|
Objection 1: It would seem that he who has vowed to enter religion,
is bound in perpetuity to remain in religion. For it is better not to
enter religion than to leave after entering, according to 2 Pt.
2:21, "It had been better for them not to have known the way of
justice, than after they have known it to turn back," and Lk.
9:62, "No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back,
is fit for the kingdom of God." But he who bound himself by the vow
to enter religion, is under the obligation to enter, as stated above
(Article 3). Therefore he is also bound to remain for always.
Objection 2: Further, everyone is bound to avoid that which gives
rise to scandal, and is a bad example to others. Now by leaving after
entering religion a man gives a bad example and is an occasion of
scandal to others, who are thereby withdrawn from entering or incited
to leave. Therefore it seems that he who enters religion in order to
fulfil a vow which he had previously taken, is bound to remain
evermore.
Objection 3: Further, the vow to enter religion is accounted a
perpetual vow: wherefore it is preferred to temporal vows, as stated
above (Article 3, ad 3; Question 88, Article 12, ad 1).
But this would not be so if a person after vowing to enter religion
were to enter with the intention of leaving. It seems, therefore,
that he who vows to enter religion is bound also to remain in
perpetuity.
On the contrary, The vow of religious profession, for the reason
that it binds a man to remain in religion for evermore, has to be
preceded by a year of probation; whereas this is not required before
the simple vow whereby a man binds himself to enter religion.
Therefore it seems that he who vows to enter religion is not for that
reason bound to remain there in perpetuity.
I answer that, The obligation of a vow proceeds from the will:
because "to vow is an act of the will" according to Augustine
[Gloss of Peter Lombard on Ps. 75:12]. Consequently the
obligation of a vow extends as far as the will and intention of the
person who takes the vow. Accordingly if in vowing he intend to bind
himself not only to enter religion, but also to remain there evermore,
he is bound to remain in perpetuity. If, on the other hand, he
intend to bind himself to enter religion for the purpose of trial,
while retaining the freedom to remain or not remain, it is clear that
he is not bound to remain. If, however, in vowing he thought merely
of entering religion, without thinking of being free to leave, or of
remaining in perpetuity, it would seem that he is bound to enter
religion according to the form prescribed by common law, which is that
those who enter should be given a year's probation. Wherefore he is
not bound to remain for ever.
Reply to Objection 1: It is better to enter religion with the
purpose of making a trial than not to enter at all, because by so doing
one disposes oneself to remain always. Nor is a person accounted to
turn or to look back, save when he omits to do that which he engaged to
do: else whoever does a good work for a time, would be unfit for the
kingdom of God, unless he did it always, which is evidently false.
Reply to Objection 2: A man who has entered religion gives neither
scandal nor bad example by leaving, especially if he do so for a
reasonable motive; and if others are scandalized, it will be passive
scandal on their part, and not active scandal on the part of the person
leaving, since in doing so, he has done what was lawful, and
expedient on account of some reasonable motive, such as sickness,
weakness, and the like.
Reply to Objection 3: He who enters with the purpose of leaving
forthwith, does not seem to fulfil his vow, since this was not his
intention in vowing. Hence he must change that purpose, at least so
as to wish to try whether it is good for him to remain in religion, but
he is not bound to remain for evermore.
|
|