|
Objection 1: It would seem that perpetual continence is not required
for religious perfection. For all perfection of the Christian life
began with Christ's apostles. Now the apostles do not appear to have
observed continence, as evidenced by Peter, of whose mother-in-law
we read Mt. 8:14. Therefore it would seem that perpetual
continence is not requisite for religious perfection.
Objection 2: Further, the first example of perfection is shown to
us in the person of Abraham, to whom the Lord said (Gn.
17:1): "Walk before Me, and be perfect." Now the copy
should not surpass the example. Therefore perpetual continence is not
requisite for religious perfection.
Objection 3: Further, that which is required for religious
perfection is to be found in every religious order. Now there are some
religious who lead a married life. Therefore religious perfection does
not require perpetual continence.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (2 Cor. 7:1): "Let us
cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit,
perfecting sanctification in the fear of God." Now cleanness of
flesh and spirit is safeguarded by continence, for it is said (1
Cor. 7:34): "The unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on
the things of the Lord that she may be holy both in spirit and in body
." Therefore religious perfection requires continence.
I answer that, The religious state requires the removal of whatever
hinders man from devoting himself entirely to God's service. Now the
use of sexual union hinders the mind from giving itself wholly to the
service of God, and this for two reasons. First, on account of its
vehement delectation, which by frequent repetition increases
concupiscence, as also the Philosopher observes (Ethic. iii,
12): and hence it is that the use of venery withdraws the mind from
that perfect intentness on tending to God. Augustine expresses this
when he says (Solil. i, 10): "I consider that nothing so casts
down the manly mind from its height as the fondling of women, and those
bodily contacts which belong to the married state." Secondly,
because it involves man in solicitude for the control of his wife, his
children, and his temporalities which serve for their upkeep. Hence
the Apostle says (1 Cor. 7:32,33): "He that is without a
wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may
please God: but he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of
the world, how he may please his wife."
Therefore perpetual continence, as well as voluntary poverty, is
requisite for religious perfection. Wherefore just as Vigilantius was
condemned for equaling riches to poverty, so was Jovinian condemned
for equaling marriage to virginity.
Reply to Objection 1: The perfection not only of poverty but also
of continence was introduced by Christ Who said (Mt. 19:12):
"There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs, for the kingdom
of heaven," and then added: "He that can take, let him take it."
And lest anyone should be deprived of the hope of attaining
perfection, he admitted to the state of perfection those even who were
married. Now the husbands could not without committing an injustice
forsake their wives, whereas men could without injustice renounce
riches. Wherefore Peter whom He found married, He severed not from
his wife, while "He withheld from marriage John who wished to
marry" [Prolog. in Joan.].
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (De Bono Conjug.
xxii), "the chastity of celibacy is better than the chastity of
marriage, one of which Abraham had in use, both of them in habit.
For he lived chastely, and he might have been chaste without
marrying, but it was not requisite then." Nevertheless if the
patriarchs of old had perfection of mind together with wealth and
marriage, which is a mark of the greatness of their virtue, this is no
reason why any weaker person should presume to have such great virtue
that he can attain to perfection though rich and married; as neither
does a man unarmed presume to attack his enemy, because Samson slew
many foes with the jaw-bone of an ass. For those fathers, had it
been seasonable to observe continence and poverty, would have been most
careful to observe them.
Reply to Objection 3: Such ways of living as admit of the use of
marriage are not the religious life simply and absolutely speaking, but
in a restricted sense, in so far as they have a certain share in those
things that belong to the religious state.
|
|