Chapter 23 — Whether priests and archdeacons are in a state of higher perfection than religious

There are certain men who, not content with teaching that the episcopate is a condition of superior perfection to the religious life, also maintain that deans, parish priests, archdeacons, and all others entrusted with the care of souls are in a more perfect state than are religious. They base their arguments on various grounds.

First, they quote the following words of St. Chrysostom: let any man show me a monk even resembling Elijah, and let us grant that this monk, living alone, without annoyance or vexation of any kind, is not troubled by temptation, and does not fall into grave sin. I tell you, nevertheless, that such a man is not to be compared to one who, although the minister of the people, and laden with the sins of men, perseveres with energy and fidelity (Dial. on Priesthood 6). (Chrysostom, On the Priesthood 6.7 (PG 48:683).) These words naturally convey the impression that no monk, howsoever perfect he may be, can bear comparison with a priest who is entrusted with the care of souls and who discharges his trust with diligence.

Again, St. Chrysostom says: were I given my choice as to whether I would prefer to serve God in the functions of the priesthood or in monastic solitude, I should without hesitation choose the first of these conditions (Dial. on Priesthood 6.7). (Chrysostom, On the Priesthood 6.7 (PG 48:683).) Hence the care of souls is indubitably to be preferred to religious solitude, which is reckoned as the most perfect state of life.

Again, St. Augustine says in his epistle to Valerius: do thou, in your religious prudence, mark well the following truth. Of all things in the world, especially in our days, there is nothing so easy, so pleasant, so attractive to human nature, as to be a perfunctory and time-serving bishop, priest, or deacon. Yet in the eyes of God, no sight is so execrable, so sad, or so worthy of condemnation, as these sacred offices fulfilled in such a manner. On the other hand, there is nothing in life, especially in our days, more difficult, more laborious, or more beset by danger, than is the office of bishop, priest, or deacon. Yet in the eyes of God, no one presents a more glorious spectacle than he who, in such an office, fights manfully, according to the precepts of our sovereign Master. (Augustine, Epistulae 21.1 (CPL 0262; CSEL 34.1:49-50: ; PL 33:88).) Hence, the religious life is not a more perfect state than is that of priests or deacons who have the care of souls, and whose duty it is to mingle with men.

Again, St. Augustine says to Aurelius: it is indeed lamentable, if we puff monks up with pride and decry the dignity of the clergy to whose order we belong. Shall we suffer ignorant people to say of us: ‘a bad monk will make a good cleric,’ when we know that even a good monk is not always a good cleric? (Epistulae 60.1). (Augustine, Epistulae 60.1 (CPL 0262; CSEL 34.2:221-222; PL 33:228).) The perfection of a good cleric is, therefore, greater than is that of a good monk.

The same saint had previously written: we must not open a way to the servants of God, that is, to monks, whereby they may think that it may be easier for them to be chosen for some better office, that is, for some clerical post, if by such a step they should grow worse, (Augustine, Epistulae 60.1 (CPL 0262; CSEL 34.2:221; PL 33:227).) namely by leaving their monastery. The clerical office is, consequently, better than the monastic state.

Again, St. Jerome writes to Rusticus: so live in your monastery that you may deserve to be made a cleric (Epistulae 125.17). (Jerome, Epistulae 125.17 (CSEL 56:136; PL 22:1082).) The clerical office is, therefore, superior to the monastic life.

Further, it is not permissible to pass from a higher to a lower state. Nevertheless, it is lawful to pass from the monastic life to that of a cleric entrusted with the care of souls. We learn this fact from the words of Pope Gelasius: if there be any monk who, by virtue of his holy life, should seem worthy to be raised to the priesthood, and if the abbot, under whose rule such a monk is fighting in the army of Christ, should beg this favor for him from the bishop, that monk ought to be chosen. Further, a monk so elected, whether by the bishop or the people, must discreetly and uprightly fulfill all the duties of the priesthood in the place wherein it shall have seemed good to ordain him (Decretals 28.16.1). (Pope Gelasius I in Gratian's Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 28 (Friedberg, 1:768).) Several other rules about the same matter are laid down in this chapter (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, "Utrum monachis liceat officia populis celebrare" (Friedberg, 1:761-785).) and in distinction 27. (The text is in reality found in distinction 58: Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 58, "Ex monachali habitu nullus assumatur ad ecclesiasticum officium nisi voluntate abbatis episcope fuerit oblatus" (Friedberg, 1:224).) Hence it is plain to all men that the state of any clerics, and especially of such as have the care of souls, is superior to the religious life.

Now the reasons for these propositions will be easily perceived if we recall to mind what has already been said. We have seen that a perfect work is one thing and a perfect state another. The state of perfection does nothing save impose perpetual obligation of accomplishing those things which pertain to perfection. Now many accomplish the works of perfection without any vow; thus many observe continence and practice poverty.

We must also remember that in speaking of priests and archdeacons charged with the care of souls, two points must be taken into consideration, to wit, the office of the care of souls and the dignity of their orders. Now as parish priests and archdeacons often leave their parishes and archdiaconates to go into religion, it is clear that, by accepting the care of souls, they do not contract any perpetual obligation. But from what has been already said, we know that no state of perfection can exist without a perpetual obligation. Hence we cannot say that archdeacons, or parish priests, or candidates for ordination, have embraced a state of perfection, any more than we can say that novices, before their profession, have embraced this state.

It may, however, happen, as we have already observed, that a man who does not live in a state of perfection may perform works of perfection and may be perfect according to the habit of charity. Thus, archdeacons and parish priests may be perfect according to the habit of charity and may share in certain offices of perfection although they are not living in a perfect state. A token that they are not living in a state of perfection lies in the fact that when a man is deputed to or bound in perpetuity to some office, this obligation is imposed upon him with the accompaniment of some ecclesiastical solemnity. For instance, bishops are consecrated and religious received to profession by an ancient rite of the Church, as Dionysius observes (Eccles. hier. 6). (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical hierarchy 6.2 (PG 3:533A-C).) Nothing of the sort, however, takes place at the election of an archdeacon or parish priest. He is merely invested with a ring or some other symbol of the same description. Hence it is clear that no archdeacon or parish priest embraces a state implying perpetual obligation.

This conclusion will enable us easily to answer the arguments wherewith this chapter began.

When St. Chrysostom says: even if you can show me a monk who vies with Elijah in holiness, he is not to be compared to a priest who is compelled to bear the sins of his people (Dial. 6), (Chrysostom, On the Priesthood 6.7 (PG 48:683).) it is clear that he is not drawing a comparison between the priesthood and the religious state. He only wishes, as we shall see if we read the context of the words, to point out that the difficulty of perseverance in virtue is far greater for one set over a flock than for a monk in solitude. St. Chrysostom does not say absolutely that a monk is not to be compared to a priest who bears the sins of his people upon his shoulders. What he says is that the perseverance of a monk who, living a solitary life, is not tempted and does not fall into grievous sin, is not to be compared to the constancy of a priest who perseveres with valour and fidelity, though surrounded on all sides by his people. The courage of self-defense is chiefly shown in positions of great danger. Hence, St. Chrysostom prefaces the remark which we have quoted, by saying: the mariner who is able to save his vessel when she is in danger of being submerged by a tempest is deservedly held by all men to be an experienced seaman. (Chrysostom, On the Priesthood 6.6 (PG 48:683).)

In the same manner we may say that he who is able to live uprightly in the midst of bad men gives proof of greater virtue than he who leads a worthy life amongst good men. Hence, St. Peter says, in praise of Lot, that in sight and hearing he was just, dwelling among those who from day to day vexed the just soul with unjust works (2 Pet 2:8). But we cannot say that to live among wicked men belongs to the state of perfection since, according to the teaching of Holy Scripture, (Cf. Isa 65:5, 1 Cor 6:5, Eccl 13:1, and Ps 17:27.) prudence instructs us to shun their company. We see, then, that the state of priests charged with the care of souls is not more perfect, but that it is more exposed to danger than is that of religious.

This gives us the key to those other words of St. Chrysostom which were quoted above: if I were given my choice of pleasing God in the performance of the duties of the priesthood or in monastic solitude, I should unhesitatingly choose the former, (Chrysostom, On the Priesthood 6.7 (PG 48:683).) namely to please him in the priestly office. He does not say that he would rather be a priest than a monk, but that he would prefer to please God rather as a priest than as a monk. For it is more difficult to avoid sin in the performance of the sacerdotal functions than in the solitude of a monastery. As we have before said, the greater the perils which we encounter, the greater the virtue that we exhibit. But although a wise man must desire that his virtue were so solid as to remain intact in the midst of danger, no one but a fool would, on account of its danger, prefer a perilous position to one more secure.

St. Augustine, in words already cited, points out that no duties can be more laborious and more beset by danger than are those of bishops, priests, and deacons; though, if these duties be rightly performed they are the most agreeable offering that can be made to God. (Augustine, Epistulae 21.1 (CPL 0262; CSEL 34.1:49-50; PL 33:88).) It is because it is so difficult to avoid sin in the episcopate or priesthood that a virtuous bishop or priest is so acceptable to God. This, however, does not prove that the state of parish priests or archdeacons is one of higher perfection than is that of religious.

To all the arguments which follow those which we have been answering, there is but one reply which is the same for all. In the quotations given above, the authors cited do not compare the religious state to the state of parish priests, but the state of monks, as monks, to the clerical state. For monks are not necessarily clerics. There are multitudes of lay brethren. Indeed, in former days almost all monks were laymen (cf. Decretals C. 16, q. 1). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 39, gloss by Gratian (Friedberg, 1:772).) It is plain that the clergy occupy a higher position in the Church than do laymen. Hence, when a layman is chosen for the priesthood, he is promoted to a superior rank than that which he already holds; and as he ascends to a higher position he naturally requires more virtue to be a good cleric than to be a good layman, although as a layman he was a monk.

But a monk who becomes a priest is at the same time both in the clerical and in the religious state; just as a priest who has the care of souls is invested with both the pastorate and the priesthood. When, therefore, parish priests are said to be in a superior position to monks, it does not mean that, regarded merely as parish priests, they are superior to monks. It means that if they perform their duties well and live without sin, they give proof, as we have already said, of a greater degree of virtue than does a monk who lives innocently in his monastery.

But if a religious be entrusted with the care of souls in a parish church, this does not prove that the state of parish priests, as parish priests, is more perfect than is that of religious. For the religious who takes charge of a parish is not on that account released from his religious life. For it says in Gratian: we ordain that monks who, after living long in monasteries, are enrolled among the clergy, are not for that reason to quit their former life (Decretals 3.16.1). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 3 (Friedberg, 1:762).) Hence, there is no proof that the state of a priest entrusted with the care of souls is more perfect than is that of a religious; for religious may accept this same office while remaining in their orders. They, however, who are promoted to the episcopate ascend to a higher position.