|
Objection 1: It seems that a bishop cannot lawfully forsake his
episcopal cure in order to enter religion. For no one can lawfully
pass from a more perfect to a less perfect state; since this is "to
look back," which is condemned by the words of our Lord (Lk.
9:62), "No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking
back, is fit for the kingdom of God." Now the episcopal state is
more perfect than the religious, as shown above (Question 184,
Article 7). Therefore just as it is unlawful to return to the world
from the religious state, so is it unlawful to pass from the episcopal
to the religious state.
Objection 2: Further, the order of grace is more congruous than the
order of nature. Now according to nature a thing is not moved in
contrary directions; thus if a stone be naturally moved downwards, it
cannot naturally return upwards from below. But according to the order
of grace it is lawful to pass from the religious to the episcopal
state. Therefore it is not lawful to pass contrariwise from the
episcopal to the religious state.
Objection 3: Further, in the works of grace nothing should be
inoperative. Now when once a man is consecrated bishop he retains in
perpetuity the spiritual power of giving orders and doing like things
that pertain to the episcopal office: and this power would seemingly
remain inoperative in one who gives up the episcopal cure. Therefore
it would seem that a bishop may not forsake the episcopal cure and enter
religion.
On the contrary, No man is compelled to do what is in itself
unlawful. Now those who seek to resign their episcopal cure are
compelled to resign (Extra, de Renunt. cap. Quidam). Therefore
apparently it is not unlawful to give up the episcopal cure.
I answer that, The perfection of the episcopal state consists in this
that for love of God a man binds himself to work for the salvation of
his neighbor, wherefore he is bound to retain the pastoral cure so long
as he is able to procure the spiritual welfare of the subjects entrusted
to his care: a matter which he must not neglect---neither for the
sake of the quiet of divine contemplation, since the Apostle, on
account of the needs of his subjects, suffered patiently to be delayed
even from the contemplation of the life to come, according to Phil.
1:22-25, "What I shall choose I know not, but I am
straitened between two, having a desire to be dissolved, and to be
with Christ, a thing by far better. But to abide still in the flesh
is needful for you. And having this confidence, I know that I shall
abide"; nor for the sake of avoiding any hardships or of acquiring any
gain whatsoever, because as it is written (Jn. 10:11), "the
good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep."
At times, however, it happens in several ways that a bishop is
hindered from procuring the spiritual welfare of his subjects.
Sometimes on account of his own defect, either of conscience (for
instance if he be guilty of murder or simony), or of body (for
example if he be old or infirm), or of irregularity arising, for
instance, from bigamy. Sometimes he is hindered through some defect
in his subjects, whom he is unable to profit. Hence Gregory says
(Dial. ii, 3): "The wicked must be borne patiently, when there
are some good who can be succored, but when there is no profit at all
for the good, it is sometimes useless to labor for the wicked.
Wherefore the perfect when they find that they labor in vain are often
minded to go elsewhere in order to labor with fruit." Sometimes again
this hindrance arises on the part of others, as when scandal results
from a certain person being in authority: for the Apostle says (1
Cor. 8:13): "If meat scandalize my brother, I will never eat
flesh": provided, however, the scandal is not caused by the
wickedness of persons desirous of subverting the faith or the
righteousness of the Church; because the pastoral cure is not to be
laid aside on account of scandal of this kind, according to Mt.
15:14, "Let them alone," those namely who were scandalized at
the truth of Christ's teaching, "they are blind, and leaders of the
blind."
Nevertheless just as a man takes upon himself the charge of authority
at the appointment of a higher superior, so too it behooves him to be
subject to the latter's authority in laying aside the accepted charge
for the reasons given above. Hence Innocent III says (Extra, de
Renunt., cap. Nisi cum pridem): "Though thou hast wings
wherewith thou art anxious to fly away into solitude, they are so tied
by the bonds of authority, that thou art not free to fly without our
permission." For the Pope alone can dispense from the perpetual
vow, by which a man binds himself to the care of his subjects, when he
took upon himself the episcopal office.
Reply to Objection 1: The perfection of religious and that of
bishops are regarded from different standpoints. For it belongs to the
perfection of a religious to occupy oneself in working out one's own
salvation, whereas it belongs to the perfection of a bishop to occupy
oneself in working for the salvation of others. Hence so long as a man
can be useful to the salvation of his neighbor, he would be going
back, if he wished to pass to the religious state, to busy himself
only with his own salvation, since he has bound himself to work not
only for his own but also for others' salvation. Wherefore Innocent
III says in the Decretal quoted above that "it is more easily
allowable for a monk to ascend to the episcopacy, than for a bishop to
descend to the monastic life. If, however, he be unable to procure
the salvation of others it is meet he should seek his own."
Reply to Objection 2: On account of no obstacle should a man forego
the work of his own salvation, which pertains to the religious state.
But there may be an obstacle to the procuring of another's salvation;
wherefore a monk may be raised to the episcopal state wherein he is able
also to work out his own salvation. And a bishop, if he be hindered
from procuring the salvation of others, may enter the religious life,
and may return to his bishopric should the obstacle cease, for instance
by the correction of his subjects, cessation of the scandal, healing
of his infirmity, removal of his ignorance by sufficient instruction.
Again, if he owed his promotion to simony of which he was in
ignorance, and resigning his episcopate entered the religious life, he
can be reappointed to another bishopric [Cap. Post translat., de
Renunt.]. On the other hand, if a man be deposed from the
episcopal office for some sin, and confined in a monastery that he may
do penance, he cannot be reappointed to a bishopric. Hence it is
stated (VII, qu. i, can. Hoc nequaquam): "The holy synod
orders that any man who has been degraded from the episcopal dignity to
the monastic life and a place of repentance, should by no means rise
again to the episcopate."
Reply to Objection 3: Even in natural things power remains inactive
on account of a supervening obstacle, for instance the act of sight
ceases through an affliction of the eye. So neither is it unreasonable
if, through the occurrence of some obstacle from without, the
episcopal power remain without the exercise of its act.
|
|