast to the love of his Creator by contemplation exclaimed against being sent to preach." Now no man
+sins by being unwilling to forgo better things in order to adhere to things that are not so
+good. Since then the love of God surpasses the love of our neighbor, and the contemplative life is preferable to the active,
+as shown above (
+<a id="SS_Q185_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q25_A1.html">Q[25], A[1]</a>;
+<a id="SS_Q185_A2-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q26_A2.html"> Q[26], A[2]</a>;
+<a id="SS_Q185_A2-p2.3" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q182_A1.html"> Q[182], A[1]</a>) it would seem that a man sins not if he refuse absolutely the episcopal office.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A2-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as Gregory says (Pastor. i, 7), "it is very difficult for anyone to be able to know that he is cleansed: nor should
+anyone uncleansed approach the sacred ministry." Therefore if a man perceives that he is not cleansed, however urgently the
+episcopal office be enjoined him, he ought not to accept it.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A2-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Jerome (Prologue, super Marc.) says that "it is related of the Blessed Mark* that after receiving the faith he cut
+off his thumb that he might be excluded from the priesthood." [*This prologue was falsely ascribed to St. Jerome, and the
+passage quoted refers, not to St. Mark the Evangelist, but to a hermit of that name. (Cf. Baronius, Anno Christi, 45, num.
+XLIV)] Likewise some take a vow never to accept a bishopric. Now to place an obstacle to a
+thing amounts to the same as refusing it altogether. Therefore it would seem that one may, without sin, refuse the episcopal
+office absolutely.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A2-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Ep. xlviii ad Eudox.): "If Mother Church requires your service, neither accept with greedy conceit, nor refuse
+with fawning indolence"; and afterwards he adds: "Nor prefer your ease to the needs of the Church: for if no good men were
+willing to assist her in her labor, you would seek in vain how we could be born of her."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A2-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> Two things have to be considered in the acceptance of the episcopal office: first, what a man may fittingly desire according
+to his own will; secondly, what it behooves a man to do according to the will of another. As regards his own will it becomes
+a man to look chiefly to his own spiritual welfare, whereas that he look to the spiritual welfare of others becomes a man
+according to the appointment of another having authority, as stated above (A[1], ad 3).
+Hence just as it is a mark of an inordinate will that a man of his own choice incline to be appointed to the government of
+others, so too it indicates an inordinate will if a man definitively refuse the aforesaid office of government in direct opposition
+to the appointment of his superior: and this for two reasons.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A2-p7"> First, because this is contrary to the love of our neighbor, for whose good a man should offer himself according as place
+and time demand: hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19) that "the demands of charity undertake an honest labor." Secondly,
+because this is contrary to humility, whereby a man submits to his superior's commands: hence Gregory says (Pastor. i, 6):
+"In God's sight humility is genuine when it does not obstinately refuse to submit to what is usefully
+prescribed."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A2-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although simply and absolutely speaking the contemplative life is more excellent than the active, and the love of God better
+than the love of our neighbor, yet, on the other hand, the good of the many should be preferred to the good of the individual.
+Wherefore Augustine says in the passage quoted above: "Nor prefer your own ease to the needs of the Church," and all the more
+since it belongs to the love of God that a man undertake the pastoral care of
+Christ's sheep. Hence Augustine, commenting on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.21.17" target="asv"> Jn. 21:17, </a> "Feed My sheep," says (Tract. cxxiii in Joan.): "Be it the task of love to feed the Lord's flock, even as it was the mark
+of fear to deny the Shepherd."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A2-p9"> Moreover prelates are not transferred to the active life, so as to forsake the contemplative; wherefore Augustine says (De
+Civ. Dei xix, 19) that "if the burden of the pastoral office be imposed, we must not abandon the delights of truth," which
+are derived from contemplation.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A2-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> No one is bound to obey his superior by doing what is unlawful, as appears from what was said above concerning obedience
+(
+<a id="SS_Q185_A2-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q104_A5.html">Q[104], A[5]</a>). Accordingly it may happen that he who is appointed to the office of prelate perceive something in himself on account of
+which it is unlawful for him to accept a prelacy. But this obstacle may sometimes be removed by the very person who is appointed
+to the pastoral cure---for instance, if he
+have a purpose to sin, he may abandon it---and for this reason he is not excused from being bound to obey definitely the superior
+who has appointed him. Sometimes, however, he is unable himself to remove the impediment that makes the pastoral office unlawful
+to him, yet the prelate who appoints him can do so---for instance, if he be irregular or excommunicate. In such a case he
+ought to make known his defect to the prelate who has appointed him; and if the latter be willing to remove the
+impediment, he is bound humbly to obey. Hence when Moses had said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A2-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.4.10" target="asv">Ex. 4:10</a>): "I beseech thee, Lord, I am not eloquent from yesterday, and the day before," the Lord answered (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A2-p10.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.4.12" target="asv">Ex. 4:12</a>): "I will be in thy mouth, and I will teach thee what thou shalt speak." At other times the impediment cannot be removed,
+neither by the person appointing nor by the one appointed---for instance, if an archbishop be unable to dispense from an irregularity;
+wherefore a subject, if irregular,
+would not be bound to obey him by accepting the episcopate or even sacred orders.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A2-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It is not in itself necessary for salvation to accept the episcopal office, but it becomes necessary by reason of the superior's
+command. Now one may lawfully place an obstacle to things thus necessary for salvation, before the command is given; else
+it would not be lawful to marry a second time, lest one should thus incur an impediment to the episcopate or holy orders.
+But this would not be lawful in things necessary for salvation. Hence the Blessed
+Mark did not act against a precept by cutting off his finger, although it is credible that he did this by the instigation
+of the Holy Ghost, without which it would be unlawful for anyone to lay hands on himself. If a man take a vow not to accept
+the bishop's office, and by this intend to bind himself not even to accept it in obedience to his superior prelate, his vow
+is unlawful; but if he intend to bind himself, so far as it lies with him, not to seek the episcopal office, nor to accept
+it
+except under urgent necessity, his vow is lawful, because he vows to do what it becomes a man to do.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A2-p12"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A2-p13"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A1.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A3.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q185_A3" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A2.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A4.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q185_A3-p0.1">Whether he that is appointed to the episcopate ought to be better than others?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A3-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A3-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that one who is appointed to the episcopate ought to be better than others. For our Lord, when about to commit
+the pastoral office to Peter, asked him if he loved Him more than the others. Now a man is the better through loving God the
+more. Therefore it would seem that one ought not to be appointed to the episcopal office except he be better than others.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A3-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Pope Symmachus says (can. Vilissimus I, qu. 1): "A man is of very little worth who though excelling in dignity,
+excels not in knowledge and holiness." Now he who excels in knowledge and holiness is better. Therefore a man ought not to
+be appointed to the episcopate unless he be better than others.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A3-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in every genus the lesser are governed by the greater, as corporeal things are governed by things spiritual, and
+the lower bodies by the higher, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 3). Now a bishop is appointed to govern others. Therefore
+he should be better than others.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A3-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> The Decretal [*Can. Cum dilectus, de Electione] says that "it suffices to choose a good man, nor is it necessary to choose
+the better man."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A3-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> In designating a man for the episcopal office, something has to be considered on the part of the person designate, and something
+on the part of the designator. For on the part of the designator, whether by election or by appointment, it is required that
+he choose such a one as will dispense the divine mysteries faithfully. These should be dispensed for the good of the Church,
+according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.14.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 14:12, </a> "Seek to abound unto the edifying
+of the Church"; and the divine mysteries are not committed to men for their own meed, which they should await in the life
+to come. Consequently he who has to choose or appoint one for a bishop is not bound to take one who is best simply, i.e. according
+to charity, but one who is best for governing the Church, one namely who is able to instruct, defend, and govern the Church
+peacefully. Hence Jerome, commenting on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Titus.1.5" target="asv"> Titus 1:5, </a> says against certain persons that "some seek to
+erect as pillars of the Church, not those whom they know to be more useful to the Church, but those whom they love more, or
+those by whose obsequiousness they have been cajoled or undone, or for whom some person in authority has spoken, and, not
+to say worse than this, have succeeded by means of gifts in being made clerics."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A3-p7"> Now this pertains to the respect of persons, which in such matters is a grave sin. Wherefore a gloss of Augustine [*Ep. clxvii
+ad Hieron.] on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.2.1" target="asv"> James 2:1, </a> "Brethren, have not . . . with respect of persons," says: "If this distinction of sitting and standing be referred to ecclesiastical
+honors, we must not deem it a slight sin to 'have the faith of the Lord of glory with respect of persons.' For who would suffer
+a rich man to be chosen for the Church's seat
+of honor, in despite of a poor man who is better instructed and holier?"
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A3-p8"> On the part of the person appointed, it is not required that he esteem himself better than others, for this would be proud
+and presumptuous; but it suffices that he perceive nothing in himself which would make it unlawful for him to take up the
+office of prelate. Hence although Peter was asked by our Lord if he loved Him more than the others, he did not, in his reply,
+set himself before the others, but answered simply that he loved Christ.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A3-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Our Lord knew that, by His own bestowal, Peter was in other respects fitted to govern the Church: wherefore He questioned
+him about his greater love, to show that when we find a man otherwise fitted for the government of the Church, we must look
+chiefly to his pre-eminence in the love of God.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A3-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This statement refers to the pursuits of the man who is placed in authority. For he should aim at showing himself to be more
+excellent than others in both knowledge and holiness. Wherefore Gregory says (Pastor. ii, 1) "the occupations of a prelate
+ought to excel those of the people, as much as the shepherd's life excels that of his flock." But he is not to be blamed and
+looked upon as worthless if he excelled not before being raised to the
+prelacy.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A3-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> According to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:4 </a>seqq., "there are diversities of graces . . . and . . . of ministries . . . and . . . of operations." Hence nothing hinders
+one from being more fitted for the office of governing, who does not excel in the grace of holiness. It is otherwise in the
+government of the natural order, where that which is higher in the natural order is for that very reason more fitted to dispose
+of those that are lower.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A3-p12"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A3-p13"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A2.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A4.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q185_A4" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A3.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A5.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q185_A4-p0.1">Whether a bishop may lawfully forsake the episcopal cure, in order to enter religion?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A4-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A4-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that a bishop cannot lawfully forsake his episcopal cure in order to enter religion. For no one can lawfully pass
+from a more perfect to a less perfect state; since this is "to look back," which is condemned by the words of our Lord (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.9.62" target="asv">Lk. 9:62</a>), "No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." Now the episcopal state is more
+perfect than the religious, as shown above (
+<a id="SS_Q185_A4-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A7.html">Q[184], A[7]</a>). Therefore just as it is unlawful to return to the world from the religious state, so is it unlawful to pass from the episcopal
+to the religious state.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A4-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the order of grace is more congruous than the order of nature. Now according to nature a thing is not moved in contrary
+directions; thus if a stone be naturally moved downwards, it cannot naturally return upwards from below. But according to
+the order of grace it is lawful to pass from the religious to the episcopal state. Therefore it is not lawful to pass contrariwise
+from the episcopal to the religious state.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A4-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the works of grace nothing should be inoperative. Now when once a man is consecrated bishop he retains in perpetuity
+the spiritual power of giving orders and doing like things that pertain to the episcopal office: and this power would seemingly
+remain inoperative in one who gives up the episcopal cure. Therefore it would seem that a bishop may not forsake the episcopal
+cure and enter religion.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A4-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> No man is compelled to do what is in itself unlawful. Now those who seek to resign their episcopal cure are compelled to
+resign (Extra, de Renunt. cap. Quidam). Therefore apparently it is not unlawful to give up the episcopal cure.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A4-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> The perfection of the episcopal state consists in this that for love of God a man binds himself to work for the salvation
+of his neighbor, wherefore he is bound to retain the pastoral cure so long as he is able to procure the spiritual welfare
+of the subjects entrusted to his care: a matter which he must not neglect---neither for the sake of the quiet of divine contemplation,
+since the Apostle, on account of the needs of his subjects, suffered patiently to
+be delayed even from the contemplation of the life to come, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.1.22" target="asv"> Phil. 1:22-25</a>, "What I shall choose I know not, but I am straitened between two, having a desire to be dissolved, and to be with Christ,
+a thing by far better. But to abide still in the flesh is needful for you. And having this confidence, I know that I shall
+abide"; nor for the sake of avoiding any hardships or of acquiring any gain whatsoever, because as it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.10.11" target="asv">Jn.
+10:11
+</a>), "the good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A4-p7"> At times, however, it happens in several ways that a bishop is hindered from procuring the spiritual welfare of his subjects.
+Sometimes on account of his own defect, either of conscience (for instance if he be guilty of murder or simony), or of body
+(for example if he be old or infirm), or of irregularity arising, for instance, from bigamy. Sometimes he is hindered through
+some defect in his subjects, whom he is unable to profit. Hence Gregory says (Dial. ii, 3): "The wicked
+must be borne patiently, when there are some good who can be succored, but when there is no profit at all for the good, it
+is sometimes useless to labor for the wicked. Wherefore the perfect when they find that they labor in vain are often minded
+to go elsewhere in order to labor with fruit." Sometimes again this hindrance arises on the part of others, as when scandal
+results from a certain person being in authority: for the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.8.13" target="asv">1 Cor. 8:13</a>): "If meat scandalize
+my brother, I will never eat flesh": provided, however, the scandal is not caused by the wickedness of persons desirous of
+subverting the faith or the righteousness of the Church; because the pastoral cure is not to be laid aside on account of scandal
+of this kind, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A4-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.15.14" target="asv"> Mat. 15:14, </a> "Let them alone," those namely who were scandalized at the truth of Christ's teaching, "they are blind, and leaders of the
+blind."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A4-p8"> Nevertheless just as a man takes upon himself the charge of authority at the appointment of a higher superior, so too it
+behooves him to be subject to the latter's authority in laying aside the accepted charge for the reasons given above. Hence
+Innocent III says (Extra, de Renunt., cap. Nisi cum pridem): "Though thou hast wings wherewith thou art anxious to fly away
+into solitude, they are so tied by the bonds of authority, that thou art not free to fly without our permission."
+For the Pope alone can dispense from the perpetual vow, by which a man binds himself to the care of his subjects, when he
+took upon himself the episcopal office.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A4-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The perfection of religious and that of bishops are regarded from different standpoints. For it belongs to the perfection
+of a religious to occupy oneself in working out one's own salvation, whereas it belongs to the perfection of a bishop to occupy
+oneself in working for the salvation of others. Hence so long as a man can be useful to the salvation of his neighbor, he
+would be going back, if he wished to pass to the religious state, to busy himself
+only with his own salvation, since he has bound himself to work not only for his own but also for others' salvation. Wherefore
+Innocent III says in the Decretal quoted above that "it is more easily allowable for a monk to ascend to the episcopacy, than
+for a bishop to descend to the monastic life. If, however, he be unable to procure the salvation of others it is meet he should
+seek his own."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A4-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> On account of no obstacle should a man forego the work of his own salvation, which pertains to the religious state. But there
+may be an obstacle to the procuring of another's salvation; wherefore a monk may be raised to the episcopal state wherein
+he is able also to work out his own salvation. And a bishop, if he be hindered from procuring the salvation of others, may
+enter the religious life, and may return to his bishopric should the obstacle cease,
+for instance by the correction of his subjects, cessation of the scandal, healing of his infirmity, removal of his ignorance
+by sufficient instruction. Again, if he owed his promotion to simony of which he was in ignorance, and resigning his episcopate
+entered the religious life, he can be reappointed to another bishopric [*Cap. Post translat., de Renunt.]. On the other hand,
+if a man be deposed from the episcopal office for some sin, and confined in a monastery that he may do penance, he
+cannot be reappointed to a bishopric. Hence it is stated (VII, qu. i, can. Hoc nequaquam): "The holy synod orders that any
+man who has been degraded from the episcopal dignity to the monastic life and a place of repentance, should by no means rise
+again to the episcopate."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A4-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Even in natural things power remains inactive on account of a supervening obstacle, for instance the act of sight ceases
+through an affliction of the eye. So neither is it unreasonable if, through the occurrence of some obstacle from without,
+the episcopal power remain without the exercise of its act.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A4-p12"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A4-p13"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A3.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A5.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q185_A5" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A4.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A6.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q185_A5-p0.1">Whether it is lawful for a bishop on account of bodily persecution to abandon the flock committed to his care?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A5-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A5-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is unlawful for a bishop, on account of some temporal persecution, to withdraw his bodily presence
+from the flock committed to his care. For our Lord said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.10.12" target="asv">Jn. 10:12</a>) that he is a hireling and no true shepherd, who "seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep and flieth": and Gregory says
+(Hom. xiv in Ev.) that "the wolf comes upon the sheep when any man by his injustice and robbery oppresses the faithful and
+the
+humble." Therefore if, on account of the persecution of a tyrant, a bishop withdraws his bodily presence from the flock entrusted
+to his care, it would seem that he is a hireling and not a shepherd.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A5-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.6.1" target="asv">Prov. 6:1</a>): "My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, thou hast engaged fast thy hand to a stranger," and afterwards (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A5-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Prov.6.3" target="asv">Prov. 6:3</a>): "Run about, make haste, stir up thy friend." Gregory expounds these words and says (Pastor. iii, 4): "To be surety for
+a friend, is to vouch for his good conduct by engaging oneself to a stranger. And whoever is put forward as an example to
+the lives of others, is
+warned not only to watch but even to rouse his friend." Now he cannot do this if he withdraw his bodily presence from his
+flock. Therefore it would seem that a bishop should not on account of persecution withdraw his bodily presence from his flock.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A5-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it belongs to the perfection of the bishop's state that he devote himself to the care of his neighbor. Now it is
+unlawful for one who has professed the state of perfection to forsake altogether the things that pertain to perfection. Therefore
+it would seem unlawful for a bishop to withdraw his bodily presence from the execution of his office, except perhaps for the
+purpose of devoting himself to works of perfection in a monastery.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A5-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord commanded the apostles, whose successors bishops are (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.23" target="asv">Mat. 10:23</a>): "When they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A5-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> In any obligation the chief thing to be considered is the end of the obligation. Now bishops bind themselves to fulfil the
+pastoral office for the sake of the salvation of their subjects. Consequently when the salvation of his subjects demands the
+personal presence of the pastor, the pastor should not withdraw his personal presence from his flock, neither for the sake
+of some temporal advantage, nor even on account of some impending danger to his person,
+since the good shepherd is bound to lay down his life for his sheep.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A5-p7"> On the other hand, if the salvation of his subjects can be sufficiently provided for by another person in the absence of
+the pastor, it is lawful for the pastor to withdraw his bodily presence from his flock, either for the sake of some advantage
+to the Church, or on account of some danger to his person. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ccxxviii ad Honorat.): "Christ's servants
+may flee from one city to another, when one of them is specially sought out by persecutors: in order that the
+Church be not abandoned by others who are not so sought for. When, however, the same danger threatens all, those who stand
+in need of others must not be abandoned by those whom they need." For "if it is dangerous for the helmsman to leave the ship
+when the sea is calm, how much more so when it is stormy," as Pope Nicholas I says (cf. VII, qu. i, can. Sciscitaris).
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A5-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> To flee as a hireling is to prefer temporal advantage or one's bodily welfare to the spiritual welfare of one's neighbor.
+Hence Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ev.): "A man cannot endanger himself for the sake of his sheep, if he uses his authority over
+them not through love of them but for the sake of earthly gain: wherefore he fears to stand in the way of danger lest he lose
+what he loves." But he who, in order to avoid danger, leaves the flock without
+endangering the flock, does not flee as a hireling.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A5-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> If he who is surety for another be unable to fulfil his engagement, it suffices that he fulfil it through another. Hence
+if a superior is hindered from attending personally to the care of his subjects, he fulfils his obligation if he do so through
+another.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A5-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> When a man is appointed to a bishopric, he embraces the state of perfection as regards one kind of perfection; and if he
+be hindered from the practice thereof, he is not bound to another kind of perfection, so as to be obliged to enter the religious
+state. Yet he is under the obligation of retaining the intention of devoting himself to his neighbor's salvation, should an
+opportunity offer, and necessity require it of him.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A5-p11"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A5-p12"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A4.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A6.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q185_A6" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A5.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A7.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q185_A6-p0.1">Whether it is lawful for a bishop to have property of his own?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A6-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A6-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is not lawful for a bishop to have property of his own. For our Lord said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.21" target="asv">Mat. 19:21</a>): "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell all [Vulg.: 'what] thou hast, and give to the poor . . . and come, follow Me"; whence
+it would seem to follow that voluntary poverty is requisite for perfection. Now bishops are in the state of perfection. Therefore
+it would seem unlawful for them to possess anything as their own.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A6-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, bishops take the place of the apostles in the Church, according to a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.10.1" target="asv"> Lk. 10:1.</a> Now our Lord commanded the apostles to possess nothing of their own, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A6-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.9" target="asv"> Mat. 10:9, </a> "Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses"; wherefore Peter said for himself and the other apostles (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A6-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.27" target="asv">Mat. 19:27</a>): "Behold we have left all things and have followed Thee." Therefore it would seem
+that bishops are bound to keep this command, and to possess nothing of their own.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A6-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Jerome says (Ep. lii ad Nepotian.): "The Greek {kleros} denotes the Latin 'sors.' Hence clerics are so called either
+because they are of the Lord's estate, or because the Lord Himself is the estate, i.e. portion of clerics. Now he that possesses
+the Lord, can have nothing besides God; and if he have gold and silver, possessions, and chattels of all kinds, with such
+a portion the Lord does not vouchsafe to be his portion also." Therefore it would seem
+that not only bishops but even clerics should have nothing of their own.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A6-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> It is stated (XII, qu. i, can. Episcopi de rebus): "Bishops, if they wish, may bequeath to their heirs their personal or
+acquired property, and whatever belongs to them personally."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A6-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> No one is bound to works of supererogation, unless he binds himself specially thereto by vow. Hence Augustine says (Ep. cxxvii
+ad Paulin. et Arment.): "Since you have taken the vow, you have already bound yourself, you can no longer do otherwise. Before
+you were bound by the vow, you were free to submit." Now it is evident that to live without possessing anything is a work
+of supererogation, for it is a matter not of precept but of counsel. Wherefore our
+Lord after saying to the young man: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments," said afterwards by way of addition:
+"If thou wilt be perfect go sell" all "that thou hast, and give to the poor" (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.17" target="asv">Mat. 19:17</a>,
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.21" target="asv">21</a>). Bishops, however, do not bind themselves at their ordination to live without possessions of their own; nor indeed does
+the pastoral office, to which they bind themselves, make it necessary for them to live without anything of their own. Therefore
+bishops are
+not bound to live without possessions of their own.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A6-p7">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q185_A6-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A3.html">Q[184], A[3]</a>, ad 1) the perfection of the Christian life does not essentially consist in voluntary poverty, but voluntary poverty conduces
+instrumentally to the perfection of life. Hence it does not follow that where there is greater poverty there is greater perfection;
+indeed the highest perfection is compatible with great wealth, since Abraham, to whom it was said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A6-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.17.1" target="asv">Gn. 17:1</a>): "Walk
+before Me and be perfect," is stated to have been rich (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A6-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Gen.13.2" target="asv">Gn. 13:2</a>).
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A6-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This saying of our Lord can be understood in three ways. First, mystically, that we should possess neither gold nor silver
+means that the preacher should not rely chiefly on temporal wisdom and eloquence; thus Jerome expounds the passage.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A6-p9"> Secondly, according to Augustine's explanation (De Consens. Ev. ii, 30), we are to understand that our Lord said this not
+in command but in permission. For he permitted them to go preaching without gold or silver or other means, since they were
+to receive the means of livelihood from those to whom they preached; wherefore He added: "For the workman is worthy of his
+meat." And yet if anyone were to use his own means in preaching the Gospel, this would be a work of supererogation,
+as Paul says in reference to himself (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.9.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 9:12</a>,
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A6-p9.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.9.15" target="asv">15</a>).
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A6-p10"> Thirdly, according to the exposition of Chrysostom [*Hom. ii in Rom. xvi, 3], we are to understand that our Lord laid these
+commands on His disciples in reference to the mission on which they were sent to preach to the Jews, so that they might be
+encouraged to trust in His power, seeing that He provided for their wants without their having means of their own. But it
+does not follow from this that they, or their successors, were obliged to preach the Gospel without having means
+of their own: since we read of Paul (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A6-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.11.8" target="asv">2 Cor. 11:8</a>) that he "received wages" of other churches for preaching to the Corinthians, wherefore it is clear that he possessed something
+sent to him by others. And it seems foolish to say that so many holy bishops as Athanasius, Ambrose, and Augustine would have
+disobeyed these commandments if they believed themselves bound to observe them.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A6-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Every part is less than the whole. Accordingly a man has other portions together with God, if he becomes less intent on things
+pertaining to God by occupying himself with things of the world. Now neither bishops nor clerics ought thus to possess means
+of their own, that while busy with their own they neglect those that concern the worship of God.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A6-p12"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A6-p13"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A5.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A7.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q185_A7" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A6.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A8.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q185_A7-p0.1">Whether bishops sin mortally if they distribute not to the poor the ecclesiastical goods which accrue to them?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A7-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A7-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that bishops sin mortally if they distribute not to the poor the ecclesiastical goods which they acquire. For
+Ambrose [*Basil, Serm. lxiv, de Temp., among the supposititious works of St. Jerome] expounding
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.12.16" target="asv"> Lk. 12:16, </a> "The land of a certain . . . man brought forth plenty of fruits," says: "Let no man claim as his own that which he has taken
+and obtained by violence from the common property in excess of his requirements"; and
+afterwards he adds: "It is not less criminal to take from him who has, than, when you are able and have plenty to refuse him
+who has not." Now it is a mortal sin to take another's property by violence. Therefore bishops sin mortally if they give not
+to the poor that which they have in excess.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A7-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a gloss of Jerome on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A7-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.3.14" target="asv"> Is. 3:14, </a> "The spoil of the poor is in your house," says that "ecclesiastical goods belong to the poor." Now whoever keeps for himself
+or gives to others that which belongs to another, sins mortally and is bound to restitution. Therefore if bishops keep for
+themselves, or give to their relations or friends, their surplus of ecclesiastical goods, it would seem that they are bound
+to restitution.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A7-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, much more may one take what is necessary for oneself from the goods of the Church, than accumulate a surplus therefrom.
+Yet Jerome says in a letter to Pope Damasus [*Cf. Can. Clericos, cause. i, qu. 2; Can. Quoniam; cause. xvi, qu. 1; Regul.
+Monach. iv, among the supposititious works of St. Jerome]: "It is right that those clerics who receive no goods from their
+parents and relations should be supported from the funds of the Church. But those who have
+sufficient income from their parents and their own possessions, if they take what belongs to the poor, they commit and incur
+the guilt of sacrilege." Wherefore the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A7-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.5.16" target="asv">1 Tim. 5:16</a>): "If any of the faithful have widows, let him minister to them, and let not the Church be charged, that there may be sufficient
+for them that are widows indeed." Much more therefore do bishops sin mortally if they give not to the poor the surplus of
+their ecclesiastical goods.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A7-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Many bishops do not give their surplus to the poor, but would seem commendably to lay it out so as to increase the revenue
+of the Church.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A7-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> The same is not to be said of their own goods which bishops may possess, and of ecclesiastical goods. For they have real
+dominion over their own goods; wherefore from the very nature of the case they are not bound to give these things to others,
+and may either keep them for themselves or bestow them on others at will. Nevertheless they may sin in this disposal by inordinate
+affection, which leads them either to accumulate more than they should, or not to
+assist others, in accordance with the demands of charity; yet they are not bound to restitution, because such things are entrusted
+to their ownership.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A7-p7"> On the other hand, they hold ecclesiastical goods as dispensers or trustees. For Augustine says (Ep. clxxxv ad Bonif.): "If
+we possess privately what is enough for us, other things belong not to us but to the poor, and we have the dispensing of them;
+but we can claim ownership of them only by wicked theft." Now dispensing requires good faith, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A7-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.4.2" target="asv">1 Cor. 4:2, </a> "Here now it is required among the dispensers that a man be found faithful." Moreover
+ecclesiastical goods are to be applied not only to the good of the poor, but also to the divine worship and the needs of its
+ministers. Hence it is said (XII, qu. ii, can. de reditibus): "Of the Church's revenues or the offerings of the faithful only
+one part is to be assigned to the bishop, two parts are to be used by the priest, under pain of suspension, for the ecclesiastical
+fabric, and for the benefit of the poor; the remaining part is to be divided among the clergy according to their
+respective merits." Accordingly if the goods which are assigned to the use of the bishop are distinct from those which are
+appointed for the use of the poor, or the ministers, or for the ecclesiastical worship, and if the bishop keeps back for himself
+part of that which should be given to the poor, or to the ministers for their use, or expended on the divine worship, without
+doubt he is an unfaithful dispenser, sins mortally, and is bound to restitution.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A7-p8"> But as regards those goods which are deputed to his private use, the same apparently applies as to his own property, namely
+that he sins through immoderate attachment thereto or use thereof, if he exceeds moderation in what he keeps for himself,
+and fails to assist others according to the demands of charity.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A7-p9"> On the other hand, if no distinction is made in the aforesaid goods, their distribution is entrusted to his good faith; and
+if he fail or exceed in a slight degree, this may happen without prejudice to his good faith, because in such matters a man
+cannot possibly decide precisely what ought to be done. On the other hand, if the excess be very great he cannot be ignorant
+of the fact; consequently he would seem to be lacking in good faith, and is guilty of mortal sin. For it is
+written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A7-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.24.48" target="asv">Mat. 24:48-51</a>) that "if that evil servant shall say in his heart: My lord is long a-coming," which shows contempt of God's judgment, "and
+shall begin to strike his fellow-servants," which is a sign of pride, "and shall eat and drink with drunkards," which proceeds
+from lust, "the lord of that servant shall come in a day that he hopeth not . . . and shall separate him," namely from the
+fellowship of good men, "and appoint his portion with hypocrites," namely in hell.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A7-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This saying of Ambrose refers to the administration not only of ecclesiastical things but also of any goods whatever from
+which a man is bound, as a duty of charity, to provide for those who are in need. But it is not possible to state definitely
+when this need is such as to impose an obligation under pain of mortal sin, as is the case in other points of detail that
+have to be considered in human acts: for the decision in such matters is left to human
+prudence.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A7-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated above the goods of the Church have to be employed not only for the use of the poor, but also for other purposes.
+Hence if a bishop or cleric wish to deprive himself of that which is assigned to his own use, and give it to his relations
+or others, he sins not so long as he observes moderation, so, to wit, that they cease to be in want without becoming the richer
+thereby. Hence Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 30): "It is a commendable liberality if
+you overlook not your kindred when you know them to be in want; yet not so as to wish to make them rich with what you can
+give to the poor."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A7-p12">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The goods of churches should not all be given to the poor, except in a case of necessity: for then, as Ambrose says (De Offic.
+ii, 28), even the vessels consecrated to the divine worship are to be sold for the ransom of prisoners, and other needs of
+the poor. In such a case of necessity a cleric would sin if he chose to maintain himself on the goods of the Church, always
+supposing him to have a patrimony of his own on which to support himself.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A7-p13">
+<b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The goods of the churches should be employed for the good of the poor. Consequently a man is to be commended if, there being
+no present necessity for helping the poor, he spends the surplus from the Church revenue, in buying property, or lays it by
+for some future use connected with the Church or the needs of the poor. But if there be a pressing need for helping the poor,
+to lay by for the future is a superfluous and inordinate saving, and is
+forbidden by our Lord Who said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A7-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.34" target="asv">Mat. 6:34</a>): "Be . . . not solicitous for the morrow."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A7-p14"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A7-p15"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A6.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A8.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q185_A8" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A7.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q185_A8-p0.1">Whether religious who are raised to the episcopate are bound to religious observances?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A8-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A8-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that religious who are raised to the episcopate are not bound to religious observances. For it is said (XVIII,
+qu. i, can. Statutum) that a "canonical election loosens a monk from the yoke imposed by the rule of the monastic profession,
+and the holy ordination makes of a monk a bishop." Now the regular observances pertain to the yoke of the rule. Therefore
+religious who are appointed bishops are not bound to religious observances.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A8-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, he who ascends from a lower to a higher degree is seemingly not bound to those things which pertain to the lower
+degree: thus it was stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q185_A8-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q88_A12.html">Q[88], A[12]</a>, ad 1) that a religious is not bound to keep the vows he made in the world. But a religious who is appointed to the episcopate
+ascends to something greater, as stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q185_A8-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q84_A7.html">Q[84], A[7]</a>). Therefore it would seem that a bishop is not bound to
+those things whereto he was bound in the state of religion.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A8-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, religious would seem to be bound above all to obedience, and to live without property of their own. But religious
+who are appointed bishops, are not bound to obey the superiors of their order, since they are above them; nor apparently are
+they bound to poverty, since according to the decree quoted above (OBJ[1]) "when the holy ordination has made of a monk a
+bishop he enjoys the right, as the lawful heir, of claiming his paternal inheritance."
+Moreover they are sometimes allowed to make a will. Much less therefore are they bound to other regular observances.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A8-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> It is said in the Decretals (XVI, qu. i, can. De Monachis): "With regard to those who after long residence in a monastery
+attain to the order of clerics, we bid them not to lay aside their former purpose."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A8-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[1], ad 2) the religious state pertains to perfection, as a way of tending to perfection, while the episcopal
+state pertains to perfection, as a professorship of perfection. Hence the religious state is compared to the episcopal state,
+as the school to the professorial chair, and as disposition to perfection. Now the disposition is not voided at the advent
+of perfection, except as regards what perchance is incompatible with perfection,
+whereas as to that wherein it is in accord with perfection, it is confirmed the more. Thus when the scholar has become a professor
+it no longer becomes him to be a listener, but it becomes him to read and meditate even more than before. Accordingly we must
+assert that if there be among religious observances any that instead of being an obstacle to the episcopal office, are a safeguard
+of perfection, such as continence, poverty, and so forth, a religious, even after he has been made a bishop,
+remains bound to observe these, and consequently to wear the habit of his order, which is a sign of this obligation.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A8-p7"> On the other hand, a man is not bound to keep such religious observances as may be incompatible with the episcopal office,
+for instance solitude, silence, and certain severe abstinences or watchings and such as would render him bodily unable to
+exercise the episcopal office. For the rest he may dispense himself from them, according to the needs of his person or office,
+and the manner of life of those among whom he dwells, in the same way as religious superiors dispense
+themselves in such matters.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A8-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> He who from being a monk becomes a bishop is loosened from the yoke of the monastic profession, not in everything, but in
+those that are incompatible with the episcopal office, as stated above.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A8-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The vows of those who are living in the world are compared to the vows of religion as the particular to the universal, as
+stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q185_A8-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q88_A12.html">Q[88], A[12]</a>, ad 1). But the vows of religion are compared to the episcopal dignity as disposition to perfection. Now the particular is
+superfluous when one has the universal, whereas the disposition is still necessary when perfection has been attained.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A8-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It is accidental that religious who are bishops are not bound to obey the superiors of their order, because, to wit, they
+have ceased to be their subjects; even as those same religious superiors. Nevertheless the obligation of the vow remains virtually,
+so that if any person be lawfully set above them, they would be bound to obey them, inasmuch as they are bound to obey both
+the statutes of their rule in the way mentioned above, and their superiors if
+they have any.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A8-p11"> As to property they can nowise have it. For they claim their paternal inheritance not as their own, but as due to the Church.
+Hence it is added (XVIII, qu. i, can. Statutum) that after he has been ordained bishop at the altar to which he is consecrated
+and appointed according to the holy canons, he must restore whatever he may acquire.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A8-p12"> Nor can he make any testament at all, because he is entrusted with the sole administration of things ecclesiastical, and
+this ends with his death, after which a testament comes into force according to the Apostle (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q185_A8-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.17" target="asv">Heb. 9:17</a>). If, however, by the Pope's permission he make a will, he is not to be understood to bequeath property of his own, but we
+are to understand that by apostolic authority the power of his administration has been prolonged so as to remain in
+force after his death.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A8-p13"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q185_A8-p14"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A7.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186.html"></a>
+</div>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q184_A8.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A1.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q186" class="div3">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A8.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A1.html"></a>
+<h3 id="SS_Q186-p0.1">OF THOSE THINGS IN WHICH THE RELIGIOUS STATE PROPERLY CONSISTS (TEN ARTICLES)</h3>
+<p id="SS_Q186-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186-p2"> We must now consider things pertaining to the religious state: which consideration will be fourfold. In the first place we
+shall consider those things in which the religious state consists chiefly; secondly, those things which are lawfully befitting
+to religious; thirdly, the different kinds of religious orders; fourthly, the entrance into the religious state.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186-p3"> Under the first head there are ten points of inquiry:</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186-p4"> (1) Whether the religious state is perfect?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186-p5"> (2) Whether religious are bound to all the counsels?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186-p6"> (3) Whether voluntary poverty is required for the religious state?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186-p7"> (4) Whether continency is necessary?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186-p8"> (5) Whether obedience is necessary?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186-p9"> (6) Whether it is necessary that these should be the matter of a vow?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186-p10"> (7) Of the sufficiency of these vows;</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186-p11"> (8) Of their comparison one with another;</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186-p12"> (9) Whether a religious sins mortally whenever he transgresses a statute of his rule?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186-p13"> (10) Whether, other things being equal, a religious sins more grievously by the same kind of sin than a secular person?</p>
+<div id="SS_Q186_A1" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A2.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q186_A1-p0.1">Whether religion implies a state of perfection?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A1-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A1-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that religion does not imply a state of perfection. For that which is necessary for salvation does not seemingly
+pertain to perfection. But religion is necessary for salvation, whether because "thereby we are bound [religamur] to the one
+almighty God," as Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 55), or because it takes its name from "our returning [religimus] to God
+Whom we had lost by neglecting Him" [*Cf.
+<a id="SS_Q186_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q81_A1.html"> Q[81], A[1]</a>], according
+to Augustine (De Civ. Dei x, 3). Therefore it would seem that religion does not denote the state of perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A1-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, religion according to Tully (De Invent. Rhet. ii, 53) is that "which offers worship and ceremony to the Divine nature."
+Now the offering of worship and ceremony to God would seem to pertain to the ministry of holy orders rather than to the diversity
+of states, as stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q186_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q40_A2.html">Q[40], A[2]</a>;
+<a id="SS_Q186_A1-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q183_A3.html"> Q[183], A[3]</a>). Therefore it would seem that religion does not denote the state of perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A1-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the state of perfection is distinct from the state of beginners and that of the proficient. But in religion also
+some are beginners, and some are proficient. Therefore religion does not denote the state of perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A1-p5">
+<b>Objection 4:</b> Further, religion would seem a place of repentance; for it is said in the Decrees (VII, qu. i, can. Hoc nequaquam): "The
+holy synod orders that any man who has been degraded from the episcopal dignity to the monastic life and a place of repentance,
+should by no means rise again to the episcopate." Now a place of repentance is opposed to the state of perfection; hence Dionysius
+(Eccl. Hier. vi) places penitents in the lowest place, namely among those who are to
+be cleansed. Therefore it would seem that religion is not the state of perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A1-p6">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> In the Conferences of the Fathers (Collat. i, 7) abbot Moses speaking of religious says: "We must recognize that we have
+to undertake the hunger of fasting, watchings, bodily toil, privation, reading, and other acts of virtue, in order by these
+degrees to mount to the perfection of charity." Now things pertaining to human acts are specified and denominated from the
+intention of the end. Therefore religious belong to the state of perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A1-p7"> Moreover Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi) that those who are called servants of God, by reason of their rendering pure service
+and subjection to God, are united to the perfection beloved of Him.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A1-p8">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q186_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q141_A2.html">Q[141], A[2]</a>) that which is applicable to many things in common is ascribed antonomastically to that to which it is applicable by way
+of excellence. Thus the name of "fortitude" is claimed by the virtue which preserves the firmness of the mind in regard to
+most difficult things, and the name of "temperance," by that virtue which tempers the greatest pleasures. Now religion as
+stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q186_A1-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q81_A2.html">Q[81]
+, A[2]
+</a>; A[3], ad 2) is a virtue whereby a man offers something to the service and worship of God. Wherefore those are called religious
+antonomastically, who give themselves up entirely to the divine service, as offering a holocaust to God. Hence Gregory says
+(Hom. xx in Ezech.): "Some there are who keep nothing for themselves, but sacrifice to almighty God their tongue, their senses,
+their life, and the property they possess." Now the perfection of man consists in adhering wholly to God, as
+stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q186_A1-p8.3" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A2.html">Q[184], A[2]</a>), and in this sense religion denotes the state of perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A1-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> To offer something to the worship of God is necessary for salvation, but to offer oneself wholly, and one's possessions to
+the worship of God belongs to perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A1-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q186_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q81_A1.html">Q[81], A[1]</a>, ad 1; A[4], ad 1,2;
+<a id="SS_Q186_A1-p10.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q85_A3.html"> Q[85], A[3]</a>) when we were treating of the virtue of religion, religion has reference not only to the offering of sacrifices and other
+like things that are proper to religion, but also to the acts of all the virtues which in so far as these are referred to
+God's service and honor become acts of religion. Accordingly if a man devotes his whole life to the
+divine service, his whole life belongs to religion, and thus by reason of the religious life that they lead, those who are
+in the state of perfection are called religious.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A1-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q186_A1-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A4.html">Q[184], AA[4]</a>,6) religion denotes the state of perfection by reason of the end intended. Hence it does not follow that whoever is in the
+state of perfection is already perfect, but that he tends to perfection. Hence Origen commenting on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A1-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.21" target="asv"> Mat. 19:21, </a> "If thou wilt be perfect," etc., says (Tract. viii in Matth.) that "he who has exchanged riches for poverty in order to become
+perfect does not
+become perfect at the very moment of giving his goods to the poor; but from that day the contemplation of God will begin to
+lead him to all the virtues." Thus all are not perfect in religion, but some are beginners, some proficient.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A1-p12">
+<b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The religious state was instituted chiefly that we might obtain perfection by means of certain exercises, whereby the obstacles
+to perfect charity are removed. By the removal of the obstacles of perfect charity, much more are the occasions of sin cut
+off, for sin destroys charity altogether. Wherefore since it belongs to penance to cut out the causes of sin, it follows that
+the religious state is a most fitting place for penance. Hence (XXXIII, qu.
+ii, cap. Admonere) a man who had killed his wife is counseled to enter a monastery which is described as "better and lighter,"
+rather than to do public penance while remaining in the world.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A1-p13"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A1-p14"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A2.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q186_A2" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A1.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A3.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q186_A2-p0.1">Whether every religious is bound to keep all the counsels?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A2-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A2-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that every religious is bound to keep all the counsels. For whoever professes a certain state of life is bound
+to observe whatever belongs to that state. Now each religious professes the state of perfection. Therefore every religious
+is bound to keep all the counsels that pertain to the state of perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A2-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Gregory says (Hom. xx in Ezech.) that "he who renounces this world, and does all the good he can, is like one who
+has gone out of Egypt and offers sacrifice in the wilderness." Now it belongs specially to religious to renounce the world.
+Therefore it belongs to them also to do all the good they can. and so it would seem that each of them is bound to fulfil all
+the counsels.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A2-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if it is not requisite for the state of perfection to fulfil all the counsels, it would seem enough to fulfil some
+of them. But this is false, since some who lead a secular life fulfil some of the counsels, for instance those who observe
+continence. Therefore it would seem that every religious who is in the state of perfection is bound to fulfil whatever pertains
+to perfection: and such are the counsels.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A2-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> one is not bound, unless one bind oneself, to do works of supererogation. But every religious does not bind himself to keep
+all the counsels, but to certain definite ones, some to some, others to others. Therefore all are not bound to keep all of
+them.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A2-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> A thing pertains to perfection in three ways. First, essentially, and thus, as stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q186_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A3.html">Q[184], A[3]</a>) the perfect observance of the precepts of charity belongs to perfection. Secondly, a thing belongs to perfection consequently:
+such are those things that result from the perfection of charity, for instance to bless them that curse you (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.6.27" target="asv">Lk. 6:27</a>), and to keep counsels of a like kind, which though they be
+binding as regards the preparedness of the mind, so that one has to fulfil them when necessity requires; yet are sometimes
+fulfilled, without there being any necessity, through superabundance of charity. Thirdly, a thing belongs to perfection instrumentally
+and dispositively, as poverty, continence, abstinence, and the like.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A2-p7"> Now it has been stated
+<a id="SS_Q186_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A1.html">(A[1])</a> that the perfection of charity is the end of the religious state. And the religious state is a school or exercise for the
+attainment of perfection, which men strive to reach by various practices, just as a physician may use various remedies in
+order to heal. But it is evident that for him who works for an end it is not necessary that he should already have attained
+the end, but it is requisite that he should by some means
+tend thereto. Hence he who enters the religious state is not bound to have perfect charity, but he is bound to tend to this,
+and use his endeavors to have perfect charity.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A2-p8"> For the same reason he is not bound to fulfil those things that result from the perfection of charity, although he is bound
+to intend to fulfil them: against which intention he acts if he contemns them, wherefore he sins not by omitting them but
+by contempt of them.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A2-p9"> In like manner he is not bound to observe all the practices whereby perfection may be attained, but only those which are
+definitely prescribed to him by the rule which he has professed.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A2-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> He who enters religion does not make profession to be perfect, but he professes to endeavor to attain perfection; even as
+he who enters the schools does not profess to have knowledge, but to study in order to acquire knowledge. Wherefore as Augustine
+says (De Civ. Dei viii, 2), Pythagoras was unwilling to profess to be a wise man, but acknowledged himself, "a lover of wisdom."
+Hence a religious does not violate his profession if he be not perfect, but
+only if he despises to tend to perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A2-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as, though all are bound to love God with their whole heart, yet there is a certain wholeness of perfection which cannot
+be omitted without sin, and another wholeness which can be omitted without sin (
+<a id="SS_Q186_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A2.html">Q[184], A[2]</a>, ad 3), provided there be no contempt, as stated above (ad 1), so too, all, both religious and seculars, are bound, in a
+certain measure, to do whatever good they can, for to all without exception it is said
+(
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A2-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Eccl.9.10" target="asv">Eccles. 9:10</a>): "Whatsoever thy hand is able to do, do it earnestly." Yet there is a way of fulfilling this precept, so as to avoid sin,
+namely if one do what one can as required by the conditions of one's state of life: provided there be no contempt of doing
+better things, which contempt sets the mind against spiritual progress.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A2-p12">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> There are some counsels such that if they be omitted, man's whole life would be taken up with secular business; for instance
+if he have property of his own, or enter the married state, or do something of the kind that regards the essential vows of
+religion themselves; wherefore religious are bound to keep all such like counsels. Other counsels there are, however, about
+certain particular better actions, which can be omitted without one's life being
+taken up with secular actions; wherefore there is no need for religious to be bound to fulfil all of them.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A2-p13"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A2-p14"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A1.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A3.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q186_A3" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A2.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A4.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q186_A3-p0.1">Whether poverty is required for religious perfection?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that poverty is not required for religious perfection. For that which it is unlawful to do does not apparently
+belong to the state of perfection. But it would seem to be unlawful for a man to give up all he possesses; since the Apostle
+(
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.8.12" target="asv">2 Cor. 8:12</a>) lays down the way in which the faithful are to give alms saying: "If the will be forward, it is accepted according to that
+which a man hath," i.e. "you should keep back what you
+need," and afterwards he adds (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A3-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.8.13" target="asv">2 Cor. 8:13</a>): "For I mean not that others should be eased, and you burthened," i.e. "with poverty," according to a gloss. Moreover a
+gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A3-p2.3" href="./asv.html#iTim.6.8" target="asv">1 Tim. 6:8, </a> "Having food, and wherewith to be covered," says: "Though we brought nothing, and will carry nothing away, we must not give
+up these temporal things altogether." Therefore it seems that voluntary poverty is not requisite for religious perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whosoever exposes himself to danger sins. But he who renounces all he has and embraces voluntary poverty exposes
+himself to danger---not only spiritual, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.30.9" target="asv"> Prov. 30:9, </a> "Lest perhaps . . . being compelled by poverty, I should steal and forswear the name of my God," and
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A3-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Sir.27.1" target="asv"> Ecclus. 27:1, </a> "Through poverty many have sinned"---but also corporal, for it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A3-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Eccl.7.13" target="asv">Eccles. 7:13</a>): "As
+wisdom is a defense, so money is a defense," and the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1) that "the waste of property appears to
+be a sort of ruining of one's self, since thereby man lives." Therefore it would seem that voluntary poverty is not requisite
+for the perfection of religious life.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, "Virtue observes the mean," as stated in Ethic. ii, 6. But he who renounces all by voluntary poverty seems to go
+to the extreme rather than to observe the mean. Therefore he does not act virtuously: and so this does not pertain to the
+perfection of life.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p5">
+<b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the ultimate perfection of man consists in happiness. Now riches conduce to happiness; for it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.31.8" target="asv">Ecclus. 31:8</a>): "Blessed is the rich man that is found without blemish," and the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 8) that "riches contribute
+instrumentally to happiness." Therefore voluntary poverty is not requisite for religious perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p6">
+<b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the episcopal state is more perfect than the religious state. But bishops may have property, as stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q186_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q185_A6.html">Q[185], A[6]</a>). Therefore religious may also.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p7">
+<b>Objection 6:</b> Further, almsgiving is a work most acceptable to God, and as Chrysostom says (Hom. ix in Ep. ad Hebr.) "is a most effective
+remedy in repentance." Now poverty excludes almsgiving. Therefore it would seem that poverty does not pertain to religious
+perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p8">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Gregory says (Moral. viii, 26): "There are some of the righteous who bracing themselves up to lay hold of the very height
+of perfection, while they aim at higher objects within, abandon all things without." Now, as stated above, (
+<a id="SS_Q186_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2), it belongs properly to religious to brace themselves up in order to lay hold of the very height of perfection. Therefore
+it belongs to them to abandon all outward things by voluntary
+poverty.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p9">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
+<a id="SS_Q186_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, the religious state is an exercise and a school for attaining to the perfection of charity. For this it is necessary that
+a man wholly withdraw his affections from worldly things; since Augustine says (Confess. x, 29), speaking to God: "Too little
+doth he love Thee, who loves anything with Thee, which he loveth not for Thee." Wherefore he says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 36) that
+"greater charity means less cupidity,
+perfect charity means no cupidity." Now the possession of worldly things draws a man's mind to the love of them: hence Augustine
+says (Ep. xxxi ad Paulin. et Theras.) that "we are more firmly attached to earthly things when we have them than when we desire
+them: since why did that young man go away sad, save because he had great wealth? For it is one thing not to wish to lay hold
+of what one has not, and another to renounce what one already has; the former are rejected as foreign to us, the
+latter are cut off as a limb." And Chrysostom says (Hom. lxiii in Matth.) that "the possession of wealth kindles a greater
+flame and the desire for it becomes stronger."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p10"> Hence it is that in the attainment of the perfection of charity the first foundation is voluntary poverty, whereby a man
+lives without property of his own, according to the saying of our Lord (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.21" target="asv">Mat. 19:21</a>), "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all [Vulg.: 'what'] thou hast, and give to the poor . . . and come, follow Me."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As the gloss adds, "when the Apostle said this (namely "not that you should be burthened," i.e. with poverty)," he did not
+mean that "it were better not to give: but he feared for the weak, whom he admonished so to give as not to suffer privation."
+Hence in like manner the other gloss means not that it is unlawful to renounce all one's temporal goods, but that this is
+not required of necessity. Wherefore Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 30): "Our Lord does
+not wish," namely does not command us "to pour out our wealth all at once, but to dispense it; or perhaps to do as did Eliseus
+who slew his oxen, and fed the poor with that which was his own so that no household care might hold him back."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p12">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> He who renounces all his possessions for Christ's sake exposes himself to no danger, neither spiritual nor corporal. For
+spiritual danger ensues from poverty when the latter is not voluntary; because those who are unwillingly poor, through the
+desire of money-getting, fall into many sins, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A3-p12.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.6.9" target="asv">1 Tim. 6:9, </a> "They that will become rich, fall into temptation and into the snare of the devil." This attachment is put away by
+those who embrace voluntary poverty, but it gathers strength in those who have wealth, as stated above. Again bodily danger
+does not threaten those who, intent on following Christ, renounce all their possessions and entrust themselves to divine providence.
+Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 17): "Those who seek first the kingdom of God and His justice are not weighed
+down by anxiety lest they lack what is necessary."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p13">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> According to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6), the mean of virtue is taken according to right reason, not according to the
+quantity of a thing. Consequently whatever may be done in accordance with right reason is not rendered sinful by the greatness
+of the quantity, but all the more virtuous. It would, however, be against right reason to throw away all one's possessions
+through intemperance, or without any useful purpose; whereas it is in accordance
+with right reason to renounce wealth in order to devote oneself to the contemplation of wisdom. Even certain philosophers
+are said to have done this; for Jerome says (Ep. xlviii ad Paulin.): "The famous Theban, Crates, once a very wealthy man,
+when he was going to Athens to study philosophy, cast away a large amount of gold; for he considered that he could not possess
+both gold and virtue at the same time." Much more therefore is it according to right reason for a man to renounce all he has,
+in
+order perfectly to follow Christ. Wherefore Jerome says (Ep. cxxv ad Rust. Monach.): "Poor thyself, follow Christ poor."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p14">
+<b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Happiness or felicity is twofold. One is perfect, to which we look forward in the life to come; the other is imperfect, in
+respect of which some are said to be happy in this life. The happiness of this life is twofold, one is according to the active
+life, the other according to the contemplative life, as the Philosopher asserts (Ethic. x, 7,8). Now wealth conduces instrumentally
+to the happiness of the active life which consists in external actions,
+because as the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 8) "we do many things by friends, by riches, by political influence, as it were
+by instruments." On the other hand, it does not conduce to the happiness of the contemplative life, rather is it an obstacle
+thereto, inasmuch as the anxiety it involves disturbs the quiet of the soul, which is most necessary to one who contemplates.
+Hence it is that the Philosopher asserts (Ethic. x, 8) that "for actions many things are needed, but the contemplative man
+needs no such things," namely external goods, "for his operation; in fact they are obstacles to his contemplation."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p15"> Man is directed to future happiness by charity; and since voluntary poverty is an efficient exercise for the attaining of
+perfect charity, it follows that it is of great avail in acquiring the happiness of heaven. Wherefore our Lord said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A3-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.21" target="asv">Mat. 19:21</a>): "Go, sell all [Vulg.: 'what'] thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." Now riches once
+they are possessed are in themselves of a nature to hinder the perfection of charity,
+especially by enticing and distracting the mind. Hence it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A3-p15.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.13.22" target="asv">Mat. 13:22</a>) that "the care of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choketh up the word" of God, for as Gregory says (Hom. xv in
+Ev.) by "preventing the good desire from entering into the heart, they destroy life at its very outset." Consequently it is
+difficult to safeguard charity amidst riches: wherefore our Lord said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A3-p15.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.23" target="asv">Mat. 19:23</a>) that "a rich man shall hardly enter into the
+kingdom of heaven," which we must understand as referring to one who actually has wealth, since He says that this is impossible
+for him who places his affection in riches, according to the explanation of Chrysostom (Hom. lxiii in Matth.), for He adds
+(
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A3-p15.4" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.24" target="asv">Mat. 19:24</a>): "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven."
+Hence it is not said simply that the "rich man" is blessed, but "the rich man that is found
+without blemish, and that hath not gone after gold," and this because he has done a difficult thing, wherefore the text continues
+(
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A3-p15.5" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.9" target="asv">Mat. 19:9</a>): "Who is he? and we will praise him; for he hath done wonderful things in his life," namely by not loving riches though
+placed in the midst of them.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p16">
+<b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The episcopal state is not directed to the attainment of perfection, but rather to the effect that, in virtue of the perfection
+which he already has, a man may govern others, by administering not only spiritual but also temporal things. This belongs
+to the active life, wherein many things occur that may be done by means of wealth as an instrument, as stated (ad 4). Wherefore
+it is not required of bishops, who make profession of governing Christ's
+flock, that they have nothing of their own, whereas it is required of religious who make profession of learning to obtain
+perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p17">
+<b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> The renouncement of one's own wealth is compared to almsgiving as the universal to the particular, and as the holocaust to
+the sacrifice. Hence Gregory says (Hom. xx in Ezech.) that those who assist "the needy with the things they possess, by their
+good deeds offer sacrifice, since they offer up something to God and keep back something for themselves; whereas those who
+keep nothing for themselves offer a holocaust which is greater than a sacrifice."
+Wherefore Jerome also says (Contra Vigilant.): "When you declare that those do better who retain the use of their possessions,
+and dole out the fruits of their possessions to the poor, it is not I but the Lord Who answers you; If thou wilt be perfect,"
+etc., and afterwards he goes on to say: "This man whom you praise belongs to the second and third degree, and we too commend
+him: provided we acknowledge the first as to be preferred to the second and third." For this reason in order to exclude
+the error of Vigilantius it is said (De Eccl. Dogm. xxxviii): "It is a good thing to give away one's goods by dispensing them
+to the poor: it is better to give them away once for all with the intention of following the Lord, and, free of solicitude,
+to be poor with Christ."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p18"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A3-p19"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A2.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A4.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q186_A4" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A3.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A5.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q186_A4-p0.1">Whether perpetual continence is required for religious perfection?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A4-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A4-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that perpetual continence is not required for religious perfection. For all perfection of the Christian life
+began with Christ's apostles. Now the apostles do not appear to have observed continence, as evidenced by Peter, of whose
+mother-in-law we read
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.14" target="asv">Mat. 8:14</a>. Therefore it would seem that perpetual continence is not requisite for religious perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A4-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the first example of perfection is shown to us in the person of Abraham, to whom the Lord said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.17.1" target="asv">Gn. 17:1</a>): "Walk before Me, and be perfect." Now the copy should not surpass the example. Therefore perpetual continence is not requisite
+for religious perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A4-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, that which is required for religious perfection is to be found in every religious order. Now there are some religious
+who lead a married life. Therefore religious perfection does not require perpetual continence.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A4-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.7.1" target="asv">2 Cor. 7:1</a>): "Let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of
+God." Now cleanness of flesh and spirit is safeguarded by continence, for it is said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A4-p5.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.34" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:34</a>): "The unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord that she may be holy both in spirit and in body
+[Vulg.: 'both in body and in spirit']." Therefore
+religious perfection requires continence.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A4-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> The religious state requires the removal of whatever hinders man from devoting himself entirely to God's service. Now the
+use of sexual union hinders the mind from giving itself wholly to the service of God, and this for two reasons. First, on
+account of its vehement delectation, which by frequent repetition increases concupiscence, as also the Philosopher observes
+(Ethic. iii, 12): and hence it is that the use of venery withdraws the mind from that perfect
+intentness on tending to God. Augustine expresses this when he says (Solil. i, 10): "I consider that nothing so casts down
+the manly mind from its height as the fondling of women, and those bodily contacts which belong to the married state." Secondly,
+because it involves man in solicitude for the control of his wife, his children, and his temporalities which serve for their
+upkeep. Hence the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.32" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:32,33</a>): "He that is without a wife is solicitous for the
+things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God: but he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world,
+how he may please his wife."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A4-p7"> Therefore perpetual continence, as well as voluntary poverty, is requisite for religious perfection. Wherefore just as Vigilantius
+was condemned for equaling riches to poverty, so was Jovinian condemned for equaling marriage to virginity.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A4-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The perfection not only of poverty but also of continence was introduced by Christ Who said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.12" target="asv">Mat. 19:12</a>): "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs, for the kingdom of heaven," and then added: "He that can take, let
+him take it." And lest anyone should be deprived of the hope of attaining perfection, he admitted to the state of perfection
+those even who were married. Now the husbands could not without committing an
+injustice forsake their wives, whereas men could without injustice renounce riches. Wherefore Peter whom He found married,
+He severed not from his wife, while "He withheld from marriage John who wished to marry" [*Prolog. in Joan. among the supposititious
+works of St. Jerome].
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A4-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xxii), "the chastity of celibacy is better than the chastity of marriage, one of which
+Abraham had in use, both of them in habit. For he lived chastely, and he might have been chaste without marrying, but it was
+not requisite then." Nevertheless if the patriarchs of old had perfection of mind together with wealth and marriage, which
+is a mark of the greatness of their virtue, this is no reason why any weaker person
+should presume to have such great virtue that he can attain to perfection though rich and married; as neither does a man unarmed
+presume to attack his enemy, because Samson slew many foes with the jaw-bone of an ass. For those fathers, had it been seasonable
+to observe continence and poverty, would have been most careful to observe them.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A4-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Such ways of living as admit of the use of marriage are not the religious life simply and absolutely speaking, but in a restricted
+sense, in so far as they have a certain share in those things that belong to the religious state.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A4-p11"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A4-p12"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A3.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A5.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q186_A5" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A4.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A6.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q186_A5-p0.1">Whether obedience belongs to religious perfection?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A5-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A5-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that obedience does not belong to religious perfection. For those things seemingly belong to religious perfection,
+which are works of supererogation and are not binding upon all. But all are bound to obey their superiors, according to the
+saying of the Apostle (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.13.17" target="asv">Heb. 13:17</a>), "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them." Therefore it would seem that obedience does not belong to religious perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A5-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, obedience would seem to belong properly to those who have to be guided by the sense of others, and such persons
+are lacking in discernment. Now the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.5.14" target="asv">Heb. 5:14</a>) that "strong meat is for the perfect, for them who by custom have their senses exercised to the discerning of good and evil."
+Therefore it would seem that obedience does not belong to the state of the perfect.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A5-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if obedience were requisite for religious perfection, it would follow that it is befitting to all religious. But
+it is not becoming to all; since some religious lead a solitary life, and have no superior whom they obey. Again religious
+superiors apparently are not bound to obedience. Therefore obedience would seem not to pertain to religious perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A5-p5">
+<b>Objection 4:</b> Further, if the vow of obedience were requisite for religion, it would follow that religious are bound to obey their superiors
+in all things, just as they are bound to abstain from all venery by their vow of continence. But they are not bound to obey
+them in all things, as stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q186_A5-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q104_A5.html">Q[104], A[5]</a>), when we were treating of the virtue of obedience. Therefore the vow of obedience is not requisite for religion.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A5-p6">
+<b>Objection 5:</b> Further, those services are most acceptable to God which are done freely and not of necessity, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.9.7" target="asv">2 Cor. 9:7, </a> "Not with sadness or of necessity." Now that which is done out of obedience is done of necessity of precept. Therefore those
+good works are more deserving of praise which are done of one's own accord. Therefore the vow of obedience is unbecoming to
+religion whereby men seek to attain to that which is better.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A5-p7">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Religious perfection consists chiefly in the imitation of Christ, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.21" target="asv"> Mat. 19:21, </a> "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell all [Vulg.: 'what'] thou hast, and give to the poor, and follow Me." Now in Christ obedience
+is commended above all according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A5-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.8" target="asv"> Phil. 2:8, </a> "He became [Vulg.: 'becoming'] obedient unto death." Therefore seemingly obedience belongs to religious perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A5-p8">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q186_A5-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A2.html">AA[2]</a>,3) the religious state is a school and exercise for tending to perfection. Now those who are being instructed or exercised
+in order to attain a certain end must needs follow the direction of someone under whose control they are instructed or exercised
+so as to attain that end as disciples under a master. Hence religious need to be placed under the instruction and command
+of someone as regards things pertaining
+to the religious life; wherefore it is said (VII, qu. i, can. Hoc nequaquam): "The monastic life denotes subjection and discipleship."
+Now one man is subjected to another's command and instruction by obedience: and consequently obedience is requisite for religious
+perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A5-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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 God; 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 God, as stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q186_A5-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,3). Hence their obedience is universal.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A5-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A5-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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 godlike 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A5-p12">
+<b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> 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 God 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A5-p13">
+<b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> 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 God's sake
+certain things that are not pleasing in themselves, for this very reason that which he does is the more acceptable to God,
+though it be of less account, because man can give nothing greater to God, than by subjecting his will to another man's for
+God's sake. Hence in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. xviii, 7) it is stated that "the Sarabaitae are the worst class
+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."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A5-p14"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A5-p15"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A4.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A6.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q186_A6" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A5.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A7.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q186_A6-p0.1">Whether it is requisite for religious perfection that poverty, continence, and obedience should come under a vow?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A6-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A6-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> 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 (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.21" target="asv">Mat. 19:21</a>) 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A6-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a vow is a promise made to God, wherefore (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Eccl.5.3" target="asv">Eccles. 5:3</a>) the wise man after saying: "If thou hast vowed anything to God, 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A6-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> 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 God to keep poverty, continence, and obedience without
+a vow. Therefore a vow is not requisite for religious perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A6-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> In the Old Law the Nazareans were consecrated by vow according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Num.6.2" target="asv"> Num. 6:2, </a> "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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A6-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> 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 God by means of a vow.
+But it is evident from what has been said (
+<a id="SS_Q186_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A3.html">AA[3]</a>,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 God 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A6-p7">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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 (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.9.62" target="asv">Lk. 9:62</a>): "No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." And though some of His disciples
+went back, yet when our Lord asked (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A6-p7.2" href="./asv.html#John.6.68" target="asv">Jn. 6:68,69</a>), "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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A6-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Gregory says (Moral. ii) religious perfection requires that a man give "his whole life" to God. But a man cannot actually
+give God his whole life, because that life taken as a whole is not simultaneous but successive. Hence a man cannot give his
+whole life to God otherwise than by the obligation of a vow.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A6-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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 God's service, this
+is most acceptable to God. 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."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A6-p10"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A6-p11"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A5.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A7.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q186_A7" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A6.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A8.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q186_A7-p0.1">Whether it is right to say that religious perfection consists in these three vows?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A7-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A7-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> 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
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.14.17" target="asv"> Rom. 14:17, </a> "The Kingdom of God 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 God 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A7-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A7-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A7-p5">
+<b>Objection 4:</b> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A7-p6">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> It is stated (Extra, de Statu Monach., cap. Cum ad monasterium) that "the keeping of chastity and the renouncing of property
+are affixed to the monastic rule."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A7-p7">
+<b>I answer that,</b> 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
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A7-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.32" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:32</a>: "I would have you to be without solicitude": thirdly, as a holocaust whereby a man offers himself and his possessions wholly
+to God; and in corresponding manner the religious state is constituted by these three vows.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A7-p8"> First, as regards the practice of perfection a man is required to remove from himself whatever may hinder his affections
+from tending wholly to God, 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A7-p9"> Again, "a holocaust is the offering to God 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
+God by the vow of voluntary poverty: secondly, the good of his own body, and this good he offers to God 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 God by the vow of obedience, whereby he offers God his own will by which he makes use of all the powers and
+habits of the soul. Therefore the religious state is fittingly constituted by the three vows.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A7-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated above
+<a id="SS_Q186_A7-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, 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
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A7-p10.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.13.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 13:4, </a> "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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A7-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> All other religious observances are directed to the three aforesaid principal 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 God 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A7-p12">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> By obedience a man offers to God 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 passions belong also to the sensitive appetite. Wherefore in order to restrain
+the passions of carnal pleasures and of external objects of appetite, 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A7-p13">
+<b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> 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 God and all holy men
+accord to virtue, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A7-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.138.17" target="asv"> Ps. 138:17, </a> "But to me Thy friends, O God, 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A7-p14"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A7-p15"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A6.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A8.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q186_A8" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A7.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A9.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q186_A8-p0.1">Whether the vow of obedience is the chief of the three religious vows?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A8-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A8-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A8-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A8-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.26.20" target="asv">Ecclus. 26:20</a>) 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A8-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> 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. Cum 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A8-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Gregory says (Moral. xxxv, 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 (
+<a id="SS_Q186_A8-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,3, ad 6). Therefore the vow of obedience is the chief of all religious vows.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A8-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> The vow of obedience is the chief of the three religious vows, and this for three reasons.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A8-p7"> First, because by the vow of obedience man offers God something greater, namely his own will; for this is of more account
+than his own body, which he offers God by continence, and than external things, which he offers God by the vow of poverty.
+Wherefore that which is done out of obedience is more acceptable to God 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 God if it is
+done of one's own will, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A8-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.58.3" target="asv"> Is. 58:3, </a> "Behold in the day of your fast your own will is found."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A8-p8"> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A8-p9"> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A8-p10"> 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 passage correctly above
+<a id="SS_Q186_A8-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q124_A3.html">, Q[124], A[3]</a> and
+<a id="SS_Q186_A8-p10.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q152_A5.html"> Q[152], A[5]</a>].
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A8-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A8-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.27" target="asv"> Mat. 19:27, </a> "Behold we have left all things," observes, "Peter added that which is perfect when he said: And have followed Thee."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A8-p12">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The words quoted mean that continence is to be preferred, not to all other acts of virtue, but to conjugal chastity, 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 ali evil, as
+stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q186_A8-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q155_A4.html">Q[155], A[4]</a>, ad 1).
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A8-p13">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Pope cannot dispense a religious from his vow of obedience so as to release him from obedience to every superior in matters
+relating to the perfection of life, for he cannot exempt him from obedience to himself. He can, however, exempt him from subjection
+to a lower superior, but this is not to dispense him from his vow of obedience.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A8-p14"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A8-p15"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A7.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A9.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q186_A9" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A8.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A10.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q186_A9-p0.1">Whether a religious sins mortally whenever he transgresses the things contained in his rule?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A9-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A9-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a religious sins mortally whenever he transgresses the things contained in his rule. For to break a vow
+is a sin worthy of condemnation, as appears from
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A9-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.5.11" target="asv">1 Tim. 5:11,12, </a> where the Apostle says that widows who "will marry have [Vulg.: 'having'] damnation, because they have made void their first
+faith." But religious are bound to a rule by the vows of their profession. Therefore they sin mortally by transgressing the
+things
+contained in their rule.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A9-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the rule is enjoined upon a religious in the same way as a law. Now he who transgresses a precept of law sins mortally.
+Therefore it would seem that a monk sins mortally if he transgresses the things contained in his rule.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A9-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, contempt involves a mortal sin. Now whoever repeatedly does what he ought not to do seems to sin from contempt.
+Therefore it would seem that a religious sins mortally by frequently transgressing the things contained in his rule.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A9-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> The religious state is safer than the secular state; wherefore Gregory at the beginning of his Morals [*Epist. Missoria,
+ad Leand. Episc. i] compares the secular life to the stormy sea, and the religious life to the calm port. But if every transgression
+of the things contained in his rule were to involve a religious in mortal sin, the religious life would be fraught with danger
+of account of its multitude of observances. Therefore not every transgression
+of the things contained in the rule is a mortal sin.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A9-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[1], ad 1,2), a thing is contained in the rule in two ways. First, as the end of the rule, for instance
+things that pertain to the acts of the virtues; and the transgression of these, as regards those which come under a common
+precept, involves a mortal sin; but as regards those which are not included in the common obligation of a precept, the transgression
+thereof does not involve a mortal sin, except by reason of contempt, because, as
+stated above
+<a id="SS_Q186_A9-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, a religious is not bound to be perfect, but to tend to perfection, to which the contempt of perfection is opposed.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A9-p7"> Secondly, a thing is contained in the rule through pertaining to the outward practice, such as all external observances,
+to some of which a religious is bound by the vow of his profession. Now the vow of profession regards chiefly the three things
+aforesaid, namely poverty, continence, and obedience, while all others are directed to these. Consequently the transgression
+of these three involves a mortal sin, while the transgression of the others does not involve a mortal sin,
+except either by reason of contempt of the rule (since this is directly contrary to the profession whereby a man vows to live
+according to the rule), or by reason of a precept, whether given orally by a superior, or expressed in the rule, since this
+would be to act contrary to the vow of obedience.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A9-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> He who professes a rule does not vow to observe all the things contained in the rule, but he vows the regular life which
+consists essentially in the three aforesaid things. Hence in certain religious orders precaution is taken to profess, not
+the rule, but to live according to the rule, i.e. to tend to form one's conduct in accordance with the rule as a kind of model;
+and this is set aside by contempt. Yet greater precaution is observed in some
+religious orders by professing obedience according to the rule, so that only that which is contrary to a precept of the rule
+is contrary to the profession, while the transgression or omission of other things binds only under pain of venial sin, because,
+as stated above (A[7], ad 2), such things are dispositions to the chief vows. And venial sin is a disposition to mortal, as
+stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q186_A9-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q88_A3.html">FS, Q[88], A[3]</a>), inasmuch as it hinders those things whereby a man is disposed to
+keep the chief precepts of Christ's law, namely the precepts of charity.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A9-p9"> There is also a religious order, that of the Friars Preachers, where such like transgressions or omissions do not, by their
+very nature, involve sin, either mortal or venial; but they bind one to suffer the punishment affixed thereto, because it
+is in this way that they are bound to observe such things. Nevertheless they may sin venially or mortally through neglect,
+concupiscence, or contempt.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A9-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Not all the contents of the law are set forth by way of precept; for some are expressed under the form of ordinance or statute
+binding under pain of a fixed punishment. Accordingly, just as in the civil law the transgression of a legal statute does
+not always render a man deserving of bodily death, so neither in the law of the Church does every ordinance or statute bind
+under mortal sin; and the same applies to the statutes of the rule.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A9-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> An action or transgression proceeds from contempt when a man's will refuses to submit to the ordinance of the law or rule,
+and from this he proceeds to act against the law or rule. on the other hand, he does not sin from contempt, but from some
+other cause, when he is led to do something against the ordinance of the law or rule through some particular cause such as
+concupiscence or anger, even though he often repeat the same kind of sin through the
+same or some other cause. Thus Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xxix) that "not all sins are committed through proud contempt."
+Nevertheless the frequent repetition of a sin leads dispositively to contempt, according to the words of
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A9-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.18.3" target="asv"> Prov. 18:3, </a> "The wicked man, when he is come into the depth of sins, contemneth."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A9-p12"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A9-p13"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A8.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A10.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q186_A10" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A9.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q186_A10-p0.1">Whether a religious sins more grievously than a secular by the same kind of sin?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A10-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A10-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a religious does not sin more grievously than a secular by the same kind of sin. For it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A10-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iiChr.30.18" target="asv">2 Paralip 30:18,19</a>): "The Lord Who is good will show mercy to all them who with their whole heart seek the Lord the God of their fathers, and
+will not impute it to them that they are not sanctified." Now religious apparently follow the Lord the God of their fathers
+with their whole heart rather than seculars, who partly give themselves and
+their possessions to God and reserve part for themselves, as Gregory says (Hom. xx in Ezech.). Therefore it would seem that
+it is less imputed to them if they fall short somewhat of their sanctification.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A10-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, God is less angered at a man's sins if he does some good deeds, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A10-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iiChr.19.2" target="asv">2 Paralip 19:2,3, </a> "Thou helpest the ungodly, and thou art joined in friendship with them that hate the Lord, and therefore thou didst deserve
+indeed the wrath of the Lord: but good works are found in thee." Now religious do more good works than seculars. Therefore
+if they commit any sins, God is less angry with them.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A10-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this present life is not carried through without sin, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A10-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.3.2" target="asv"> James 3:2, </a> "In many things we all offend." Therefore if the sins of religious were more grievous than those of seculars it would follow
+that religious are worse off than seculars: and consequently it would not be a wholesome counsel to enter religion.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A10-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> The greater the evil the more it would seem to be deplored. But seemingly the sins of those who are in the state of holiness
+and perfection are the most deplorable, for it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A10-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.23.9" target="asv">Jer. 23:9</a>): "My heart is broken within me," and afterwards (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A10-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Jer.23.11" target="asv">Jer. 23:11</a>): "For the prophet and the priest are defiled; and in My house I have found their wickedness." Therefore religious and others
+who are in the state of perfection, other things being
+equal, sin more grievously.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A10-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> A sin committed by a religious may be in three ways more grievous than a like sin committed by a secular. First, if it be
+against his religious vow; for instance if he be guilty of fornication or theft, because by fornication he acts against the
+vow of continence, and by theft against the vow of poverty; and not merely against a precept of the divine law. Secondly,
+if he sin out of contempt, because thereby he would seem to be the more ungrateful for the
+divine favors which have raised him to the state of perfection. Thus the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A10-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.29" target="asv">Heb. 10:29</a>) that the believer "deserveth worse punishments" who through contempt tramples under foot the Son of God. Hence the Lord
+complains (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A10-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Jer.11.15" target="asv">Jer. 11:15</a>): "What is the meaning that My beloved hath wrought much wickedness in My house?" Thirdly, the sin of a religious may be
+greater on account of scandal, because many take note of his manner of life: wherefore it is
+written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A10-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Jer.23.14" target="asv">Jer. 23:14</a>): "I have seen the likeness of adulterers, and the way of lying in the Prophets of Jerusalem; and they strengthened the hands
+of the wicked, that no man should return from his evil doings."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A10-p7"> On the other hand, if a religious, not out of contempt, but out of weakness or ignorance, commit a sin that is not against
+the vow of his profession, without giving scandal (for instance if he commit it in secret) he sins less grievously in the
+same kind of sin than a secular, because his sin if slight is absorbed as it were by his many good works, and if it be mortal,
+he more easily recovers from it. First, because he has a right intention towards God, and though it be
+intercepted for the moment, it is easily restored to its former object. Hence Origen commenting on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A10-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.36.24" target="asv"> Ps. 36:24, </a> "When he shall fall he shall not be bruised," says (Hom. iv in
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A10-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.36" target="asv">Ps. 36</a>): "The wicked man, if he sin, repents not, and fails to make amends for his sin. But the just man knows how to make amends
+and recover himself; even as he who had said: 'I know not the man,' shortly afterwards when the Lord had looked on him, knew
+to shed most bitter tears, and he who from the
+roof had seen a woman and desired her knew to say: 'I have sinned and done evil before Thee.'" Secondly, he is assisted by
+his fellow-religious to rise again, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A10-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Eccl.4.10" target="asv">Eccles. 4:10</a>, "If one fall he shall be supported by the other: woe to him that is alone, for when he falleth he hath none to lift him
+up."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A10-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The words quoted refer to things done through weakness or ignorance, but not to those that are done out of contempt.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A10-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Josaphat also, to whom these words were addressed, sinned not out of contempt, but out of a certain weakness of human affection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A10-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The just sin not easily out of contempt; but sometimes they fall into a sin through ignorance or weakness from which they
+easily arise. If, however, they go so far as to sin out of contempt, they become most wicked and incorrigible, according to
+the word of
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q186_A10-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.2.20" target="asv"> Jer. 2:20</a>: "Thou hast broken My yoke, thou hast burst My bands, and thou hast said: 'I will not serve.' For on every high hill and
+under every green tree thou didst
+prostitute thyself." Hence Augustine says (Ep. lxxviii ad Pleb. Hippon.): "From the time I began to serve God, even as I scarcely
+found better men than those who made progress in monasteries, so have I not found worse than those who in the monastery have
+fallen."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A10-p11"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q186_A10-p12"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A9.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187.html"></a>
+</div>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q185_A8.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A1.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q187" class="div3">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A10.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A1.html"></a>
+<h3 id="SS_Q187-p0.1">OF THOSE THINGS THAT ARE COMPETENT TO RELIGIOUS (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
+<p id="SS_Q187-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q187-p2"> We must now consider the things that are competent to religious; and under this head there are six points of inquiry:</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187-p3"> (1) Whether it is lawful for them to teach, preach, and do like things?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187-p4"> (2) Whether it is lawful for them to meddle in secular business?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187-p5"> (3) Whether they are bound to manual labor?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187-p6"> (4) Whether it is lawful for them to live on alms?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187-p7"> (5) Whether it is lawful for them to quest?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187-p8"> (6) Whether it is lawful for them to wear coarser clothes than other persons?</p>
+<div id="SS_Q187_A1" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A2.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q187_A1-p0.1">Whether it is lawful for religious to teach, preach, and the like?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A1-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A1-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem unlawful for religious to teach, preach, and the like. For it is said (VII, qu. i, can. Hoc nequaquam) in an
+ordinance of a synod of Constantinople [*Pseudosynod held by Photius in the year 879]: "The monastic life is one of subjection
+and discipleship, not of teaching, authority, or pastoral care." And Jerome says (ad Ripar. et Desider. [*Contra Vigilant.
+xvi]): "A monk's duty is not to teach but to lament." Again Pope Leo [*Leo I, Ep. cxx ad
+Theodoret., 6, cf. XVI, qu. i, can. Adjicimus]: says "Let none dare to preach save the priests of the Lord, be he monk or
+layman, and no matter what knowledge he may boast of having." Now it is not lawful to exceed the bounds of one's office or
+transgress the ordinance of the Church. Therefore seemingly it is unlawful for religious to teach, preach, and the like.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A1-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in an ordinance of the Council of Nicea (cf. XVI, qu. i, can. Placuit) it is laid down as follows: "It is our absolute
+and peremptory command addressed to all that monks shall not hear confessions except of one another, as is right, that they
+shall not bury the dead except those dwelling with them in the monastery, or if by chance a brother happen to die while on
+a visit." But just as the above belong to the duty of clerics, so also do preaching and
+teaching. Therefore since "the business of a monk differs from that of a cleric," as Jerome says (Ep. xiv ad Heliod.), it
+would seem unlawful for religious to preach, teach, and the like.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A1-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Gregory says (Regist. v,
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">Ep. 1</a>): "No man can fulfil ecclesiastical duties, and keep consistently to the monastic rule": and this is quoted XVI, qu. i, can.
+Nemo potest. Now monks are bound to keep consistently to the monastic rule. Therefore it would seem that they cannot fulfil
+ecclesiastical duties, whereof teaching and preaching are a part. Therefore seemingly it is unlawful for them to preach, teach,
+and do similar things.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A1-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Gregory is quoted (XVI, qu. i, can. Ex auctoritate) as saying: "By authority of this decree framed in virtue of our apostolic
+power and the duty of our office, be it lawful to monk priests who are configured to the apostles, to preach, baptize, give
+communion, pray for sinners, impose penance, and absolve from sin."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A1-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> A thing is declared to be unlawful to a person in two ways. First, because there is something in him contrary to that which
+is declared unlawful to him: thus to no man is it lawful to sin, because each man has in himself reason and an obligation
+to God's law, to which things sin is contrary. And in this way it is said to be unlawful for a person to preach, teach, or
+do like things, because there is in him something incompatible with these things, either by
+reason of a precept---thus those who are irregular by ordinance of the Church may not be raised to the sacred orders---or
+by reason of sin, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.49.16" target="asv">Ps. 49:16</a>, "But to the sinner God hath said: Why dost thou declare My justice?"
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A1-p7"> In this way it is not unlawful for religious to preach, teach, and do like things, both because they are bound neither by
+vow nor by precept of their rule to abstain from these things, and because they are not rendered less apt for these things
+by any sin committed, but on the contrary they are the more apt through having taken upon themselves the practice of holiness.
+For it is foolish to say that a man is rendered less fit for spiritual duties through advancing himself in
+holiness; and consequently it is foolish to declare that the religious state is an obstacle to the fulfilment of such like
+duties. This error is rejected by Pope Boniface [*Boniface IV] for the reasons given above. His words which are quoted (XVI,
+qu. i, can. Sunt. nonnulli) are these: "There are some who without any dogmatic proof, and with extreme daring, inspired with
+a zeal rather of bitterness than of love, assert that monks though they be dead to the world and live to God, are unworthy
+of
+the power of the priestly office, and that they cannot confer penance, nor christen, nor absolve in virtue of the power divinely
+bestowed on them in the priestly office. But they are altogether wrong." He proves this first because it is not contrary to
+the rule; thus he continues: "For neither did the Blessed Benedict the saintly teacher of monks forbid this in any way," nor
+is it forbidden in other rules. Secondly, he refutes the above error from the usefulness of the monks, when he adds at
+the end of the same chapter: "The more perfect a man is, the more effective is he in these, namely in spiritual works."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A1-p8"> Secondly, a thing is said to be unlawful for a man, not on account of there being in him something contrary thereto, but
+because he lacks that which enables him to do it: thus it is unlawful for a deacon to say mass, because he is not in priestly
+orders; and it is unlawful for a priest to deliver judgment because he lacks the episcopal authority. Here, however, a distinction
+must be made. Because those things which are a matter of an order, cannot be deputed to one who has not
+the order, whereas matters of jurisdiction can be deputed to those who have not ordinary jurisdiction: thus the delivery of
+a judgment is deputed by the bishop to a simple priest. In this sense it is said to be unlawful for monks and other religious
+to preach, teach, and so forth, because the religious state does not give them the power to do these things. They can, however,
+do them if they receive orders, or ordinary jurisdiction, or if matters of jurisdiction be delegated to them.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A1-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It results from the words quoted that the fact of their being monks does not give monks the power to do these things, yet
+it does not involve in them anything contrary to the performance of these acts.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A1-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Again, this ordinance of the Council of Nicea forbids monks to claim the power of exercising those acts on the ground of
+their being monks, but it does not forbid those acts being delegated to them.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A1-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> These two things are incompatible, namely, the ordinary cure of ecclesiastical duties, and the observance of the monastic
+rule in a monastery. But this does not prevent monks and other religious from being sometimes occupied with ecclesiastical
+duties through being deputed thereto by superiors having ordinary cure; especially members of religious orders that are especially
+instituted for that purpose, as we shall say further on (
+<a id="SS_Q187_A1-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q188_A4.html">Q[188], A[4]</a>).
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A1-p12"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A1-p13"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A2.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q187_A2" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A1.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A3.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q187_A2-p0.1">Whether it is lawful for religious to occupy themselves with secular business?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A2-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A2-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem unlawful for religious to occupy themselves with secular business. For in the decree quoted above
+<a id="SS_Q187_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q187_A1.html">(A[1])</a> of Pope Boniface it is said that the "Blessed Benedict bade them to be altogether free from secular business; and this is
+most explicitly prescribed by the apostolic doctrine and the teaching of all the Fathers, not only to religious, but also
+to all the canonical clergy," according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A2-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iiTim.2.4" target="asv">2 Tim. 2:4</a>, "No man being a
+soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular business." Now it is the duty of all religious to be soldiers of God. Therefore
+it is unlawful for them to occupy themselves with secular business.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A2-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iThess.4.11" target="asv">1 Thess. 4:11</a>): "That you use your endeavor to be quiet, and that you do your own business," which a gloss explains thus---"by refraining
+from other people's affairs, so as to be the better able to attend to the amendment of your own life." Now religious devote
+themselves in a special way to the amendment of their life. Therefore they should not occupy themselves with secular business.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A2-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Jerome, commenting on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.11.8" target="asv"> Mat. 11:8, </a> "Behold they that are clothed in soft garments are in the houses of kings," says: "Hence we gather that an austere life and
+severe preaching should avoid the palaces of kings and the mansions of the voluptuous." But the needs of secular business
+induce men to frequent the palaces of kings. Therefore it is unlawful for religious to occupy themselves with secular business.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A2-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.16.1" target="asv">Rom. 16:1</a>): "I commend to you Phoebe our Sister," and further on (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A2-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.16.2" target="asv">Rom. 16:2</a>), "that you assist her in whatsoever business she shall have need of you."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A2-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q187_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A1.html">Q[186], AA[1]</a>,7, ad 1), the religious state is directed to the attainment of the perfection of charity, consisting principally in the love
+of God and secondarily in the love of our neighbor. Consequently that which religious intend chiefly and for its own sake
+is to give themselves to God. Yet if their neighbor be in need, they should attend to his affairs out of charity, according
+to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.6.2" target="asv">Gal. 6:2</a>, "Bear ye one
+another's burthens: and so you shall fulfil the law of Christ," since through serving their neighbor for God's sake, they
+are obedient to the divine love. Hence it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A2-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Jas.1.27" target="asv">James 1:27</a>): "Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation,"
+which means, according to a gloss, to assist the helpless in their time of need.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A2-p7"> We must conclude therefore that it is unlawful for either monks or clerics to carry on secular business from motives of avarice;
+but from motives of charity, and with their superior's permission, they may occupy themselves with due moderation in the administration
+and direction of secular business. Wherefore it is said in the Decretals (Dist. xxxviii, can. Decrevit): "The holy synod decrees
+that henceforth no cleric shall buy property or occupy himself with secular business,
+save with a view to the care of the fatherless, orphans, or widows, or when the bishop of the city commands him to take charge
+of the business connected with the Church." And the same applies to religious as to clerics, because they are both debarred
+from secular business on the same grounds, as stated above.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A2-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Monks are forbidden to occupy themselves with secular business from motives of avarice, but not from motives of charity.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A2-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> To occupy oneself with secular business on account of another's need is not officiousness but charity.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A2-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> To haunt the palaces of kings from motives of pleasure, glory, or avarice is not becoming to religious, but there is nothing
+unseemly in their visiting them from motives of piety. Hence it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">4 Kings 4:13</a>): "Hast thou any business, and wilt thou that I speak to the king or to the general of the army?" Likewise it becomes religious
+to go to the palaces of kings to rebuke and guide them, even as John the Baptist rebuked
+Herod, as related in
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A2-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.14.4" target="asv"> Mat. 14:4.</a>
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A2-p11"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A2-p12"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A1.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A3.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q187_A3" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A2.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A4.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q187_A3-p0.1">Whether religious are bound to manual labor?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A3-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A3-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that religious are bound to manual labor. For religious are not exempt from the observance of precepts. Now
+manual labor is a matter of precept according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iThess.4.11" target="asv">1 Thess. 4:11, </a> "Work with your own hands as we commanded you"; wherefore Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xxx): "But who can allow these
+insolent men," namely religious that do no work, of whom he is speaking there, "who disregard the most salutary admonishment
+of the
+Apostle, not merely to be borne with as being weaker than others, but even to preach as though they were holier than others."
+Therefore it would seem that religious are bound to manual labor.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A3-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a gloss [*St. Augustine, (De oper. Monach. xxi)] on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iiThess.3.10" target="asv">2 Thess. 3:10, </a> "If any man will not work, neither let him eat," says: "Some say that this command of the Apostle refers to spiritual works,
+and not to the bodily labor of the farmer or craftsman"; and further on: "But it is useless for them to try to hide from themselves
+and from others the fact that they are unwilling not only to fulfil, but even to understand the useful
+admonishments of charity"; and again: "He wishes God's servants to make a living by working with their bodies." Now religious
+especially are called servants of God, because they give themselves entirely to the service of God, as Dionysius asserts (Eccl.
+Hier. vi). Therefore it would seem that they are bound to manual labor.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A3-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xvii): "I would fain know how they would occupy themselves, who are unwilling to
+work with their body. We occupy our time, say they, with prayers, psalms, reading, and the word of God." Yet these things
+are no excuse, and he proves this, as regards each in particular. For in the first place, as to prayer, he says: "One prayer
+of the obedient man is sooner granted than ten thousand prayers of the contemptuous": meaning
+that those are contemptuous and unworthy to be heard who work not with their hands. Secondly, as to the divine praises he
+adds: "Even while working with their hands they can easily sing hymns to God." Thirdly, with regard to reading, he goes on
+to say: "Those who say they are occupied in reading, do they not find there what the Apostle commanded? What sort of perverseness
+is this, to wish to read but not to obey what one reads?" Fourthly, he adds in reference to preaching [*Cap. xviii]: "If one
+has to speak, and is so busy that he cannot spare time for manual work, can all in the monastery do this? And since all cannot
+do this, why should all make this a pretext for being exempt? And even if all were able, they should do so by turns, not only
+so that the others may be occupied in other works, but also because it suffices that one speak while many listen." Therefore
+it would seem that religious should not desist from manual labor on account of such like spiritual works to which they
+devote themselves.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A3-p5">
+<b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.12.33" target="asv"> Lk. 12:33, </a> "Sell what you possess," says: "Not only give your clothes to the poor, but sell what you possess, that having once for all
+renounced all your possessions for the Lord's sake, you may henceforth work with the labor of your hands, so as to have wherewith
+to live or to give alms." Now it belongs properly to religious to renounce all they have. Therefore it would seem likewise
+to belong to them to live and give
+alms through the labor of their hands.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A3-p6">
+<b>Objection 5:</b> Further, religious especially would seem to be bound to imitate the life of the apostles, since they profess the state of
+perfection. Now the apostles worked with their own hands, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.4.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 4:12</a>: "We labor, working with our own hands." Therefore it would seem that religious are bound to manual labor.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A3-p7">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Those precepts that are commonly enjoined upon all are equally binding on religious and seculars. But the precept of manual
+labor is enjoined upon all in common, as appears from
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iiThess.3.6" target="asv">2 Thess. 3:6, </a> "Withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly," etc. (for by brother he signifies every Christian, according
+to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:12, </a> "If any brother have a wife that believeth not"). Now it is written in the same passage
+(
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p7.3" href="./asv.html#iiThess.3.10" target="asv">2 Thess. 3:10</a>): "If any man will not work, neither let him eat." Therefore religious are not bound to manual labor any more than seculars
+are.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A3-p8">
+<b>I answer that,</b> Manual labor is directed to four things. First and principally to obtain food; wherefore it was said to the first man (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.3.19" target="asv">Gn. 3:19</a>): "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread," and it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.127.2" target="asv">Ps. 127:2</a>): "For thou shalt eat the labors of thy hands." Secondly, it is directed to the removal of idleness whence arise many evils;
+hence it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Sir.33.28" target="asv">Ecclus. 33:28,29</a>): "Send" thy slave "to work, that he be not idle,
+for idleness hath taught much evil." Thirdly, it is directed to the curbing of concupiscence, inasmuch as it is a means of
+afflicting the body; hence it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p8.4" href="./asv.html#iiCor.6.5" target="asv">2 Cor. 6:5,6</a>): "In labors, in watchings, in fastings, in chastity." Fourthly, it is directed to almsgiving, wherefore it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p8.5" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.28" target="asv">Eph. 4:28</a>): "He that stole, let him now steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that
+he may have something to
+give to him that suffereth need." Accordingly, in so far as manual labor is directed to obtaining food, it comes under a necessity
+of precept in so far as it is necessary for that end: since that which is directed to an end derives its necessity from that
+end, being, in effect, so far necessary as the end cannot be obtained without it. Consequently he who has no other means of
+livelihood is bound to work with his hands, whatever his condition may be. This is signified by the words of the
+Apostle: "If any man will not work, neither let him eat," as though to say: "The necessity of manual labor is the necessity
+of meat." So that if one could live without eating, one would not be bound to work with one's hands. The same applies to those
+who have no other lawful means of livelihood: since a man is understood to be unable to do what he cannot do lawfully. Wherefore
+we find that the Apostle prescribed manual labor merely as a remedy for the sin of those who gained their livelihood by
+unlawful means. For the Apostle ordered manual labor first of all in order to avoid theft, as appears from
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p8.6" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.28" target="asv">Eph. 4:28</a>, "He that stole, let him now steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his hands." Secondly, to avoid the coveting
+of others' property, wherefore it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p8.7" href="./asv.html#iThess.4.11" target="asv">1 Thess. 4:11</a>): "Work with your own hands, as we commanded you, and that you walk honestly towards them that are without." Thirdly, to
+avoid the discreditable pursuits whereby some seek a
+livelihood. Hence he says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p8.8" href="./asv.html#iiThess.3.10" target="asv">2 Thess. 3:10-12</a>): "When we were with you, this we declared to you: that if any man will not work, neither let him eat. For we have heard
+that there are some among you who walk disorderly, working not at all, but curiously meddling" (namely, as a gloss explains
+it, "who make a living by meddling in unlawful things). Now we charge them that are such, and beseech them . . . that working
+with silence, they would eat their own bread." Hence Jerome
+states (Super epist. ad Galat. [*Preface to Bk. ii of Commentary]) that the Apostle said this "not so much in his capacity
+of teacher as on account of the faults of the people."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A3-p9"> It must, however, be observed that under manual labor are comprised all those human occupations whereby man can lawfully
+gain a livelihood, whether by using his hands, his feet, or his tongue. For watchmen, couriers, and such like who live by
+their labor, are understood to live by their handiwork: because, since the hand is "the organ of organs" [*De Anima iii, 8],
+handiwork denotes all kinds of work, whereby a man may lawfully gain a livelihood.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A3-p10"> In so far as manual labor is directed to the removal of idleness, or the affliction of the body, it does not come under a
+necessity of precept if we consider it in itself, since there are many other means besides manual labor of afflicting the
+body or of removing idleness: for the flesh is afflicted by fastings and watchings, and idleness is removed by meditation
+on the Holy Scriptures and by the divine praises. Hence a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.118.82" target="asv"> Ps. 118:82, </a> "My eyes have
+failed for Thy word," says: "He is not idle who meditates only on God's word; nor is he who works abroad any better than he
+who devotes himself to the study of knowing the truth." Consequently for these reasons religious are not bound to manual labor,
+as neither are seculars, except when they are so bound by the statutes of their order. Thus Jerome says (Ep. cxxv ad Rustic
+Monach.): "The Egyptian monasteries are wont to admit none unless they work or labor, not so much for the necessities of
+life, as for the welfare of the soul, lest it be led astray by wicked thoughts." But in so far as manual labor is directed
+to almsgiving, it does not come under the necessity of precept, save perchance in some particular case, when a man is under
+an obligation to give alms, and has no other means of having the wherewithal to assist the poor: for in such a case religious
+would be bound as well as seculars to do manual labor.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A3-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This command of the Apostle is of natural law: wherefore a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#iiThess.3.6" target="asv">2 Thess. 3:6, </a> "That you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly," says, "otherwise than the natural order requires,"
+and he is speaking of those who abstained from manual labor. Hence nature has provided man with hands instead of arms and
+clothes, with which she has provided other animals, in order that with his hands he may obtain these and all
+other necessaries. Hence it is clear that this precept, even as all the precepts of the natural law, is binding on both religious
+and seculars alike. Yet not everyone sins that works not with his hands, because those precepts of the natural law which regard
+the good of the many are not binding on each individual, but it suffices that one person apply himself to this business and
+another to that; for instance, that some be craftsmen, others husbandmen, others judges, and others teachers, and so
+forth, according to the words of the Apostle (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p11.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.17" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:17</a>), "If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were the hearing, where would be the smelling?"
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A3-p12">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This gloss is taken from Augustine's De operibus Monachorum, cap. 21, where he speaks against certain monks who declared
+it to be unlawful for the servants of God to work with their hands, on account of our Lord's saying (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.25" target="asv">Mat. 6:25</a>): "Be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat." Nevertheless his words do not imply that religious are bound to
+work with their hands, if they have other means of livelihood. This is clear from
+his adding: "He wishes the servants of God to make a living by working with their bodies." Now this does not apply to religious
+any more than to seculars, which is evident for two reasons. First, on account of the way in which the Apostle expresses himself,
+by saying: "That you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly." For he calls all Christians brothers, since
+at that time religious orders were not as yet founded. Secondly, because religious have no other obligations than
+what seculars have, except as required by the rule they profess: wherefore if their rule contain nothing about manual labor,
+religious are not otherwise bound to manual labor than seculars are.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A3-p13">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A man may devote himself in two ways to all the spiritual works mentioned by Augustine in the passage quoted: in one way
+with a view to the common good, in another with a view to his private advantage. Accordingly those who devote themselves publicly
+to the aforesaid spiritual works are thereby exempt from manual labor for two reasons: first, because it behooves them to
+be occupied exclusively with such like works; secondly, because those who devote
+themselves to such works have a claim to be supported by those for whose advantage they work.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A3-p14"> On the other hand, those who devote themselves to such works not publicly but privately as it were, ought not on that account
+to be exempt from manual labor, nor have they a claim to be supported by the offerings of the faithful, and it is of these
+that Augustine is speaking. For when he says: "They can sing hymns to God even while working with their hands; like the craftsmen
+who give tongue to fable telling without withdrawing their hands from their work," it is clear that he
+cannot refer to those who sing the canonical hours in the church, but to those who tell psalms or hymns as private prayers.
+Likewise what he says of reading and prayer is to be referred to the private prayer and reading which even lay people do at
+times, and not to those who perform public prayers in the church, or give public lectures in the schools. Hence he does not
+say: "Those who say they are occupied in teaching and instructing," but: "Those who say they are occupied in reading." Again
+he
+speaks of that preaching which is addressed, not publicly to the people, but to one or a few in particular by way of private
+admonishment. Hence he says expressly: "If one has to speak." For according to a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p14.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.2.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 2:4, </a> "Speech is addressed privately, preaching to many."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A3-p15">
+<b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Those who despise all for God's sake are bound to work with their hands, when they have no other means of livelihood, or
+of almsgiving (should the case occur where almsgiving were a matter of precept), but not otherwise, as stated in the Article.
+It is in this sense that the gloss quoted is to be understood.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A3-p16">
+<b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> That the apostles worked with their hands was sometimes a matter of necessity, sometimes a work of supererogation. It was
+of necessity when they failed to receive a livelihood from others. Hence a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p16.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.4.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 4:12, </a> "We labor, working with our own hands," adds, "because no man giveth to us." It was supererogation, as appears from
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p16.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.9.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 9:12, </a> where the Apostle says that he did not use the power he had of
+living by the Gospel. The Apostle had recourse to this supererogation for three motives. First, in order to deprive the false
+apostles of the pretext for preaching, for they preached merely for a temporal advantage; hence he says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p16.3" href="./asv.html#iiCor.11.12" target="asv">2 Cor. 11:12</a>): "But what I do, that I will do that I may cut off the occasion from them," etc. Secondly, in order to avoid burdening those
+to whom he preached; hence he says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p16.4" href="./asv.html#iiCor.12.13" target="asv">2 Cor. 12:13</a>): "What is there that you have had
+less than the other churches, but that I myself was not burthensome to you?" Thirdly, in order to give an example of work
+to the idle; hence he says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A3-p16.5" href="./asv.html#iiThess.3.8" target="asv">2 Thess. 3:8,9</a>): "We worked night and day . . . that we might give ourselves a pattern unto you, to imitate us." However, the Apostle did
+not do this in places like Athens where he had facilities for preaching daily, as Augustine observes (De oper. Monach. xviii).
+Yet religious are not for this reason bound to imitate the
+Apostle in this matter, since they are not bound to all works of supererogation: wherefore neither did the other apostles
+work with their hands.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A3-p17"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A3-p18"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A2.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A4.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q187_A4" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A3.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A5.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q187_A4-p0.1">Whether it is lawful for religious to live on alms?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A4-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A4-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem unlawful for religious to live on alms. For the Apostle (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.5.16" target="asv">1 Tim. 5:16</a>) forbids those widows who have other means of livelihood to live on the alms of the Church, so that the Church may have "sufficient
+for them that are widows indeed." And Jerome says to Pope Damasus [*Cf. Cf. Can. Clericos, cause. i, qu. 2; Can. Quoniam,
+cause xvi, qu. 1; Regul. Monach. iv among the supposititious works of St. Jerome] that "those who have
+sufficient income from their parents and their own possessions, if they take what belongs to the poor they commit and incur
+the guilt of sacrilege, and by the abuse of such things they eat and drink judgment to themselves." Now religious if they
+be able-bodied can support themselves by the work of their hands. Therefore it would seem that they sin if they consume the
+alms belonging to the poor.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A4-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, to live at the expense of the faithful is the stipend appointed to those who preach the Gospel in payment of their
+labor or work, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.10" target="asv"> Mat. 10:10</a>: "The workman is worthy of his meat." Now it belongs not to religious to preach the Gospel, but chiefly to prelates who are
+pastors and teachers. Therefore religious cannot lawfully live on the alms of the faithful.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A4-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, religious are in the state of perfection. But it is more perfect to give than to receive alms; for it is written
+(
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.20.35" target="asv">Acts 20:35</a>): "It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive." Therefore they should not live on alms, but rather should
+they give alms of their handiwork.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A4-p5">
+<b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it belongs to religious to avoid obstacles to virtue and occasions of sin. Now the receiving of alms offers an occasion
+of sin, and hinders an act of virtue; hence a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iiThess.3.9" target="asv">2 Thess. 3:9, </a> "That we might give ourselves a pattern unto you," says: "He who through idleness eats often at another's table, must needs
+flatter the one who feeds him." It is also written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A4-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.23.8" target="asv">Ex. 23:8</a>): "Neither shalt thou take bribes which
+. . . blind the wise, and pervert the words of the just," and (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A4-p5.3" href="./asv.html#Prov.22.7" target="asv">Prov. 22:7</a>): "The borrower is servant to him that lendeth." This is contrary to religion, wherefore a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A4-p5.4" href="./asv.html#iiThess.3.9" target="asv">2 Thess. 3:9, </a> "That we might give ourselves a pattern," etc., says, "our religion calls men to liberty." Therefore it would seem that religious
+should not live on alms.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A4-p6">
+<b>Objection 5:</b> Further, religious especially are bound to imitate the perfection of the apostles; wherefore the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.3.15" target="asv">Phil. 3:15</a>): "Let us . . . as many as are perfect, be thus minded." But the Apostle was unwilling to live at the expense of the faithful,
+either in order to cut off the occasion from the false apostles as he himself says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.11.12" target="asv">2 Cor. 11:12</a>), or to avoid giving scandal to the weak, as appears from
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A4-p6.3" href="./asv.html#iCor.9.12" target="asv">1 Cor.
+9:12.
+</a> It would seem therefore that religious ought for the same reasons to refrain from living on alms. Hence Augustine says (De
+oper. Monach. 28): "Cut off the occasion of disgraceful marketing whereby you lower yourselves in the esteem of others, and
+give scandal to the weak: and show men that you seek not an easy livelihood in idleness, but the kingdom of God by the narrow
+and strait way."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A4-p7">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Gregory says (Dial. ii, 1): The Blessed Benedict after leaving his home and parents dwelt for three years in a cave, and
+while there lived on the food brought to him by a monk from Rome. Nevertheless, although he was able-bodied, we do not read
+that he sought to live by the labor of his hands. Therefore religious may lawfully live on alms.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A4-p8">
+<b>I answer that,</b> A man may lawfully live on what is his or due to him. Now that which is given out of liberality becomes the property of the
+person to whom it is given. Wherefore religious and clerics whose monasteries or churches have received from the munificence
+of princes or of any of the faithful any endowment whatsoever for their support, can lawfully live on such endowment without
+working with their hands, and yet without doubt they live on alms. Wherefore in like
+manner if religious receive movable goods from the faithful they can lawfully live on them. For it is absurd to say that a
+person may accept an alms of some great property but not bread or some small sum of money. Nevertheless since these gifts
+would seem to be bestowed on religious in order that they may have more leisure for religious works, in which the donors of
+temporal goods wish to have a share, the use of such gifts would become unlawful for them if they abstained from religious
+works,
+because in that case, so far as they are concerned, they would be thwarting the intention of those who bestowed those gifts.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A4-p9"> A thing is due to a person in two ways. First, on account of necessity, which makes all things common, as Ambrose [*Basil,
+Serm. de Temp. lxiv, among the supposititious works of St. Ambrose] asserts. Consequently if religious be in need they can
+lawfully live on alms. Such necessity may occur in three ways. First, through weakness of body, the result being that they
+are unable to make a living by working with their hands. Secondly, because that which they gain by their handiwork
+is insufficient for their livelihood: wherefore Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xvii) that "the good works of the faithful
+should not leave God's servants who work with their hands without a supply of necessaries, that when the hour comes for them
+to nourish their souls, so as to make it impossible for them to do these corporal works, they be not oppressed by want." Thirdly,
+because of the former mode of life of those who were unwont to work with their hands: wherefore Augustine says (De oper.
+Monach. xxi) that "if they had in the world the wherewithal easily to support this life without working, and gave it to the
+needy when they were converted to God, we must credit their weakness and bear with it." For those who have thus been delicately
+brought up are wont to be unable to bear the toil of bodily labor.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A4-p10"> In another way a thing becomes due to a person through his affording others something whether temporal or spiritual, according
+to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.9.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 9:11, </a> "If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things?" And in this sense religious
+may live on alms as being due to them in four ways. First, if they preach by the authority of the prelates. Secondly, if they
+be ministers of the altar, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A4-p10.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.9.13" target="asv">1 Cor. 9:13,14,
+</a>"They that serve the altar partake with the altar. So also the lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live by
+the Gospel." Hence Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xxi): "If they be gospelers, I allow, they have" (a claim to live at the
+charge of the faithful): "if they be ministers of the altar and dispensers of the sacraments, they need not insist on it,
+but it is theirs by perfect right." The reason for this is because the sacrament of the altar wherever it be offered
+is common to all the faithful. Thirdly, if they devote themselves to the study of Holy Writ to the common profit of the whole
+Church. Wherefore Jerome says (Contra Vigil. xiii): "It is still the custom in Judea, not only among us but also among the
+Hebrews, for those who meditate on the law of the Lord day and night, end have no other share on earth but God alone, to be
+supported by the subscriptions of the synagogues and of the whole world." Fourthly, if they have endowed the monastery with
+the goods they possessed, they may live on the alms given to the monastery. Hence Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xxv) that
+"those who renouncing or distributing their means, whether ample or of any amount whatever, have desired with pious and salutary
+humility to be numbered among the poor of Christ, have a claim on the community and on brotherly love to receive a livelihood
+in return. They are to be commended indeed if they work with their hands, but if they be unwilling, who will dare to
+force them? Nor does it matter, as he goes on to say, to which monasteries, or in what place any one of them has bestowed
+his goods on his needy brethren; for all Christians belong to one commonwealth."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A4-p11"> On the other hand, in the default of any necessity, or of their affording any profit to others, it is unlawful for religious
+to wish to live in idleness on the alms given to the poor. Hence Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xxii): "Sometimes those
+who enter the profession of God's service come from a servile condition of life, from tilling the soil or working at some
+trade or lowly occupation. In their case it is not so clear whether they came with the purpose of serving God, or
+of evading a life of want and toil with a view to being fed and clothed in idleness, and furthermore to being honored by those
+by whom they were wont to be despised and downtrodden. Such persons surely cannot excuse themselves from work on the score
+of bodily weakness, for their former mode of life is evidence against them." And he adds further on (De oper. Monach. xxv):
+"If they be unwilling to work, neither let them eat. For if the rich humble themselves to piety, it is not that the poor may
+be exalted to pride; since it is altogether unseemly that in a life wherein senators become laborers, laborers should become
+idle, and that where the lords of the manor have come after renouncing their ease, the serfs should live in comfort."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A4-p12">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> These authorities must be understood as referring to cases of necessity, that is to say, when there is no other means of
+succoring the poor: for then they would be bound not only to refrain from accepting alms, but also to give what they have
+for the support of the needy.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A4-p13">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Prelates are competent to preach in virtue of their office, but religious may be competent to do so in virtue of delegation;
+and thus when they work in the field of the Lord, they may make their living thereby, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A4-p13.1" href="./asv.html#iiTim.2.6" target="asv">2 Tim. 2:6, </a> "The husbandman that laboreth must first partake of the fruits," which a gloss explains thus, "that is to say, the preacher,
+who in the field of the Church tills the hearts of his hearers with the
+plough of God's word." Those also who minister to the preachers may live on alms. Hence a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A4-p13.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.15.27" target="asv"> Rom. 15:27, </a> "If the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they ought also in carnal things to minister to them,"
+says, "namely, to the Jews who sent preachers from Jerusalem." There are moreover other reasons for which a person has a claim
+to live at the charge of the faithful, as stated above.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A4-p14">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Other things being equal, it is more perfect to give than to receive. Nevertheless to give or to give up all one's possessions
+for Christ's sake, and to receive a little for one's livelihood is better than to give to the poor part by part, as stated
+above (
+<a id="SS_Q187_A4-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A3.html">Q[186], A[3]</a>, ad 6).
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A4-p15">
+<b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> To receive gifts so as to increase one's wealth, or to accept a livelihood from another without having a claim to it, and
+without profit to others or being in need oneself, affords an occasion of sin. But this does not apply to religious, as stated
+above.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A4-p16">
+<b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Whenever there is evident necessity for religious living on alms without doing any manual work, as well as an evident profit
+to be derived by others, it is not the weak who are scandalized, but those who are full of malice like the Pharisees, whose
+scandal our Lord teaches us to despise (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A4-p16.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.15.12" target="asv">Mat. 15:12-14</a>). If, however, these motives of necessity and profit be lacking, the weak might possibly be scandalized thereby; and this
+should be
+avoided. Yet the same scandal might be occasioned through those who live in idleness on the common revenues.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A4-p17"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A4-p18"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A3.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A5.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q187_A5" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A4.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A6.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q187_A5-p0.1">Whether it is lawful for religious to beg?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A5-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A5-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem unlawful for religious to beg. For Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xxviii): "The most cunning foe has scattered
+on all sides a great number of hypocrites wearing the monastic habit, who go wandering about the country," and afterwards
+he adds: "They all ask, they all demand to be supported in their profitable penury, or to be paid for a pretended holiness."
+Therefore it would seem that the life of mendicant religious is to be condemned.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A5-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iThess.4.11" target="asv">1 Thess. 4:11</a>): "That you . . . work with your own hands as we commanded you, and that you walk honestly towards them that are without:
+and that you want nothing of any man's": and a gloss on this passage says: "You must work and not be idle, because work is
+both honorable and a light to the unbeliever: and you must not covet that which belongs to another and much less beg or take
+anything." Again a gloss [*St.
+Augustine, (De oper. Monach. iii)] on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A5-p3.2" href="./asv.html#iiThess.3.10" target="asv">2 Thess. 3:10, </a> "If any man will not work," etc. says: "He wishes the servants of God to work with the body, so as to gain a livelihood,
+and not be compelled by want to ask for necessaries." Now this is to beg. Therefore it would seem unlawful to beg while omitting
+to work with one's hands.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A5-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, that which is forbidden by law and contrary to justice, is unbecoming to religious. Now begging is forbidden in
+the divine law; for it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.15.4" target="asv">Dt. 15:4</a>): "There shall be no poor nor beggar among you," and (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A5-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.36.25" target="asv">Ps. 36:25</a>): "I have not seen the just forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread." Moreover an able-bodied mendicant is punished by civil
+law, according to the law (XI, xxvi, de Valid. Mendicant.). Therefore
+it is unfitting for religious to beg.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A5-p5">
+<b>Objection 4:</b> Further, "Shame is about that which is disgraceful," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 15). Now Ambrose says (De Offic.
+i, 30) that "to be ashamed to beg is a sign of good birth." Therefore it is disgraceful to beg: and consequently this is unbecoming
+to religious.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A5-p6">
+<b>Objection 5:</b> Further, according to our Lord's command it is especially becoming to preachers of the Gospel to live on alms, as stated
+above
+<a id="SS_Q187_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q187_A4.html">(A[4])</a>. Yet it is not becoming that they should beg, since a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A5-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iiTim.2.6" target="asv">2 Tim. 2:6, </a> "The husbandman, that laboreth," etc. says: "The Apostle wishes the gospeler to understand that to accept necessaries from
+those among whom he labors is not mendicancy but a right." Therefore it would seem
+unbecoming for religious to beg.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A5-p7">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> It becomes religious to live in imitation of Christ. Now Christ was a mendicant, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.39.18" target="asv"> Ps. 39:18, </a> "But I am a beggar and poor"; where a gloss says: "Christ said this of Himself as bearing the 'form of a servant,'" and further
+on: "A beggar is one who entreats another, and a poor man is one who has not enough for himself." Again it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A5-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.69.6" target="asv">Ps. 69:6</a>): "I am needy and poor"; where a gloss says: "'Needy,'
+that is a suppliant; 'and poor,' that is, not having enough for myself, because I have no worldly wealth." And Jerome says
+in a letter [*Reference unknown]: "Beware lest whereas thy Lord," i.e. Christ, "begged, thou amass other people's wealth."
+Therefore it becomes religious to beg.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A5-p8">
+<b>I answer that,</b> Two things may be considered in reference to mendicancy. The first is on the part of the act itself of begging, which has
+a certain abasement attaching to it; since of all men those would seem most abased who are not only poor, but are so needy
+that they have to receive their meat from others. In this way some deserve praise for begging out of humility, just as they
+abase themselves in other ways, as being the most efficacious remedy against pride which they
+desire to quench either in themselves or in others by their example. For just as a disease that arises from excessive heat
+is most efficaciously healed by things that excel in cold, so proneness to pride is most efficaciously healed by those things
+which savor most of abasement. Hence it is said in the Decretals (II, cap. Si quis semel, de Paenitentia): "To condescend
+to the humblest duties, and to devote oneself to the lowliest service is an exercise of humility; for thus one is able to
+heal
+the disease of pride and human glory." Hence Jerome praises Fabiola (Ep. lxxvii ad ocean.) for that she desired "to receive
+alms, having poured forth all her wealth for Christ's sake." The Blessed Alexis acted in like manner, for, having renounced
+all his possessions for Christ's sake he rejoiced in receiving alms even from his own servants. It is also related of the
+Blessed Arsenius in the Lives of the Fathers (v, 6) that he gave thanks because he was forced by necessity to ask for alms.
+Hence
+it is enjoined to some people as a penance for grievous sins to go on a pilgrimage begging. Since, however, humility like
+the other virtues should not be without discretion, it behooves one to be discreet in becoming a mendicant for the purpose
+of humiliation, lest a man thereby incur the mark of covetousness or of anything else unbecoming. Secondly, mendicancy may
+be considered on the part of that which one gets by begging: and thus a man may be led to beg by a twofold motive. First,
+by the
+desire to have wealth or meat without working for it, and such like mendicancy is unlawful; secondly, by a motive of necessity
+or usefulness. The motive is one of necessity if a man has no other means of livelihood save begging; and it is a motive of
+usefulness if he wishes to accomplish something useful, and is unable to do so without the alms of the faithful. Thus alms
+are besought for the building of a bridge, or church, or for any other work whatever that is conducive to the common good:
+thus scholars may seek alms that they may devote themselves to the study of wisdom. In this way mendicancy is lawful to religious
+no less than to seculars.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A5-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Augustine is speaking there explicitly of those who beg from motives of covetousness.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A5-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The first gloss speaks of begging from motives of covetousness, as appears from the words of the Apostle; while the second
+gloss speaks of those who without effecting any useful purpose, beg their livelihood in order to live in idleness. on the
+other hand, he lives not idly who in any way lives usefully.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A5-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This precept of the divine law does not forbid anyone to beg, but it forbids the rich to be so stingy that some are compelled
+by necessity to beg. The civil law imposes a penalty on able-bodied mendicants who beg from motives neither of utility nor
+of necessity.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A5-p12">
+<b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Disgrace is twofold; one arises from lack of honesty [*Cf.
+<a id="SS_Q187_A5-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q145_A1.html"> Q[145], A[1]</a>], the other from an external defect, thus it is disgraceful for a man to be sick or poor. Such like uncomeliness of mendicancy
+does not pertain to sin, but it may pertain to humility, as stated above.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A5-p13">
+<b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Preachers have the right to be fed by those to whom they preach: yet if they wish to seek this by begging so as to receive
+it as a free gift and not as a right this will be a mark of greater humility.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A5-p14"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A5-p15"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A4.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A6.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q187_A6" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A5.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q187_A6-p0.1">Whether it is lawful for religious to wear coarser clothes than others?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A6-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A6-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem unlawful for religious to wear coarser clothes than others. For according to the Apostle (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iThess.5.22" target="asv">1 Thess. 5:22</a>) we ought to "refrain from all appearance of evil." Now coarseness of clothes has an appearance of evil; for our Lord said
+(
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A6-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.7.15" target="asv">Mat. 7:15</a>): "Beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep": and a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A6-p2.3" href="./asv.html#Rev.6.8" target="asv"> Apoc. 6:8, </a> "Behold a pale horse," says: "The devil finding that
+he cannot succeed, neither by outward afflictions nor by manifest heresies, sends in advance false brethren, who under the
+guise of religion assume the characteristics of the black and red horses by corrupting the faith." Therefore it would seem
+that religious should not wear coarse clothes.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A6-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Jerome says (Ep. lii ad Nepotian.): "Avoid somber," i.e. black, "equally with glittering apparel. Fine and coarse
+clothes are equally to be shunned, for the one exhales pleasure, the other vainglory." Therefore, since vainglory is a graver
+sin than the use of pleasure, it would seem that religious who should aim at what is more perfect ought to avoid coarse rather
+than fine clothes.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A6-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, religious should aim especially at doing works of penance. Now in works of penance we should use, not outward signs
+of sorrow, but rather signs of joy; for our Lord said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.16" target="asv">Mat. 6:16</a>): "When you fast, be not, as the hypocrites, sad," and afterwards He added: "But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head
+and wash thy face." Augustine commenting on these words (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12): "In this chapter we must observe
+that not
+only the glare and pomp of outward things, but even the weeds of mourning may be a subject of ostentation, all the more dangerous
+as being a decoy under the guise of God's service." Therefore seemingly religious ought not to wear coarse clothes.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A6-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.11.37" target="asv">Heb. 11:37</a>): "They wandered about in sheep-skins in goat-skins," and a gloss adds---"as Elias and others." Moreover it is said in the
+Decretal XXI, qu. iv, can. Omnis jactantia: "If any persons be found to deride those who wear coarse and religious apparel
+they must be reproved. For in the early times all those who were consecrated to God went about in common and coarse apparel."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A6-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12), "in all external things, it is not the use but the intention of the user that
+is at fault." In order to judge of this it is necessary to observe that coarse and homely apparel may be considered in two
+ways. First, as being a sign of a man's disposition or condition, because according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.19.27" target="asv">Ecclus. 19:27</a>, "the attire . . . of the man" shows "what he is." In this way coarseness of attire is sometimes a sign of
+sorrow: wherefore those who are beset with sorrow are wont to wear coarser clothes, just as on the other hand in times of
+festivity and joy they wear finer clothes. Hence penitents make use of coarse apparel, for example, the king (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Jonah.3.6" target="asv">Jonah 3:6</a>) who "was clothed with sack-cloth," and Achab (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A6-p6.3" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">3 Kings 21:27</a>) who "put hair-cloth upon his flesh." Sometimes, however, it is a sign of the contempt of riches and worldly ostentation.
+Wherefore Jerome says (Ep. cxxv
+ad Rustico Monach.): "Let your somber attire indicate your purity of mind, your coarse robe prove your contempt of the world,
+yet so that your mind be not inflated withal, lest your speech belie your habit." In both these ways it is becoming for religious
+to wear coarse attire, since religion is a state of penance and of contempt of worldly glory.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A6-p7"> But that a person wish to signify this to others arises from three motives. First, in order to humble himself: for just as
+a man's mind is uplifted by fine clothes, so is it humbled by lowly apparel. Hence speaking of Achab who "put hair-cloth on
+his flesh," the Lord said to Elias: "Hast thou not seen Achab humbled before Me?" (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">3 Kings 21:29</a>). Secondly, in order to set an example to others; wherefore a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q187_A6-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.4" target="asv">Mat. 3:4</a>, "(John) had his garments of camel's
+hair," says: "He who preaches penance is clothed in the habit of penance." Thirdly, on account of vainglory; thus Augustine
+says (cf. OBJ[3]) that "even the weeds of mourning may be a subject of ostentation."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A6-p8"> Accordingly in the first two ways it is praiseworthy to wear humble apparel, but in the third way it is sinful.</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A6-p9"> Secondly, coarse and homely attire may be considered as the result of covetousness or negligence, and thus also it is sinful.</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A6-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Coarseness of attire has not of itself the appearance of evil, indeed it has more the appearance of good, namely of the contempt
+of worldly glory. Hence it is that wicked persons hide their wickedness under coarse clothing. Hence Augustine says (De Serm.
+Dom. in Monte ii, 24) that "the sheep should not dislike their clothing for the reason that the wolves sometimes hide themselves
+under it."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A6-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Jerome is speaking there of the coarse attire that is worn on account of human glory.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A6-p12">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> According to our Lord's teaching men should do no deeds of holiness for the sake of show: and this is especially the case
+when one does something strange. Hence Chrysostom [*Hom. xiii in Matth. in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed to St. John
+Chrysostom] says: "While praying a man should do nothing strange, so as to draw the gaze of others, either by shouting or
+striking his breast, or casting up his hands," because the very strangeness draws
+people's attention to him. Yet blame does not attach to all strange behavior that draws people's attention, for it may be
+done well or ill. Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12) that "in the practice of the Christian religion when
+a man draws attention to himself by unwonted squalor and shabbiness, since he acts thus voluntarily and not of necessity,
+we can gather from his other deeds whether his behavior is motivated by contempt of excessive dress or by affectation." Religious,
+however, would especially seem not to act thus from affectation, since they wear a coarse habit as a sign of their profession
+whereby they profess contempt of the world.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A6-p13"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q187_A6-p14"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A5.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188.html"></a>
+</div>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q186_A10.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A1.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q188" class="div3">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A6.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A1.html"></a>
+<h3 id="SS_Q188-p0.1">OF THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF RELIGIOUS LIFE (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3>
+<p id="SS_Q188-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q188-p2"> We must now consider the different kinds of religious life, and under this head there are eight points of inquiry:</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188-p3"> (1) Whether there are different kinds of religious life or only one?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188-p4"> (2) Whether a religious order can be established for the works of the active life?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188-p5"> (3) Whether a religious order can be directed to soldiering?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188-p6"> (4) Whether a religious order can be established for preaching and the exercise of like works?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188-p7"> (5) Whether a religious order can be established for the study of science?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188-p8"> (6) Whether a religious order that is directed to the contemplative life is more excellent than one that is directed to the
+active life?
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188-p9"> (7) Whether religious perfection is diminished by possessing something in common?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188-p10"> (8) Whether the religious life of solitaries is to be preferred to the religious life of those who live in community?</p>
+<div id="SS_Q188_A1" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A2.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q188_A1-p0.1">Whether there is only one religious order?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A1-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A1-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there is but one religious order. For there can be no diversity in that which is possessed wholly and
+perfectly; wherefore there can be only one sovereign good, as stated in the
+<a id="SS_Q188_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q6_A2.html">FP, Q[6] , AA[2]</a>,3,4. Now as Gregory says (Hom. xx in Ezech.), "when a man vows to Almighty God all that he has, all his life, all his knowledge,
+it is a holocaust," without which there is no religious life. Therefore it would seem that there
+are not many religious orders but only one.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A1-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, things which agree in essentials differ only accidentally. Now there is no religious order without the three essential
+vows of religion, as stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q188_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A6.html">Q[186], AA[6]</a>,7). Therefore it would seem that religious orders differ not specifically, but only accidentally.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A1-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the state of perfection is competent both to religious and to bishops, as stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q188_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q185_A5.html">Q[185], AA[5]</a>,7). Now the episcopate is not diversified specifically, but is one wherever it may be; wherefore Jerome says (Ep. cxlvi ad
+Evan.): "Wherever a bishop is, whether at Rome, or Gubbio, or Constantinople, or Reggio, he has the same excellence, the same
+priesthood." Therefore in like manner there is but one religious order.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A1-p5">
+<b>Objection 4:</b> Further, anything that may lead to confusion should be removed from the Church. Now it would seem that a diversity of religious
+orders might confuse the Christian people, as stated in the Decretal de Statu Monach. et Canon. Reg. [*Cap. Ne Nimia, de Relig.
+Dom.]. Therefore seemingly there ought not to be different religious orders.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A1-p6">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.44.10" target="asv">Ps. 44:10</a>) that it pertains to the adornment of the queen that she is "surrounded with variety."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A1-p7">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (Q[186], A, 7;
+<a id="SS_Q188_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q187_A2.html"> Q[187], A[2]</a>), the religious state is a training school wherein one aims by practice at the perfection of charity. Now there are various
+works of charity to which a man may devote himself; and there are also various kinds of exercise. Wherefore religious orders
+may be differentiated in two ways. First, according to the different things to which they may be directed: thus one may be
+directed to the
+lodging of pilgrims, another to visiting or ransoming captives. Secondly, there may be various religious orders according
+to the diversity of practices; thus in one religious order the body is chastised by abstinence in food, in another by the
+practice of manual labor, scantiness of clothes, or the like.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A1-p8"> Since, however, the end imports most in every matter, [*Arist., Topic. vi 8] religious orders differ more especially according
+to their various ends than according to their various practices.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A1-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The obligation to devote oneself wholly to God's service is common to every religious order; hence religious do not differ
+in this respect, as though in one religious order a person retained some one thing of his own, and in another order some other
+thing. But the difference is in respect of the different things wherein one may serve God, and whereby a man may dispose himself
+to the service of God.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A1-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The three essential vows of religion pertain to the practice of religion as principles to which all other matters are reduced,
+as stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q188_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A7.html">Q[186], A[7]</a>). But there are various ways of disposing oneself to the observance of each of them. For instance one disposes oneself to
+observe the vow of continence, by solitude of place, by abstinence, by mutual fellowship, and by many like means. Accordingly
+it is evident that the
+community of the essential vows is compatible with diversity of religious life, both on account of the different dispositions
+and on account of the different ends, as explained above.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A1-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In matters relating to perfection, the bishop stands in the position of agent, and the religious as passive, as stated above
+(
+<a id="SS_Q188_A1-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A7.html">Q[184], A[7]</a>). Now the agent, even in natural things, the higher it is, is so much the more one, whereas the things that are passive are
+various. Hence with reason the episcopal state is one, while religious orders are many.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A1-p12">
+<b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Confusion is opposed to distinction and order. Accordingly the multitude of religious orders would lead to confusion, if
+different religious orders were directed to the same end and in the same way, without necessity or utility. Wherefore to prevent
+this happening it has been wholesomely forbidden to establish a new religious order without the authority of the Sovereign
+Pontiff.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A1-p13"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A1-p14"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A2.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q188_A2" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A1.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A3.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q188_A2-p0.1">Whether a religious order should be established for the works of the active life?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A2-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A2-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that no religious order should be established for the works of the active life. For every religious order belongs
+to the state of perfection, as stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q188_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A5.html">Q[184], A[5]</a>;
+<a id="SS_Q188_A2-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A1.html"> Q[186], A[1]</a>). Now the perfection of the religious state consists in the contemplation of divine things. For Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier.
+vi) that they are "called servants of God by reason of their rendering pure service and
+subjection to God, and on account of the indivisible and singular life which unites them by holy reflections," i.e. contemplations,
+"on invisible things, to the Godlike unity and the perfection beloved of God." Therefore seemingly no religious order should
+be established for the works of the active life.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A2-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, seemingly the same judgment applies to canons regular as to monks, according to Extra, De Postul., cap. Ex parte;
+and De Statu Monach., cap. Quod Dei timorem: for it is stated that "they are not considered to be separated from the fellowship
+of monks": and the same would seem to apply to all other religious. Now the monastic rule was established for the purpose
+of the contemplative life; wherefore Jerome says (Ep. lviii ad Paulin.): "If you wish to be
+what you are called, a monk," i.e. a solitary, "what business have you in a city?" The same is found stated in Extra, De Renuntiatione,
+cap. Nisi cum pridem; and De Regular., cap. Licet quibusdam. Therefore it would seem that every religious order is directed
+to the contemplative life, and none to the active life.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A2-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the active life is concerned with the present world. Now all religious are said to renounce the world; wherefore
+Gregory says (Hom. xx in Ezech.): "He who renounces this world, and does all the good he can, is like one who has gone out
+of Egypt and offers sacrifice in the wilderness." Therefore it would seem that no religious order can be directed to the active
+life.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A2-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.1.27" target="asv">James 1:27</a>): "Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation."
+Now this belongs to the active life. Therefore religious life can be fittingly directed to the active life.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A2-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
+<a id="SS_Q188_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q188_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, the religious state is directed to the perfection of charity, which extends to the love of God and of our neighbor. Now
+the contemplative life which seeks to devote itself to God alone belongs directly to the love of God, while the active life,
+which ministers to our neighbor's needs, belongs directly to the love of one's neighbor. And just as out of charity we love
+our neighbor for God's sake, so the
+services we render our neighbor redound to God, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.25.40" target="asv">Mat. 25:40</a>, "What you have done [Vulg.: 'As long as you did it'] to one of these My least brethren, you did it to Me." Consequently
+those services which we render our neighbor, in so far as we refer them to God, are described as sacrifices, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A2-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Heb.13.16" target="asv"> Heb. 13:16, </a> "Do not forget to do good and to impart, for by such sacrifices God's favor is obtained." And since it belongs properly to
+religion to offer sacrifice
+to God, as stated above (Q[81], A[1], ad 1; A[4], ad 1), it follows that certain religious orders are fittingly directed to
+the works of the active life. Wherefore in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. xiv, 4) the Abbot Nesteros in distinguishing
+the various aims of religious orders says: "Some direct their intention exclusively to the hidden life of the desert and purity
+of heart; some are occupied with the instruction of the brethren and the care of the monasteries; while others delight in
+the service of the guesthouse," i.e. in hospitality.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A2-p7">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Service and subjection rendered to God are not precluded by the works of the active life, whereby a man serves his neighbor
+for God's sake, as stated in the Article. Nor do these works preclude singularity of life; not that they involve man's living
+apart from his fellow-men, but in the sense that each man individually devotes himself to things pertaining to the service
+of God; and since religious occupy themselves with the works of the active life
+for God's sake, it follows that their action results from their contemplation of divine things. Hence they are not entirely
+deprived of the fruit of the contemplative life.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A2-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The same judgment applies to monks and to all other religious, as regards things common to all religious orders: for instance
+as regards their devoting themselves wholly to the divine service, their observance of the essential vows of religion, and
+their refraining from worldly business. But it does not follow that this likeness extends to other things that are proper
+to the monastic profession, and are directed especially to the contemplative life.
+Hence in the aforesaid Decretal, De Postulando, it is not simply stated that "the same judgment applies to canons regular"
+as "to monks," but that it applies "in matters already mentioned," namely that "they are not to act as advocates in lawsuits."
+Again the Decretal quoted, De Statu Monach., after the statement that "canons regular are not considered to be separated from
+the fellowship of monks," goes on to say: "Nevertheless they obey an easier rule." Hence it is evident that they are not
+bound to all that monks are bound.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A2-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A man may be in the world in two ways: in one way by his bodily presence, in another way by the bent of his mind. Hence our
+Lord said to His disciples (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.15.19" target="asv">Jn. 15:19</a>): "I have chosen you out of the world," and yet speaking of them to His Father He said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A2-p9.2" href="./asv.html#John.17.11" target="asv">Jn. 17:11</a>): "These are in the world, and I come to Thee." Although, then, religious who are occupied with the works of the active life
+are in the world as to the
+presence of the body, they are not in the world as regards their bent of mind, because they are occupied with external things,
+not as seeking anything of the world, but merely for the sake of serving God: for "they . . . use this world, as if they used
+it not," to quote
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A2-p9.3" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.31" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:31.</a> Hence (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A2-p9.4" href="./asv.html#Jas.1.27" target="asv">James 1:27</a>) after it is stated that "religion clean and undefiled . . . is . . . to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation,"
+it is added, "and to keep
+one's self unspotted from this world," namely to avoid being attached to worldly things.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A2-p10"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A2-p11"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A1.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A3.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q188_A3" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A2.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A4.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q188_A3-p0.1">Whether a religious order can be directed to soldiering?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A3-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A3-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that no religious order can be directed to soldiering. For all religious orders belong to the state of perfection.
+Now our Lord said with reference to the perfection of Christian life (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.39" target="asv">Mat. 5:39</a>): "I say to you not to resist evil; but if one strike thee on the right cheek, turn to him also the other," which is inconsistent
+with the duties of a soldier. Therefore no religious order can be established for soldiering.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A3-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the bodily encounter of the battlefield is more grievous than the encounter in words that takes place between counsel
+at law. Yet religious are forbidden to plead at law, as appears from the Decretal De Postulando quoted above (A[2], OBJ[2]).
+Therefore it is much less seemly for a religious order to be established for soldiering.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A3-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the religious state is a state of penance, as we have said above (
+<a id="SS_Q188_A3-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q187_A6.html">Q[187], A[6]</a>). Now according to the code of laws soldiering is forbidden to penitents. for it is said in the Decretal De Poenit., Dist.
+v, cap. 3: "It is altogether opposed to the rules of the Church, to return to worldly soldiering after doing penance." Therefore
+it is unfitting for any religious order to be established for soldiering.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A3-p5">
+<b>Objection 4:</b> Further, no religious order may be established for an unjust object. But as Isidore says (Etym. xviii, 1), "A just war is
+one that is waged by order of the emperor." Since then religious are private individuals, it would seem unlawful for them
+to wage war; and consequently no religious order may be established for this purpose.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A3-p6">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Ep. clxxxix; ad Bonifac.), "Beware of thinking that none of those can please God who handle war-like weapons.
+Of such was holy David to whom the Lord gave great testimony." Now religious orders are established in order that men may
+please God. Therefore nothing hinders the establishing of a religious order for the purpose of soldiering.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A3-p7">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
+<a id="SS_Q188_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q188_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, a religious order may be established not only for the works of the contemplative life, but also for the works of the active
+life, in so far as they are concerned in helping our neighbor and in the service of God, but not in so far as they are directed
+to a worldly object. Now the occupation of soldiering may be directed to the assistance of our neighbor, not only as regards
+private individuals, but also as
+regards the defense of the whole commonwealth. Hence it is said of Judas Machabeus (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iMacc.3.2" target="asv">1 Macc. 3:2,3</a>) that "he [Vulg.: 'they'] fought with cheerfulness the battle of Israel, and he got his people great honor." It can also
+be directed to the upkeep of divine worship, wherefore (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A3-p7.3" href="./asv.html#iMacc.3.21" target="asv">1 Macc. 3:21</a>) Judas is stated to have said: "We will fight for our lives and our laws," and further on (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A3-p7.4" href="./asv.html#iMacc.13.3" target="asv">1 Macc. 13:3</a>) Simon said: "You know what great battles I
+and my brethren, and the house of my father, have fought for the laws and the sanctuary."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A3-p8"> Hence a religious order may be fittingly established for soldiering, not indeed for any worldly purpose, but for the defense
+of divine worship and public safety, or also of the poor and oppressed, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.81.4" target="asv"> Ps. 81:4</a>: "Rescue the poor, and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A3-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Not to resist evil may be understood in two ways. First, in the sense of forgiving the wrong done to oneself, and thus it
+may pertain to perfection, when it is expedient to act thus for the spiritual welfare of others. Secondly, in the sense of
+tolerating patiently the wrongs done to others: and this pertains to imperfection, or even to vice, if one be able to resist
+the wrongdoer in a becoming manner. Hence Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 27): "The
+courage whereby a man in battle defends his country against barbarians, or protects the weak at home, or his friends against
+robbers is full of justice": even so our Lord says in the passage quoted [*
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.6.30" target="asv">Lk. 6:30 </a>"Of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again"; Cf.
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A3-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.40" target="asv"> Mat. 5:40</a>], " . . . thy goods, ask them not again." If, however, a man were not to demand the return of that which belongs to another,
+he would sin if it were his business to do so: for
+it is praiseworthy to give away one's own, but not another's property. And much less should the things of God be neglected,
+for as Chrysostom [*Hom. v in Matth. in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says, "it is most wicked
+to overlook the wrongs done to God."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A3-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It is inconsistent with any religious order to act as counsel at law for a worldly object, but it is not inconsistent to
+do so at the orders of one's superior and in favor of one's monastery, as stated in the same Decretal, or for the defense
+of the poor and widows. Wherefore it is said in the Decretals (Dist. lxxxviii, cap. 1): "The holy synod has decreed that henceforth
+no cleric is to buy property or occupy himself with secular business, save with
+a view to the care of the fatherless . . . and widows." Likewise to be a soldier for the sake of some worldly object is contrary
+to all religious life, but this does not apply to those who are soldiers for the sake of God's service.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A3-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Worldly soldiering is forbidden to penitents, but the soldiering which is directed to the service of God is imposed as a
+penance on some people, as in the case of those upon whom it is enjoined to take arms in defense of the Holy Land.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A3-p12">
+<b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The establishment of a religious order for the purpose of soldiering does not imply that the religious can wage war on their
+own authority; but they can do so only on the authority of the sovereign or of the Church.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A3-p13"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A3-p14"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A2.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A4.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q188_A4" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A3.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A5.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q188_A4-p0.1">Whether a religious order can be established for preaching or hearing confessions?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A4-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A4-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that no religious order may be established for preaching, or hearing confessions. For it is said (VII, qu.
+i [*Cap. Hoc nequaquam; Cf.
+<a id="SS_Q188_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q187_A1.html"> Q[187], A[1]</a>, OBJ[1]]): "The monastic life is one of subjection and discipleship, not of teaching, authority, or pastoral care," and the
+same apparently applies to religious. Now preaching and hearing confessions are the actions of a pastor and teacher. Therefore
+a religious order should
+not be established for this purpose.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A4-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the purpose for which a religious order is established would seem to be something most proper to the religious life,
+as stated above
+<a id="SS_Q188_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q188_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Now the aforesaid actions are not proper to religious but to bishops. Therefore a religious order should not be established
+for the purpose of such actions.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A4-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it seems unfitting that the authority to preach and hear confessions should be committed to an unlimited number
+of men; and there is no fixed number of those who are received into a religious order. Therefore it is unfitting for a religious
+order to be established for the purpose of the aforesaid actions.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A4-p5">
+<b>Objection 4:</b> Further, preachers have a right to receive their livelihood from the faithful of Christ, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.9" target="asv">1 Cor. 9</a>. If then the office of preaching be committed to a religious order established for that purpose, it follows that the faithful
+of Christ are bound to support an unlimited number of persons, which would be a heavy burden on them. Therefore a religious
+order should not be established for the exercise of these actions.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A4-p6">
+<b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the organization of the Church should be in accordance with Christ's institution. Now Christ sent first the twelve
+apostles to preach, as related in
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.9" target="asv">Luke 9</a>, and afterwards He sent the seventy-two disciples, as stated in
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.10" target="asv">Luke 10</a>. Moreover, according to the gloss of Bede on "And after these things" (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A4-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.10.1" target="asv">Lk. 10:1</a>), "the apostles are represented by the bishops, the seventy-two disciples by the lesser priests," i.e. the parish priests.
+Therefore in addition to bishops and parish priests, no religious order should be established for the purpose of preaching
+and hearing confessions.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A4-p7">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> In the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. xiv, 4), Abbot Nesteros, speaking of the various kinds of religious orders, says:
+"Some choosing the care of the sick, others devoting themselves to the relief of the afflicted and oppressed, or applying
+themselves to teaching, or giving alms to the poor, have been most highly esteemed on account of their devotion and piety."
+Therefore just as a religious order may be established for the care of the sick, so also
+may one be established for teaching the people by preaching and like works.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A4-p8">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
+<a id="SS_Q188_A4-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q188_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, it is fitting for a religious order to be established for the works of the active life, in so far as they are directed to
+the good of our neighbor, the service of God, and the upkeep of divine worship. Now the good of our neighbor is advanced by
+things pertaining to the spiritual welfare of the soul rather than by things pertaining to the supplying of bodily needs,
+in proportion to the excellence of spiritual
+over corporal things. Hence it was stated above (Q[32], A[3]) that spiritual works of mercy surpass corporal works of mercy.
+Moreover this is more pertinent to the service of God, to Whom no sacrifice is more acceptable than zeal for souls, as Gregory
+says (Hom. xii in Ezech.). Furthermore, it is a greater thing to employ spiritual arms in defending the faithful against the
+errors of heretics and the temptations of the devil, than to protect the faithful by means of bodily weapons. Therefore it
+is most fitting for a religious order to be established for preaching and similar works pertaining to the salvation of souls.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A4-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> He who works by virtue of another, acts as an instrument. And a minister is like an "animated instrument," as the Philosopher
+says (Polit. i, 2 [*Cf. Ethic. viii, 11]). Hence if a man preach or do something similar by the authority of his superiors,
+he does not rise above the degree of "discipleship" or "subjection," which is competent to religious.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A4-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Some religious orders are established for soldiering, to wage war, not indeed on their own authority, but on that of the
+sovereign or of the Church who are competent to wage war by virtue of their office, as stated above (A[3], ad 4). In the same
+way certain religious orders are established for preaching and hearing confessions, not indeed by their own authority, but
+by the authority of the higher and lower superiors, to whom these things belong by
+virtue of their office. Consequently to assist one's superiors in such a ministry is proper to a religious order of this kind.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A4-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Bishops do not allow these religious severally and indiscriminately to preach or hear confessions, but according to the discretion
+of the religious superiors, or according to their own appointment.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A4-p12">
+<b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The faithful are not bound by law to contribute to the support of other than their ordinary prelates, who receive the tithes
+and offerings of the faithful for that purpose, as well as other ecclesiastical revenues. But if some men are willing to minister
+to the faithful by exercising the aforesaid acts gratuitously, and without demanding payment as of right, the faithful are
+not burdened thereby because their temporal contributions can be liberally
+repaid by those men, nor are they bound by law to contribute, but by charity, and yet not so that they be burdened thereby
+and others eased, as stated in
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A4-p12.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.8.13" target="asv">2 Cor. 8:13</a>. If, however, none be found to devote themselves gratuitously to services of this kind, the ordinary prelate is bound, if
+he cannot suffice by himself, to seek other suitable persons and support them himself.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A4-p13">
+<b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The seventy-two disciples are represented not only by the parish priests, but by all those of lower order who in any way
+assist the bishops in their office. For we do not read that our Lord appointed the seventy-two disciples to certain fixed
+parishes, but that "He sent them two and two before His face into every city and place whither He Himself was to come." It
+was fitting, however, that in addition to the ordinary prelates others should be chosen
+for these duties on account of the multitude of the faithful, and the difficulty of finding a sufficient number of persons
+to be appointed to each locality, just as it was necessary to establish religious orders for military service, on account
+of the secular princes being unable to cope with unbelievers in certain countries.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A4-p14"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A4-p15"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A3.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A5.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q188_A5" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A4.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A6.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q188_A5-p0.1">Whether a religious order should be established for the purpose of study?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A5-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A5-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a religious order should not be established for the purpose of study. For it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.70.15" target="asv">Ps. 70:15,16</a>): "Because I have not known letters [Douay: 'learning'], I will enter into the powers of the Lord," i.e. "Christian virtue,"
+according to a gloss. Now the perfection of Christian virtue, seemingly, pertains especially to religious. Therefore it is
+not for them to apply themselves to the study of letters.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A5-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which is a source of dissent is unbecoming to religious, who are gathered together in the unity of peace. Now
+study leads to dissent: wherefore different schools of thought arose among the philosophers. Hence Jerome (Super Epist. ad
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Titus.1.5" target="asv"> Tit. 1:5</a>) says: "Before a diabolical instinct brought study into religion, and people said: I am of Paul, I of Apollo, I of Cephas,"
+etc. Therefore it would seem that no religious order should be
+established for the purpose of study.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A5-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, those who profess the Christian religion should profess nothing in common with the Gentiles. Now among the Gentiles
+were some who professed philosophy, and even now some secular persons are known as professors of certain sciences. Therefore
+the study of letters does not become religious.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A5-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Jerome (Ep. liii ad Paulin.) urges him to acquire learning in the monastic state, saying: "Let us learn on earth those things
+the knowledge of which will remain in heaven," and further on: "Whatever you seek to know, I will endeavor to know with you."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A5-p6"> I answer that As stated above
+<a id="SS_Q188_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q188_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, religion may be ordained to the active and to the contemplative life. Now chief among the works of the active life are those
+which are directly ordained to the salvation of souls, such as preaching and the like. Accordingly the study of letters is
+becoming to the religious life in three ways. First, as regards that which is proper to the contemplative life, to which the
+study of letters helps in a twofold manner. In
+one way by helping directly to contemplate, namely by enlightening the intellect. For the contemplative life of which we are
+now speaking is directed chiefly to the consideration of divine things, as stated above (Q[180], A[4]), to which consideration
+man is directed by study; for which reason it is said in praise of the righteous (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A5-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.1.2" target="asv">Ps. 1:2</a>) that "he shall meditate day and night" on the law of the Lord, and (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A5-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Sir.39.1" target="asv">Ecclus. 39:1</a>): "The wise man will seek out the
+wisdom of all the ancients, and will be occupied in the prophets." In another way the study of letters is a help to the contemplative
+life indirectly, by removing the obstacles to contemplation, namely the errors which in the contemplation of divine things
+frequently beset those who are ignorant of the scriptures. Thus we read in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. x, 3) that
+the Abbot Serapion through simplicity fell into the error of the Anthropomorphites, who thought that God had a human
+shape. Hence Gregory says (Moral. vi) that "some through seeking in contemplation more than they are able to grasp, fall away
+into perverse doctrines, and by failing to be the humble disciples of truth become the masters of error." Hence it is written
+(
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A5-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Eccl.2.3" target="asv">Eccles. 2:3</a>): "I thought in my heart to withdraw my flesh from wine, that I might turn my mind to wisdom and might avoid folly."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A5-p7"> Secondly, the study of letters is necessary in those religious orders that are founded for preaching and other like works;
+wherefore the Apostle (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Titus.1.9" target="asv">Titus 1:9</a>), speaking of bishops to whose office these acts belong, says: "Embracing that faithful word which is according to doctrine,
+that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers." Nor does it matter that the apostles were
+sent to preach without having studied letters, because, as
+Jerome says (Ep. liii ad Paulin.), "whatever others acquire by exercise and daily meditation in God's law, was taught them
+by the Holy Ghost."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A5-p8"> Thirdly, the study of letters is becoming to religious as regards that which is common to all religious orders. For it helps
+us to avoid the lusts of the flesh; wherefore Jerome says (Ep. cxxv ad Rust. Monach.): "Love the science of the Scriptures
+and thou shalt have no love for carnal vice." For it turns the mind away from lustful thoughts, and tames the flesh on account
+of the toil that study entails according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.31.1" target="asv">Ecclus. 31:1</a>, "Watching for riches* consumeth the flesh."
+[*Vigilia honestatis St. Thomas would seem to have taken 'honestas' in the sense of virtue]. It also helps to remove the desire
+of riches, wherefore it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A5-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Wis.7.8" target="asv">Wis. 7:8</a>): "I . . . esteemed riches nothing in comparison with her," and (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A5-p8.3" href="./asv.html#iMacc.12.9" target="asv">1 Macc. 12:9</a>): "We needed none of these things," namely assistance from without, "having for our comfort the holy books that are in our
+hands." It also helps to teach obedience, wherefore Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xvii): "What sort
+of perverseness is this, to wish to read, but not to obey what one reads?" Hence it is clearly fitting that a religious order
+be established for the study of letters.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A5-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This commentary of the gloss is an exposition of the Old Law of which the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.3.6" target="asv">2 Cor. 3:6</a>): "The letter killeth." Hence not to know letters is to disapprove of the circumcision of the "letter" and other carnal observances.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A5-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Study is directed to knowledge which, without charity, "puffeth up," and consequently leads to dissent, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A5-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.13.10" target="asv">Prov. 13:10</a>, "Among the proud there are always dissensions": whereas, with charity, it "edifieth and begets concord." Hence the Apostle
+after saying (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A5-p10.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.5" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:5</a>): "You are made rich . . . in all utterance and in all knowledge," adds (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A5-p10.3" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.10" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:10</a>): "That you all speak the same thing, and that
+there be no schisms among you." But Jerome is not speaking here of the study of letters, but of the study of dissensions which
+heretics and schismatics have brought into the Christian religion.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A5-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The philosophers professed the study of letters in the matter of secular learning: whereas it becomes religious to devote
+themselves chiefly to the study of letters in reference to the doctrine that is "according to godliness" (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A5-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Titus.1.1" target="asv">Titus 1:1</a>). It becomes not religious, whose whole life is devoted to the service of God, to seek for other learning, save in so far
+as it is referred to the sacred doctrine. Hence Augustine says at the end
+of De Musica vi, 17: "Whilst we think that we should not overlook those whom heretics delude by the deceitful assurance of
+reason and knowledge, we are slow to advance in the consideration of their methods. Yet we should not be praised for doing
+this, were it not that many holy sons of their most loving mother the Catholic Church had done the same under the necessity
+of confounding heretics."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A5-p12"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A5-p13"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A4.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A6.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q188_A6" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A5.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A7.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q188_A6-p0.1">Whether a religious order that is devoted to the contemplative life is more excellent than on that is given to the active
+life?
+</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A6-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A6-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a religious order which is devoted to the contemplative life is not more excellent than one which is given
+to the active life. For it is said (Extra, de Regular. et Transeunt. ad Relig., cap. Licet), quoting the words of Innocent
+III: "Even as a greater good is preferred to a lesser, so the common profit takes precedence of private profit: and in this
+case teaching is rightly preferred to silence, responsibility to contemplation, work to
+rest." Now the religious order which is directed to the greater good is better. Therefore it would seem that those religious
+orders that are directed to the active life are more excellent than those which are directed to the contemplative life.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A6-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, every religious order is directed to the perfection of charity, as stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q188_A6-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q188_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2). Now a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A6-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.12.4" target="asv"> Heb. 12:4, </a> "For you have not yet resisted unto blood," says: "In this life there is no more perfect love than that to which the holy
+martyrs attained, who fought against sin unto blood." Now to fight unto blood is becoming those religious who are directed
+to military service, and yet this pertains to
+the active life. Therefore it would seem that religious orders of this kind are the most excellent.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A6-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, seemingly the stricter a religious order is, the more excellent it is. But there is no reason why certain religious
+orders directed to the active life should not be of stricter observance than those directed to the contemplative life. Therefore
+they are more excellent.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A6-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.10.42" target="asv">Lk. 10:42</a>) that the "best part" was Mary's, by whom the contemplative life is signified.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A6-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
+<a id="SS_Q188_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q188_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, the difference between one religious order and another depends chiefly on the end, and secondarily on the exercise. And
+since one thing cannot be said to be more excellent than another save in respect of that in which it differs therefrom, it
+follows that the excellence of one religious order over another depends chiefly on their ends, and secondarily on their respective
+exercises. Nevertheless each of these
+comparisons is considered in a different way. For the comparison with respect to the end is absolute, since the end is sought
+for its own sake; whereas the comparison with respect to exercise is relative, since exercise is sought not for its own sake,
+but for the sake of the end. Hence a religious order is preferable to another, if it be directed to an end that is absolutely
+more excellent either because it is a greater good or because it is directed to more goods. If, however, the end be the
+same, the excellence of one religious order over another depends secondarily, not on the amount of exercise, but on the proportion
+of the exercise to the end in view. Wherefore in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. ii, 2) Blessed Antony is quoted, as
+preferring discretion whereby a man moderates all his actions, to fastings, watchings, and all such observances.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A6-p7"> Accordingly we must say that the work of the active life is twofold. one proceeds from the fulness of contemplation, such
+as teaching and preaching. Wherefore Gregory says (Hom. v in Ezech.) that the words of
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.144.7" target="asv"> Ps. 144:7, </a> "They shall publish the memory of . . . Thy sweetness," refer "to perfect men returning from their contemplation." And this
+work is more excellent than simple contemplation. For even as it is better to enlighten than merely to shine, so is
+it better to give to others the fruits of one's contemplation than merely to contemplate. The other work of the active life
+consists entirely in outward occupation, for instance almsgiving, receiving guests, and the like, which are less excellent
+than the works of contemplation, except in cases of necessity, as stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q188_A6-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q182_A1.html">Q[182], A[1]</a>). Accordingly the highest place in religious orders is held by those which are directed to teaching and preaching, which,
+moreover,
+are nearest to the episcopal perfection, even as in other things "the end of that which is first is in conjunction with the
+beginning of that which is second," as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. vii). The second place belongs to those which are directed
+to contemplation, and the third to those which are occupied with external actions.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A6-p8"> Moreover, in each of these degrees it may be noted that one religious order excels another through being directed to higher
+action in the same genus; thus among the works of the active life it is better to ransom captives than to receive guests,
+and among the works of the contemplative life prayer is better than study. Again one will excel another if it be directed
+to more of these actions than another, or if it have statutes more adapted to the attainment of the end in
+view.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A6-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This Decretal refers to the active life as directed to the salvation of souls.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A6-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Those religious orders that are established for the purpose of military service aim more directly at shedding the enemy's
+blood than at the shedding of their own, which latter is more properly competent to martyrs. Yet there is no reason why religious
+of this description should not acquire the merit of martyrdom in certain cases, and in this respect stand higher than other
+religious; even as in some cases the works of the active life take precedence
+of contemplation.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A6-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Strictness of observances, as the Blessed Antony remarks (Conferences of the Fathers; Coll. ii, 2), is not the chief object
+of commendation in a religious order; and it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A6-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.58.5" target="asv">Is. 58:5</a>): "Is this such a fast as I have chosen, for a man to afflict his soul for a day?" Nevertheless it is adopted in religious
+life as being necessary for taming the flesh, "which if done without discretion, is liable to make us fail altogether,"
+as the Blessed Antony observes. Wherefore a religious order is not more excellent through having stricter observances, but
+because its observances are directed by greater discretion to the end of religion. Thus the taming of the flesh is more efficaciously
+directed to continence by means of abstinence in meat and drink, which pertain to hunger and thirst, than by the privation
+of clothing, which pertains to cold and nakedness, or by bodily labor.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A6-p12"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A6-p13"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A5.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A7.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q188_A7" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A6.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A8.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q188_A7-p0.1">Whether religious perfection is diminished by possessing something in common?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that religious perfection is diminished by possessing something in common. For our Lord said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.21" target="asv">Mat. 19:21</a>): "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell all [Vulg.: 'what'] thou hast and give to the poor." Hence it is clear that to lack worldly
+wealth belongs to the perfection of Christian life. Now those who possess something in common do not lack worldly wealth.
+Therefore it would seem that they do not quite reach to the perfection of
+Christian life.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the perfection of the counsels requires that one should be without worldly solicitude; wherefore the Apostle in
+giving the counsel of virginity said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A7-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.32" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:32</a>): "I would have you to be without solicitude." Now it belongs to the solicitude of the present life that certain people keep
+something to themselves for the morrow; and this solicitude was forbidden His disciples by our Lord (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A7-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.34" target="asv">Mat. 6:34</a>) saying: "Be not
+. . . solicitous for tomorrow." Therefore it would seem that the perfection of Christian life is diminished by having something
+in common.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, possessions held in common belong in some way to each member of the community; wherefore Jerome (Ep. lx ad Heliod.
+Episc.) says in reference to certain people: "They are richer in the monastery than they had been in the world; though serving
+the poor Christ they have wealth which they had not while serving the rich devil; the Church rejects them now that they are
+rich, who in the world were beggars." But it is derogatory to religious perfection that
+one should possess wealth of one's own. Therefore it is also derogatory to religious perfection to possess anything in common.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p5">
+<b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Gregory (Dial. iii, 14) relates of a very holy man named Isaac, that "when his disciples humbly signified that he
+should accept the possessions offered to him for the use of the monastery, he being solicitous for the safeguarding of his
+poverty, held firmly to his opinion, saying: A monk who seeks earthly possessions is no monk at all": and this refers to possessions
+held in common, and which were offered him for the common use of the monastery.
+Therefore it would seem destructive of religious perfection to possess anything in common.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p6">
+<b>Objection 5:</b> Further, our Lord in prescribing religious perfection to His disciples, said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A7-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.9" target="asv">Mat. 10:9,10</a>): "Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses, nor script for your journey." By these words, as Jerome says
+in his commentary, "He reproves those philosophers who are commonly called Bactroperatae [*i.e. staff and scrip bearers],
+who as despising the world and valuing all things at naught carried their pantry about with them." Therefore
+it would seem derogatory to religious perfection that one should keep something whether for oneself or for the common use.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p7">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Prosper [*Julianus Pomerius, among the works of Prosper] says (De Vita Contempl. ix) and his words are quoted (XII, qu. 1,
+can. Expedit): "It is sufficiently clear both that for the sake of perfection one should renounce having anything of one's
+own, and that the possession of revenues, which are of course common property, is no hindrance to the perfection of the Church."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p8">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q188_A7-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A3.html">Q[184], A[3]</a>, ad 1;
+<a id="SS_Q188_A7-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q185_A6.html"> Q[185], A[6]</a>, ad 1), perfection consists, essentially, not in poverty, but in following Christ, according to the saying of Jerome (Super
+Matth. xix, 27): "Since it is not enough to leave all, Peter adds that which is perfect, namely, 'We have followed Thee,'"
+while poverty is like an instrument or exercise for the attainment of perfection. Hence in the Conferences of the
+Fathers (Coll. i, 7) the abbot Moses says: "Fastings, watchings, meditating on the Scriptures, poverty, and privation of all
+one's possessions are not perfection, but means of perfection."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p9"> Now the privation of one's possessions, or poverty, is a means of perfection, inasmuch as by doing away with riches we remove
+certain obstacles to charity; and these are chiefly three. The first is the cares which riches bring with them; wherefore
+our Lord said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A7-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.13.22" target="asv">Mat. 13:22</a>): "That which was sown [Vulg.: 'He that received the seed'] among thorns, is he that heareth the word, and the care of this
+world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choketh up the word." The
+second is the love of riches, which increases with the possession of wealth; wherefore Jerome says (Super Matth. xix, 23)
+that "since it is difficult to despise riches when we have them, our Lord did not say: 'It is impossible for a rich man to
+enter the kingdom of heaven,' but: 'It is difficult.'" The third is vainglory or elation which results from riches, according
+to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A7-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.48.7" target="asv"> Ps. 48:7, </a> "They that trust in their own strength, and glory in the multitude of their riches."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p10"> Accordingly the first of these three cannot be altogether separated from riches whether great or small. For man must needs
+take a certain amount of care in acquiring or keeping external things. But so long as external things are sought or possessed
+only in a small quantity, and as much as is required for a mere livelihood, such like care does not hinder one much; and consequently
+is not inconsistent with the perfection of Christian life. For our Lord did not forbid all care, but
+only such as is excessive and hurtful; wherefore Augustine, commenting on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A7-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.25" target="asv"> Mat. 6:25, </a> "Be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat," says (De Serm. in Monte [*The words quoted are from De Operibus Monach.
+xxvi]): "In saying this He does not forbid them to procure these things in so far as they needed them, but to be intent on
+them, and for their sake to do whatever they are bidden to do in preaching the Gospel." Yet the possession of much wealth
+increases the weight
+of care, which is a great distraction to man's mind and hinders him from giving himself wholly to God's service. The other
+two, however, namely the love of riches and taking pride or glorying in riches, result only from an abundance of wealth.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p11"> Nevertheless it makes a difference in this matter if riches, whether abundant or moderate, be possessed in private or in
+common. For the care that one takes of one's own wealth, pertains to love of self, whereby a man loves himself in temporal
+matters; whereas the care that is given to things held in common pertains to the love of charity which "seeketh not her own,"
+but looks to the common good. And since religion is directed to the perfection of charity, and charity is
+perfected in "the love of God extending to contempt of self" [*Augustine, De Civ. Dei xiv, 28], it is contrary to religious
+perfection to possess anything in private. But the care that is given to common goods may pertain to charity, although it
+may prove an obstacle to some higher act of charity, such as divine contemplation or the instructing of one's neighbor. Hence
+it is evident that to have excessive riches in common, whether in movable or in immovable property, is an obstacle to
+perfection, though not absolutely incompatible with it; while it is not an obstacle to religious perfection to have enough
+external things, whether movables or immovables, as suffice for a livelihood, if we consider poverty in relation to the common
+end of religious orders, which is to devote oneself to the service of God. But if we consider poverty in relation to the special
+end of any religious order, then this end being presupposed, a greater or lesser degree of poverty is adapted to that
+religious order; and each religious order will be the more perfect in respect of poverty, according as it professes a poverty
+more adapted to its end. For it is evident that for the purpose of the outward and bodily works of the active life a man needs
+the assistance of outward things, whereas few are required for contemplation. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 8) that
+"many things are needed for action, and the more so, the greater and nobler the actions are. But the contemplative man
+requires no such things for the exercise of his act: he needs only the necessaries; other things are an obstacle to his contemplation."
+Accordingly it is clear that a religious order directed to the bodily actions of the active life, such as soldiering or the
+lodging of guests, would be imperfect if it lacked common riches; whereas those religious orders which are directed to the
+contemplative life are the more perfect, according as the poverty they profess burdens them with less care for
+temporal things. And the care of temporal things is so much a greater obstacle to religious life as the religious life requires
+a greater care of spiritual things.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p12"> Now it is manifest that a religious order established for the purpose of contemplating and of giving to others the fruits
+of one's contemplation by teaching and preaching, requires greater care of spiritual things than one that is established for
+contemplation only. Wherefore it becomes a religious order of this kind to embrace a poverty that burdens one with the least
+amount of care. Again it is clear that to keep what one has acquired at a fitting time for one's necessary use
+involves the least burden of care. Wherefore a threefold degree of poverty corresponds to the three aforesaid degrees of religious
+life. For it is fitting that a religious order which is directed to the bodily actions of the active life should have an abundance
+of riches in common; that the common possession of a religious order directed to contemplation should be more moderate, unless
+the said religious be bound, either themselves or through others, to give hospitality or to assist the poor;
+and that those who aim at giving the fruits of their contemplation to others should have their life most exempt from external
+cares; this being accomplished by their laying up the necessaries of life procured at a fitting time. This, our Lord, the
+Founder of poverty, taught by His example. For He had a purse which He entrusted to Judas, and in which were kept the things
+that were offered to Him, as related in
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A7-p12.1" href="./asv.html#John.12.6" target="asv"> Jn. 12:6.</a>
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p13"> Nor should it be argued that Jerome (Super Matth. xvii, 26) says: "If anyone object that Judas carried money in the purse,
+we answer that He deemed it unlawful to spend the property of the poor on His own uses," namely by paying the tax---because
+among those poor His disciples held a foremost place, and the money in Christ's purse was spent chiefly on their needs. For
+it is stated (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A7-p13.1" href="./asv.html#John.4.8" target="asv">Jn. 4:8</a>) that "His disciples were gone into the city to buy meats," and
+(
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A7-p13.2" href="./asv.html#John.13.29" target="asv">Jn. 13:29</a>) that the disciples "thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him: But those things which we have need
+of for the festival day, or that he should give something to the poor." From this it is evident that to keep money by, or
+any other common property for the support of religious of the same order, or of any other poor, is in accordance with the
+perfection which Christ taught by His example. Moreover, after the resurrection, the disciples from
+whom all religious orders took their origin kept the price of the lands, and distributed it according as each one had need
+(
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A7-p13.3" href="./asv.html#Acts.4.34" target="asv">Acts 4:34,35</a>).
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p14">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q188_A7-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A3.html">Q[184], A[3]</a>, ad 1), this saying of our Lord does not mean that poverty itself is perfection, but that it is the means of perfection.
+Indeed, as shown above (
+<a id="SS_Q188_A7-p14.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A8.html">Q[186], A[8]</a>), it is the least of the three chief means of perfection; since the vow of continence excels the vow of poverty, and the
+vow of obedience excels them both. Since, however, the means are sought not for their own
+sake, but for the sake of the end, a thing is better, not for being a greater instrument, but for being more adapted to the
+end. Thus a physician does not heal the more the more medicine he gives, but the more the medicine is adapted to the disease.
+Accordingly it does not follow that a religious order is the more perfect, according as the poverty it professes is more perfect,
+but according as its poverty is more adapted to the end both common and special. Granted even that the religious order
+which exceeds others in poverty be more perfect in so far as it is poorer, this would not make it more perfect simply. For
+possibly some other religious order might surpass it in matters relating to continence, or obedience, and thus be more perfect
+simply, since to excel in better things is to be better simply.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p15">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Our Lord's words (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A7-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.34" target="asv">Mat. 6:34</a>), "Be not solicitous for tomorrow," do not mean that we are to keep nothing for the morrow; for the Blessed Antony shows
+the danger of so doing, in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. ii, 2), where he says: "It has been our experience that those
+who have attempted to practice the privation of all means of livelihood, so as not to have the wherewithal to procure themselves
+food for one day, have been
+deceived so unawares that they were unable to finish properly the work they had undertaken." And, as Augustine says (De oper.
+Monach. xxiii), "if this saying of our Lord, 'Be not solicitous for tomorrow,' means that we are to lay nothing by for the
+morrow, those who shut themselves up for many days from the sight of men, and apply their whole mind to a life of prayer,
+will be unable to provide themselves with these things." Again he adds afterwards: "Are we to suppose that the more holy they
+are, the less do they resemble the birds?" And further on (De oper. Monach. xxiv): "For if it be argued from the Gospel that
+they should lay nothing by, they answer rightly: Why then did our Lord have a purse, wherein He kept the money that was collected?
+Why, in days long gone by, when famine was imminent, was grain sent to the holy fathers? Why did the apostles thus provide
+for the needs of the saints?"
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p16"> Accordingly the saying: "Be not solicitous for tomorrow," according to Jerome (Super Matth.) is to be rendered thus: "It
+is enough that we think of the present; the future being uncertain, let us leave it to God": according to Chrysostom [*Hom.
+xvi in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom], "It is enough to endure the toil for necessary things,
+labor not in excess for unnecessary things": according to Augustine (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 17): "When we do
+any good action, we should bear in mind not temporal things which are denoted by the morrow, but eternal things."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p17">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The saying of Jerome applies where there are excessive riches, possessed in private as it were, or by the abuse of which
+even the individual members of a community wax proud and wanton. But they do not apply to moderate wealth, set by for the
+common use, merely as a means of livelihood of which each one stands in need. For it amounts to the same that each one makes
+use of things pertaining to the necessaries of life, and that these things be set by
+for the common use.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p18">
+<b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Isaac refused to accept the offer of possessions, because he feared lest this should lead him to have excessive wealth, the
+abuse of which would be an obstacle to religious perfection. Hence Gregory adds (Dial. iii, 14): "He was as afraid of forfeiting
+the security of his poverty, as the rich miser is careful of his perishable wealth." It is not, however, related that he refused
+to accept such things as are commonly necessary for the upkeep of
+life.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p19">
+<b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The Philosopher says (Polit. i, 5,6) that bread, wine, and the like are natural riches, while money is artificial riches.
+Hence it is that certain philosophers declined to make use of money, and employed other things, living according to nature.
+Wherefore Jerome shows by the words of our Lord, Who equally forbade both, that it comes to the same to have money and to
+possess other things necessary for life. And though our Lord commanded those who were
+sent to preach not to carry these things on the way, He did not forbid them to be possessed in common. How these words of
+our Lord should be understood has been shown above (Q[185], A[6] , ad 2;
+<a id="SS_Q188_A7-p19.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q108_A2.html">FS, Q[108], A[2]</a>, ad 3).
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p20"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A7-p21"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A6.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A8.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q188_A8" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A7.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q188_A8-p0.1">Whether the religious life of those who live in community is more perfect than that of those who lead a solitary life?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A8-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A8-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the religious life of those who live in community is more perfect than that of those who lead a solitary
+life. For it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A8-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Eccl.4.9" target="asv">Eccles. 4:9</a>): "It is better . . . that two should be together, than one; for they have the advantage of their society." Therefore the
+religious life of those who live in community would seem to be more perfect.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A8-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A8-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.18.20" target="asv">Mat. 18:20</a>): "Where there are two or three gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them." But nothing can be better
+than the fellowship of Christ. Therefore it would seem better to live in community than in solitude.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A8-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the vow of obedience is more excellent than the other religious vows; and humility is most acceptable to God. Now
+obedience and humility are better observed in company than in solitude; for Jerome says (Ep. cxxv ad Rustic. Monach.): "In
+solitude pride quickly takes man unawares, he sleeps as much as he will, he does what he likes"; whereas when instructing
+one who lives in community, he says: "You may not do what you will, you must eat what you are
+bidden to eat, you may possess so much as you receive, you must obey one you prefer not to obey, you must be a servant to
+your brethren, you must fear the superior of the monastery as God, love him as a father." Therefore it would seem that the
+religious life of those who live in community is more perfect than that of those who lead a solitary life.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A8-p5">
+<b>Objection 4:</b> Further, our Lord said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A8-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.11.33" target="asv">Lk. 11:33</a>): "No man lighteth a candle and putteth it in a hidden place, nor under a bushel." Now those who lead a solitary life are
+seemingly in a hidden place, and to be doing no good to any man. Therefore it would seem that their religious life is not
+more perfect.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A8-p6">
+<b>Objection 5:</b> Further, that which is in accord with man's nature is apparently more pertinent to the perfection of virtue. But man is naturally
+a social animal, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 1). Therefore it would seem that to lead a solitary life is not more perfect
+than to lead a community life.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A8-p7">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xxiii) that "those are holier who keep themselves aloof from the approach of all, and give
+their whole mind to a life of prayer."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A8-p8">
+<b>I answer that,</b> Solitude, like poverty, is not the essence of perfection, but a means thereto. Hence in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll.
+i, 7) the Abbot Moses says that "solitude," even as fasting and other like things, is "a sure means of acquiring purity of
+heart." Now it is evident that solitude is a means adapted not to action but to contemplation, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A8-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Hos.2.14" target="asv"> Osee 2:14, </a> "I . . . will lead her into solitude [Douay: 'the wilderness']; and I
+will speak to her heart." Wherefore it is not suitable to those religious orders that are directed to the works whether corporal
+or spiritual of the active life; except perhaps for a time, after the example of Christ, Who as Luke relates (6:12), "went
+out into a mountain to pray; and He passed the whole night in the prayer of God." On the other hand, it is suitable to those
+religious orders that are directed to contemplation.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A8-p9"> It must, however, be observed that what is solitary should be self-sufficing by itself. Now such a thing is one "that lacks
+nothing," and this belongs to the idea of a perfect thing [*Aristotle, Phys. iii, 6]. Wherefore solitude befits the contemplative
+who has already attained to perfection. This happens in two ways: in one way by the gift only of God, as in the case of John
+the Baptist, who was "filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb" (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A8-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.11" target="asv">Lk.
+1:11
+</a>), so that he was in the desert even as a boy; in another way by the practice of virtuous action, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A8-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.5.14" target="asv"> Heb. 5:14</a>: "Strong meat is for the perfect; for them who by custom have their senses exercised to the discerning of good and evil."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A8-p10"> Now man is assisted in this practice by the fellowship of others in two ways. First, as regards his intellect, to the effect
+of his being instructed in that which he has to contemplate; wherefore Jerome says (ad Rustic. Monach., Ep. cxxv): "It pleases
+me that you have the fellowship of holy men, and teach not yourself. Secondly, as regards the affections, seeing that man's
+noisome affections are restrained by the example and reproof which he receives from others; for as Gregory
+says (Moral. xxx, 23), commenting on the words, "To whom I have given a house in the wilderness" (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A8-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Job.39.6" target="asv">Job 39:6</a>), "What profits solitude of the body, if solitude of the heart be lacking?" Hence a social life is necessary for the practice
+of perfection. Now solitude befits those who are already perfect; wherefore Jerome says (ad Rustic. Monach., Ep. cxxv): "Far
+from condemning the solitary life, we have often commended it. But we wish the soldiers who pass from the monastic
+school to be such as not to be deterred by the hard noviciate of the desert, and such as have given proof of their conduct
+for a considerable time.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A8-p11"> Accordingly, just as that which is already perfect surpasses that which is being schooled in perfection, so the life of the
+solitaries, if duly practiced, surpasses the community life. But if it be undertaken without the aforesaid practice, it is
+fraught with very great danger, unless the grace of God supply that which others acquire by practice, as in the case of the
+Blessed Antony and the Blessed Benedict.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A8-p12">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Solomon shows that two are better than one, on account of the help which one affords the other either by "lifting him" up,
+or by "warming him," i.e. giving him spiritual heat (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A8-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Eccl.4.10" target="asv">Eccles. 4:10,11</a>). But those who have already attained to perfection do not require this help.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A8-p13">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> According to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q188_A8-p13.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.4.16" target="asv">1 Jn. 4:16, </a> "He that abideth in charity abideth in God and God in him." Wherefore just as Christ is in the midst of those who are united
+together in the fellowship of brotherly love, so does He dwell in the heart of the man who devotes himself to divine contemplation
+through love of God.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A8-p14">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Actual obedience is required of those who need to be schooled according to the direction of others in the attainment of perfection;
+but those who are already perfect are sufficiently "led by the spirit of God" so that they need not to obey others actually.
+Nevertheless they have obedience in the preparedness of the mind.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A8-p15">
+<b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19), "no one is forbidden to seek the knowledge of truth, for this pertains to a praiseworthy
+leisure." That a man be placed "on a candlestick," does not concern him but his superiors, and "if this burden is not placed
+on us," as Augustine goes on to say (De Civ. Dei xix, 19), "we must devote ourselves to the contemplation of truth," for which
+purpose solitude is most helpful. Nevertheless, those who lead a solitary
+life are most useful to mankind. Hence, referring to them, Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. xxxi): "They dwell in the most
+lonely places, content to live on water and the bread that is brought to them from time to time, enjoying colloquy with God
+to whom they have adhered with a pure mind. To some they seem to have renounced human intercourse more than is right: but
+these understand not how much such men profit us by the spirit of their prayers, what an example to us is the life of those
+whom we
+are forbidden to see in the body."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A8-p16">
+<b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> A man may lead a solitary life for two motives. one is because he is unable, as it were, to bear with human fellowship on
+account of his uncouthness of mind; and this is beast-like. The other is with a view to adhering wholly to divine things;
+and this is superhuman. Hence the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 1) that "he who associates not with others is either a beast
+or a god," i.e. a godly man.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A8-p17"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q188_A8-p18"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A7.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189.html"></a>
+</div>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q187_A6.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A1.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q189" class="div3">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A8.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A1.html"></a>
+<h3 id="SS_Q189-p0.1">OF THE ENTRANCE INTO RELIGIOUS LIFE (TEN ARTICLES)</h3>
+<p id="SS_Q189-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189-p2"> We must now consider the entrance into religious life. Under this head there are ten points of inquiry:</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189-p3"> (1) Whether those who are not practiced in the observance of the commandments should enter religion?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189-p4"> (2) Whether it is lawful for a person to be bound by vow to enter religion?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189-p5"> (3) Whether those who are bound by vow to enter religion are bound to fulfil their vow?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189-p6"> (4) Whether those who vow to enter religion are bound to remain there in perpetuity?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189-p7"> (5) Whether children should be received into religion?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189-p8"> (6) Whether one should be withheld from entering religion through deference to one's parents?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189-p9"> (7) Whether parish priests or archdeacons may enter religion?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189-p10"> (8) Whether one may pass from one religious order to another?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189-p11"> (9) Whether one ought to induce others to enter religion?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189-p12"> (10) Whether serious deliberation with one's relations and friends is requisite for entrance into religion?</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189-p13"></p>
+<div id="SS_Q189_A1" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A2.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q189_A1-p0.1">Whether those who are not practiced in keeping the commandments should enter religion?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A1-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A1-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that none should enter religion but those who are practiced in the observance of the commandments. For our
+Lord gave the counsel of perfection to the young man who said that he had kept the commandments "from his youth." Now all
+religious orders originate from Christ. Therefore it would seem that none should be allowed to enter religion but those who
+are practiced in the observance of the commandments.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A1-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Gregory says (Hom. xv in Ezech., and Moral. xxii): "No one comes suddenly to the summit; but he must make a beginning
+of a good life in the smallest matters, so as to accomplish great things." Now the great things are the counsels which pertain
+to the perfection of life, while the lesser things are the commandments which belong to common righteousness. Therefore it
+would seem that one ought not to enter religion for the purpose of keeping the
+counsels, unless one be already practiced in the observance of the precepts.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A1-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the religious state, like the holy orders, has a place of eminence in the Church. Now, as Gregory writes to the
+bishop Siagrius [*Regist. ix,
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">Ep. 106</a>], "order should be observed in ascending to orders. For he seeks a fall who aspires to mount to the summit by overpassing
+the steps." [*The rest of the quotation is from Regist. v,
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A1-p4.2" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">Ep. 53</a>, ad Virgil. Episc.]. "For we are well aware that walls when built receive not the weight of the beams until the new
+fabric is rid of its moisture, lest if they should be burdened with weight before they are seasoned they bring down the whole
+building" (Dist. xlviii, can. Sicut neophytus). Therefore it would seem that one should not enter religion unless one be practiced
+in the observance of the precepts.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A1-p5">
+<b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.130.2" target="asv"> Ps. 130:2, </a> "As a child that is weaned is towards his mother," says: "First we are conceived in the womb of Mother Church, by being taught
+the rudiments of faith. Then we are nourished as it were in her womb, by progressing in those same elements. Afterwards we
+are brought forth to the light by being regenerated in baptism. Then the Church bears us as it were in her hands and feeds
+us with milk, when after baptism we are
+instructed in good works and are nourished with the milk of simple doctrine while we progress; until having grown out of infancy
+we leave our mother's milk for a father's control, that is to say, we pass from simple doctrine, by which we are taught the
+Word made flesh, to the Word that was in the beginning with God." Afterwards it goes on to say: "For those who are just baptized
+on Holy Saturday are borne in the hands of the Church as it were and fed with milk until Pentecost, during which time
+nothing arduous is prescribed, no fasts, no rising at midnight. Afterwards they are confirmed by the Paraclete Spirit, and
+being weaned so to speak, begin to fast and keep other difficult observances. Many, like the heretics and schismatics, have
+perverted this order by being weaned before the time. Hence they have come to naught." Now this order is apparently perverted
+by those who enter religion, or induce others to enter religion, before they are practiced in the easier observance of the
+commandments. Therefore they would seem to be heretics or schismatics.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A1-p6">
+<b>Objection 5:</b> Further, one should proceed from that which precedes to that which follows after. Now the commandments precede the counsels,
+because they are more universal, for "the implication of the one by the other is not convertible" [*Categor. ix], since whoever
+keeps the counsels keeps the commandments, but the converse does not hold. Seeing then that the right order requires one to
+pass from that which comes first to that which comes after, it follows that one ought
+not to pass to the observance of the counsels in religion, without being first of all practiced in the observance of the commandments.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A1-p7">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> Matthew the publican who was not practiced in the observance of the commandments was called by our Lord to the observance
+of the counsels. For it is stated (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.5.28" target="asv">Lk. 5:28</a>) that "leaving all things he . . . followed Him." Therefore it is not necessary for a person to be practiced in the observance
+of the commandments before passing to the perfection of the counsels.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A1-p8">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As shown above (
+<a id="SS_Q189_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q188_A1.html">Q[188], A[1]</a>), the religious state is a spiritual schooling for the attainment of the perfection of charity. This is accomplished through
+the removal of the obstacles to perfect charity by religious observances; and these obstacles are those things which attach
+man's affections to earthly things. Now the attachment of man's affections to earthly things is not only an obstacle to the
+perfection of charity, but
+sometimes leads to the loss of charity, when through turning inordinately to temporal goods man turns away from the immutable
+good by sinning mortally. Hence it is evident that the observances of the religious state, while removing the obstacles to
+perfect charity, remove also the occasions of sin: for instance, it is clear that fasting, watching, obedience, and the like
+withdraw man from sins of gluttony and lust and all other manner of sins.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A1-p9"> Consequently it is right that not only those who are practiced in the observance of the commandments should enter religion
+in order to attain to yet greater perfection, but also those who are not practiced, in order the more easily to avoid sin
+and attain to perfection.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A1-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Jerome (Super Matth. xix, 20) says: "The young man lies when he says: 'All these have I kept from my youth.' For if he had
+fulfilled this commandment, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,' why did he go away sad when he heard: Go, sell all
+thou hast and give to the poor?" But this means that he lied as to the perfect observance of this commandment. Hence Origen
+says (Tract. viii super Matth.) that "it is written in the Gospel according to the
+Hebrews that when our Lord had said to him: 'Go, sell all thou hast,' the rich man began to scratch his head; and that our
+Lord said to him: How sayest thou: I have fulfilled the law and the prophets, seeing that it is written in the law: Thou shalt
+love thy neighbor as thyself? Behold many of thy brethren, children of Abraham, are clothed in filth, and die of hunger, whilst
+thy house is full of all manner of good things, and nothing whatever hath passed thence to them. And thus our Lord
+reproves him saying: If thou wilt be perfect, go, etc. For it is impossible to fulfil the commandment which says, Thou shalt
+love thy neighbor as thyself, and to be rich, especially to have such great wealth." This also refers to the perfect fulfilment
+of this precept. on the other hand, it is true that he kept the commandments imperfectly and in a general way. For perfection
+consists chiefly in the observance of the precepts of charity, as stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q189_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A3.html">Q[184], A[3]</a>).
+Wherefore in order to show that the perfection of the counsels is useful both to the innocent and to sinners, our Lord called
+not only the innocent youth but also the sinner Matthew. Yet Matthew obeyed His call, and the youth obeyed not, because sinners
+are converted to the religious life more easily than those who presume on their innocency. It is to the former that our Lord
+says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A1-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.21.31" target="asv">Mat. 21:31</a>): "The publicans and the harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A1-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The highest and the lowest place can be taken in three ways. First, in reference to the same state and the same man; and
+thus it is evident that no one comes to the summit suddenly, since every man that lives aright, progresses during the whole
+course of his life, so as to arrive at the summit. Secondly, in comparison with various states; and thus he who desires to
+reach to a higher state need not begin from a lower state: for instance, if a man wish
+to be a cleric he need not first of all be practiced in the life of a layman. Thirdly, in comparison with different persons;
+and in this way it is clear that one man begins straightway not only from a higher state, but even from a higher degree of
+holiness, than the highest degree to which another man attains throughout his whole life. Hence Gregory says (Dial. ii, 1):
+"All are agreed that the boy Benedict began at a high degree of grace and perfection in his daily life."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A1-p12">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q189_A1-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A6.html">Q[184], A[6]</a>) the holy orders prerequire holiness, whereas the religious state is a school for the attainment of holiness. Hence the burden
+of orders should be laid on the walls when these are already seasoned with holiness, whereas the burden of religion seasons
+the walls, i.e. men, by drawing out the damp of vice.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A1-p13">
+<b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> It is manifest from the words of this gloss that it is chiefly a question of the order of doctrine, in so far as one has
+to pass from easy matter to that which is more difficult. Hence it is clear from what follows that the statement that certain
+"heretics" and "schismatics have perverted this order" refers to the order of doctrine. For it continues thus: "But he says
+that he has kept these things, namely the aforesaid order, binding himself by an
+oath [*Referring to the last words of the verse, and taking 'retributio,' which Douay renders 'reward,' as meaning 'punishment'].
+Thus I was humble not only in other things but also in knowledge, for 'I was humbly minded'; because I was first of all fed
+with milk, which is the Word made flesh, so that I grew up to partake of the bread of angels, namely the Word that is in the
+beginning with God." The example which is given in proof, of the newly baptized not being commanded to fast until
+Pentecost, shows that no difficult things are to be laid on them as an obligation before the Holy Ghost inspires them inwardly
+to take upon themselves difficult things of their own choice. Hence after Pentecost and the receiving of the Holy Ghost the
+Church observes a fast. Now the Holy Ghost, according to Ambrose (Super
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A1-p13.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv"> Luc. 1:15</a>), "is not confined to any particular age; He ceases not when men die, He is not excluded from the maternal womb." Gregory
+also in a homily for
+Pentecost (xxx in Ev.) says: "He fills the boy harpist and makes him a psalmist: He fills the boy abstainer and makes him
+a wise judge [*
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A1-p13.2" href="./asv.html#Dan.1.8" target="asv">Dan. 1:8-17</a>]," and afterwards he adds: "No time is needed to learn whatsoever He will, for He teaches the mind by the merest touch."
+Again it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A1-p13.3" href="./asv.html#Eccl.8.8" target="asv">Eccles. 8:8</a>), "It is not in man's power to stop the Spirit," and the Apostle admonishes us (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A1-p13.4" href="./asv.html#iThess.5.19" target="asv">1 Thess. 5:19</a>): "Extinguish not the Spirit," and
+(
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A1-p13.5" href="./asv.html#Acts.7.51" target="asv">Acts 7:51</a>) it is said against certain persons: "You always resist the Holy Ghost."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A1-p14">
+<b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> There are certain chief precepts which are the ends, so to say, of the commandments and counsels. These are the precepts
+of charity, and the counsels are directed to them, not that these precepts cannot be observed without keeping the counsels,
+but that the keeping of the counsels conduces to the better observance of the precepts. The other precepts are secondary and
+are directed to the precepts of charity; in such a way that unless one observe them
+it is altogether impossible to keep the precepts of charity. Accordingly in the intention the perfect observance of the precepts
+of charity precedes the counsels, and yet sometimes it follows them in point of time. For such is the order of the end in
+relation to things directed to the end. But the observance in a general way of the precepts of charity together with the other
+precepts, is compared to the counsels as the common to the proper, because one can observe the precepts without observing
+the counsels, but not vice versa. Hence the common observance of the precepts precedes the counsels in the order of nature;
+but it does not follow that it precedes them in point of time, for a thing is not in the genus before being in one of the
+species. But the observance of the precepts apart from the counsels is directed to the observance of the precepts together
+with the counsels; as an imperfect to a perfect species, even as the irrational to the rational animal. Now the perfect is
+naturally prior to the imperfect, since "nature," as Boethius says (De Consol. iii, 10), "begins with perfect things." And
+yet it is not necessary for the precepts first of all to be observed without the counsels, and afterwards with the counsels,
+just as it is not necessary for one to be an ass before being a man, or married before being a virgin. In like manner it is
+not necessary for a person first of all to keep the commandments in the world before entering religion; especially as the
+worldly life does not dispose one to religious perfection, but is more an obstacle thereto.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A1-p15"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A1-p16"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A2.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q189_A2" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A1.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A3.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q189_A2-p0.1">Whether one ought to be bound by vow to enter religion?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A2-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A2-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that one ought not to be bound by vow to enter religion. For in making his profession a man is bound by the
+religious vow. Now before profession a year of probation is allowed, according to the rule of the Blessed Benedict (lviii)
+and according to the decree of Innocent IV [*Sext. Decret., cap. Non solum., de Regular. et Transeunt, ad Relig.] who moreover
+forbade anyone to be bound to the religious life by profession before completing the year of
+probation. Therefore it would seem that much less ought anyone while yet in the world to be bound by vow to enter religion.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A2-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Gregory says (Regist. xi,
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">Ep. 15</a>): Jews "should be persuaded to be converted, not by compulsion but of their own free will" (Dist. xlv, can. De Judaeis).
+Now one is compelled to fulfil what one has vowed. Therefore no one should be bound by vow to enter religion.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A2-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, no one should give another an occasion of falling; wherefore it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.21.33" target="asv">Ex. 21:33,34</a>): "If a man open a pit . . . and an ox or an ass fall into it, the owner of the pit shall pay the price of the beasts." Now
+through being bound by vow to enter religion it often happens that people fall into despair and various sins. Therefore it
+would seem that one ought not to be bound by vow to enter religion.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A2-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> It is written, (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.75.12" target="asv">Ps. 75:12</a>): "Vow ye, and pay to the Lord your God"; and a gloss of Augustine says that "some vows concern the individual, such as vows
+of chastity, virginity, and the like." Consequently Holy Scripture invites us to vow these things. But Holy Scripture invites
+us only to that which is better. Therefore it is better to bind oneself by vow to enter religion.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A2-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q189_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q88_A6.html">Q[88], A[6]</a>), when we were treating of vows, one and the same work done in fulfilment of a vow is more praiseworthy than if it be done
+apart from a vow, both because to vow is an act of religion, which has a certain pre-eminence among the virtues, and because
+a vow strengthens a man's will to do good; and just as a sin is more grievous through proceeding from a will obstinate in
+evil, so a good work is the more
+praiseworthy through proceeding from a will confirmed in good by means of a vow. Therefore it is in itself praiseworthy to
+bind oneself by vow to enter religion.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A2-p7">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The religious vow is twofold. One is the solemn vow which makes a man a monk or a brother in some other religious order.
+This is called the profession, and such a vow should be preceded by a year's probation, as the objection proves. The other
+is the simple vow which does not make a man a monk or a religious, but only binds him to enter religion, and such a vow need
+not be preceded by a year's probation.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A2-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The words quoted from Gregory must be understood as referring to absolute violence. But the compulsion arising from the obligation
+of a vow is not absolute necessity, but a necessity of end, because after such a vow one cannot attain to the end of salvation
+unless one fulfil that vow. Such a necessity is not to be avoided; indeed, as Augustine says (Ep. cxxvii ad Armentar. et Paulin.),
+"happy is the necessity that compels us to better things."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A2-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The vow to enter religion is a strengthening of the will for better things, and consequently, considered in itself, instead
+of giving a man an occasion of falling, withdraws him from it. But if one who breaks a vow falls more grievously, this does
+not derogate from the goodness of the vow, as neither does it derogate from the goodness of Baptism that some sin more grievously
+after being baptized.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A2-p10"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A2-p11"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A1.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A3.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q189_A3" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A2.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A4.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q189_A3-p0.1">Whether one who is bound by a vow to enter religion is under an obligation of entering religion?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A3-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A3-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that one who is bound by the vow to enter religion is not under an obligation of entering religion. For it
+is said in the Decretals (XVII, qu. ii, can. Consaldus): "Consaldus, a priest under pressure of sickness and emotional fervour,
+promised to become a monk. He did not, however, bind himself to a monastery or abbot; nor did he commit his promise to writing,
+but he renounced his benefice in the hands of a notary; and when he was restored to
+health he refused to become a monk." And afterwards it is added: "We adjudge and by apostolic authority we command that the
+aforesaid priest be admitted to his benefice and sacred duties, and that he be allowed to retain them in peace." Now this
+would not be if he were bound to enter religion. Therefore it would seem that one is not bound to keep one's vow of entering
+religion.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A3-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no one is bound to do what is not in his power. Now it is not in a person's power to enter religion, since this
+depends on the consent of those whom he wishes to join. Therefore it would seem that a man is not obliged to fulfil the vow
+by which he bound himself to enter religion.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A3-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a less useful vow cannot remit a more useful one. Now the fulfilment of a vow to enter religion might hinder the
+fulfilment of a vow to take up the cross in defense of the Holy Land; and the latter apparently is the more useful vow, since
+thereby a man obtains the forgiveness of his sins. Therefore it would seem that the vow by which a man has bound himself to
+enter religion is not necessarily to be fulfilled.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A3-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Eccl.5.3" target="asv">Eccles. 5:3</a>): "If thou hast vowed anything to God, defer not to pay it, for an unfaithful and foolish promise displeaseth him"; and a
+gloss on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A3-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.75.12" target="asv"> Ps. 75:12, </a> "Vow ye, and pay to the Lord your God," says: "To vow depends on the will: but after the vow has been taken the fulfilment
+is of obligation."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A3-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q189_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q88_A1.html">Q[88], A[1]</a>), when we were treating of vows, a vow is a promise made to God in matters concerning God. Now, as Gregory says in a letter
+to Boniface [*Innoc. I, Epist. ii, Victricio Epo. Rotomag., cap. 14; Cf. can. Viduas: cause. xxvii, qu. 1]: "If among men
+of good faith contracts are wont to be absolutely irrevocable, how much more shall the breaking of this promise given to God
+be deserving of punishment!"
+Therefore a man is under an obligation to fulfil what he has vowed, provided this be something pertaining to God.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A3-p7"> Now it is evident that entrance into religion pertains very much to God, since thereby man devotes himself entirely to the
+divine service, as stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q189_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A1.html">Q[186], A[1]</a>). Hence it follows that he who binds himself to enter religion is under an obligation to enter religion according as he intends
+to bind himself by his vow: so that if he intend to bind himself absolutely, he is obliged to enter as soon as he can, through
+the cessation of a lawful
+impediment; whereas if he intend to bind himself to a certain fixed time, or under a certain fixed condition, he is bound
+to enter religion when the time comes or the condition is fulfilled.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A3-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This priest had made, not a solemn, but a simple vow. Hence he was not a monk in effect, so as to be bound by law to dwell
+in a monastery and renounce his cure. However, in the court of conscience one ought to advise him to renounce all and enter
+religion. Hence (Extra, De Voto et Voti Redemptione, cap. Per tuas) the Bishop of Grenoble, who had accepted the episcopate
+after vowing to enter religion, without having fulfilled his vow, is counseled that
+if "he wish to heal his conscience he should renounce the government of his see and pay his vows to the Most High."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A3-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q189_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q88_A3.html">Q[88], A[3]</a>, ad 2), when we were treating of vows, he who has bound himself by vow to enter a certain religious order is bound to do
+what is in his power in order to be received in that order; and if he intend to bind himself simply to enter the religious
+life, if he be not admitted to one, he is bound to go to another; whereas if he intend to bind himself only to one particular
+order, he is bound only
+according to the measure of the obligation to which he has engaged himself.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A3-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The vow to enter religion being perpetual is greater than the vow of pilgrimage to the Holy Land, which is a temporal vow;
+and as Alexander III says (Extra, De Voto et Voti Redemptione, cap. Scripturae), "he who exchanges a temporary service for
+the perpetual service of religion is in no way guilty of breaking his vow."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A3-p11"> 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
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Dan.4.24" target="asv"> Dan. 4:24, </a> "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 surpasses all manner of satisfaction, even that of public penance, according
+to the
+Decretals (XXXIII, 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A3-p12"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A3-p13"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A2.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A4.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q189_A4" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A3.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A5.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q189_A4-p0.1">Whether he who has vowed to enter religion is bound to remain in religion in perpetuity?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A4-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A4-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> 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
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iiPet.2.21" target="asv">2 Pet. 2:21, </a> "It had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it to turn back," and
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A4-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.9.62" target="asv"> Lk. 9:62, </a> "No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." But he who
+bound himself by the vow to enter religion, is under the obligation to enter, as stated above
+<a id="SS_Q189_A4-p2.3" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q189_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. Therefore he is also bound to remain for always.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A4-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A4-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> 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;
+<a id="SS_Q189_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q88_A12.html"> Q[88], A[12]</a>, 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A4-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A4-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> 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
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.75.12" target="asv"> Ps. 75:12</a>]. 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A4-p7">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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 God, unless he did it always, which is
+evidently false.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A4-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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 passive 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A4-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A4-p10"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A4-p11"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A3.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A5.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q189_A5" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A4.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A6.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q189_A5-p0.1">Whether children should be received in religion?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A5-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A5-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A5-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the state of religion would seem to be a state of repentance; wherefore religion is derived [*Cf.
+<a id="SS_Q189_A5-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q81_A1.html"> Q[81], A[1]</a>] 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A5-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A5-p5">
+<b>Objection 4:</b> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A5-p6">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.14" target="asv">Mat. 19:14</a>): "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.
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A5-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.16" target="asv"> Mat. 19:16-30</a>], 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."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A5-p7">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[2], ad 1), the religious vow is twofold. One is the simple vow consisting in a mere promise made to God,
+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 puberty," 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 God 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 puberty
+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 (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Num.30.4" target="asv">Num.
+30:4
+</a>).
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A5-p8"> Accordingly if before reaching the age of puberty 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 puberty, 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
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A5-p9"> child has passed the age of puberty, 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 God.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A5-p10"> 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 puberty, 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.).
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A5-p11"> Nevertheless, although they cannot be professed before the age of puberty, they can, with the consent of their parents, be
+received into religion to be educated there: thus it is related of John the Baptist (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A5-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.80" target="asv">Lk. 1:80</a>) that "the child grew and was strengthened in spirit, and was in the deserts." Hence, as Gregory states (Dial. ii, 3), "the
+Roman nobles began to give their sons to the blessed Benedict to be nurtured for Almighty God"; and this is most fitting,
+according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A5-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Lam.3.27" target="asv"> Lam. 3:27, </a> "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 pass their lives.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A5-p12">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The legal age for receiving the tonsure and taking the solemn vow of religion is the age of puberty, when a man is able to
+make use of his own will; but before the age of puberty it is possible to have reached the lawful age to receive the tonsure
+and be educated in a religious house.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A5-p13">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The religious state is chiefly directed to the attachment of perfection, as stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q189_A5-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A1.html">Q[186], A[1]</a>, 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 (
+<a id="SS_Q189_A5-p13.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q186_A1.html">Q[186], A[1]</a>, ad 4).
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A5-p14">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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 God'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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A5-p15">
+<b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> A woman who has not reached the age of puberty is not rebuked (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A5-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Num.30.4" target="asv">Num. 30:4</a>) 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A5-p16"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A5-p17"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A4.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A6.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q189_A6" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A5.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A7.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q189_A6-p0.1">Whether one ought to be withdrawn from entering religion through deference to one's parents?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A6-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A6-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> 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 (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.12" target="asv">Ex. 20:12</a>); wherefore the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A6-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iTim.5.4" target="asv">1 Tim. 5:4</a>): "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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A6-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> 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
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.9.25" target="asv"> Gn. 9:25.</a> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A6-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> 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,
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">Ep. 5</a>) 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A6-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> It is related (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.22" target="asv">Mat. 4:22</a>) 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."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A6-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q189_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q101_A2.html">Q[101], A[2]</a>, 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 (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iTim.5.8" target="asv">1 Tim. 5:8</a>) that "if any man have not care of
+his own . . . he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A6-p7"> Nevertheless it is accidentally competent to parents to be assisted 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 assistance, the latter may, in despite of the duty they owe their parents, enter religion even against their parents'
+command, because after the age of puberty every freeman enjoys freedom in things concerning the ordering of his state of life,
+especially in such as belong to the service of God, 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 (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.12.9" target="asv">Heb. 12:9</a>), than
+obey our parents. Hence as we read (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A6-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.22" target="asv">Mat. 8:22</a>;
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A6-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.9.62" target="asv"> Lk. 9:62</a>) 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.].
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A6-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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 assisting them, as becomes religious, since even those who live in the world honor their parents in different ways as
+befits their condition.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A6-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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 God; which is most conducive to man's
+good.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A6-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A6-p11"> 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.</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A6-p12"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A6-p13"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A5.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A7.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q189_A7" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A6.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A8.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q189_A7-p0.1">Whether parish priests may lawfully enter religion?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A7-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A7-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> 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'" (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.6.1" target="asv">Prov. 6:1</a>); 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A7-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A7-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> 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 pass over to religion.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A7-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> 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."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A7-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[3], ad 3;
+<a id="SS_Q189_A7-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q88_A12.html"> Q[88], A[12]</a>, 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.
+<a id="SS_Q189_A7-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q184_A5.html"> Q[184], A[5]</a>], 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A7-p7">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A7-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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.]
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A7-p9"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A7-p10"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A6.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A8.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q189_A8" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A7.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A9.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q189_A8-p0.1">Whether it is lawful to pass from one religious order to another?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A8-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A8-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It seems unlawful to pass from one religious order to another, even a stricter one. For the Apostle says (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A8-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.25" target="asv">Heb. 10:25</a>): "Not forsaking our assembly, 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 pass from one religious order to another more perfect
+one would seem to do this. Therefore this is seemingly unlawful.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A8-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> 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 pass 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 God forbid) he have fallen into public sin." Therefore it would
+seem unlawful for anyone to pass from one religious order to another of higher rank.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A8-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> 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
+pass 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 pass from one religious order to another stricter one.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A8-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> It is said in the Decretals (XX, qu. iv, can. Virgines): "If sacred virgins design for the good of their soul to pass 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 pass from one religious order to another.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A8-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> It is not commendable to pass 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A8-p7"> Nevertheless one may commendably pass from one religious order to another for three reasons. First, through zeal for a more
+perfect religious life, which excellence depends, as stated above (
+<a id="SS_Q189_A8-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q188_A6.html">Q[188], A[6]</a>), 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 pass 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 passed 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A8-p8"> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A8-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Those who pass 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A8-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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 pass 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 pass from an order of canons regular to a monastic order, provided withal
+that one seek the superior's permission (XIX, qu. iii; cap. Statuimus).
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A8-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A8-p12"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A8-p13"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A7.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A9.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q189_A9" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A8.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A10.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q189_A9-p0.1">Whether one ought to induce others to enter religion?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A9-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A9-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> 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 God"; and
+Cassian has the same instruction (De Inst. Caenob. iv, 3). Much less therefore is it lawful to induce anyone to enter religion.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A9-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, our Lord said (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A9-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.23.15" target="asv">Mat. 23:15</a>): "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 hell twofold more than yourselves." Now thus would seem to do those who induce persons to enter religion. Therefore
+this would seem blameworthy.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A9-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A9-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A9-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.26.3" target="asv">Ex. 26:3, </a> seqq. [*St. Thomas quotes the sense, not the words]): "Let one curtain draw the other." Therefore one man should draw another
+to God's service.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A9-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> Those who induce others to enter religion not only do not sin, but merit a great reward. For it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A9-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.5.20" target="asv">James 5:20</a>): "He who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude
+of sins"; and (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A9-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Dan.12.3" target="asv">Dan. 12:3</a>): "They that instruct many to justice shall be as stars for all eternity."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A9-p7"> 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" (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A9-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.11.26" target="asv">Lk. 11:26</a>).
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A9-p8">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A9-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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 hell, 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A9-p10"> According to Jerome, however, in his commentary on this passage 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
+God or to the religious life, but only when one gives a bad example to the person converted, whence he becomes worse.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A9-p11">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A9-p12"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A9-p13"></p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A8.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A10.html"></a>
+</div>
+<div id="SS_Q189_A10" class="div4">
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A9.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.TP.html"></a>
+<h4 id="SS_Q189_A10-p0.1">Whether it is praiseworthy to enter religion without taking counsel of many, and previously deliberating for a long time?</h4>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A10-p1"></p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A10-p2">
+<b>Objection 1:</b> It would not seem praiseworthy to enter religion without taking counsel of many, and previously deliberating for a long time.
+For it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A10-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.4.1" target="asv">1 Jn. 4:1</a>): "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God." Now sometimes a man's purpose of entering religion is
+not of God, since it often comes to naught through his leaving the religious life; for it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A10-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.5.38" target="asv">Acts 5:38,39</a>): "If this counsel or this
+work be of God, you cannot overthrow it." Therefore it would seem that one ought to make a searching inquiry before entering
+religion.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A10-p3">
+<b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A10-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.25.9" target="asv">Prov. 25:9</a>): "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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A10-p4">
+<b>Objection 3:</b> Further, our Lord (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A10-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.14.28" target="asv">Lk. 14:28</a>) 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 (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A10-p4.2" href="./asv.html#iKgs.17.39" target="asv">1 Kings 17:39</a>) 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A10-p5">
+<b>On the contrary,</b> It is stated (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A10-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.20" target="asv">Mat. 4:20</a>) 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."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A10-p6">
+<b>I answer that,</b> 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 assistance of the divine power, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A10-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.40.31" target="asv"> Is.
+40:31,
+</a>"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 (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A10-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Sir.37.12" target="asv">Ecclus. 37:12</a>): "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 (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A10-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Sir.37.14" target="asv">Ecclus. 37:14,15</a>), "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 shore." 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.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A10-p7">
+<b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The saying: "Try the spirits, if they be of God," applies to matters admitting of doubt whether the spirits be of God; thus
+those who are already in religion may doubt whether he who offers himself to religion be led by the spirit of God, 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 God, for it is His spirit "that leads" man "into the land of uprightness"
+(
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A10-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.142.10" target="asv">Ps. 142:10</a>).
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A10-p8"> Nor does this prove that it is not of God that some turn back; since not all that is of God is incorruptible: else corruptible
+creatures would not be of God, as the Manicheans hold, nor could some who have grace from God lose it, which is also heretical.
+But God's "counsel" whereby He makes even things corruptible and changeable, is imperishable according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A10-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.46.10" target="asv">Is. 46:10</a>, "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 God, because "it requires no further demonstration," as a gloss says on
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A10-p8.2" href="./asv.html#iThess.5.21" target="asv">1 Thess. 5:21, </a> "Prove all things."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A10-p9">
+<b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Even as "the flesh lusteth against the spirit" (
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A10-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.17" target="asv">Gal. 5:17</a>), so too carnal friends often thwart our spiritual progress, according to
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A10-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Mic.7.6" target="asv"> Mic. 7:6, </a> "A man's enemies are they of his own household." Wherefore Cyril expounding
+<a class="scripRef" id="SS_Q189_A10-p9.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.9.61" target="asv"> Lk. 9:61, </a> "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 God,' because he looks back who seeks delay in order to go home
+and confer with his kinsfolk."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A10-p10">
+<b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The building of the tower signifies the perfection of Christian life; and the renunciation of one's possessions is the wherewithal
+to build this tower. Now no one doubts or deliberates about wishing to have the wherewithal, or whether he is able to build
+the tower if he have the wherewithal, but what does come under deliberation is whether one has the wherewithal. Again it need
+not be a matter of deliberation whether one ought to renounce all that one
+has, or whether by so doing one may be able to attain to perfection; whereas it is a matter of deliberation whether that which
+one is doing amounts to the renunciation of all that he has, since unless he does renounce (which is to have the wherewithal)
+he cannot, as the text goes on to state, be Christ's disciple, and this is to build the tower.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A10-p11"> The misgiving of those who hesitate as to whether they may be able to attain to perfection by entering religion is shown
+by many examples to be unreasonable. Hence Augustine says (Confess. viii, 11): "On that side whither I had set my face, and
+whither I trembled to go, there appeared to me the chaste dignity of continency . . . honestly alluring me to come and doubt
+not, and stretching forth to receive and embrace me, her holy hands full of multitudes of good examples. There
+were so many young men and maidens here, a multitude of youth and every age, grave widows and aged virgins . . . And she smiled
+at me with a persuasive mockery as though to say: Canst not thou what these youths and these maidens can? Or can they either
+in themselves, and not rather in the Lord their God? . . . Why standest thou in thyself, and so standest not? Cast thyself
+upon Him; fear not, He will not withdraw Himself that thou shouldst fall. Cast thyself fearlessly upon Him: He will receive
+and will heal thee."
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A10-p12"> The example quoted of David is not to the point, because "the arms of Saul," as a gloss on the passage observes, "are the
+sacraments of the Law, as being burdensome": whereas religion is the sweet yoke of Christ, for as Gregory says (Moral. iv,
+33), "what burden does He lay on the shoulders of the mind, Who commands us to shun all troublesome desires, Who warns us
+to turn aside from the rough paths of this world?"
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A10-p13"> To those indeed who take this sweet yoke upon themselves He promises the refreshment of the divine fruition and the eternal
+rest of their souls.
+</p>
+<p id="SS_Q189_A10-p14"> To which may He Who made this promise bring us, Jesus Christ our Lord, "Who is over all things God blessed for ever. Amen."</p>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A9.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.TP.html"></a>
+</div>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q188_A8.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q189_A1.html"></a>
+</div>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q182_A4.html"></a>
+<a href="summa.SS_Q183.html"></a>
+`
+</div>

Mercurial > hg > Aquinas

comparison summa/english/SS_v.html @ 64:11682db9b870