Quaestio 187 Question 187 De his quae competunt religiosis Those Things That are Competent to Religious Deinde considerandum est de his quae competunt religiosis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex. We must now consider the things that are competent to religious; and under this head there are six points of inquiry: Primo, utrum liceat eis docere, praedicare, et alia huiusmodi facere. (1) Whether it is lawful for them to teach, preach, and do like things? Secundo, utrum liceat eis de negotiis saecularibus se intromittere. (2) Whether it is lawful for them to meddle in secular business? Tertio, utrum teneantur manibus operari. (3) Whether they are bound to manual labor? Quarto, utrum liceat eis de eleemosynis vivere. (4) Whether it is lawful for them to live on alms? Quinto, utrum liceat eis mendicare. (5) Whether it is lawful for them to quest? Sexto, utrum liceat eis vestimenta ceteris viliora deferre. (6) Whether it is lawful for them to wear coarser clothes than other persons? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum religiosis liceat docere, praedicare, et alia huiusmodi facere Whether it is lawful for religious to teach, preach, and the like? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod religiosis non liceat docere, praedicare, et alia huiusmodi facere. Dicitur enim VII, qu. I, in quodam statuto Constantinopolitanae synodi, monachorum vita subiectionis habet verbum et discipulatus, non docendi, vel praesidendi, vel pascendi alios. Hieronymus etiam dicit, ad Riparium et desiderium, monachus non doctoris, sed plangentis habet officium. Leo etiam Papa dicit, ut habetur XVI, qu. I, praeter domini sacerdotes, nullus audeat praedicare, sive monachus sive laicus ille sit qui cuiuslibet scientiae nomine gloriatur. Sed non licet transgredi proprium officium et statutum Ecclesiae. Ergo videtur quod religiosis non liceat docere, praedicare, et alia huiusmodi facere. Objection 1: 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: The monastic life is one of subjection and discipleship, not of teaching, authority, or pastoral care. And Jerome says (ad Ripar. et Desider.): A monk’s duty is not to teach but to lament. Again Pope Leo 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. Praeterea, in statuto Nicaenae synodi, quod ponitur XVI, qu. I, sic dicitur, firmiter et indissolubiliter omnibus praecipimus, ut aliquis monachus poenitentiam nemini tribuat, nisi invicem sibi, ut iustum est. Mortuum non sepeliat, nisi monachum secum in monasterio commorantem, vel si fortuito quemcumque advenientium fratrum ibi mori contigerit. Sed sicut ista pertinent ad officium clericorum, ita etiam praedicare et docere. Ergo, cum alia sit causa monachi, et alia clerici, sicut Hieronymus dicit, ad Heliodorum; videtur quod non liceat religiosis praedicare et docere, et alia huiusmodi facere. Obj. 2: 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. Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, in Regist., nemo potest ecclesiasticis obsequiis deservire, et in monastica regula ordinate persistere, et habetur XVI, qu. I. Sed monachi tenentur in monastica regula ordinate persistere. Ergo videtur quod non possint ecclesiasticis obsequiis deservire. Docere autem et praedicare pertinent ad ecclesiastica obsequia. Ergo videtur quod non liceat eis praedicare aut docere, aut aliquid huiusmodi facere. Obj. 3: Further, Gregory says (Regist. v, Ep. 1): No man can fulfill 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 fulfill ecclesiastical duties, whereof teaching and preaching are a part. Therefore seemingly it is unlawful for them to preach, teach, and do similar things. Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, et habetur causa et quaestione eadem, ex auctoritate huius decreti, quod apostolico moderamine et pietatis officio a nobis est constitutum, sacerdotibus monachis, apostolorum figuram tenentibus, liceat praedicare, baptizare, communionem dare, pro peccatoribus orare, poenitentiam imponere, atque peccata solvere. On the contrary, 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. Respondeo dicendum quod aliquid dicitur non licere alicui dupliciter. Uno modo, quia habet in se quod contrariatur ei quod dicitur non licere, sicut nulli homini licet peccare, quia habet in se quilibet homo rationem et obligationem ad legem Dei, quibus contrariatur peccatum. Et hoc modo dicitur alicui non licere praedicare vel docere, vel aliquid huiusmodi facere, quia habet in se aliquid quod his repugnat, vel ratione praecepti, sicut his qui sunt irregulares, ex statuto Ecclesiae, non licet ascendere ad sacros ordines; vel propter peccatum, secundum illud Psalmi, peccatori autem dixit Deus, quare tu enarras iustitias meas? I answer that, 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 Ps. 49:16, But to the sinner God hath said: Why dost thou declare My justice? Hoc autem modo, non est illicitum religiosis praedicare, docere, et alia huiusmodi facere. Tum quia ex voto vel praecepto regulae non obligantur ad hoc quod ab his abstineant. Tum etiam quia non redduntur ad haec minus idonei ex aliquo peccato commisso, sed magis idonei, ex exercitio sanctitatis quod assumpserunt. Stultum autem est dicere ut per hoc quod aliquis in sanctitate promovetur, efficiatur minus idoneus ad spiritualia officia exercenda. Et ideo stulta est quorundam opinio dicentium quod ipse status religionis impedimentum affert talia exequendi. Quorum errorem Bonifacius Papa rationibus supra dictis excludit, dicens, ut habetur XVI, qu. I, sunt nonnulli, nullo dogmate fulti, audacissimo quidem zelo magis amaritudinis quam dilectionis inflammati, asserentes monachos, quia mundo mortui sunt et Deo vivunt, sacerdotalis officii potentia indignos. Sed omnino labuntur. Quod ostendit, primo quidem, quia non contrariatur regulae, subdit enim, neque enim beatus Benedictus, monachorum praeceptor almificus, huiuscemodi rei aliquo modo fuit interdictor. Et similiter nec in aliis regulis hoc prohibetur. Secundo improbat praedictum errorem ex idoneitate monachorum, cum in fine capituli subdit, quanto quisque est excellentior, tanto et in illis, scilicet spiritualibus operibus, potentior. 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 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. Second, 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. Alio modo dicitur aliquid non licere alicui, non propter contrarium quod habeat, sed propter hoc quod ei deficit unde illud possit, sicut diacono non licet Missam celebrare, quia non habet ordinem sacerdotalem; et presbytero non licet sententiam ferre, quia non habet episcopalem auctoritatem. In quibus tamen est distinguendum. Quia ea quae sunt ordinis, committi non possunt nisi ei qui ordinem habet, sicut diacono non potest committi quod celebret Missam, nisi fiat sacerdos. Ea vero quae sunt iurisdictionis, committi possunt eis qui non habent ordinariam iurisdictionem, sicut prolatio sententiae committitur ab episcopo simplici sacerdoti. Et hoc modo dicitur non licere monachis et aliis religiosis praedicare, docere, et alia huiusmodi facere, quia status religionis non dat eis potestatem haec faciendi. Possunt tamen ista facere si ordinem accipiant vel ordinariam iurisdictionem, aut etiam si eis committantur ea quae sunt iurisdictionis. Second, 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex verbis illis habetur quod monachi, ex hoc quod sunt monachi, non nanciscuntur potestatem talia faciendi, non autem quod ex hoc quod sunt monachi, habeant aliquid contrarium executioni talium actuum. Reply Obj. 1: 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod illud etiam statutum Nicaeni Concilii praecipit ut monachi non usurpent sibi, ex hoc quod sunt monachi, potestatem huiusmodi actus exercendi. Non autem prohibet quin ista possint eis committi. Reply Obj. 2: 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod ista duo se non compatiuntur, quod aliquis ordinariam curam ecclesiasticorum officiorum habeat, et monasticam regulam in monasterio servet. Per hoc tamen non excluditur quin monachi et alii religiosi possint interdum circa ecclesiastica officia occupari ex commissione praelatorum qui ordinariam curam habent, et praecipue illi quorum religiones ad hoc sunt specialiter institutae, ut infra dicetur. Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Q. 188, A. 4). Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum religiosis liceat saecularia negotia tractare Whether it is lawful for religious to occupy themselves with secular business? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod religiosis non liceat saecularia negotia tractare. Dicitur enim in praedicto decreto Bonifacii Papae quod beatus Benedictus eos saecularium negotiorum edixit expertes fore. Quod quidem apostolicis documentis, et omnium sanctorum patrum institutis, non solum monachis, sed etiam canonicis omnibus imperatur, secundum illud II ad Tim. II, nemo militans Deo implicat se saecularibus negotiis. Sed omnibus religiosis imminet quod militent Deo. Ergo non licet eis saecularia negotia exercere. Objection 1: It would seem unlawful for religious to occupy themselves with secular business. For in the decree quoted above (A. 1) 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 2 Tim. 2:4, 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. Praeterea, I ad Thessal. IV, dicit apostolus, operam detis ut quieti sitis, et ut negotium vestrum agatis, Glossa, dimissis alienis, quod vobis utile est in emendationem vitae. Sed religiosi specialiter assumunt studium emendationis vitae. Ergo non debent saecularia negotia exercere. Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (1 Thess 4:11): 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. Praeterea, super illud Matth. I, ecce qui mollibus vestiuntur in domibus regum sunt, dicit Hieronymus, ex hoc ostendit rigidam vitam et austeram praedicationem vitare debere aulas regum, et mollium hominum palatia declinare. Sed necessitas saecularium negotiorum ingerit hominem ad frequentandum regum palatia. Ergo non licet religiosis aliqua negotia saecularia pertractare. Obj. 3: Further, Jerome, commenting on Matt. 11:8, 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. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. ult., commendo vobis Phoeben, sororem nostram, et postea subdit, et assistatis ei in quocumque negotio vestri indiguerit. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom 16:1): I commend to you Phoebe our Sister, and further on (Rom 16:2), that you assist her in whatsoever business she shall have need of you. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, status religionis est ordinatus ad perfectionem caritatis consequendam. Ad quam quidem principaliter pertinet Dei dilectio, secundario autem dilectio proximi. Et ideo religiosi praecipue et propter se debent intendere ad hoc quod Deo vacent. Si autem necessitas proximis immineat, eorum negotia ex caritate agere debent, secundum illud Galat. VI, alter alterius onera portate, et sic adimplebitis legem Christi, quia et in hoc ipso quod proximis serviunt propter Deum, dilectioni divinae obsequuntur. Unde dicitur Iac. I, religio munda et immaculata apud Deum et patrem haec est, visitare pupillos et viduas in tribulatione eorum, Glossa, idest, succurrere eis qui carent praesidio in tempore necessitatis. I answer that, As stated above (Q. 186, AA. 1, 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 Gal. 6:2, Bear ye one another’s burthens: and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ, since through serving their neighbor for God’s sake, they are obedient to the divine love. Hence it is written (Jas 1:27): 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. Est ergo dicendum quod causa cupiditatis saecularia negotia gerere nec monachis nec clericis licet. Causa vero caritatis se negotiis saecularibus, cum debita moderatione, ingerere possunt, secundum superioris licentiam, et ministrando et dirigendo. Unde dicitur in decretis, dist. LXXXVIII, decrevit sancta synodus nullum deinceps clericum aut possessiones conducere, aut negotiis saecularibus se permiscere, nisi propter curam pupillorum aut orphanorum aut viduarum, aut si forte episcopus civitatis ecclesiasticarum rerum sollicitudinem eum habere praecipiat. Eadem autem ratio est de religiosis et clericis, quia utrisque similiter negotia saecularia interdicuntur, ut dictum est. 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod monachis interdicuntur tractare saecularia negotia propter cupiditatem, non autem propter caritatem. Reply Obj. 1: Monks are forbidden to occupy themselves with secular business from motives of avarice, but not from motives of charity. Ad secundum dicendum quod non est curiositas, sed caritas, si propter necessitatem aliquis se negotiis immisceat. Reply Obj. 2: To occupy oneself with secular business on account of another’s need is not officiousness but charity. Ad tertium dicendum quod frequentare palatia regum propter delicias vel gloriam vel cupiditatem, non competit religiosis, sed ea adire propter pias causas competit eis. Unde dicitur IV Reg. IV, quod Eliseus dixit ad mulierem, nunquid habes negotium, et vis ut loquar regi vel principi militiae? Similiter etiam convenit religiosis adire regum palatia ad eos arguendos et dirigendos, sicut Ioannes Baptista arguebat Herodem, ut dicitur Matth. XIV. Reply Obj. 3: 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 (4 Kgs 4:13): 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 Matt. 14:4. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum religiosi manibus operari teneantur Whether religious are bound to manual labor? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod religiosi manibus operari teneantur. Non enim excusantur religiosi ab observantia praeceptorum. Sed operari manibus est in praecepto, secundum illud I ad Thess. IV, operemini manibus vestris, sicut praecepimus vobis. Unde et Augustinus, in libro de operibus Monach., dicit, ceterum quis ferat homines contumaces, idest religiosos non operantes, de quibus ibi loquitur, saluberrimis apostoli monitis resistentes, non sicut infirmiores tolerari, sed sicut sanctiores praedicari? Ergo videtur quod religiosi teneantur manibus operari. Objection 1: 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 1 Thess. 4:11, 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. Praeterea, II ad Thess. III, super illud, si quis non vult operari, nec manducet, dicit Glossa, dicunt quidam de operibus spiritualibus hoc apostolum praecepisse non de opere corporali, in quo agricolae vel opifices laborant; et infra, sed superfluo conantur et sibi et ceteris caliginem adducere, ut quod utiliter caritas monet, non solum facere nolint, sed nec etiam intelligere; et infra, vult servos Dei corporaliter operari unde vivant. Sed praecipue religiosi servi Dei nominantur, utpote se totaliter divino servitio mancipantes, sicut patet per Dionysium, VI cap. Eccles. Hier. Ergo videtur quod teneantur manibus operari. Obj. 2: Further, a gloss on 2 Thess. 3:10, 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 fulfill, 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.