Chapter 30 — Concerning the works that a religious may lawfully undertake

It remains now for us to consider which are the works befitting those living in the religious state. We have already fully treated of this matter elsewhere. (Cf. Quaestiones disputatae de opere manuali (Quod. 7 a. 17-18); Contra impugnantes, ch. 2-5.) We will, therefore, merely add a few words in the hope of putting the calumniators of religious to silence.

The following words of St. Jerome, which are found in the Decretals, are quoted by the enemies of the religious life: before study was introduced into the religious life by the suggestion of Satan (Decretals 5.95). (Jerome, Commentaria in Epistolam ad Titum, on 1:5 (CCSL 77C; CPL 0591; PL 26:562C); Also found in Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 95: "Olim," ch. 5 (Friedberg, 1:332).) I wonder if they who quote these words are of opinion that religious ought not to study? For study, especially of Holy Scripture, peculiarly befits men consecrated to a life of contemplation. St. Augustine thought study a fit occupation for religious: none ought to be hindered from knowledge of the truth, a knowledge which beseems meritorious leisure (City of God 19.19). (Augustine, De civitate Dei 19.19 (CCSL 48; CPL 0313; CSEL 40.2:407; PL 41:647); Also found in Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 8, q. 1, ch. 11 (Friedberg, 1:594).) If they who quote the saying of St. Jerome intend to prove that study is reprehensible in religious, the words that follow in the same chapter ought to convince them of their error: the people will say among themselves: I am of Paul, I am of Apollo. (Jerome, Commentaria in Epistolam ad Titum, on 1:5 (CCSL 77C; CPL 0591; PL 26:562C); Also found in Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 95: "Olim," ch. 5 (Friedberg, 1:332).) Whence it is clear what is meant by the words cited: before, by the suggestion of the devil, there was study, i.e., dissensions, in the Christian religion.

It is also maintained that the power of binding and loosing, or rather the right to exercise this power, does not belong to religious who are priests. I wonder what those who speak thus mean by their words. If they mean that because monks are ordained priests, they cannot ipso facto exercise the power of the keys, they are perfectly right. This applies, likewise, to secular priests. For a secular priest does not receive faculties to exercise the power of the keys because he is ordained priest. He has these faculties given him on account of the care of souls, wherewith he is entrusted. Therefore, if it be argued that monks, as monks, may not exercise the power of the keys, it is a plain falsehood. This is evident from the following words what is said in causa 16, question 1: certain men, supported by no authority whatsoever, and inflamed rather by presumptuous and bitter zeal than by charity, assert that monks, being dead to the world, and living only to God, are unworthy to exercise the functions of the priesthood. They hold that monks cannot instruct men in penance, or in the truths of Christianity, and that they are unable, by the power divinely committed to them in their priestly office, to absolve sinners. But this is completely erroneous. Blessed Benedict, the gentle guide of monks, has never prohibited them from performing this office (c. 25). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 25 (Friedberg, 1:767).) Thus it is to be observed that those things only are unlawful to religious which are forbidden them by their rule.

Those who would fain limit the sphere of activity open to religious also quote the following words of causa 16, question 1, canon 4: the office of a monk is not that of a doctor, but of a mourner. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 4 (Friedberg, 1:762) from Jerome, Contra Vigilantium 15 (CCSL 79C; CPL 0611; PL 23:367A).) If by these words they intend to prove that because a man is a monk, he need not necessarily be a teacher, the proposition is perfectly true. Otherwise, every monk must needs be a teacher. But if they mean that the fact that a man is a monk is in some way incompatible with his being also a teacher, their opinion is clearly erroneous. On the contrary, the office of teaching, especially of teaching Holy Scripture, belongs preeminently to religious. In the words of St. John’s Gospel: the woman therefore left her water pot, (John 4:28), the gloss of St. Augustine says: from these words let those intending to preach the Gospel learn to put away worldly anxieties and cares. (Augustine, In Joannis evangelium tractatus, tract. 15, para. 30 (CCSL 36; CPL 0278; PL 35:1521); Also found in Glossa ordinaria 5, 1094, at John 4:28 (PL 114:374).) Hence, our Lord entrusted to those who had left all things and followed him the office of universal teaching, saying to his disciples: go, therefore, teach all nations (Matt 28:19).

The same answer may be made to all other objections of the same sort: as, for instance, to the argument that the position of the cleric and the monk differ, for the cleric, having charge of souls, says: I feed my sheep; but the monk says: I am fed. (Cf. Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 6 (Friedberg, 1:762), from Jerome, Epistulae 14.8 (CSEL 54:55; PL 22:352)[abridged by Thomas].) The same reply must also be made to those who say: let the monk sit solitary and hold his peace. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 8 (Friedberg, 1:763).) These words, and others resembling them, certainly point out the conduct beseeming a monk as a monk; but they do not forbid him to undertake superior offices if such be entrusted to him. A secular priest cannot, by reason of his being a priest, pronounce excommunication; but he has, nevertheless, power to do so, if he be commissioned by his bishop to excommunicate.

Again, it is urged that only two orders were established by our Lord: one being that of the twelve apostles, represented by bishops; the other that of the seventy-two disciples, represented by priests exercising the pastoral office. If, from these premises, it be argued that monks, unless they be bishops or pastors, have not, as a matter of course, the care of souls, the conclusion is perfectly true. But if it be maintained that religious have not power to preach or to hear confessions, even with the sanction of their bishop, the conclusion is clearly false. For the higher the dignity of any man, the greater is his power (Decretals 25.16.1). (Gratian, Decretum P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 25: "Sunt nonnulli" (Friedberg, 1:767).) Hence, if secular priests not engaged in pastoral work can, with the permission of a bishop, discharge these functions, religious are certainly better entitled to do so, if they have the same commission.

It has occurred to me to say these things in answer to those who strive to detract from the perfection of religious life. Nevertheless, I abstain from reproaches. For he who utters reproach is foolish (Prov 10:18); and all fools are meddling with reproaches (Prov 20:3).

If anyone desire to send me a reply, his words will be very welcome to me. For the surest way to elucidate truth and to confound error is by confuting the arguments brought against the truth, according to the words of Solomon: iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of a friend (Prov 27:17).