Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum sit nisi una tantum religio Whether there is only one religious order? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit nisi una tantum religio. In eo enim quod totaliter et perfecte habetur, diversitas esse non potest, propter quod, non potest esse nisi unum primum summum bonum, ut in primo habitum est. Sed sicut Gregorius dicit, super Ezech., cum quis omne quod habet, omne quod vivit, omne quod sapit, omnipotenti Deo voverit, holocaustum est, sine quo religio esse non dicitur. Ergo videtur quod non sint multae religiones, sed una tantum. Objection 1: 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 First Part (Q. 6, AA. 2, 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. Praeterea, ea quae in essentialibus conveniunt, non diversificantur nisi per accidens. Sed sine tribus votis essentialibus religioni non est aliqua religio, ut supra habitum est. Ergo videtur quod religiones specie non diversificentur, sed solum per accidens. Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 186, AA. 6, 7). Therefore it would seem that religious orders differ not specifically, but only accidentally. Praeterea, status perfectionis competit et religiosis et episcopis, ut supra habitum est. Sed episcopatus non diversificatur specie, sed est ubique unus, unde Hieronymus dicit, ad Evandrum episcopum, ubicumque fuerit episcopus, sive Romae sive Eugubio sive Constantinopoli sive Rhegio, eiusdem meriti est, eiusdem et sacerdotii. Ergo, pari ratione, una sola est religio. Obj. 3: Further, the state of perfection is competent both to religious and to bishops, as stated above (Q. 185, AA. 5, 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. Praeterea, ab Ecclesia tollendum est omne id quod confusionem inducere potest. Sed ex diversitate religionis videtur quaedam confusio posse induci in populo Christiano, ut decretalis quaedam dicit, quae habetur de statu monachorum et canonicorum regularium. Ergo videtur quod non debeant esse diversae religiones. Obj. 4: 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. Therefore seemingly there ought not to be different religious orders. Sed contra est quod in Psalmo describitur ad ornatum reginae pertinere quod sit circumamicta varietate. On the contrary, It is written (Ps 44:10) that it pertains to the adornment of the queen that she is surrounded with variety. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex supra dictis patet, status religionis est quoddam exercitium quo aliquis exercetur ad perfectionem caritatis. Sunt autem diversa caritatis opera quibus homo vacare potest, sunt etiam diversi modi exercitiorum. Et ideo religiones distingui possunt dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum diversitatem eorum ad quae ordinantur, sicut si una religio ordinetur ad peregrinos hospitio suscipiendos, et alia ad visitandos vel redimendos captivos. Alio modo, potest esse diversitas religionum secundum diversitatem exercitiorum, puta quod in una religione castigatur corpus per abstinentias ciborum, in alia per exercitium operum manualium, vel per nuditatem, vel per aliquid aliud huiusmodi. I answer that, As stated above (Q. 186, A, 7; Q. 187, A. 2), 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. Second, 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. Sed quia finis est potissimum in unoquoque, maior est religionum diversitas quae attenditur secundum diversos fines ad quos religiones ordinantur, quam quae attenditur secundum diversa exercitia. Since, however, the end imports most in every matter, religious orders differ more especially according to their various ends than according to their various practices. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc est commune in omni religione, quod aliquis totaliter se debet praebere ad serviendum Deo. Unde ex hac parte non est diversitas inter religiones, ut scilicet in una religione aliquis retineat aliquid sui, et in alia aliud. Est autem diversitas secundum diversa in quibus homo potest Deo servire, et secundum quod ad hoc se potest homo diversimode disponere. Reply Obj. 1: 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod tria essentialia vota religionis pertinent ad exercitium religionis sicut quaedam principalia ad quae omnia alia reducuntur, ut supra dictum est. Ad observandum autem unumquodque eorum diversimode aliquis se disponere potest, puta ad votum continentiae servandum se disponit aliquis per loci solitudinem, per abstinentiam, per mutuam societatem, et per multa alia huiusmodi. Et secundum hoc patet quod communitas essentialium votorum compatitur diversitatem religionis, tum propter diversas dispositiones; tum etiam propter diversos fines, ut ex supra dictis patet. Reply Obj. 2: The three essential vows of religion pertain to the practice of religion as principles to which all other matters are reduced, as stated above (Q. 186, A. 7). 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod in his quae ad perfectionem pertinent, episcopus se habet per modum agentis, religiosi autem per modum patientis, ut supra dictum est. Agens autem, etiam in naturalibus, quanto est superius, tanto est magis unum, ea vero quae patiuntur, sunt diversa. Unde rationabiliter est unus episcopalis status, religiones vero diversae. Reply Obj. 3: In matters relating to perfection, the bishop stands in the position of agent, and the religious as passive, as stated above (Q. 184, A. 7). 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. Ad quartum dicendum quod confusio opponitur distinctioni et ordini. Sic ergo ex multitudine religionum induceretur confusio, si ad idem et eodem modo diversae religiones essent, absque utilitate et necessitate. Unde, ut hoc non fiat, salubriter institutum est ne nova religio, nisi auctoritate summi pontificis, instituatur. Reply Obj. 4: 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. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum aliqua religio institui debeat ad opera activae vitae Whether a religious order should be established for the works of the active life? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod nulla religio institui debeat ad opera activae vitae. Omnis enim religio pertinet ad perfectionis statum, ut ex supra dictis patet. Sed perfectio religiosi status consistit in contemplatione divinorum, dicit enim Dionysius, VI cap. Eccles. Hier., quod nominantur ex Dei puro servitio et famulatu, et indivisibili et singulari vita uniente eos indivisibilium sanctis convolutionibus, idest contemplationibus, ad deiformem unitatem et amabilem Deo perfectionem. Ergo videtur quod nulla religio institui possit ad opera activae vitae. Objection 1: 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 (Q. 184, A. 5; Q. 186, A. 1). 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. Praeterea, idem iudicium videtur esse de monachis et de canonicis regularibus, ut habetur extra, de postulando, ex parte, et de statu Monach., quod Dei timorem, dicitur quod a sanctorum monachorum consortio non putantur seiuncti. Et eadem ratio videtur esse de omnibus aliis religiosis. Sed monachorum religio est instituta ad vitam contemplativam, unde Hieronymus dicit, ad Paulinum, si cupis esse quod diceris, monachus, idest solus, quid facis in urbibus? Et idem habetur extra, de Renunt., nisi cum pridem; et de regularibus, licet quibusdam. Ergo videtur quod omnis religio ordinetur ad vitam contemplativam, et nulla ad activam. Obj. 2: 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. Praeterea, vita activa ad praesens saeculum pertinet. Sed omnes religiosi saeculum deserere dicuntur, unde Gregorius dicit, super Ezech., qui praesens saeculum deserit et agit bona quae valet, quasi iam Aegypto derelicto, sacrificium praebet in eremo. Ergo videtur quod nulla religio possit ordinari ad vitam activam. Obj. 3: 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. Sed contra est quod dicitur Iac. I, religio munda et immaculata apud Deum et patrem haec est, visitare pupillos et viduas in tribulatione eorum. Sed hoc pertinet ad vitam activam. Ergo convenienter religio potest ordinari ad vitam activam. On the contrary, 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. Now this belongs to the active life. Therefore religious life can be fittingly directed to the active life. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, religionis status ordinatur ad perfectionem caritatis, quae se extendit ad dilectionem Dei et proximi. Ad dilectionem autem Dei directe pertinet vita contemplativa, quae soli Deo vacare desiderat, ad dilectionem autem proximi pertinet vita activa, quae deservit necessitatibus proximorum. Et sicut ex caritate diligitur proximus propter Deum, ita etiam obsequium delatum in proximos redundat in Deum, secundum illud Matth. XXV, quod uni ex minimis meis fecistis, mihi fecistis. Unde et huiusmodi obsequia proximis facta, inquantum ad Deum referuntur, dicuntur esse sacrificia quaedam, secundum illud Heb. ult., beneficentiae et communionis nolite oblivisci, talibus enim hostiis promeretur Deus. Et quia ad religionem proprie pertinet sacrificium Deo offerre, ut supra habitum est, consequens est quod convenienter religiones quaedam ad opera vitae activae ordinantur. Unde et in collationibus patrum, abbas Nesteros, distinguens diversa religionum studia, dicit, quidam summam intentionis suae erga eremi secreta et cordis constituunt puritatem; quidam erga institutionem fratrum et coenobiorum curam; quosdam xenodochii, idest hospitalitatis, delectat obsequium. I answer that, As stated above (A. 1), 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 Matt. 25:40, What you have done to one of these My least brethren, you did it to Me. Consequently those services which we render our neighbor, insofar as we refer them to God, are described as sacrifices, according to Heb. 13:16, 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Dei servitium et famulatus salvatur etiam in operibus vitae activae, quibus aliquis servit proximo propter Deum, sicut dictum est. In quibus etiam salvatur singularitas vitae, non quantum ad hoc quod homo cum hominibus non conversetur; sed quantum ad hoc quod homo singulariter his intendat quae ad divinum obsequium spectant. Et dum religiosi operibus vitae activae insistunt intuitu Dei, consequens est quod in eis actio ex contemplatione divinorum derivetur. Unde non privantur omnino fructu contemplativae vitae. Reply Obj. 1: 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod eadem est ratio de monachis et omnibus aliis religiosis quantum ad ea quae sunt communia omni religioni, puta quod totaliter se dedicent divinis obsequiis, et quod essentialia religionis vota observent, et quod a saecularibus negotiis se abstineant. Sed non oportet similitudinem esse quantum ad alia quae sunt propria monasticae professioni, quae specialiter ad vitam contemplativam ordinantur. Unde in praeinducta decretali de postulando non dicitur simpliciter quod sit idem iudicium de canonicis regularibus quod de monachis, sed, quantum ad supradicta, scilicet quod in forensibus causis officio advocationis non utantur. Et in decretali inducta de statu monachorum, postquam praemiserat quod non putantur a consortio monachorum seiuncti canonici regulares, subditur, regulae tamen inserviunt laxiori. Ex quo patet quod non ad omnia tenentur ad quae monachi. Reply Obj. 2: 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod dupliciter aliquis potest esse in saeculo, uno modo, per praesentiam corporalem; alio modo, per mentis affectum. Unde et discipulis suis dominus dicit, ego elegi vos de mundo, de quibus tamen ad patrem loquitur dicens, hi in mundo sunt, et ego ad te venio. Quamvis igitur religiosi qui circa opera activae vitae occupantur, sint in saeculo secundum praesentiam corporalem, non tamen sunt in saeculo quantum ad mentis affectum, quia in exterioribus occupantur non quasi quaerentes aliquid in mundo, sed solum propter divinum obsequium; utuntur enim hoc mundo tanquam non utentes, ut dicitur I ad Cor. VII. Unde et Iac. I, postquam dictum est quod religio munda et immaculata est visitare pupillos et viduas, subditur, et immaculatum se custodire ab hoc saeculo, ut scilicet affectu in rebus saeculi non detineatur. Reply Obj. 3: 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 (John 15:19): I have chosen you out of the world, and yet speaking of them to His Father He said (John 17:11): 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 1 Cor. 7:31. Hence (Jas 1:27) 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. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum aliqua religio ordinari possit ad militandum Whether a religious order can be directed to soldiering? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod nulla religio ordinari possit ad militandum. Omnis enim religio pertinet ad statum perfectionis. Sed ad perfectionem vitae Christianae pertinet quod dominus dicit, Matth. V, ego dico vobis, non resistere malo, sed si quis percusserit te in unam maxillam, praebe ei et alteram, quod repugnat officio militari. Ergo nulla religio potest institui ad militandum. Objection 1: 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 (Matt 5:39): 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. Praeterea, gravior est compugnatio corporalium praeliorum quam concertationes verborum quae in advocationibus fiunt. Sed religiosis interdicitur officio advocationis uti, ut patet in decretali de postulando supra inducta. Ergo videtur quod multo minus aliqua religio possit institui ad militandum. Obj. 2: 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. Praeterea, status religionis est status poenitentiae, ut supra dictum est. Sed poenitentibus, secundum iura, interdicitur militia, dicitur enim in decretis, de Poenit., dist. V, contrarium omnino est ecclesiasticis regulis, post poenitentiae actionem, redire ad militiam saecularem. Ergo nulla religio congrue institui potest ad militandum. Obj. 3: Further, the religious state is a state of penance, as we have said above (Q. 187, A. 6). 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. Praeterea, nulla religio institui potest ad aliquid iniustum. Sed sicut Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., iustum bellum est quod ex edicto imperiali geritur. Cum igitur religiosi sint quaedam privatae personae, videtur quod non liceat eis bellum gerere. Et ita ad hoc non potest institui aliqua religio. Obj. 4: 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. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, ad Bonifacium, noli existimare neminem Deo placere posse qui armis bellicis ministrat. In his erat sanctus David, cui dominus magnum testimonium perhibuit. Sed ad hoc sunt institutae religiones ut homines Deo placeant. Ergo nihil prohibet aliquam religionem institui ad militandum. On the contrary, 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. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, religio institui potest non solum ad opera contemplativae vitae, sed etiam ad opera vitae activae, inquantum pertinent ad subventionem proximorum et obsequium Dei, non autem inquantum pertinent ad aliquid mundanum tenendum. Potest autem officium militare ordinari ad subventionem proximorum, non solum quantum ad privatas personas, sed etiam quantum ad totius reipublicae defensionem, unde de Iuda Machabaeo dicitur, I Machab. III, quod praeliabatur praelium Israel cum laetitia, et dilatavit gloriam populo suo. Ordinari etiam potest ad conservationem divini cultus, unde ibidem subditur Iudam dixisse, nos pugnabimus pro animabus nostris et legibus nostris; et infra, XIII, dicit Simon, vos scitis quanta ego et fratres mei et domus patris mei fecimus pro legibus et pro sanctis praelia. I answer that, As stated above (A. 2), a religious order may be established not only for the works of the contemplative life, but also for the works of the active life, insofar as they are concerned in helping our neighbor and in the service of God, but not insofar 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 (1 Macc 3:2, 3) that he 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 (1 Macc 3:21) Judas is stated to have said: We will fight for our lives and our laws, and further on (1 Macc 13:3) 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. Unde convenienter institui potest aliqua religio ad militandum, non quidem propter aliquid mundanum, sed propter defensionem divini cultus et publicae salutis; vel etiam pauperum et oppressorum, secundum illud Psalmi, eripite pauperem, et egenum de manu peccatoris liberate. 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 Ps. 81:4: Rescue the poor, and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod aliquis potest non resistere malo dupliciter. Uno modo, condonando propriam iniuriam. Et sic potest ad perfectionem pertinere, quando ita fieri expedit ad salutem aliorum. Alio modo, tolerando patienter iniurias aliorum. Et hoc ad imperfectionem pertinet, vel etiam ad vitium, si aliquis potest convenienter iniurianti resistere. Unde Ambrosius dicit, in libro de Offic., fortitudo quae bello tuetur a barbaris patriam, vel domi defendit infirmos, vel a latronibus socios, plena iustitia est. Sicut etiam ibidem dicit dominus, quae tua sunt, ne repetas, et tamen, si aliquis non repeteret ea quae sunt aliorum, si ad eum pertineat, peccaret. Homo enim laudabiliter donat sua, non autem aliena. Et multo minus ea quae sunt Dei, non sunt negligenda, quia, ut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., iniurias Dei dissimulare nimis est impium. Reply Obj. 1: 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. Second, 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, . . . 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 says, it is most wicked to overlook the wrongs done to God. Ad secundum dicendum quod exercere advocationis officium propter aliquid mundanum, repugnat omni religioni, non autem si hoc aliquis exerceat, secundum dispositionem sui praelati, pro monasterio suo, ut in eadem decretali subditur. Neque etiam pro defensione pauperum aut viduarum, unde in decretis, dist. LXXXVIII, dicitur, decrevit sancta synodus nullum deinceps clericum aut possessiones conducere, aut negotiis saecularibus se permiscere, nisi propter curam pupillorum, et cetera. Et similiter militare propter aliquid mundanum est omni religioni contrarium, non autem militare propter obsequium Dei. Reply Obj. 2: 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod militia saecularis interdicitur poenitentibus, sed militia quae est propter Dei obsequium, imponitur alicui in poenitentiam; sicut patet de his quibus iniungitur ut militent in subsidium terrae sanctae. Reply Obj. 3: 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. Ad quartum dicendum quod religio non sic instituitur ad militandum quod religiosis propria auctoritate liceat bella gerere, sed solum auctoritate principum vel Ecclesiae. Reply Obj. 4: 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.