Chapter 21 — Reply to objections against the perfection of the episcopal state

It is not difficult to answer the objections brought against the perfection of the episcopal office. The perfection of fraternal charity springs, as we have seen, from the perfection of the love of God, which in the hearts of some men is so vigorous that it urges them not only to desire to enjoy God and to serve him but likewise for his sake to assist their neighbours. Hence the Apostle says: whether we be transported in mind, by contemplation, it is to God, that is to the glory of God; or whether we be sober, in condescension to you, it is to you, that is for your profit; for the love of Christ presses us (2 Cor 5:13–14), causing us, as the Gloss explains, to do all things for you. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Cor 5:11, 5:13 (PL 192:41A,D); Glossa interlinearis, in Bibliorum Sacrorum cum Glossa ordinaria iam ante quidem a Strabo Fulgensi, collecta: nunc autem novis patrum, cum Graecorum, tum Latinorum expositionibus locupletata cum postilla Nicolai Lyrani (Venice: 1603), vol. 6, p. 393-394, at 2 Cor 5:13.) For it is clear that it is a greater sign of love if a man, for the sake of his friend, be willing to serve another, than if he will only render service to his friend in his own person.

The argument drawn from the comparison between the perfection of the contemplative and the active life does not seem to have much bearing on the point in question. A bishop, being singled out as mediator between God and men, must, as minister to men, be preeminent in the active life. At the same time he must excel in contemplation in order to draw from God the spiritual wisdom which he is bound to impart to those committed to his care. Hence St. Gregory says in Regula pastoralis: a bishop should be foremost in action and he should be raised above all men by contemplation. He should be solicitous, lest on account of external occupation he relax in his zeal for spiritual affairs; neither should his care for spiritual things lessen his diligence concerning such as are temporal. (Gregory the Great, Liber regulae pastoralis, part 2, ch. 3, 5, and 7 (CPL 1712; PL 77:28B, 32B, 38C).)

It may happen, indeed, that a man occupied in the service of others may suffer some loss of sweetness in contemplation; but this very sacrifice is a proof of the perfection of his love of God. For if, for the sake of doing service to one whom we love, we deprive ourselves of the happiness of being in his presence, we show stronger affection for him than if we endeavored always to enjoy his company. Hence after the Apostle had said that neither death nor life shall separate me from the love of God, (Rom 8:38-39.) he continues: I wished myself to be anathema from Christ for my brethren (Rom 9:3), which St. Chrysostom expounds in the book De compunctione cordis, saying: the love of Christ had thus so completely conquered the heart of this Apostle that in order to please him he was ready to sacrifice his presence, which to him was the thing dear above all others. (Chrysostom, The Heart's Remorse, bk. 1, para. 7 (PG 47:405).)

The third objection brought against the perfection of the episcopal state admits of a double answer. First, although a bishop holds certain possessions, he does not regard them as his own but distributes them as common property; and thus he does not violate evangelical perfection. On this point Prosper says: it is right to possess the property of the Church and to renounce one’s own belongings for the love of perfection (Decretals 13.12.1). (Pseudo-Prosper (Julianus Pomerius), De vita contemplativa 2.9 (PL 59:453); Also found in Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 12, q. 1, ch. 13 (Friedberg, 1:681).) Again in the same chapter, after quoting the example of St. Paulinus, he says: by this action we clearly learn that it befits us to part with our own possessions for the sake of perfection and that without any imperfection we may possess the common property of the Church. (Pseudo-Prosper (Julianus Pomerius), De vita contemplativa 2.9 (PL 59:453); Also found in Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 12, q. 1, ch. 13 (Friedberg, 1:681).)

We must bear in mind that if anyone has charge of the goods of the Church and does not gain any personal profit from them but only acts as a steward or dispenser, he does not fail in evangelical perfection. Were this so, abbots and superiors of monasteries would sin against their vow of poverty and would fail in religious perfection, which cannot at all be admitted. Of course if a bishop, not content with dispensing the revenues of his see, should make himself their owner by using them to his own personal profit, he would plainly be the possessor of private property; and he would thus fail to attain to the perfection of those who renounce everything and live with nothing of their own.

But it may be thought that bishops fail in the evangelical perfection set forth in the words: if you would be perfect (Matt 19:21), since they are not only at liberty to possess the property of their Church but are also free to keep their own patrimony and to dispose of it by will. (Cf. Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 12, q. 5, p. 1 (Friedberg, 1:715); Liber extravagantium decretalium (Decretales Gregorii Papae IX), bk. 3, tit. 26, ch. 1 (Friedberg, 2:538).)

This objection is easily answered if the preceding remarks be called to mind. As we have already said, the renunciation of riches does not constitute perfection; it is merely a means to it. It is quite possible for a man to acquire perfection without actually giving up what he possesses. This may be made clear by the following example.

Our Lord, amongst other counsels of perfection, gave this: if someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other: and if a man contends with you in judgment and takes away your coat, let him take your cloak also. And whoever forces you to go one mile, go two miles with him (Matt 5:39–41). But even the perfect do not obey these words literally. (Cf. Augustine, De mendacio, ch. 15, para. 27 (CSEL 41:447; PL 40:506-507).) Nay, our Lord himself, when he suffered a blow on the face, did not turn his other cheek. He said: if I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil, but if well why do you strike me? (John 18:23). Neither did St. Paul, when he was smitten, offer his cheek. He exclaimed: God shall strike you, you whited wall (Acts 23:3).

Hence, we see that it is not necessary that these counsels should be actually obeyed; rather, as St. Augustine says in book one of De sermone Domini in monte (1.59), they are to be understood as signifying the preparation of the heart. (Augustine, De sermone Domini in monte 1.19.58-59 (CCSL 35; PL 34:1259-560).) For perfection consists in a man’s readiness to perform any work that may be required of him. In like manner St. Augustine says in the book De diversis quaestionibus octoginta tribus (and we find the same in the Decretals, q. 42): our Lord says in the Gospel: wisdom is justified by all her children, showing that the sons of wisdom understand that justice consists neither in eating nor in abstinence, but in suffering want with patience. (Augustine, Quaestiones evangeliorum 2.11 (CCSL 44B; CPL 0275; PL 35:1337); In addtion, this text is not found in q. 42 of Gratian's Decretum, but in P. 1, D. 41, ch. 4 (Friedberg, 1:149).) The Apostle expresses the same thought when he writes: I know both how to abound and to suffer need (Phil 4:12).

Religious learn this serenity and patience in bearing poverty by their practice of possessing nothing. Bishops, on the other hand, may attain to it by exercising solicitude about the Church and by fraternal charity, which ought to make them willing not merely to sacrifice their money, but if need be their very life for their flocks. St. Chrysostom says in his Dialogue: monks do in truth wage a severe war. (Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, bk. 6, para. 5 (PG 48:682).) He then adds: for the fasting, and vigils, and other penitential exercises of the monastic state are very hard and painful. But in the episcopal state the conflict is more felt by the soul than by the body. (Chrysostom, On the Priesthood 6.5 (PG 48:682).) And then he adds an example: as a craftsman produces marvelous pieces of mechanism by means of various instruments; whereas a philosopher displays his skill merely by the operations of his intellect.
(Chrysostom, On the Priesthood 6.5 (PG 48:682).)

It may be urged that bishops are bound to practice this perfection of the renunciation of riches not in will alone but also in deed. For when our Lord sent his disciples on their mission, he said to them: do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, nor two coats, nor shoes, nor a staff (Matt 10:9–10). Now as bishops are the successors of the apostles, they ought to obey the precept given to the apostles.

But this conclusion is clearly fallacious. For some of the most saintly bishops of the Church, whose holiness is beyond question, such as Athanasius, Hilary, and many of their successors, have not observed this command of our Lord. As St. Augustine says in the book Contra mendacium, we must not only bear in mind the precepts of God, but we must also be attentive to the lives and customs of the just. (This text is really found in Augustine, De mendacio 15.26 (CSEL 41:446; PL 40:506).) For although we fail to understand many things that are written for us, we can gather their meaning from the deeds of the saints, and thus learn in what sense we are to interpret them (De mendacio 15.30). (Augustine, De mendacio 15.30 (CSEL 41:449; PL 40:508).) It is on this account that the Holy Spirit, who speaks by the Scriptures, inspires the actions of the saints. As the Apostle says: for all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God (Rom 8:14). Hence we have no right to conclude that what is commonly done by holy men is contrary to the divine commandments. Our Lord, in the chapter of St. Matthew already quoted, gives a reason for his words to his apostles, bidding them not to possess anything, nor to take anything on their journey when he adds: the laborer is worthy of his hire (Luke 10:17). (Cf. Augustine, De mendacio 15.30 (CSEL 41:449; PL 40:508); De consensu evangelistarum, bk. 2, ch. 30, para. 73 (CSEL 43:177-179; PL 34:1113).) Thus he gives a permission, not a command, to his disciples to accept hospitality. Therefore, if any one of them desired not to avail himself of this permission, but preferred to carry provisions with him, he would not be disobeying a precept of the Lord. For there is a difference between disobeying a command and omitting, after the example of St. Paul, (1 Cor 9:12.) to make use of a permission.

We may further understand these words of Christ to the apostles, by remembering that he was sending them to preach to the Jews, with whom it was customary for the teachers to live by the contributions of their disciples. Our Lord, as St. Chrysostom says, (Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 32.4 (PG 57:382).) desired, first, that his disciples should be above suspicion and should not be thought to be preaching for the sake of gain. Second, he wished them to be free from anxiety about material things. Third, he willed that they should learn by experience that without anxiety on their part his power could provide them with all that they might need (Homily 33 on Matthew). But he acted differently on the eve of his passion, when he was about to send them forth to preach to the Gentiles. For then he said to them: when I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, did you want anything? But when they said: nothing, he added: but now he that has a purse let him take it, and likewise a scrip (Luke 22:35). These words prove that bishops, as successors of the apostles, are not bound to possess nothing, nor to carry nothing with them on their journeys.