|
Objection 1: It would seem that one ought not to be bound by vow to
enter religion. For in making his profession a man is bound by the
religious vow. Now before profession a year of probation is allowed,
according to the rule of the Blessed Benedict (lviii) and according
to the decree of Innocent IV [Sext. Decret., cap. Non
solum., de Regular. et Transeunt, ad Relig.] who moreover
forbade anyone to be bound to the religious life by profession before
completing the year of probation. Therefore it would seem that much
less ought anyone while yet in the world to be bound by vow to enter
religion.
Objection 2: Further, Gregory says (Regist. xi, Ep. 15):
Jews "should be persuaded to be converted, not by compulsion but of
their own free will" (Dist. xlv, can. De Judaeis). Now one is
compelled to fulfil what one has vowed. Therefore no one should be
bound by vow to enter religion.
Objection 3: Further, no one should give another an occasion of
falling; wherefore it is written (Ex. 21:33,34): "If a
man open a pit . . . and an ox or an ass fall into it, the owner of
the pit shall pay the price of the beasts." Now through being bound
by vow to enter religion it often happens that people fall into despair
and various sins. Therefore it would seem that one ought not to be
bound by vow to enter religion.
On the contrary, It is written, (Ps. 75:12): "Vow ye,
and pay to the Lord your God"; and a gloss of Augustine says that
"some vows concern the individual, such as vows of chastity,
virginity, and the like." Consequently Holy Scripture invites us
to vow these things. But Holy Scripture invites us only to that
which is better. Therefore it is better to bind oneself by vow to
enter religion.
I answer that, As stated above (Question 88, Article 6),
when we were treating of vows, one and the same work done in fulfilment
of a vow is more praiseworthy than if it be done apart from a vow, both
because to vow is an act of religion, which has a certain pre-eminence
among the virtues, and because a vow strengthens a man's will to do
good; and just as a sin is more grievous through proceeding from a will
obstinate in evil, so a good work is the more praiseworthy through
proceeding from a will confirmed in good by means of a vow. Therefore
it is in itself praiseworthy to bind oneself by vow to enter religion.
Reply to Objection 1: The religious vow is twofold. One is the
solemn vow which makes a man a monk or a brother in some other religious
order. This is called the profession, and such a vow should be
preceded by a year's probation, as the objection proves. The other
is the simple vow which does not make a man a monk or a religious, but
only binds him to enter religion, and such a vow need not be preceded
by a year's probation.
Reply to Objection 2: The words quoted from Gregory must be
understood as referring to absolute violence. But the compulsion
arising from the obligation of a vow is not absolute necessity, but a
necessity of end, because after such a vow one cannot attain to the end
of salvation unless one fulfil that vow. Such a necessity is not to be
avoided; indeed, as Augustine says (Ep. cxxvii ad Armentar. et
Paulin.), "happy is the necessity that compels us to better
things."
Reply to Objection 3: The vow to enter religion is a strengthening
of the will for better things, and consequently, considered in
itself, instead of giving a man an occasion of falling, withdraws him
from it. But if one who breaks a vow falls more grievously, this does
not derogate from the goodness of the vow, as neither does it derogate
from the goodness of Baptism that some sin more grievously after being
baptized.
|
|