|
Objection 1: It would seem that it is unlawful for a bishop, on
account of some temporal persecution, to withdraw his bodily presence
from the flock committed to his care. For our Lord said (Jn.
10:12) that he is a hireling and no true shepherd, who "seeth
the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep and flieth": and Gregory says
(Hom. xiv in Ev.) that "the wolf comes upon the sheep when any
man by his injustice and robbery oppresses the faithful and the
humble." Therefore if, on account of the persecution of a tyrant, a
bishop withdraws his bodily presence from the flock entrusted to his
care, it would seem that he is a hireling and not a shepherd.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 6:1): "My
son, if thou be surety for thy friend, thou hast engaged fast thy hand
to a stranger," and afterwards (Prov. 6:3): "Run about,
make haste, stir up thy friend." Gregory expounds these words and
says (Pastor. iii, 4): "To be surety for a friend, is to vouch
for his good conduct by engaging oneself to a stranger. And whoever is
put forward as an example to the lives of others, is warned not only to
watch but even to rouse his friend." Now he cannot do this if he
withdraw his bodily presence from his flock. Therefore it would seem
that a bishop should not on account of persecution withdraw his bodily
presence from his flock.
Objection 3: Further, it belongs to the perfection of the bishop's
state that he devote himself to the care of his neighbor. Now it is
unlawful for one who has professed the state of perfection to forsake
altogether the things that pertain to perfection. Therefore it would
seem unlawful for a bishop to withdraw his bodily presence from the
execution of his office, except perhaps for the purpose of devoting
himself to works of perfection in a monastery.
On the contrary, our Lord commanded the apostles, whose successors
bishops are (Mt. 10:23): "When they shall persecute you in
this city, flee into another."
I answer that, In any obligation the chief thing to be considered is
the end of the obligation. Now bishops bind themselves to fulfil the
pastoral office for the sake of the salvation of their subjects.
Consequently when the salvation of his subjects demands the personal
presence of the pastor, the pastor should not withdraw his personal
presence from his flock, neither for the sake of some temporal
advantage, nor even on account of some impending danger to his person,
since the good shepherd is bound to lay down his life for his sheep.
On the other hand, if the salvation of his subjects can be
sufficiently provided for by another person in the absence of the
pastor, it is lawful for the pastor to withdraw his bodily presence
from his flock, either for the sake of some advantage to the Church,
or on account of some danger to his person. Hence Augustine says
(Ep. ccxxviii ad Honorat.): "Christ's servants may flee from
one city to another, when one of them is specially sought out by
persecutors: in order that the Church be not abandoned by others who
are not so sought for. When, however, the same danger threatens
all, those who stand in need of others must not be abandoned by those
whom they need." For "if it is dangerous for the helmsman to leave
the ship when the sea is calm, how much more so when it is stormy,"
as Pope Nicholas I says (cf. VII, qu. i, can.
Sciscitaris).
Reply to Objection 1: To flee as a hireling is to prefer temporal
advantage or one's bodily welfare to the spiritual welfare of one's
neighbor. Hence Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ev.): "A man
cannot endanger himself for the sake of his sheep, if he uses his
authority over them not through love of them but for the sake of earthly
gain: wherefore he fears to stand in the way of danger lest he lose
what he loves." But he who, in order to avoid danger, leaves the
flock without endangering the flock, does not flee as a hireling.
Reply to Objection 2: If he who is surety for another be unable to
fulfil his engagement, it suffices that he fulfil it through another.
Hence if a superior is hindered from attending personally to the care
of his subjects, he fulfils his obligation if he do so through
another.
Reply to Objection 3: When a man is appointed to a bishopric, he
embraces the state of perfection as regards one kind of perfection; and
if he be hindered from the practice thereof, he is not bound to another
kind of perfection, so as to be obliged to enter the religious state.
Yet he is under the obligation of retaining the intention of devoting
himself to his neighbor's salvation, should an opportunity offer, and
necessity require it of him.
|
|