Chapter 3 — Whether a religious can lawfully belong to a college of secular teachers

Objections

Those who are hostile to religious make a malicious effort to prove that they ought not, in anything pertaining to study, to have dealings with seculars. Their object in thus acting is to place obstacles in the path of such religious as are employed in teaching, if they cannot entirely hinder them in the exercise of that function. They adduce several authorities in support of their principles.

Obj. 1: First they quote the following words: those engaged in the same work ought not to differ in profession. This was forbidden by the law of Moses, "you shall not plough with an ox and an ass together" (Deut 22), which means you shall not associate in one office men of different professions (Decretals, XVI, q. 1, In nova actione). (The true text is found in Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 7, ch. 22 (Friedberg, 1:806).) The reason given is that they whose aims and, desires are dissimilar, cannot unite nor coalesce. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 7, ch. 22 (Friedberg, 1:807).) Since, then, laymen and religious differ in profession, they ought not to be joined in the teaching office.

Obj. 2: Again, St. Augustine says that every man ought to adhere to such a manner of life as befits him. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 3.12.18-19 (CCSL 32; CSEL 80; PL 34:73).) Now it appears unfitting that the same man should belong at one and the same time to a secular and to a religious establishment. For the members of one institute cannot imitate the actions of the other. Hence a religious, belonging to his own community, should not be a member of a secular college.

Obj. 3: Again, a legal statute has ruled that the same man shall not belong to two lay associations without a dispensation. (Justinian, Digesta, ed. Krueger-Mommsen (Berlin: Weidman, 1962-63), bk. 47, sect. 22, n. 1, 2:793.) Much less, then, ought a religious, belonging to his own community, to be a member of a secular establishment.

Obj. 4: Again, all who belong to any society are bound to obey its rules. Now religious cannot conform to regulations drawn up for lay professors and scholars; nor can they promise to abide by those ordinances which laymen bind themselves to observe; nor to take the oaths which seculars take, for religious are not their own masters, but live under authority. Hence they cannot belong to secular societies.

Calumnious objections

But, the malicious enemies of religious, in their desire to exclude them from any communication with seculars, strive, in default of legitimate arguments, to accomplish their purpose by calumny.

Obj. 1: They maintain that religious are a source of offence and scandal to the world; and they exhort their fellows to avoid all communion with them. They quote Romans 16:17: I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

Obj. 2: They also say that religious live in idleness. Therefore, according to the words of St. Paul, they ought to be shunned by good men. For, the Apostle says: now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us (2 Thess 3:6). St. Paul goes on to speak of the manual labor practiced by the apostles. He then continues, we . . . give you in our conduct an example to imitate (2 Thess 3:7). He concludes his exhortation by the following command: if any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter (that is, our injunction to manual labor) note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed (2 Thess 3:14).

Obj. 3: Religious are further denounced by their enemies as being the source of all the evils which are to flood the world in the latter days. Hence they must be shunned by all men. For St. Paul, writing to Timothy, gives a most emphatic order on this head: but understand this, that in the last days there will come dangerous times. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud . . . holding the form of piety, which is religion, according to the Gloss, (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Tim 3:5 (PL 192:375A).) but denying the power of it. Avoid such people (2 Tim 3:1–5).

Objections against the authority of the Apostle

Obj. 1: But as St. Paul says in the same chapter: evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived (2 Tim 3:13). So, these defamers of religious, not satisfied with calumny, try to make void the authority of the Apostle, saying that not even at his bidding are they bound to admit religious to their society. For, according to civil law, there is no obligation which can compel them to permit religious to associate with them, since society is established on the basis of free will. (Cf. Justinian, Digesta 17.2.19 (Mommsen, 1:500).)

Obj. 2: Moreover, the apostolic authority is limited to ecclesiastical affairs. St. Paul himself said: we will not boast beyond limit, but will keep to the limits God has apportioned us (2 Cor 10:13). Now ecclesiastical affairs include the collation of benefices, the administration of the Sacraments, and the like, but not association in studies. Hence secular students are not, by apostolic authority, bound to admit religious to their society.

Obj. 3: Again, power is committed to the ministers of the Church, not unto destruction, but unto edification (2 Cor 13:10). Hence as the enemies of religious consider that they have proofs that union between religious and seculars would be unto destruction, (William of Saint-Amoure objected to the pope that the ecclesiastical hierarchy should not be destroyed: Collectiones catholicae et canonicae scripturae 1, p. 186, 194, and 208.) they hold that the authority of the apostles cannot compel them to form such an union.

Response

I answer that, this opinion, however, is censurable, false, and frivolous.

It deserves censure inasmuch as it detracts from that unity in the Church which, as St. Paul says, is based on the fact that we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another (Rom 12:5). The Gloss interprets these words as meaning that we are members one of another, since we are of service to each other, and are in need of the assistance of one another. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Rom 12:5 (PL 191:1499C).) This is true of all men alike, neither the greater nor the lesser among us being excluded. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Rom 12:5 (PL 191:1499C).) Hence whosoever hinders one man from serving another (as far as he is able) impairs the unity of the Church. Now the work of teaching is one adapted to religious. St. Paul mentions this, saying, he who teaches, in his teaching (Rom 12:7); the Gloss adds: he who has the gift of teaching should, by his instruction, prove himself a member of another. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Rom 12:7 (PL 191:1500A).) Hence it is a violation of ecclesiastical unity to hinder religious either from teaching others or from learning from them.

It is likewise an infraction of charity. For, as Aristotle says: Friendship is based on communication and by it is fostered (Ethics, 8, 10). (Aristotle, Ethics 8.9, 1159b31; 8.12, 1161b21; 9.14, 1171b32.) These words are borne out by the saying of Solomon: a man amiable in society shall be more friendly than a brother (Prov 28:24). Anyone, therefore, who hinders communication in scholastic matters between laymen and religious weakens charity and sows the seed of quarrels and dissensions.

Again, obstacles thrown in the way of such communication will tend to impede the progress made by students. In all social matters, the companionship of others is of great advantage: a brother that is helped by his brother is like a strong city, says Solomon (Prov 18:19). It is better, therefore, that two should be together than one: for they have the advantage of their society (Eccl 4:9). But in acquiring knowledge, that society is especially of use; for among many students some will know or understand that of which others are ignorant. Hence Aristotle says that the ancient philosophers, at diverse meetings, investigated the truth concerning the heavenly bodies (Caeli et Mundi, 1). (Source not found, but there is a similar text found in Aristotle, On the Heavens, bk. 1, ch. 10, 279b12.) The exclusion, then, any class of men from the society of other students is a manifest injury to the studies of all. This applies especially to the exclusion of religious, who are peculiarly well adapted to make progress in learning, since, by their state of life, they are not distracted by worldly anxieties: he who is less in action shall receive wisdom (Eccl 38:25).

By excluding religious from studying in common with laymen, an injury is committed against the community of faith, which is called ‘catholic’ because it ought to be one. Those who do not associate with each other by agreeing on religious matters may easily end by teaching different, and even contradictory, doctrines. St. Paul says of himself: then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain (Gal 2:1). We learn from the Decretals (XV, Canones), (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 15, ch. 1 (Friedberg, 1:34).) that councils began to be convoked in the time of Constantine. Before that period, there was, on account of frequent and violent persecutions, very little facility for the instruction of the faithful; and, as bishops had no opportunity for meeting to debate together, the Christian religion was torn by many heresies. This fact proves that there is great danger of schism in matters of doctrine when the preachers of the faith are not able to assemble for purposes of discussion. Hence any attempt to exclude religious from communication with other teachers and students is highly to be condemned.

The reason given for such an exclusion, is likewise ill-founded, being opposed to apostolic doctrine which cannot err. St. Peter writes in these terms: as each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace (1 Pet 4:10). The Gloss thus comments on this passage: the Apostle signifies by the word “grace” any gift of the Holy Spirit which may be used for the assistance of others, in things either temporal or spiritual. (Glossa interlinearis, at 1 Pet 4:10 (in Glossa ordinaria 6, 1337-1338).) He exemplifies his meaning by the words which follow. if any man speak, let him speak as the words of God. The Gloss adds, if any man knows how to speak, let him attribute his knowledge not to himself, but to God. Let him stand in fear, lest he teach anything contrary to the will of God, the authority of Scripture, or the good of his brethren; or, lest he be silent, when he ought to speak. (Glossa ordinaria 6, 1337 at 1 Pet 4:11 (PL 114:687).) Hence the assertion that religious and laymen ought not mutually to communicate their gift of knowledge is patently, opposed to the teaching of the apostles.

Again, we read in Sirach 33:18: see that I have not labored for myself only, but for all that seek discipline. These words, as the Gloss observes, apply to the teachers of the Church, who, by their writings and instruction, profit not themselves alone, but others also. (Glossa ordinaria 3, 2141 at Sir 33:18 (PL 113:1217).) The wise man, in the text that we have quoted, says that he has labored for all men, without exception. Therefore, both religious and secular teachers ought to labor by their teaching for the benefit of all their brethren, whether laymen or religious.

As the body is composed of several members, so in the Church there exist diverse offices, as is clear from 1 Corinthians 12:12. (Also detailed in Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 12:14 (PL 191:1655A).) Now as in the physical body there are eyes, so in the mystical body of the Church there are teachers. Hence the Gloss understands Matthew 18:9: if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, to refer to ecclesiastical doctors and counsellors. (Glossa interlinearis, at Matt 18:9 (in Glossa ordinaria 5, 301-302).) Physical eyesight is useful to the whole body alike, and one limb subserves another in its functions. For as St. Paul says: the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you" (1 Cor 12:21). Therefore, everyone who undertakes the office of teaching must perform it for the benefit of all men, of whatsoever condition they may be. Thus religious must assist laymen; and laymen must help religious.

Again, any person who is competent to perform some special function has a right to be admitted to the society of those who are selected for the exercise of that function. For an association means the union of men gathered together for the accomplishment of some specific work. Thus, all soldiers have a right to associate with one another in the same army; for an army is nothing but a society of men, banded together for the purpose of fighting. Hence religious of a military order do not exclude from their society secular soldiers, and vice versa. Now an association of study is a society established with the object of teaching and of learning; and as not only laymen, but also religious, have a right to teach and to learn, there can be no doubt that both these classes may lawfully unite in one society.

The objection made to communication between seculars and religious on matters bearing on study and teaching are altogether frivolous. They are based on wholly untenable grounds, and they only serve to show the ignorance of their authors. For, as we have already said, a society means a union of men, assembled together for one and the same purpose. Hence as everything ought to be judged with regard to the end for which it is ordained, the different societies which exist ought to be distinguished and judged according to the purpose for which they are formed. Aristotle classifies different communications in Ethics 8, by which he means associations formed for diverse objects, wherein the members hold communication with one another, and he distinguishes friendships according to these communications, such as the friendship of those brought up together, or that based on commercial transactions, or that of men engaged in the same business. (Aristotle, Ethics 8.9, 1159b27 sqq.)

Hence arises the distinction between public and private societies. A public society is that in which men assemble for purposes connected with the commonweal. Thus fellow citizens form a public society and become one city or one kingdom. A private society is one established by a few persons for some private end. Thus two or three enter into partnership in a mercantile negotiation.

Now each of these classes of society may be either temporary or perpetual. Sometimes a number of men, or only two or three individuals, band together in a perpetual society. This is the case with those who, when they become citizens of some city, form an association, choosing that city for their dwelling-place for ever. They thus establish a political society. Again, there may be a perpetual private society, formed between husband and wife or master and slave, based upon the durable nature of the tie binding together the members of such a society. This is called an economical society. But when men associate in order to engage in some temporary business, as, for example, to hold a fair, they form a temporary and public society. Or when two friends are engaged in the management of the same inn, the society which they establish is private, and at at the same time temporary. Now these various classes of association must be judged by different standards. To apply the name of association or society indiscriminately to all is to prove one’s own ignorance.

Replies to objections

For this reason, we shall have no difficulty in answering their objections.

Ad 1: We are told, first of all, that men of different professions ought not to be associated in the same offices; and also, you shall not join together men of different professions. This objection is perfectly true if it be understood to mean that men of different professions should not be associated in matters upon which they differ. Hence laymen and clerics should not be associated in ecclesiastical matters. Therefore, the following words are found before the words just quoted: a bishop ought not to have a lay vicar; and the clergy ought not to be judged in lay courts of justice. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 7, ch. 22 (Friedberg, 1,806).) For the same reason, religious cannot associate with laymen in commercial and mercantile transactions, in which religious are forbidden to take part: no soldier on service for God gets entangled in civilian pursuits (2 Tim 2:4). But, as we have seen, the exercise of teaching and of learning concerns both seculars and religious. Hence there is no reason against religious being associated with laymen in scholastic affairs. For men of different conditions, who agree in unity of faith, form the body of the Church: there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28).

Ad 2: It was next objected that, although in an association of laymen and religious there are some points common to both classes, there are likewise some on which they differ. Thus there may be a purely secular society, formed of members whose interests are limited to secular affairs. Or there may be an exclusively religious institute, of which the system is directed towards the formation of the religious life. There is, however, one point which is common both to laymen sad to religious. For religious and seculars have this in common: that they belong to the society of the one Church of Christ, by that agreement in one faith whereby the unity of the Church is made perfect. Hence as teaching and learning are functions pertaining alike to seculars and religious, an association of study ought not to be known as exclusively either a lay or a religious college; but rather as a college including both seculars and religious.

Ad 3: The third objection, that no one can belong to two associations, is untenable for three reasons.

First, because a part cannot be numerically accounted as opposed to the whole. A private society is part of a public society, as a house is part of a city. The fact that a man forms part of a family causes him to form part of a city, which is composed of many families. Nevertheless, he does not on this account belong to two distinct associations. Now, as an association of studies is a public association, a man who forms part of a private society (be it secular or religious), in which a few students meet together for the purposes of study, belongs on this very account to a general scholastic association. But he does not, for this reason, belong to two associations.

Second, there is no law to prohibit a man from belonging to some public, perpetual association, and at the same time from forming part of a public or private temporary society. Thus a man who belongs to some civic society may likewise form part of a military association; and a member of a family may be associated with others in an inn. Now an institute of studies is a temporary, not a perpetual, association. For men attend it not as a permanent residence, but they go and come at their own convenience. Hence there is no reason why a man belonging to a perpetual society, such as a religious order, should not also attend a scholastic establishment.

The third reason which stultifies the objection to the admission of religious to secular colleges is that this objection applies the particular to the general. The assertion that a man cannot belong to two associations was originally formulated about ecclesiastical societies. Thus a man cannot be a canon in two churches without a dispensation or a legitimate reason. We read: from this date, no cleric shall be attached to two churches (Decretals, XXI, q. 1). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 21, q. 1, ch. 1 (Friedberg, 1:852).) But this rule does not apply to other associations. For the same man can be a citizen of two cities. Therefore, as a scholastic association is not an ecclesiastical society, there is no reason why a man belonging to a religious or secular association should not also be a member of a scholastic society.

Ad 4: The fourth objection, given for the exclusion of religious from association with secular students, is that religious cannot either teach or study without the authorization and permission of their superiors, who have the power to absolve their subjects from their oaths and other engagements in order to enable them to belong to such an association. Now we must remember that as the perfection of a whole consists in the union of its parts, a whole cannot exist unless its parts agree. Hence any decrees drawn up for the welfare of a state and city ought to be formulated with a view to the advantage of all its members. Any statutes which would hinder the unity of a commonwealth ought to be abolished. For laws are established in order to preserve the concord of a state and not to promote internal dissension. In the same way, there ought not to exist in any scholastic association statutes which do not suit all students alike.

Replies to calumnious objections

The words of the Apostle, quoted by our opponents in support of their objections, are no argument on their side.

Ad 1: First because the words of St. Paul, I appeal to you, brethren (Rom 16:17), do not apply to religious, but to heretics, and to schismatics. This is clearly shown in the text, wherein St. Paul warns the Romans to avoid such as cause dissensions contrary to the doctrine which they had learned, learned that is, as the Gloss explains, from the true apostles. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Rom 16:17 (PL 191:1529D).) Those against whom St. Paul gave this warning, were men who strove to impose the Jewish law upon the Gentiles.

Ad 2: Likewise, the words: now we command you, brethren (2 Thess 3:6), were not uttered against religious, but against men who passed their time in idleness and misdeeds. Of these St. Paul says: we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work (2 Thess 3:11), or as, the Gloss says: providing for their necessities by iniquitous means. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Thess 3:11 (PL 192:325C).)

Ad 3: Again the words: but understand this (2 Tim 3:1), were written not to religious, but to heretics, blasphemers as St. Paul calls them, who by their heresy blaspheme God (Gloss). (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Tim 3:2 (PL 192:374D).) The Apostle continues: as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men (i.e. heretics (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Tim 3:8 (PL 192:376A).)) also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith. Although he says that the heretics of whom he speaks had an appearance indeed of piety, that is, of religion, (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Tim 3:5 (PL 192:375A).) nevertheless religion in this passage signifies latria, which makes a profession of faith. In this sense, it is equivalent to piety, as St. Augustine says (City of God, X). (Augustine, The City of God 10.1.3 (CCSL 47; CSEL 40.1:447; PL 41:279).)

But even granted that all or some religious were as infamous as certain men consider them to be, that would be no reason for excluding them from communication with others. On 1 Corinthians 5:11: I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is a fornicator or greedy . . . not even to eat with such a one, the Gloss says: the Apostle’s words, "any one who bears the name of brother," show that men are not to condemn each other rashly and carelessly, but that it is only after judgment has been pronounced that any sinner is to be excluded from communion with the Church. If such a sinner cannot be judicially excommunicated, he must be tolerated. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 5:11 (PL 191:1575C).) We have no right to exclude any man from the society of his fellows unless he be found guilty of some crime by his own confession, or be denounced and convicted by some secular or ecclesiastical tribunal. Hence a man may not be condemned on suspicion, or by someone usurping the office of judge. He must be tried, accused and convicted according to the law of God, interpreted by the Church. Hence even were religious as reprobate as they are said to be, they ought not to be excluded from intercourse with the laity, unless they have been brought to judgment and have been condemned.

Replies to objections against the authority of the Apostle

The attempt to derogate from the authority of the apostles is not only based on false premises, but is closely akin to heresy. For we find in the Decretals the following passage: whoever endeavours to wrest from the Roman Church the privilege bequeathed to her by the supreme head of all the churches is undoubtedly guilty of heresy (XXII*, Omnes*). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 22, ch. 1 (Friedberg, 1:73).) And again: he acts contrary to faith who acts against her who is the Mother of the faith. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 22, ch. 1 (Friedberg, 1:73).) Now Christ granted to the Roman Church the privilege of being obeyed by all as he himself is obeyed, in order that we may continue to be members under our head, the Roman Pontiff, seated on the throne of the apostles. From him must we learn what we are to believe and uphold. We are bound to revere him, and to entreat him for all things. To him alone does it belong to rebuke and to correct and to unloose, in the place of him who has established him. To none other has this power been given, but to him alone, before whom all men do, by the divine command, abase their heads, and who is, by all the princes of the world, obeyed as if he were our Lord Jesus Christ himself, as says St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria (Thesaurus, 2). (Pseudo-Cyrillus, Libro de fide Trinitatis, sect. 98, 49-58.) Hence it is clear that anyone who maintains that the Pope need not be obeyed is a heretic.

Ad 1: The objection that, according to law, (Cf. Justinian, Digesta 17.2.19 (Mommsen, 1:500).) no one can be forced to join an association against his will applies only to a private society, established by two or three members. But a man can be compelled to form part of a public association, which cannot exist without the consent of authority. Thus, a prince may force the inhabitants of a certain city to accept an individual as their fellow-citizen, and an ecclesiastical society can be compelled to accept a man as a canon or a brother. Therefore, as any general scholastic association is, in a certain sense, a society, any man may be obliged by the authority of a superior to belong to it.

Ad 2: The assertion that the apostolic authority is limited to ecclesiastical affairs is false. The president of a republic is bound to provide food for those over whom he rules, and to undertake the proper education and training of the young (Ethics, 10). (Aristotle, Ethics 10.14, 1179b34.) He is likewise obliged to supervise the legislation of his republic, and to establish rules for the well-being of the citizens (Ethics, 1). (Aristotle, Ethics 1.2, 1094a28.) Thus we see that the legislation concerning education is one of the duties of the president of a republic. It must, therefore, come under the authority of the apostolic See, by which the whole Church is governed.

Ad 3: The last objection is founded on an absolute falsehood. The association of religious with the laity in matters concerning education is not intended for the destruction, but rather for the advancement, of learning. Hence there can be no possible doubt that, by the authority of the apostolic See, seculars may be compelled to admit religious into their scholastic societies.