Chapter 4 — Whether it is lawful for a religious to preach and hear confessions

Objections against preaching

The enemies of religious, not content with trying to hinder them from producing fruit in the Church by teaching and expounding the Sacred Scriptures, endeavour to do still further and greater harm, by preventing them from preaching and hearing confessions, in the hopes that thus they may be rendered unable either to encourage the faithful in virtue, or to eradicate vice. Those who act in this manner clearly show themselves to be those persecutors of the Church, who, as St. Gregory says, make a special effort to hinder the word of preaching (Moral., 20), commenting on the words as with the collar of my coat (Job 30:18). (Gregory the Great, Morals 20.29.59 (CCSL 143A; PL 76:173A).) These enemies of religion adduce several arguments in support of their persecution.

Obj. 1: First, they quote: the office of a monk is one thing, that of a cleric is another. Clerics feed their sheep: I, namely, a monk, am fed (Decretals, XVI, q. 1*)*. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 6 (Friedberg, 1:762).) Again: the duty of the monastic life is not to teach nor to preside nor to feed others with the word of God, but to be subject (Decretals, VII, q. 1, Nequaquam). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 7, q. 1, ch. 45 (Friedberg, 1:585).) To preach is to feed with the divine word, as is seen in John 21:17: feed my sheep, on which the Gloss says: to feed the sheep of Christ is to strengthen the faithful lest they fall away. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 1336 at John 21:17 (PL 114:425).) Hence monks, and religious who are counted as monks, cannot preach.

Obj. 2: This is more clearly laid down in Decretals, XVI, q. 1, Adjicimus, in which the following passage occurs: we declare that, with the exception of the priests of the Lord, no one has license to preach, be he layman or monk, no matter how great a reputation for learning he may enjoy. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 19 (Friedberg, 1:765).) Again, in Juxta we read as follows: we ordain that monks shall cease entirely from preaching to the people. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 11 (Friedberg, 1:763).)

Obj. 3: St. Bernard likewise says in his work on the Song of Songs: preaching does not beseem a monk; it is not expedient for a novice; it is not permitted to anyone who is not sent to preach. (Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermons on the Song of Songs, Sermon 64, para. 3 (PL 183:1085A-B).)

Obj. 4: Again, it is argued that they who nourish the people with the word of God ought also to minister to their temporal necessities. For as the Gloss says: to feed the sheep of Christ means to strengthen the faithful lest they fall away; and, if necessary, to provide for their temporal needs. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 1336 at John 21:17 (PL 114:425).) As religious are, by their profession of poverty, unable to supply the people with material necessities, they cannot feed them by preaching the word of God.

Obj. 5: Moreover, Ezekiel 34:2 says: should not shepherds feed the sheep? By shepherds, says the Gloss, are signified bishops, priests, and deacons, to whom the flock is committed. (Glossa ordinaria 4, 1330 at Ezek 34:2.) Hence religious, being neither bishops, priests, nor deacons, and having no charge of the flock, may not preach.

Obj. 6: Again, we read, how can men preach unless they are sent? (Rom 10:15). But our Lord has sent none but the twelve apostles (Luke 9), and the seventy-two disciples (Luke 10). The twelve apostles, says the Gloss, represent bishops, and the seventy-two disciples, the priests of the second rank (or parish priests). (Gloss ordinaria 5, 835 at Luke 10:1 (PL 114:284).) St. Paul likewise speaks of helpers (1 Cor 12:28), meaning those who assist their superiors, as Titus helped St. Paul, or as archdeacons help bishops. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 12:28 (PL 191:1657C).) Religious, therefore, being neither bishops, parish priests, nor archdeacons, have no right to preach.

Obj. 7: Moreover, we read in the Decretals (LXVIII): chorepiscopi are strictly forbidden both to this Holy See and to all bishoprics throughout the entire world. This institution is an abuse and corruption. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 68, ch. 5 (Friedberg, 1:255).) The reason of the prohibition is given in these words: for our Lord, as we know, only established two orders: the twelve apostles, and the seventy-two disciples. Whence this order arose, we do not know, but, as there is no reason for its existence, it must be abolished. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 68, ch. 5 (Friedberg, 1:255).) And thus preaching religious, being neither bishops (that is, successors of the apostles), nor parish priests (that is, successors to the seventy-two disciples), ought likewise to be suppressed.

Obj. 8: Moreover, Dionysius says that the monastic order ought not to be in a position of superiority to others, or, according to another version, (Namely, that of John the Saracen.) is not instituted for the purpose of guiding other men (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 6). (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 6, part 3, sect.1 (PG 3:534).) Now men are led to God by teaching and preaching. Hence neither monks, nor other religious, ought to preach or to teach.

Obj. 9: Moreover, the hierarchy of the Church is modelled on the celestial hierarchy: see that you make them after the pattern for them, which is being shown you on the mountain (Exod 25:40). Now in heaven angels of an inferior rank never exercise the function proper to those of a superior degree. Since, then, the monastic order is counted among the lesser orders of the Church, monks and other religious ought not to perform the office of preaching, which belongs to bishops and other prelates of a higher rank (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 6).

Obj. 10: Again, when a religious preaches, he does so either with power or without power. If he preaches without power, he is a false apostle. If he preaches with power, he has a right to demand the means of subsistence. Our Lord, when sending forth his apostles to preach, charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff (Mark 6:8). According to the Gloss, this staff signifies the power of accepting the necessities of life from those subject to them. Now it does not seem fitting that religious should demand the means of support. Therefore, they ought not to preach.

Obj. 11: Bishops have more right to preach than have religious, who are not entrusted with the cure of souls. But a bishop cannot preach outside his diocese, unless he be requested to do so by other bishops or priests. For it is clearly laid down: let no primate or metropolitan presume to judge the church or parish or anyone belonging to the parish of another diocese (Decretals, IX, q. 2); and the same rule is given in several other chapters. Therefore, religious, who have neither diocese nor parishes, may not preach unless specially invited to do so.

Obj. 12: A preacher ought not to build upon another man’s foundation, nor to glory in another man’s converts. He ought, rather, to imitate St. Paul, who says: if I have preached the gospel, it was not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation (Rom 15:20). And, again, the same Apostle says: we do not glory beyond limit in other men’s labors (2 Cor 10:15), which the Gloss explains as: not glorying where another has laid the foundation of faith, which would be to glory beyond limit. In the same chapter, St. Paul says: not glorying in another man’s rule (2 Cor 10:16), which the Gloss interprets as signifying not glorying in those who are under the government of another. Therefore, those who do not have the care of souls ought not to preach to the faithful who are entrusted to others. Rather, they ought to lay the foundation of the faith among unbelievers.

Objections against hearing confessions

Furthermore, they also try to prove that religious have no right to hear confessions.

Obj. 1: It says in the Decretals, XVI, q. 1, Placuit: we positively and irrevocably decree that no monk shall administer penance to anyone. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 1 (Friedberg, 1:761).) And in another chapter we find the words: let no monk presume to administer penance, to receive a child to baptism, to visit or anoint the sick, to bury the dead, or to meddle with any office of the kind. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 8 (Friedberg, 1:763).)

Obj. 2: Again, the following words occur in the chapter Interdicimus: we forbid abbots and monks to impose public penance, or to visit or anoint the sick. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 10 (Friedberg, 1:763).) From all these passages it appears evident that monks and religious (who are included under the same laws) have no right to hear confessions.

Obj. 3: Further, the following exhortation is addressed to priests in charge of churches: *be diligent to know the countenance of your cattle (*Prov 27:23). The Gloss thus comments on these words: the pastor of a church is bidden to take diligent care of those committed to him. He must know their doings, and he must remember to correct the vices which he may observe among them. (Glossa ordinaria 3, 1721-22 at Prov 27:23.) But he can only know the actions and failings of those under him by confession, and therefore they ought to confess only to their own pastors.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, Pope Innocent said in a general council: every one of the faithful, of both sexes, shall confess all his sins privately at least once a year to his own priest upon reaching years of discretion. He who is thus absolved of his sins need not confess them again (Extra. de paenitentiis et remissis). (Liber extravagantium decretalium (Decretales Gregorii Papae IX), bk. 5, tit. 28, ch. 12 (Friedberg, 2:887), from the Fourth Council of Lateran, canon 21.) Hence it follows that if any save a parish priest had the right to hear confessions and to give absolution, the faithful would not be bound once in the year to make their confession to their own parish priest. Now, as religious are not parish priests, and have not charge of the faithful, they ought not to hear confessions nor to absolve penitents.

Obj. 5: The faithful are likewise bound, according to the same decretal, to receive the sacraments from their own priests. But priests ought only to give the Church's sacraments to he worthy, and they can only know someone's worthiness by knowing their conscience through confession. Therefore, priests must hear the confessions of those beneath them, and thus no one else can absolve.

Obj. 6: It is necessary that the Church should avoid not only sin, but the risk of sin, that I may cut off the occasion from them, as St. Paul says (2 Cor 11:12). Now if the faithful are at liberty to confess to others besides to their own priests, many may say that they have been to confession, and yet approach the sacraments without confession. The parish priest would be powerless to hinder this abuse. Therefore, religious ought not to be allowed to hear confessions, as they are not parish priests.

Obj. 7: Moreover, the power to absolve sinners belongs only to him whose duty it is to correct them. Dionysius, in his epistle to Demophylus the monk, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Epistle 8, para. 1 (PG 3:1088C).) expressly says that correction is the office not of monks, but of priests. Hence religious ought not to administer absolution to penitents.

Obj. 8: Moreover, as religious have no defined province or diocese or parish, they may, if they be allowed to preach or hear confessions at all, do so anywhere. Their power therefore exceeds that of bishops, primates or patriarchs, who are not universal rulers. Even the Pope has forbidden himself to be called the universal bishop. (Gregory the Great, Register of Letters, bk. 8,* epistle 30 (CCSL 140A; PL 77:933B).)* And it is distinctly laid down that no Patriarch shall ever make use of the name "universal" (Decretals, XCIX). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 99, ch. 4 (Friedberg, 1:351).) The same prohibition is repeated in the next chapter. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 99, ch. 5 (Friedberg, 1:351).)

Objections against preaching and hearing confessions by episcopal delegation

Arguments are further brought forward to prove that religious cannot, by authority of bishops, preach or hear confessions.

Obj. 1: It is objected that a man no longer possesses what he gives away; and therefore if bishops commit the charge of parishes to parish priests, the care of those parishes belongs no longer to the bishops themselves, but to the parish priests. Hence they cannot give faculties to preach and hear confessions to religious without the consent of the parish priests.

Obj. 2: Again, it is urged that, by laying on a priest the care of a parish, the bishop frees himself from its responsibility, which rests on the priest to whom the charge is committed: keep this man; if by any means he be missing, your life shall be for his life (1 Kings 20:39). If a bishop were answerable for all the parishes in his diocese, he would have an unbearable burden. The care of each parish belongs to the priest appointed to take charge of it; and the bishop should not interfere with it further.

Obj. 3: It is further maintained that as a bishop is subject to his archbishop, so are priests subject to their bishops. But archbishops cannot meddle with the subjects of a bishop unless he be proved guilty of negligence: let archbishops do nothing in matters concerning the affairs of the bishops without taking counsel with them (Decretals, IX, q. 3). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 9, q. 3, ch. 5 (Friedberg, 1:607).) On the same grounds, bishops must not meddle with the affairs of parish priests without their consent, unless a priest be proved guilty of negligence or fault.

Obj. 4: Each parish priest is the bridegroom of the church entrusted to him. But if other clergy, besides those commissioned by the bishops, exercise in parish churches the ministry of preaching or hearing confessions, the one church will have many bridegrooms. This state of affairs would clearly be opposed to the decree ordaining that as it is unlawful for a wife to commit adultery, or to be judged or disposed of during the lifetime of her husband without his permission; so the spouse of a bishop (that is, his church or parish) may not during his lifetime be judged or disposed of without his will and consent; neither is it lawful to exercise ministry in such a church or parish (Decretals, VII, q. 1). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 7, q. 1, ch. 39 (Friedberg, 1:581).) And this prohibition, as Gratian says, (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 7, q. 1, ch. 40 (Friedberg, 1:581).) applies not only to bishops, but to all ministers of the Church.

Objections against preaching and hearing confessions by papal delegation

Obj. 1: Our opponents also endeavour to prove that religious are not, even by the permission of the apostolic See, allowed to preach or hear confessions. For not even the authority of the pope can establish any custom or make any law opposed to the statutes of the Fathers: if it be against the statutes of the early Fathers that any should preach or hear confessions, save only the priests of the Lord, permission to do so can be given to no one, even as a privilege granted by the pope (Decretals, XXV, q. 1, Contra statuta; cf. also XVI, q. 1). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 25, q. 1, ch. 7 (Friedberg, 1:1008); C. 16, q. 1, ch. 19 with writing by Gratian (Friedberg, 1:765).)

Obj. 2: We also find in Decretals, XXV, q. 1, Sunt quidam, the following words: if, which God forbid, the Roman Pontiff should try to overthrow the teaching of the apostles and prophets, he would be convicted not of giving an opinion, but of falling into error. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 25, q. 1, ch. 6 (Friedberg, 1:1008).) If then there be an apostolic ordinance not to boast of work already done in another’s field (2 Cor 10:15), the pope, were he to confer the privilege just mentioned upon any man, would commit an error.

Obj. 3: Further, it is a law that when a sovereign grants permission to a man to erect a building in a public place, it is understood that he to whom this privilege is conceded may only use it in so far as it be not to the prejudice of anyone (cf. Ne quid in loco publico aedificare, lib. 1, Si quis a principe). (The true text is found in Justinian, Digesta 43.8.2 (Mommsen, 2:574).) And St. Gregory says: as we defend our own property, so let each one of us be jealous for the rights of his own church. I will not, through partiality, concede to any man more than he deserves; nor shall any cunning cause me to refuse to anyone that which is his right (Decretals, XXV, q. 2, De ecclesiasticis). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 25, q. 2, ch. 8 (Friedberg, 1:1014) from Gregory the Great, Register of Letters 2.47 (CCSL 140; PL 77:588B).) But if a man preach or hear confessions in a church uninvited, he is doing an injustice to the parish priest. Hence no permission for the exercise of these functions ought to be granted without the consent of the clergy of the parish.

Obj. 4: Again, if a sovereign grants any individual freedom to make a will, he does not thereby give him permission to do more than to draw up an ordinary and legitimate will. It is not conceivable that a Roman governor, the protector of law, should desire by one word to prevent the observance of the statutes concerning wills which have been framed with such laborious care (De inoffic. testament., Si quando). (Justinian, Codex Iustinianus, ed. Krueger (Berlin: Weidman, 1954), bk. 3, sect. 28, n. 35, p. 135.) In like manner, if the Pope should grant to any persons the privilege of preaching or hearing confessions, the permission ought to be understood in its usual sense as subject to the wishes of parish priests.

Obj. 5: A monk receiving priestly orders has not the faculties for performing the functions attached to the sacerdotal office (namely, the administration of the sacraments), unless he be canonically appointed to the care of a parish. We further find it laid down: if the office of preaching be committed to any man by a papal privilege, he cannot exercise it when souls have not been entrusted to him (Decretals, XVI, q. 1, Ecce). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, writing by Gratian after ch. 19 (Friedberg, 1:765).)

Obj. 6: Moreover, neither the Pope nor any other mortal man can overturn or alter the ecclesiastical hierarchy which has been divinely instituted. For this power has been given to no one unto destruction, but unto edification (2 Cor 10:8). But in the order of the Church, monks are among those who are to be made perfect (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 6). (Pseudo-Dionyisius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 6.1.3 (PG 3:532C-D).) Therefore, nothing can so alter this order as to place monks among those whose office it is to make others perfect.

Objection against seeking permission to preach or hear confessions

Obj. 1: Those who argue in this manner strive further to prove that religious have no right to seek permission from bishops or parish priests to preach or hear confessions. If they do so, they are actuated by an ambitious desire of usurping the ecclesiastical office: when a command is laid upon a man to assume an exalted position, he who obeys the order loses the merit of obedience if he ambitiously aspires to the post (Decretals, VIII, q. 1, Sciendum). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 8, q. 1, ch. 10 (Friedberg, 1:593) from Gregory the Great, Morals 35.14.30 (CCSL 143B; PL 76:766D).) Now preaching and hearing confessions are duties of the ecclesiastical state and therefore confer dignity and power. Hence religious cannot, without notable ambition, ask for permission to preach and hear confessions. They can only do so when required.

Response

I answer that, as Boethius says, (Boethius, On the Person and the Two Natures 7 (PL 64:1352C).) the road of faith runs truly between two heresies, just as virtue keeps on the center line between vices. For virtue consists in preserving the due balance of things, and by doing too much or too little man falls from virtue. In the same way, he who holds either more or less than the truth falls into error; but truth is the center line of faith.

Now it must be remembered that there have been certain heretics, and some now exist, who consider that the power of the ecclesiastical ministry depends upon sanctity of life, and that he who is not holy loses this power, and that this power is increased in proportion to a man’s holiness.

This opinion does not concern our point; but let us for the moment presume it to be erroneous. From this error has arisen the presumption of certain men, especially of monks, who, elated by their holiness, have usurped the functions of ecclesiastics at their own pleasure—preaching and giving absolution without any episcopal commission. We find their audacity rebuked in the following terms: We are astonished that in your parish certain monks and abbots have, contrary to the decrees of the holy Fathers, arrogated to themselves the rights and functions of bishops. They administer penance and remission of sins, bring about reconciliations, and dispose of tithes and churches. They ought not to presume to act thus without license from the bishop or authority of the apostolic See (XVI, quaest. I, Pervenit ad nos). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 9 (Friedberg, 1:763).) Now in their condemnation of the presumption of these monks, certain men have fallen into the error of rashly saying that religious are unfitted to perform the duties just enumerated, even though they be appointed thereto by the authority of the Bishop: There are certain men, filled rather with bitter jealousy than with love of truth, who, without any grounds for their assertion, have the presumption to state that monks, who have died to the world in order to live to God, are unworthy of exercising the priestly office, and are incapable of administering penance, of teaching Christianity, or of giving absolution, in spite of the power divinely committed to them at their ordination. But this is a complete error (XVII, quaest. I). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 25 (Friedberg, 1:767).) Other men are led by their audacity into another mistake. They assert that religious are not merely precluded by their state of life from exercising the sacerdotal functions, but that bishops cannot, without the consent of the parish priests, grant them faculties for their performance. And what is even more pernicious, they say that the Pope himself cannot qualify religious to act as priests. Thus this error leads to the same result as that which we have previously mentioned. For while one error detracts from the ecclesiastical power, the other asserts that the power of the church depends upon sanctity of life.

To destroy this error, we will proceed in this order:

First, we shall show that bishops and superior prelates can preach and absolve those who are under the care of priests without needing the permission of those priests.

Second, that they can empower others to act in like manner.

Third, that religious are capable of exercising these functions when commissioned by a bishop. (Sect. 10.)

Fourth, that it is fitting for religious to exercise these offices when commissioned by the bishops. (Sect. 9.)

Fifth, that a religious order may advantageously be founded for the purpose of preaching and hearing confessions, with license from the bishops.

Sixth, we shall reply to the objections of our adversaries.

Bishops can preach and absolve without the permission of priests under them

The fact that a bishop has, in any parish of his diocese, all the powers of a priest is proved by these words from Decretals, X, q. 1, Sic quidam: all that has been established in the Church, by her ancient constitution, belongs to the office and power of a bishop, (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 10, q. 1, ch. 2 (Friedberg, 1:613).) and the same is said in the next chapter. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 10, q. 1, ch. 3 (Friedberg, 1:613).) Now the temporal things of the Church exist for the sake of that which is spiritual. Hence, all the more are the spiritual concerns of parishes committed to the bishops.

Again, in the same question it is said that every parish is to be administered under the care and supervision of the bishop, by the priest or the other clerics whom he shall appoint, in the fear of God. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 10, q. 1, ch. 4 (Friedberg, 1:613).)

In the following chapter, we likewise read that a church must be governed and conducted according to the judgment and power of the bishop, who is charged with the souls of his whole flock. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 10, q. 1, ch. 5 (Friedberg, 1:614).)

Again, a priest in charge of a parish can do nothing in it without a general or particular permission from his bishop. Hence we read: all priests, deacons, and other ecclesiastics must, above all things, bear in mind that they may do nothing without license from their respective bishop. Without this license, a priest cannot in his own parish say Mass, baptise, or perform any other office (Decretals, XVI, q. 1, Cunctis fidelibus). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 41 (Friedberg, 1:773-74).) Hence a bishop has more power in each parish of his diocese than have the priests of those parishes. For they can do nothing without the bishop’s leave.

The Gloss commenting on: in every place of theirs and ours (1 Cor 1:2), says: that is, in every place originally committed to me, and the Apostle was speaking of suffragan churches, that is, churches subject to the Church of Corinth. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 1:2 (PL 191:1535A).) If, then, bishops are the successors of the apostles and retain their office, as appears from the commentary in the Gloss on Luke 10, (Glossa ordinaria 5, 835 at Luke 10:1 (PL 114:284).) the chief power in a parish belongs rather to the bishop than to the parish priest. For the words, in every place of theirs and ours, cannot mean that the church was first entrusted to St. Paul, and then taken from him and given to another, else it would have ceased to be his.

Apollo was a priest, ministering to the Corinthians, as we know from the words (1 Cor 3:6), Apollo watered, that is, by baptism (Gloss). (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 3:6 (PL 191:1555B).) Nevertheless, St. Paul regulated the affairs of the Church of Corinth, as we learn from his own words, about the other things I will give directions when I come (1 Cor 11:34). And again, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ (2 Cor 2:10). And, again, he writes to the Corinthians: what do you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness? (1 Cor 4:21) Again, according to the limits God has apportioned us, to reach even to you (2 Cor 10:13). In another chapter, he says: I write this while I am away from you, in order that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority which the Lord has given me (2 Cor 13:10). This power, as the Gloss says, was that of binding and loosing. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Cor 13:10 (PL 192:93A).) Hence we clearly see that a bishop retains full jurisdiction over the people entrusted to priests.

Again, priests are said to be successors of the seventy-two disciples, and bishops successors of the twelve apostles (cf. the Gloss on Luke 10). (Glossa ordinaria 5, 835 at Luke 10:1 (PL 114:284).) Now it would be absurd to maintain that the apostles had no power of binding or loosing and of performing other spiritual works without permission from the seventy-two disciples. This argument holds good in like manner with regard to the relations between bishops and priests.

Dionysius furthermore says that although the duty of the episcopate is to perfect others, that of the priesthood to enlighten them, and that of the diaconate to cleanse them, nevertheless, bishops are bound not only to perfect but likewise to enlighten and to purify their people. In like manner, it is the office of priests not only to enlighten, but likewise to purify their flocks (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 5). (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 5.7 (PG 3:508C).) He gives the following reason for his assertion: inferior powers cannot become capable of the higher works; and it would be unjust were they to aspire to such a dignity. But the more divine powers are able to perform inferior operations, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 5.7 (PG 3:508C).) as we see by the words of Maximus. (St. Maximus the Confessor, Commentary on Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, at ch. 5, section 7, 'Pontificum nempe' (PG 4:165A).)

It is plain then that if a priest can do the work of a deacon, a bishop can accomplish all and more than is done by a priest. A priest can, without permission from his deacon, read the gospel in his church. Therefore, a bishop can, without license from the parish priest, absolve and administer the other sacraments in any parish church of his diocese. What a man does through the agency of another he can do himself; but when priests give absolution it is their bishop who is said to absolve by their instrumentality. Hence Dionysius writes: he who, according to us, is the high priest, cleanses and illuminates us by means of priests, his ministers. It is he who is said to exercise these functions, because he entrusts others with the power of performing these sacred actions in his stead (Ecclesiastical Hiearchy, 13). (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 13, sect. 4 (PG 3:305).) Hence a bishop may, in his own person, give absolution or preach.

Again, the inferior clergy owe obedience to their prelates in all that regards their care of souls. Thus St. Paul says: obey your prelates and submit to them; for they are keeping watch (Heb 13:17), that is, they are solicitous for you in preaching, (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Heb 13:7 (PL 192:517B).) over your souls, as men who will have to give account. A parishioner is more stringently bound to obey his bishop than his parish priest. For on Romans 13:2: he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, the Gloss says that obedience must be paid rather to the higher than to the lower power. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Rom 13:2 (PL 191:1505B-C).) Thus a proconsul must be obeyed rather than a governor, and an Emperor rather than a proconsul. For obedience must be proportioned to rank. This maxim applies to spiritual far more strongly than to temporal affairs. Hence bishops, who are invested with power superior to that of parish priests, are at the same time more fully responsible for the people. The words of the book of Proverbs 27:23: be diligent to know the countenance of your cattle, refer to the care of souls and are chiefly carried out by hearing confessions. Therefore, it suits bishops, even more than parish priests, to hear the confessions of the faithful.

As the seventy-two elders, of whom we read (Num 11:16), were given to Moses as assistants, so priests are appointed as coadjutors to bishops, who could not bear their burdens unaided. Hence at the ordination of a priest, the bishop makes use of the following and similar words: the weaker we are, the more do we stand in need of assistance. (Roman Pontifical (1962) 12.9.20.) But the fact that a bishop has a coadjutor does not deprive him of his own powers; for he still continues to be their primary agent, and priests are his ministers. Hence bishops have as good and even a better right than priests to perform every sacerdotal office without the permission of any priest.

Further, bishops hold the place of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Church. Therefore, Dionysius says: the pontifical order is the first of divine ordinances, and supreme in the hierarchy of the Church. In it all degrees of the ecclesiastical hierarchy are consummated and made perfect (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 5). (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastial Hierarchy 5.1.5 (PG 3:505A).) As we behold the universal hierarchy summed up in Jesus, so each particular hierarchy attains its fulness in its own chief priest: namely, its bishop. St. Peter says of Christ, be converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls (1 Pet 2:25). These words also apply chiefly to the Roman Pontiff, before whom, as St. Cyril remarks, every head must, by divine right, bow, and whom all must obey as they would obey our Lord Jesus Christ himself. (Pseudo-Cyrillus in Libro de fide Trinitatis, sect. 98, 55.) St. Chrysostom, commenting on: feed my lambs (John 21:15), says, these words are equivalent to saying, "be, in my place, head and master of your brethren." (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on John, homily 88 (PG 59:477-82) according to the translation in Libro de fide Trinitatis, sect. 103, 22.) Hence it is absurd and almost blasphemous, to say that a bishop, who represents Christ, cannot exercise the power of the keys over any person in his diocese.

In order to give absolution, it is necessary to have the power of the keys and jurisdiction over every soul in a diocese. By this the matter is determined; and for the administration of penance as for the other Sacraments, all that is necessary is the power of orders and the matter, together with the appointed form and due intention. Now a bishop, being a priest, has the keys. He has jurisdiction over every member of his diocese, otherwise he could not summon them to appear before him. Hence he can give absolution to anyone in his diocese without the permission of any priest.

It is argued that it is necessary for parish priests to hear confessions, because they have the duty of administering the Eucharist, which no one should receive who is in mortal sin. But Confirmation and Holy Orders likewise require a state of grace in their recipients; and these sacraments can be given by bishops only. Hence a bishop is entitled to hear the confession of every person in his diocese.

Further, no one can reserve to himself what is not within his own power. Now by a common usage, (Thomas Aquinas, Super Sentences IV, d. 19, q. 1, a. 3, qc. 2.) bishops reserve to themselves certain cases for absolution. But, in order to act thus, they must have power to absolve. Hence they must likewise have power to absolve in all other cases in which they desire to do so.

Dionysius remarks that, in our hierarchy the episcopal power is universal, and the power of priests and other ministers particular (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 1, 5). (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 1.3, 5.1.5-6 (PG 3:373C, 505A-D).) But, as we know by philosophy, universal power acts more efficaciously on that which is subject to a particular power than does that particular power itself. (Liber de causis, Proposition 1 and commentary.) Hence a bishop exercises the power of the keys more efficaciously on those who are subject to priests than do priests themselves.

Further, it is plain that no man can give to another anything that he does not himself possess. It is the office of a bishop to give authority to priests. But by imparting authority a bishop does not deprive himself of it, for spiritual gifts are only bestowed by the action of the giver on the recipient. But as an agent does not, by acting, lose the power of acting, a bishop retains all that power which he gives to parish priests.

Bishops can commission others to preach and hear confessions in parishes entrusted to priests

Our next task will be to prove that certain men can be commissioned by bishops to preach and hear confessions in the parishes entrusted to priests. For a bishop may, with expediency, choose out certain men fit for the holy office of preaching (De officio judic. ordin., Inter caetera). (Liber extravagantium decretalium (Decretales Gregorii Papae IX), bk. 1, tit. 31, ch. 5 (Friedberg, 2:192), from the Fourth Council of Lateran, ch. 10.) And again: we enjoin that, both in cathedrals and in conventual churches, bishops should appoint certain coadjutors and fellow-workers, who shall assist not only in the duty of preaching, but in that of hearing confessions, imposing penance, and other such offices as may pertain to the welfare of souls. (Liber extravagantium decretalium (Decretales Gregorii Papae IX), bk. 1, tit. 31, ch. 5 (Friedberg, 2:192), from the Fourth Council of Lateran, ch. 10.) From these words, it is plain that the clerics of monastic churches, who are not parish priests, may preach and hear confessions by the authority of the bishop.

Again: all such as have been forbidden to preach, or who have not received, publicly or privately, license to preach from the apostolic See, or from the Catholic bishop of a place, and shall yet usurp the office of preaching, do so under pain of excommunication (Extra., De haereticis, Excommunicavimus, quia vero). (Liber extravagantium decretalium (Decretales Gregorii Papae IX), bk. 5, tit. 7, ch. 13 (Friedberg, 2:788)) Hence we see that the Pope, or a bishop, can give to any priest authority to preach.

Further, it is certain that the apostles, of whom bishops are the successors, ordained certain priests in cities and villages to dwell continually among their people. But they likewise sent forth others to preach and to perform other offices, for the good of souls. Thus St. Paul writes: I am sending to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ (1 Cor 4:17). Again: I urged Titus to go, and sent the brother with him (2 Cor 12:18); namely, Barnabas or Luke, according to the Gloss. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Cor 12:18 (PL 192:88D).) Also Titus 1:5: this is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint priests in every town as I directed you. Hence other priests, besides those in charge of parishes, may preach and hear confessions with license from a bishop.

The offices of preaching and of hearing confessions pertain both to jurisdiction and to orders. But offices pertaining to jurisdiction can only be exercised by those who have received orders. Hence if a bishop, without asking permission of the parish priest, can preach or hear confessions in any parish church within his diocese, another priest may, by the commission of the bishop, act in the same manner.

This proposition is likewise proved by the fact that persons seeking admission into the Church receive from the papal penitentiaries letters empowering them to make their confession to any priest whatsoever.

And the papal legates and penitentiaries preach everywhere, and hear confessions without asking any permission from parish priests, but solely by the authority of the Pope. This proves that commission can be given to certain priests (both for preaching and for hearing confessions) without any necessity for a further license from parish priests.

Religious are fit to preach and hear confessions

It now remains to be proved that religious are fit to perform the functions of preaching and hearing confessions. For without the license of their own bishop monks and abbots may not presume to administer penance (Decretals, XVI, q. 1, Pervenit). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 9 (Friedberg, 1:763).) From which it follows that religious, when authorised by the Pope or by a bishop, may lawfully hear confessions.

Again, in the same chapter the following words occur: we, in our apostolic discretion and tenderness, decree that it is lawful for monks who are priests and who represent the apostles to preach, baptize, give communion, pray for sinners, impose penance, and absolve from sin. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 24 (Friedberg, 1:767).)

In the next chapter (Sunt tamen nonnulli), Pope Boniface speaks thus: we believe that, by the operation of God, the office of binding and loosing may be worthily accomplished by monks in priestly orders, if they have been deservedly exalted to this rank. We further ordain that for the future, those shall be reprimanded who contend that priests of the monastic profession are excluded from the exercise of the sacerdotal functions. For the higher a man’s rank, the greater is his power. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 25 (Friedberg, 1:767).)

Again, bishops are bound, as far as possible, to imitate the divine judgments. St. Paul says: be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ (1 Cor 4:16). But God has judged some monks worthy to preach without any human authorization. This was the case with the monk Equitius, as St. Gregory relates (Dialogues), (Gregory the Great, Dialogues, bk. 1, ch. 4 (PL 77:169B).) and also with St. Benedict. (Gregory the Great, Dialogues 2.8 (PL 66:152B).) Hence bishops may rightly esteem certain religious to be fit to preach.

Further, everything that is lawful to secular priests is lawful likewise to religious with the exception of any points forbidden by their rule. But it is right for monks to absolve and to perform similar functions. St. Benedict, the gentle guide of monks, has not forbidden such offices to be undertaken by religious (Arg. 16, q*.* 1, Sunt tamen nonnulli). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 25 (Friedberg, 1:767).) Secular priests, when authorized by a bishop, may preach and hear confessions. Hence, as there is no rule forbidding monks to perform these duties, they may preach and hear confessions in like manner.

It is a greater dignity for a man to preach by his own authority than by the commission of another. Now religious are always liable to be raised to the episcopate, in which rank they have a right to preach and do other work expedient for the welfare of souls at their own discretion. Why then should they be deemed unfit to preach by the permission of a bishop?

The fact that a man is in a state of perfection does not incapacitate him from preaching. On the contrary, preaching is a ministry peculiarly befitting the perfect state professed by religious. Hence the Gloss, commenting on Ezra 1:4: let each survivor, in whatever place he sojourns, says: all those who have been chosen and delivered from the powers of darkness belong to the liberty of the glory of the children of God; and they all rejoice at being declared to belong to the society of the holy city (that is, the Church); but it is the prerogative of the perfect alone to labor at building up the Church by preaching to others. (Glossa ordinaria 2, 1279 at Ezra 1:4.) The fact that these words apply to the perfection of religious, is proved by the following words: the more earnestly preachers instruct their hearers to love heavenly things, the lea will they care about earthly goods. They will even abandon what they already possess, in the hope of obtaining an eternal heritage. (Glossa ordinaria 2, 1279 at Ezra 1:4.) This interpretation further appears in the interlinear commentary, which says, all the rest, that is, the rich who cannot preach. (Glossa interlinearis, at Ezra 1:4 (in Glossa ordinaria 2, 1277-78).) Hence religious are not less fit than others to preach, and, with the commission of a bishop, have as much right to hear confessions and to preach as have parish priests.

On the words, we departed from the river (Ezra 8:31), the Gloss comments: let us likewise call to our assistance the religious army of brethren by whose help we may carry the souls of the faithful to the society of the elect, and to the fortress of a more perfect life, as we should carry holy vessels to the temple of the Lord; (Glossa ordinaria at Ezra 8:31 (PL 113:709-10).) from which the earlier conclusion is clear.

Again, the right of religious to preach and hear confessions is proved by the common custom of the Eastern Church, in which almost all the monks are confessors.

Again, a greater responsibility attaches to the office of legate, and to the work of confirming bishops, and setting them over churches, than to the office of preachers or confessors. But as we know that the first and more onerous duties are entrusted to religious, there is no reason why they should not perform the less important ones.

Again, the work of hearing lawsuits has less connection with the religious life than have the tasks of preaching or absolving. But as religious are employed in the former office, they may, with far greater reason, be entrusted with the latter functions.

It is expedient for the salvation of souls

It now remains for us to show that it is expedient for the salvation of souls that others, besides parish priests, should preach and hear confessions.

Our first proof is taken from the words of our Lord: the harvest is plentiful—or as the Gloss explains, there is a vast multitude capable of receiving the word and of bearing fruit (Glossa interlinearis at Matt 9:37 (labeled Matt 10:2 in the Gloss) (in Glossa ordinaria 5, 185-86).)—but the laborers are few, (according to the Gloss: the preachers who shall gather together the church of the elect (Glossa interlinearis at Matt 9:37 (labeled Matt 10:2 in the Gloss) (in Glossa ordinaria 5,185-86).)). Pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest (Matt 9:37). These words show that it is salutary for the Church that the word of God should be announced to the faithful by many preachers, with an ever increasing number of believers.

Again, it is written in Wisdom 6:24: a multitude of wise men (a company of preachers, according to the interlinear Gloss) is the salvation of the world.

St. Paul says: what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men, that is, men of sound faith (Gloss), (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Tim 2:2 (PL 192:367C).) who will be able, that is, fitted by their good life, their learning and eloquence (Gloss), (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Tim 2:2 (PL 192:367C).) to teach others (2 Tim 2:2). In other words: the office of preaching ought to be committed to those capable of fulfilling it (Gloss). (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Tim 2:2 (PL 192:367C).)

Again, on the words of Ezra 3:8: all who had come to Jerusalem from the captivity, the Gloss has the following comment: not only is it the duty of bishops and priests to build up the house of God, whereby is signified his faithful people; but the people themselves, who are called out of captivity into Jerusalem, the vision of peace, ought likewise to require ministry of the Word from those who know how to preach. (Glossa ordinaria 2, 1294 at Ezra 3:8 (PL 113:699C).)

On Job 29:6, when I washed my feet with butter, St. Gregory remarks: what shall we bishops say, who care not to impart the Word entrusted to us, when we see this married man who does not suffer himself to be hindered from preaching either by his worldly garb or his pressing occupations? (Moral., 19). (Gregory the Great, Morals 19.14.23 (CCSL 143A; PL 76:112B).) By these words we see that others besides prelates and parish priests may rightfully exercise the office of preaching.

We learn the same lesson from many other passages of the Old Testament. David is praised for having extended the worship of God, and for having established twenty-four priests for the benefit of the people (1 Chron 23 and 24). The same thing is related of Hezechiah: the posts went with letters, by commandment of the king and his princes, to all Israel and Judah, proclaiming, according to the king’s orders: "children of Israel, turn again to the Lord God" (2 Chron 3:6). Assuerus, again, as we are told in Esther 8:14, sent swift messages through the provinces to announce the deliverance of the people of God. With much greater reason, then, may others besides parish priests be commissioned to preach and to perform such like offices for the salvation of souls.

St. Gregory says: the pastors of souls and they who have undertaken the responsibility of feeding the flock of Christ ought very seldom, if ever, to change their dwelling. But those who, for love of God, take journeys for the sake of preaching may be compared to wheels of fire. For the zeal which devours them, and wherewith they inflame others, causes them to travel swiftly from place to place (Homily 5, 1 on Ezekiel). (Gregory the Great, Homilies on Ezekiel 1.5.10 (CCSL 142;PL 76:825A).) This is another proof that the office of preaching should be committed not only to parish priests, but to others who can spread the knowledge of the truth by travelling from one place to another.

Again, a preacher of the Word ought to be free from any other occupation; whereas parish priests are constantly engaged in good work and in ecclesiastical business. The apostles said: it is not right that we should give up the word of God to serve tables (Acts 6:2). On this account, it is right that those who are in charge of parishes should be assisted by others not thus occupied.

The necessity for priests devoted to the ministry of preaching is further shown by the great ignorance prevailing in some places amongst many of the clergy, some of whom do not even know how to speak in Latin. It is rare to find any who are conversant with the Scriptures. Yet a knowledge of the holy writings is essential to those who would preach the word of God. Hence if preaching be entrusted solely to parish priests, the faithful will be greatly the losers. The ignorance which prevails among the clergy is also most detrimental in the duty of hearing confessions. For, as St. Augustine says: if any man desires to confess his sins, let him seek out a priest who knows how to bind and to loose. For if he be negligent in the matter, he may be neglected by him who incites him and moves him to seek for mercy; and so both may fall into the ditch which, in his folly, he strove not to avoid (De poenitentia). (Pseudo-Augustine, De vera et falsa paenitentia, ch. 10, n. 25 (PL 40:1122).)

Additional priests, deputed to preach and to act as confessors are likewise necessary on account of the great multitude of souls often committed to the care of one pastor. For were some parish priests to devote their whole lives to the task, they would scarcely be able to hear the confessions of all their flock. It happens likewise that some of the faithful, having no opportunity of confessing to any save to their parish priest, will abstain altogether from confession. For they are ashamed to acknowledge their sins to those whom they see every day. Sometimes, again, they fancy that the priest is unfriendly to them, and the like. Hence bishops act very judiciously in providing them with other confessors, and thus preserving them from despair.

Expediency of a religious order instituted for the purpose of preaching and hearing confessions

The foregoing reflections naturally lead us to consider the expediency of a religious order being instituted for the express purpose of assisting parish priests in preaching and hearing confessions. Episcopal permission would, of course, be needed to authorise the brethren of such an order to undertake their duties.

Every religious order is based on the model of the apostolic life. We are told that the apostles practiced community of life: they had everything in common (Acts 4:32). The Gloss says that the word "common" is, in Greek, rendered by "cena," or common meal, whence come the words "cenobites," or dwellers in common, and "cenobia," or common dwelling places. (Glossa ordinaria 6, 1025 at Acts 4:32 (PL 114:437).) The apostles practiced this mode of life in order that, leaving all things, they might be at liberty to preach the Gospel throughout the world, as Matthew 10:7–10 orders them to do. Hence a religious order is peculiarly well adapted to the office of preaching.

St. James says, religion pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the orphan and the widow in their tribulation (Jas 1:27). The most necessary form of visiting those in affliction, is that which is practiced by such as labor for the salvation of souls. A religious order may then with great advantage, be instituted with this object in view that its members may seek out such as are in trouble, and encourage them to have patience, and to hope in, the promises of Scripture.

On the words, it is not right that we should give up the word of God to serve tables (Acts 6:2), the Gloss says: food for the soul is better than banquets for the body. (Glossa interlinearis, at Acts 6:2 (in Glossa ordinaria 6, 1039-40).) Now certain orders have already been piously and healthily instituted for the purpose of assisting men in their corporeal needs. Therefore, it is still more fitting that another order should be established to minister to their spiritual wants.

It is more seemly for a religious to fight with spiritual weapons than with sword and shield. But there are already in existence several military orders. It is therefore expedient that an order should be founded for the purposes of spiritual warfare. The religious of such an order ought principally to preach the gospel, according to the exhortation of St. Paul: labour as a good soldier of Christ Jesus (2 Tim 2:3), by preaching the gospel against the enemies of the faith, as the Gloss explains. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Tim 2:3 (PL 192:367D).)

It is essential that they who labor for the salvation of souls should be remarkable both for learning, and for sanctity of life. It is not easy to find enough priests with such a reputation to take charge of all the parishes throughout the world: neither is it possible, among secular priests, to carry out the statute of the Council of Lateran, which enjoins that there should be teachers of theology in every metropolitan church. (Fourth Council of Lateran, ch. 11, in Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, curantibus J. Albergio, J.A. Dossetti, P.P. Joannour, C. Leonardi, P. Prodi, consultante H. Jedin (Centro di Documentazione, Instituto per le Scienze Religiose: Bologna, 1962); Liber extravagantium decretalium (Decretales Gregorii Papae IX), bk. 5, tit. 5, ch. 4 (Friedberg, 2:770).) This desire of the Church is, however, through the mercy of God, being carried out through the instrumentality of religious. In the words of Isaiah 11:9, the earth is full of the knowledge of the Lord. Thus, it is highly expedient that a religious order should be founded, in which the brethren are learned and addicted to study, and at the same time have leisure to help secular priests who are not so well adapted to teach theology.

The advantage of such orders is further proved by the beneficial results produced by their labors. For in many parts of the world, heresy has been destroyed; many infidels have been converted; careless Christians have been instructed in the law of God; and many have been brought to penance by the efforts of religious. Hence anyone who condemns such orders as useless is clearly sinning against the Holy Spirit, by envy of the grace whereby God co-operates in the labors of these men.

Again, we read the following words: no one can, either safely or rightly, pass rash judgments either on the divine constitutions or on the decrees of the Holy See (Decretals, XXV, q. 1). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 25, q. 1, ch. 4 (Friedberg, 1:1008).) Since, therefore, certain religious orders, as is proved by their very name (for, as St. Augustine puts it in his book The Christian Life: no one is called by a name without a cause (Pseudo-Augustine, The Christian Life, ch. 6 (PL 40:1036).)), have been established by the apostolic See for the purposes of which we have spoken, anyone who condemns them does himself incur condemnation by so doing.

Replies to objections against preaching

All that remains is to respond to our opponents' objections.

Ad 1: Their first argument is that the duty of monks is not to feed a flock, but to be fed. This saying is to be understood as meaning that monks do not have the office of instructing the faithful by right of their monastic profession. It was directed against the mistaken notion that sanctity of life alone is sufficient qualification for the ecclesiastical state. But it is equally true that it is not the duty of a secular priest to feed a flock unless he has the care of souls, or unless he bears a commission from those holding such a charge. Religious are as fitted as are the secular clergy for the office of preaching. The only difference between them is that religious require a double license, namely, the authorisation of a bishop and permission from the superior of their order, without which they may not act.

Ad 2: The second objection must be answered in exactly the same way. For the words, let none save the priests of the Lord dare to preach, is true, if we understand them to mean that no one may preach without a commission to do so. In like manner, the prohibition to monks to preach, which is quoted against us, is to be understood to mean that monks may not, merely because they are monks, arrogate to themselves the office of preaching.

Ad 3: And, in the same way, when it is said that it does not beseem a monk to preach, the words mean that the monastic state does not of itself confer a right to preach.

Ad 4: When it is objected that they who feed the people with the word of God ought likewise to supply their material necessities, we reply that this is perfectly true in cases where such charity is possible. For as St. John says: if any one has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? (1 John 3:17) But almsgiving is not always the necessary accompaniment to preaching; otherwise the apostles would not have preached, for they possessed nothing to give: I have no silver and gold (Acts 3:6). Nevertheless, religious, who themselves are poor, are able at times to provide for the wants of the poor out of the donations made to them by the wealthy. St. Paul tells us that when he was sent to preach to the Gentiles, he was careful to remember the poor (Gal 2:10).

Ad 5: To the objection that pastors are bound to feed their flocks, we reply that they cannot feed them entirely by their own efforts; they must be assisted by others to whom they entrust the task. For he by whose authority a deed is accomplished is held responsible for its performance.

Ad 6: When it is urged that none have a right to preach, save those who are sent, and that we only read of our Lord’s sending the twelve apostles and the seventy-two disciples, our answer is that they who are sent by God have power to send forth others. St. Paul sent Timothy to preach: therefore, I am sending to you Timothy (1 Cor 4:17). Thus likewise other men may be sent forth to preach at the bidding of bishops and priests. But all thus sent must be regarded as the emissaries of the Lord, because it is by his power that they receive their commission. And all who are thus authorised to preach must, although not archdeacons, be regarded as the coadjutors of the bishops, because they are rendering them important assistance, such indeed as Titus gave to St. Paul, or as archdeacons afford to their bishops (Gloss). (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 12:28 (PL 191:1657C).) Hence it by no means follows that none save archdeacons can assist bishops in their labors. For, when any priest bearing the commission of a bishop preaches or hears confessions, these functions are accounted as having been performed by the bishop himself. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy 13.4 (PG 3:305C).) Although it may be true that only two orders were instituted by our Lord for the purpose of preaching; the Church, or the Pope to whom is confided all ecclesiastical power, could found a third order of preachers. For, as we are reminded by the Master of the Sentences, (Peter Lombard, Liber sententiarum, bk. 4, d. 24, ch. 12 (PL 192:905).) there were in the early Church two degrees only in Holy orders: priests and deacons; but in course of time other grades were established.

Ad 7: Our answer to the next objection which follows is that the decree to which it refers regards a certain order of men called "chorepiscopi," who were ordained not in cities but in hamlets and villages, and who were invested with certain faculties not granted to ordinary priests, such, for instance, as that of conferring minor orders. For some time, these "chorepiscopi" were recognised in the Church as invested with ordinary powers, but they were finally suppressed (as is related in the same distinction) on account of their usurpation of the episcopal functions. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 68, writing by Gratian after ch. 5 (Friedberg, 1:255).) Thus the decree mentioned in this objection bears no reference to those religious, who, not having ordinary faculties, act as confessors by commission from a bishop. Such an order of religious does not exist in opposition to the number of orders established by our Lord, since, as it has been instituted by his authority, it is rightly regarded as having been ordained by himself (see the words of Dionysius quoted above). (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy 13.4 (PG 3:305C).)

Ad 8: The only conclusion concerning monks that can be drawn from his passage of Dionysius is that monks have not, on account of their profession, the status of prelates, or of those whose duty it is to guide others to God. There is, however, no reason why a monk should not receive ordinary power or a commission to guide others, especially as the decree quoted merely says that the monastic orders are not instituted in order to be in command of others or to guide. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 6.3.1 (PG 3:534).) It does not say that the members of these orders cannot or ought not hold such a position.

Ad 9: The argument that the ecclesiastical hierarchy is a copy of the heavenly hierarchy is only partially true. In the heavenly, but not in the earthly hierarchy, there is a distinction of gratuitous gifts, according to the distinction of orders. (Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae I, q. 108, a. 4.) Hence as the angelic nature is immutable, the angels of an inferior rank cannot be transferred to a superior grade, as is the case with mortals in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Nevertheless, in the celestial hierarchy, angels of an inferior order can remain in their own rank, and yet can perform the functions pertaining to a higher grade. Thus Dionysius says: the angel that cleansed Isaiah is called a seraph, because he fulfilled the office of the Seraphim (Celestial Hierarchy, 13). (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy* 13.2 (PG 3:300B-C).)* And St. Gregory, in his homily on the hundred sheep, says that the spirits who are sent forth bear names denoting the order of their ministry. (Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels, bk. 2, homily 34, para. 12 (CCSL 141; PL 76:1254B).) Hence it is not unseemly if in the ecclesiastical hierarchy a man belonging to one of the inferior orders be commissioned to perform duties specially pertaining to a higher rank.

Ad 10: To the objection that religious preach either with power or without power, we reply that they preach not with ordinary power, but by that conferred by special commission. It does not, therefore, follow that they have the right of demanding means of support; for this power has not been granted them. They could, however, exercise this power were it conferred on them by those to whom it belongs.

Ad 11: It is untrue to say that if religious have faculties to preach, they possess powers superior to those of bishops or patriarchs. For bishops and patriarchs can preach in any place by their ordinary power, but religious, who have not the care of souls, can never preach by ordinary power. They can preach not by ordinary power, but only by special commission, just as the bishop can exercise episcopal functions in a diocese belonging to another with the permission of the bishop of the diocese in which he is staying.

Ad 12: It is urged that no man ought to build on a foundation laid by another. This statement is untrue, and is against the teaching of St. Paul, who says: like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it (1 Cor 3:10). This building is explained by the Gloss and by St. Ambrose to signify preaching and teaching. (Glossa ordinaria (Venice: 1588), vol. 6, p. 37E from Ambrosiaster, Super I Cor. 3:12.) When the Apostle says: I have preached the gospel not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation (Rom 15:20), his word must be understood to signify, not that it would have been unlawful for St. Paul to have built upon another man’s foundation, but that he did not, at that moment, consider it expedient to do so. Hence the Gloss, commenting on these words, says: lest I should build upon another man’s foundation, that is, lest I should preach to those converted by other men. Not that St. Paul would not have so acted had such a course appeared to him desirable; but that he preferred to lay the foundations of the faith in some spot wherein it had not as yet been preached. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Rom 15:20 (PL 191:1524D).)

Were it unlawful to preach where another has already taught the Word of God, St. John the Evangelist would not have preached at Ephesus, in which city St. Paul had planted the faith; nor would St. Paul have preached at Rome, where St. Peter had already been. But what will our opponents say if it should so happen that the religious whom they so bitterly denounce be divided in such a manner that some go forth, to preach the word to unbelievers, and others remain among the faithful to assist the bishops?

But this objection has really no connection with the point in question. For to build on another man’s foundation and to preach to another man’s converts are not the same thing. Otherwise, every priest when preaching in his own parish would be building on another man’s foundation, for his parishioners would, probably, be the converts of former priests of the parish.

The words of St. Paul: we do not boast beyond limit in other men’s labors (2 Cor 10:15), are, by those who are averse to the preaching of religious, interpreted to mean that to labor where another man has laid the foundations of the faith is to glory beyond measure. The Gloss does not explain these words as signifying that if St. Paul had labored where another had already preached, he would have been glorying beyond measure. It understands the text to mean that, had St. Paul taken to himself the glory of having laid the foundations of the faith in such a place, he would have gloried beyond measure. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Pauli, at 2 Cor 10:15 (PL 192:69B).)

The objection to the preaching of religious, founded on the words: we do not boast in another man’s rule (2 Cor 10:16), is due to a misinterpretation of the commentary of the Gloss on this passage. The Gloss is quoted as saying: do not boast in another man’s rule, that is, in those who are under the government of another. This is a mis-quotation. The passage of the Gloss referred to runs as follows: our rule, that is, our ministry, which is imposed upon us by God, is to preach the Gospel freely, not only in a few places, but in those which are beyond your present dwelling. But we hope not to boast in another man’s rule; for those who are at a distance from you are not under any man’s government.

If the passage in the Gloss really stood as it is represented by our adversaries, it would be difficult to understand how one Apostle could preach in a province evangelized by another. St. Paul preached at Rome and at Antioch, which were subject to St. Peter, but he did not glory in those churches as if they were committed to him; therefore, he did not glory in another man’s rule.

And further, religious who are commissioned by bishops to preach do so in no diocese save in that one for which they have faculties. Thus, they do not preach to another man’s flock. They are the coadjutors of the bishop, whose commission they hold.

Replies to objections against hearing confessions

Ad 1-2: It is easy to answer the objections to the propriety of religious hearing confessions. The decree quoted as opposed to it only forbids religious to act as confessors on their own authority. It does not prohibit their doing so at the bidding of the Pope or of a bishop. This is clearly shown in Decretals, XVI, q. 1, Pervenit. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 9 (Friedberg, 1:763).) Neither are religious less fit than are secular priests for this duty (Decretals, XVI, q. 1*, Sunt tamen nonnulli*). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 25 (Friedberg, 1:767).)

Ad 3: To the next objection, namely, that parish priests, pastors of souls, ought to study the faces of their flock, which they cannot do except by hearing confessions, we answer that confession is not the only means whereby we may know whether a man be good or bad. For we can draw a conclusion from the judgment passed upon him by his superior. Hence if a bishop absolves one of his flock, either by his own act, or through the agency of another commissioned by him, his parish priest ought to be as satisfied that he knows such a man as if he himself had been his confessor. He knows that his parishioner has been approved by the judgment of a superior, whom he himself has no right to criticize. And further, if according to the decretal he hear the confessions of his parishioners once a year, (Liber extravagantium decretalium (Decretales Gregorii Papae IX), bk. 5, tit. 28, ch. 12 (Friedberg, 2:887), from the Fourth Council of Lateran, canon 21.) it gives him sufficient opportunity for knowing them.

Ad 4: To the objection that everyone is bound once a year to confess his sins to his own priest, we reply that the expression "his own priest" applies not only to the parish priest, but to the bishop of the diocese and to the pope, who have, in a more extended sense than parish priests, the care of souls. The expression "his own priest" is used not in contradistinction to the bishop or pope, who is the common priest, but in contradistinction to a stranger. Hence he who has made his confession to his bishop, or to a viceregent appointed by him, has confessed to his own priest. And further, anyone who confesses once a year to his own parish priest, and makes himself intelligible to him, is not forbidden to make his confession at other times to any other priest who has faculty to give absolution.

Ad 5: The objection that unless a priest hears a man’s confession, he cannot know whether he is in a fit state to receive the Eucharist, is based upon an error. For a priest can know the state of a communicant’s soul by the judgement of the superior who has given him absolution, and whom he ought to trust as he would trust himself.

Ad 6: The argument that the permission to confess to a priest other than the parish priest affords opportunity for concealment of sins, is fallacious. For a priest ought to believe what a penitent says, whether it be for or against himself. (Cf. Thomas Aquinas, De forma absolutionis, ch. 3, 96.) Therefore, if the penitent says that he has made his confession, it ought to be taken for granted that he is speaking the truth. Even if the parish priest were to act as his confessor, he might be deceived; for the penitent might confess his more venial offences, and conceal his grievous sins. And it must likewise be remembered that though the facility for confessing to different priests may be abused, it is nevertheless, as we have already shown, a safeguard against far greater evils.

Ad 7: The argument, that, a monk, having no power to correct others, cannot absolve them, is only true in a very limited sense. For, though monks have not this power in an ordinary way, they are able, by the commission of a bishop, both to correct and to absolve. The Demophilus to whom Dionysius wrote the words quoted was not a priest, nor even a deacon. This is clear from the Epistle quoted by our adversaries.

Ad 8: The same answer must be made to the objection that if religious can hear confessions anywhere, they can do so everywhere, and thus they become rulers of the Universal Church. Monks, on their own authority, can hear confessions nowhere. They can act as confessors only where they are commissioned to do so; and if the Head of the Church give them permission to hear confessions everywhere, they can do so everywhere. This, however, does not constitute them governors of the Church, since they absolve sinners not by their own power, but by the authority delegated to them. The Pope is not called the universal bishop not because he does not possess complete and direct power over every diocese in the Church, but because he does not rule any particular diocese as its peculiar and special pastor. Were he to do so, the powers of the other bishops would lapse. This reason is given in the chapter quoted. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 99, ch. 4 (Friedberg, 1:351).)

Replies to objections against preaching and hearing confessions by episcopal delegation

The arguments brought as proofs that religious cannot, even with episcopal permission, preach or bear confessions, are easily answered.

Ad 1: The proposition that what a man gives away he does not still possess does not hold good in things spiritual. These are communicated not by the transference of some dominion over them (like physical things), but rather by an emanation of an effect from its cause. When one man communicates knowledge to another, he does not on this account deprive himself of this knowledge; for it remains in his power. In the same way, he that confers some power upon another does not by doing so deprive himself of that power. A bishop does not cease to be able himself to consecrate the body of the Lord by conferring on a priest the power to do so. St. Augustine, treating of the communication of spiritual things, says: everything that is not lessened by being imparted is not, if it be possessed without being communicated, possessed as it ought to be possessed (De doctrina Christiana, 1). (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 1.1.1 (CCSL 32; CSEL 80; PL 34:19).) In like manner, when a bishop confers upon a priest the power of absolving, he does not himself lose that power unless the power of a priest in his parish is considered similar to that of a soldier in his town. This idea is, of course, ridiculous; for priests are not masters, but servants. This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ, St. Paul writes (1 Cor 4:1). Our Lord also said to his apostles: the kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves (Luke 22:25–26).

Ad 2: The statement that a bishop, by committing the care of a parish to a priest, relieves himself of all responsibility connected with it, is untrue. For, a bishop is still answerable for the care of all the souls in his diocese (Decretals, X, q*.* 1*, Quaecumque*). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 10, q. 1, ch. 5 (Friedberg, 1:614).) Hence St. Paul, after speaking of all his labors, concludes by saying: and, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches (2 Cor 11:28). His burden, however, is rendered supportable to a bishop, because he has assistants of an inferior rank. But, even granted that a bishop, by committing a parish to a priest, relieves himself of its responsibility, it would not, on that account, follow that he would abrogate his power in that parish. For, the ministers of Christ are able to labor for the salvation of the faithful, not only by freeing themselves from responsibility, but likewise by increasing their own merit, and producing greater fruit among souls. Thus St. Paul undertook much work for the salvation of the elect, which he might, without any danger to his salvation, have omitted.

Ad 3: The argument that a priest is subject to a bishop just as a bishop is under an archbishop is not quite correct. For an archbishop has not immediate jurisdiction over an episcopal diocese except in matters specially referred to him. Thus an archbishop cannot summon before him or excommunicate one who is the subject of a bishop. A bishop, on the other hand, has immediate jurisdiction over his parochial clergy, he can cite any of them to appear before him, and he has power to excommunicate them. The reason of this distinction is that the power of a priest is imperfect compared to that of a bishop: priests are by divine right subject to bishops, as Dionysius proves. The subjection of a bishop to an archbishop depends only on an ecclesiastical ordinance and is limited by it. But a priest, being by divine right subject to a bishop, is subject to him in all things. The jurisdiction of a bishop over his priests resembles in kind that of the Sovereign Pontiff over all Christendom. For the Roman Church has not been given supremacy over other churches by the decrees of any synod, but by the words of our Lord and Saviour himself (Decretals, XXI, Quamvis). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 21, ch. 3 (Friedberg, 1:70).)

Ad 4: To the argument that parish priests are the bridegrooms of the churches committed to them, we answer that Christ is the Spouse of the Church strictly speaking, of whom are spoken the words: he who has the bride is the bridegroom (John 3:29). He, by his Church, begets children to bear his name. The other so-called spouses are in reality the servants of the Bridegroom, who cooperate with him exteriorly in this work of spiritual generation, but who do not beget spiritual children for themselves. Although they are but ministers, they are termed spouses, because they take the place of the true Spouse. Hence the Pope, who is the vicegerent of Christ throughout the entire Church, is called the spouse of the universal Church. In like manner a bishop is termed the spouse of his diocese, and a priest of his parish. But at the same time the Pope is the spouse of every diocese and the bishop is the spouse of all parishes within his See. But it does not follow from these words that there is in one church a plurality of spouses. For priests assist their bishop in his work, and bishops cooperate with the Pope, who is finally the direct minister to Christ. Thus Christ, the Pope, the bishops, and the priests are but the one spouse of the Church. Hence the fact that the Pope or the bishop hear the confessions of the faithful of a parish, or commit this office to another, is not proof that one church possesses a plurality of spouses. True plurality would consist in the appointment of two ecclesiastics of the same rank to the same office. Hence were there two bishops in one diocese, or two parish priests in one parish, there would be the plurality forbidden by the canons.

Replies to objections against preaching and hearing confessions by papal delegation

We must next answer the proposition that not even papal permission can authorize religious to preach or to hear confessions.

Ad 1: The first reason on which this assertion is grounded, that the authority of the Roman See cannot alter anything established by the statutes of the Fathers or institute anything contrary to these statutes. This is true with regard to those decrees which, in the judgment of the Saints, are of divine right: for example, the articles of the faith formulated by Councils. But those matters which the Holy Fathers have declared to be of positive right are left to the judgment of the Pope to be altered or abolished by him, according to the requirements of the times. For the holy Fathers assembled in councils cannot promulgate any decree save by the authorization of the Sovereign Pontiff, without whose permission no council is allowed even to meet. Again, if the Pope sees fit to act otherwise than in the manner established by the holy Fathers, he does not act counter to their statutes. For although in such a case the words of the statutes are not obeyed, the intention of those who have drawn up the statutes (namely, for the welfare of the Church) is fulfilled. For in matters which are of positive right, it may be impossible to adhere to the letter of a statute at all times and under every circumstance; although the intention with which it was framed is respected. One statute will necessarily be abrogated by a subsequent one. But the fact that certain religious, being neither bishops nor parish priests, exercise the functions of preaching and hearing confessions is not contrary to the statutes of the Holy Fathers, unless such religious act thus on their own initiative, unauthorized by the Pope or by a bishop.

Ad 2: In answer to the second objection, the Pope, as we have already shown, does not act contrary to St. Paul’s admonition by giving to religious the privilege of preaching or hearing confessions, for these religious do not preach to another man’s people. It is not true to say that the Pope cannot alter any apostolic decree; for the penalties pronounced against bigamy (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 34, ch. 18 (Friedberg, 1:130); Liber extravagantium decretalium (Decretales Gregorii Papae IX), bk. 1, tit. 21, ch. 2 (Friedberg, 2:146).) and against fornication among the clergy (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 82, ch. 5 (Friedberg, 1:292); Liber extravagantium decretalium (Decretales Gregorii Papae IX), bk. 3, tit. 8, ch. 4, the gloss on "dispensare" (Friedberg, 2:488-489).) are sometimes dispensed with by authority of the Holy See. The power of the Pope is limited only in so far that he cannot alter the canonical scriptures of the apostles and prophets, which are fundamental to the faith of the Church.

Ad 3: To the objection that the privileges granted by sovereigns are to be understood in the sense that they are only granted insofar as they are not prejudicial to any other, we reply that an injustice is done to another when something is withdrawn from him which has been established for his gratification or advantage. Hence Ezechiel 34:2 says: woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? But it is nowise prejudicial to a parish priest if one of his parishioners be withdrawn from his authority. In the same manner an abbot may, by the Pope, be withdrawn from the authority of a bishop, and a bishop from that of an archbishop, without injustice to either. In fact, if such a course tend to the salvation of their parishioners, far from being prejudicial, it is most beneficial to all pastors who seek the things of Christ, and not such as are their own. (Cf. Phil 2:21.) On Numbers 11:29: are you jealous for my sake?, St. Gregory says: a spiritual pastor who seeks not his own honor, but the glory of his Creator, desires to be helped in his actions by all men. A faithful preacher would wish that if it were possible, the lips of all mankind should proclaim the truth which he alone is incompetent to utter. (Glossa ordinaria 1, 1239 at Num 11:29 from Gregory the Great, Morals 12.23.54 (CCSL 143A; PL 76:247C).)

Ad 4: The argument that when a sovereign grants to a subject permission to make a will, it is with the understanding that such a will is only to be made in an ordinary and legal manner, holds good with regard to the Pope. When the sovereign Pontiff commissions anyone to preach and hear confessions, he only allows him to do so in a legitimate way; his preaching must be unto edification. But if a man hold a commission from the Pope to preach, he need not, in order to preach lawfully, seek a license from any other superior. Such a course would stultify the authority of the Pope. A man who has obtained permission from his sovereign to make a will need not have another license from anyone else. All that is required of him is to make his will in due form. A preacher licensed by the Pope requires no other authorization. He need only observe the proper rules of preaching, such as that of using one style in addressing the poor, and another in speaking to the rich, and such other points as are mentioned by St. Gregory (Pastorale). (Gregory the Great, Liber regulae pastoralis, part 3 (PL 77:49C sqq.).)

Ad 5: When it is urged that a monk does not, at his ordination, receive power to exercise his priestly office unless he be placed in charge of souls, we reply by reminding those who make this objection that the priesthood is instituted for two ends.

Its first and principal end is the true consecration of the body of Christ. Power to accomplish this end is conferred at ordination, unless there be some defect in the administration or in the recipient of this sacrament.

The second end for which the priesthood is instituted is for the welfare of the mystical body of Christ, by the keys of the Church entrusted to the priest. Power to accomplish this end is not conferred at ordination unless the priest ordained be placed in charge of souls or unless this power be given him by the authority of someone who has the care of souls. But the power of the priesthood is never given in vain; for every priest has power to fulfil the principal purpose of his ordination. But the power of preaching is bestowed for no end save for that of preaching. Hence as a privilege conferred by a sovereign cannot be useless to him on whom it is bestowed, so when the Pope gives to any priest a commission to preach, he has power to execute such a commission. Nevertheless, the Pope, by so acting, does not give to a religious the office of preaching, but rather the power to exercise such an office. For religious do not, as we have said, make use of their own power in preaching; they use the power entrusted to them by another.

Ad 6: The words quoted (from I, quaest. De doctrina) were written by Dionysius about lay monks, that is, monks who are neither bishops, priests nor deacons. But, even if they be applied to all religious, the Pope would not be disturbing the order of the ecclesiastical hierarchy by sending monks to preach. For, as we have said before, he who is of an inferior rank can exercise an office belonging to a higher grade, thus imitating the action of the celestial hierarchy. Furthermore, in the ecclesiastical hierarchy those of a lower order can be promoted to a higher rank. This cannot take place in the heavenly hierarchy. Hence Pope Innocent III, before a general council, sent some Cistercian monks to preach at Toulouse. (Innocentii III Regesta, bk. 7, epistle 76 (PL 215:358-60).)

Reply to objection against seeking permission to preach or hear confessions

Ad 1: The last objection, brought against religious who preach, is that it is ambition on their part to seek permission to exercise this office. This is untrue, for a desire to preach inspired by charity is, on the contrary, praiseworthy. Isaiah offered himself to the Lord, saying: here am I; send me (Isa 6:8). This function may likewise be meritoriously declined out of humility. Thus Jeremiah said: ah, ah, ah, Lord God! Behold, I do not know how to speak, for I am only a youth (Jer 1:6), as is evident from the Gloss of St. Gregory. (Glossa ordinaria 4, 583 at Jer 1:6 from Gregory the Great, Liber regulae pastoralis 1.7 (PL 77:20A-B).) The same view is found in the Decretals, VIII, q. 1, In scripturis. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 8, q. 1, ch. 9 (Friedberg, 1:592).)

We must remember that ecclesiastical offices are accompanied both by dignity and by labor. Therefore, they may be declined on account of their dignity; and they may be desired for the sake of the work. If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task, says St. Paul (1 Tim 3:1). On these words St. Augustine says: *the Apostle desired to explain what is meant by the episcopate (*and how far it may be desired) for the name implies labor not glory (De civitate Dei, 19; cf. Decretals, VIII, q. 1, Qui episcopatum; also the Gloss on the same text). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 8, q. 1, ch. 11 (Friedberg, 1:593) from Augustine, The City of God 19.19 (CCSL 47; CSEL 40.2:406; PL 41:647); Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul at 1 Tim 3:1 (PL 192:343B).) Hence if the labors of the episcopate be distinguished from its attendant dignity, it may laudably and without danger of ambition be desired. In like manner, a religious who seeks from a parish priest or a bishop permission to preach shows not that he is inspired by ambition, but that he is filled with the love of God and of his neighbour.