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. Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de operibus Monach., quid agant qui operari corporaliter nolunt, scire desidero. Orationibus, inquiunt, et Psalmis, et lectionibus et verbo Dei. Sed quod per ista non excusentur, ostendit per singula. Nam primo, de oratione dicit, citius exauditur una obedientis oratio quam decem millia contemptoris, illos contemptores intelligens et indignos exaudiri, qui manibus non operantur. Secundo, de divinis laudibus subdit, cantica vero divina cantare etiam manibus operantes facile possunt. Tertio, subiungit de lectione, qui autem se dicunt vacare lectioni, nonne illic inveniunt quod praecipit apostolus? Quae est ergo ista perversitas, lectioni nolle obtemperare, dum vult ei vacare? Quarto, subiungit de praedicatione, si autem alicui sermo erogandus est, et ita occupat ut manibus operari non vacet, nunquid hoc omnes in monasterio possunt? Quando ergo non omnes possunt, cur sub hoc obtentu omnes vacare volunt? Quanquam, si omnes possent, vicissitudine facere deberent, non solum ut ceteri necessariis operibus occuparentur, sed etiam quia sufficit ut multis audientibus unus loquatur. Ergo videtur quod religiosi non debent cessare ab opere manuali propter huiusmodi opera spiritualia quibus vacant. Obj. 3: 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. Second, as to the divine praises he adds: Even while working with their hands they can easily sing hymns to God. Third, 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? Fourth, he adds in reference to preaching: 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. Praeterea, Luc. XII, super illud, vendite quae possidetis etc., dicit Glossa, non tantum cibos vestros communicate pauperibus, sed etiam vendite possessiones vestras, ut, omnibus vestris semel pro domino spretis, postea labore manuum operemini unde vivatis vel eleemosynam faciatis. Sed ad religiosos pertinet proprie omnia sua relinquere. Ergo videtur quod etiam eorum sit de labore manuum suarum vivere et eleemosynas facere. Obj. 4: Further, a gloss on Luke 12:33, 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. Praeterea, religiosi praecipue videntur teneri apostolorum vitam imitari, quia statum perfectionis profitentur. Sed apostoli manibus propriis laborabant, secundum illud I ad Cor. IV, laboramus operantes manibus nostris. Ergo videtur quod religiosi teneantur manibus operari. Obj. 5: 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 1 Cor. 4:12: We labor, working with our own hands. Therefore it would seem that religious are bound to manual labor. Sed contra, ad praecepta observanda quae communiter omnibus proponuntur, eodem modo tenentur religiosi et saeculares. Sed praeceptum de opere manuali communiter omnibus proponitur, ut patet II ad Thess. III, subtrahatis vos ab omni fratre ambulante inordinate, etc. (fratrem autem nominat quemlibet Christianum, sicut et I ad Cor. VII, si quis frater habet uxorem infidelem, etc.); et ibidem dicitur, si quis non vult operari, nec manducet. Non ergo religiosi magis tenentur manibus operari quam saeculares. On the contrary, 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 2 Thess. 3:6, Withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, etc. (for by brother he signifies every Christian, according to 1 Cor. 7:12, If any brother have a wife that believeth not). Now it is written in the same passage (2 Thess 3:10): If any man will not work, neither let him eat. Therefore religious are not bound to manual labor any more than seculars are. Respondeo dicendum quod labor manualis ad quatuor ordinatur. Primo quidem, et principaliter, ad victum quaerendum. Unde primo homini dictum est, in sudore vultus tui vesceris pane tuo. Et in Psalmo, labores manuum tuarum quia manducabis, et cetera. Secundo, ordinatur ad tollendum otium, ex quo multa mala oriuntur. Unde dicitur Eccli. XXXIII, mittes servum in operationem, ne vacet, multam enim malitiam docuit otiositas. Tertio, ordinatur ad concupiscentiae refrenationem, inquantum per hoc maceratur corpus. Unde II ad Cor. VI, dicitur, in laboribus, in ieiuniis, in vigiliis, in castitate. Quarto autem, ordinatur ad eleemosynas faciendas. Unde dicitur, ad Ephes. IV, qui furabatur, iam non furetur, magis autem laboret, operando manibus suis quod bonum est, ut habeat unde tribuat necessitatem patienti. Secundum ergo quod labor manualis ordinatur ad victum quaerendum, cadit sub necessitate praecepti prout est necessarium ad talem finem, quod enim ordinatur ad finem, a fine necessitatem habet; ut scilicet in tantum sit necessarium in quantum sine eo finis esse non potest. Et ideo qui non habet aliunde unde possit vivere, tenetur manibus operari, cuiuscumque sit conditionis. Et hoc significant verba apostoli dicentis, qui non vult operari, nec manducet, quasi diceret, ea necessitate tenetur aliquis ad manibus operandum, qua tenetur ad manducandum. Unde si quis absque manducatione posset vitam transigere, non teneretur manibus operari. Et eadem ratio est de illis qui habent alias unde licite vivere possint. Non enim intelligitur aliquis posse facere quod non licite facere potest. Unde et apostolus non invenitur opus manuum praecepisse nisi ad excludendum peccatum eorum qui illicite victum acquirebant. Nam primo quidem praecepit apostolus opus manuale ad evitandum furtum, ut patet ad Ephes. IV, qui furabatur, iam non furetur, magis autem laboret operando manibus suis. Secundo, ad vitandum cupiditatem alienarum rerum, unde dicit, I ad Thess. IV, operemini manibus vestris, sicut praecepimus vobis, ut honeste ambuletis ad illos qui foris sunt. Tertio, ad evitandum turpia negotia, ex quibus aliqui victum acquirunt, unde II ad Thess. III, dicit, cum essemus apud vos, hoc denuntiabamus vobis, quoniam si quis non vult operari, non manducet. Audivimus enim quosdam inter vos ambulare inquiete, nihil operantes, sed curiose agentes, Glossa, qui foeda cura necessaria sibi provident. His autem qui huiusmodi sunt, denuntiamus et obsecramus ut cum silentio operantes panem suum manducent. Unde Hieronymus dicit, super Epist. ad Galat., quod apostolus hoc dixit non tam officio docentis quam vitio gentis. I answer that, Manual labor is directed to four things. First and principally to obtain food; wherefore it was said to the first man (Gen 3:19): In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, and it is written (Ps 127:2): For thou shalt eat the labors of thy hands. Second, it is directed to the removal of idleness whence arise many evils; hence it is written (Sir 33:28, 29): Send thy slave to work, that he be not idle, for idleness hath taught much evil. Third, it is directed to the curbing of concupiscence, inasmuch as it is a means of afflicting the body; hence it is written (2 Cor 6:5, 6): In labors, in watchings, in fastings, in chastity. Fourth, it is directed to almsgiving, wherefore it is written (Eph 4:28): 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, insofar as manual labor is directed to obtaining food, it comes under a necessity of precept insofar 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 Eph. 4:28, He that stole, let him now steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his hands. Second, to avoid the coveting of others’ property, wherefore it is written (1 Thess 4:11): Work with your own hands, as we commanded you, and that you walk honestly towards them that are without. Third, to avoid the discreditable pursuits whereby some seek a livelihood. Hence he says (2 Thess 3:10–12): 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.) that the Apostle said this not so much in his capacity of teacher as on account of the faults of the people. Sciendum tamen quod sub opere manuali intelliguntur omnia humana officia ex quibus homines licite victum lucrantur, sive manibus, sive pedibus, sive lingua fiant, vigiles enim et cursores, et alia huiusmodi de suo labore viventes, intelliguntur de operibus manuum vivere. Quia enim manus est organum organorum, per opus manuum omnis operatio intelligitur de qua aliquis potest licite victum lucrari. 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, handiwork denotes all kinds of work, whereby a man may lawfully gain a livelihood. Secundum autem quod opus manuale ordinatur ad otium tollendum, vel ad corporis macerationem, non cadit sub necessitate praecepti secundum se consideratum, quia multis aliis modis potest vel caro macerari, vel etiam otium tolli, quam per opus manuale. Maceratur enim caro per ieiunia et vigilias. Et otium tollitur per meditationes sanctarum Scripturarum et laudes divinas, unde super illud Psalmi, defecerunt oculi mei in eloquium tuum, dicit Glossa, non est otiosus qui verbo Dei tantum studet, nec pluris est qui extra operatur quam qui studium cognoscendae veritatis exercet. Et ideo propter has causas religiosi non tenentur ad opera manualia, sicut nec saeculares, nisi forte ad haec per statuta sui ordinis obligentur; sicut Hieronymus dicit, in epistola ad rusticum monachum, Aegyptiorum monasteria hunc tenent morem, ut nullum absque opere aut labore suscipiant, non tam propter victus necessitatem quam propter animae salutem, ne vagentur perniciosis cogitationibus. Inquantum vero opus manuale ordinatur ad eleemosynas faciendas, non cadit sub necessitate praecepti, nisi forte in aliquo casu in quo ex necessitate aliquis eleemosynas facere teneretur, et non posset alias habere unde pauperibus subveniret. In quo casu obligarentur similiter religiosi et saeculares ad opera manualia exequenda. Insofar 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 Ps. 118:82, 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 insofar 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illud praeceptum quod ab apostolo proponitur, est de iure naturali. Unde super illud II ad Thess. III ut subtrahatis vos ab omni fratre inordinate ambulante, dicit Glossa, aliter quam ordo naturae exigit, loquitur autem ibi de his qui ab opere manuali cessabant. Unde et natura manus homini dedit loco armorum et tegumentorum, quae aliis animalibus tribuit, ut scilicet per manus haec et omnia necessaria conquirant. Ex quo patet quod communiter ad hoc praeceptum tenentur et religiosi et saeculares, sicut ad omnia alia legis naturalis praecepta. Non tamen peccant quicumque manibus non operantur. Quia ad illa praecepta legis naturae quae pertinent ad bonum multorum, non tenentur singuli, sed sufficit quod unus vacet huic officio, alius alii, puta quod quidam sint opifices, quidam agricolae, quidam iudices, quidam doctores, et sic de aliis; secundum illud apostoli, I ad Cor. XII. Si totum corpus oculus, ubi auditus? Et si totum auditus, ubi odoratus? Reply Obj. 1: This command of the Apostle is of natural law: wherefore a gloss on 2 Thess. 3:6, 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 (1 Cor 12:17), If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were the hearing, where would be the smelling? Ad secundum dicendum quod Glossa illa sumitur ab Augustino, in libro de operibus Monach., in quo loquitur contra monachos quosdam qui dicebant non esse licitum servis Dei manibus operari, propter hoc quod dominus dicit, Matth. VI, nolite solliciti esse animae vestrae, quid manducetis. Nec tamen per haec verba inducitur necessitas religiosis manibus operandi, si habent aliunde unde vivere possint. Quod patet per hoc quod subdit, vult servos Dei corporaliter operari unde vivant. Hoc autem non magis pertinet ad religiosos quam ad saeculares. Quod patet ex duobus. Primo quidem, ex ipso modo loquendi quo apostolus utitur, dicens, subtrahatis vos ab omni fratre ambulante inordinate. Fratres enim omnes Christianos vocat, nondum enim erant tunc temporis religiones institutae. Secundo, quia religiosi non tenentur ad alia quam saeculares nisi propter regulae professionem. Et ideo, si in statutis regulae non contineatur aliquid de opere manuali, non tenentur aliter ad operandum manibus religiosi quam saeculares. Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Matt 6:25): 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. Second, 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.