|
Objection 1: It would seem that the vow of obedience is not the
chief of the three religious vows. For the perfection of the religious
life was inaugurated by Christ. Now Christ gave a special counsel of
poverty; whereas He is not stated to have given a special counsel of
obedience. Therefore the vow of poverty is greater than the vow of
obedience.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 26:20) that
"no price is worthy of a continent soul." Now the vow of that which
is more worthy is itself more excellent. Therefore the vow of
continence is more excellent than the vow of obedience.
Objection 3: Further, the greater a vow the more indispensable it
would seem to be. Now the vows of poverty and continence "are so
inseparable from the monastic rule, that not even the Sovereign
Pontiff can allow them to be broken," according to a Decretal (De
Statu Monach., cap. Cum ad monasterium): yet he can dispense a
religious from obeying his superior. Therefore it would seem that the
vow of obedience is less than the vow of poverty and continence.
On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxxv, 14): "Obedience
is rightly placed before victims, since by victims another's flesh,
but by obedience one's own will, is sacrificed." Now the religious
vows are holocausts, as stated above (Articles 1,3, ad 6).
Therefore the vow of obedience is the chief of all religious vows.
I answer that, The vow of obedience is the chief of the three
religious vows, and this for three reasons.
First, because by the vow of obedience man offers God something
greater, namely his own will; for this is of more account than his own
body, which he offers God by continence, and than external things,
which he offers God by the vow of poverty. Wherefore that which is
done out of obedience is more acceptable to God than that which is done
of one's own will, according to the saying of Jerome (Ep. cxxv ad
Rustic Monach.): "My words are intended to teach you not to rely
on your own judgment": and a little further on he says: "You may
not do what you will; you must eat what you are bidden to eat, you may
possess as much as you receive, clothe yourself with what is given to
you." Hence fasting is not acceptable to God if it is done of one's
own will, according to Is. 58:3, "Behold in the day of your
fast your own will is found."
Secondly, because the vow of obedience includes the other vows, but
not vice versa: for a religious, though bound by vow to observe
continence and poverty, yet these also come under obedience, as well
as many other things besides the keeping of continence and poverty.
Thirdly, because the vow of obedience extends properly to those acts
that are closely connected with the end of religion; and the more
closely a thing is connected with the end, the better it is.
It follows from this that the vow of obedience is more essential to the
religious life. For if a man without taking a vow of obedience were to
observe, even by vow, voluntary poverty and continence, he would not
therefore belong to the religious state, which is to be preferred to
virginity observed even by vow; for Augustine says (De Virgin.
xlvi): "No one, methinks, would prefer virginity to the monastic
life."
Reply to Objection 1: The counsel of obedience was included in the
very following of Christ, since to obey is to follow another's will.
Consequently it is more pertinent to perfection than the vow of
poverty, because as Jerome, commenting on Mt. 19:27,
"Behold we have left all things," observes, "Peter added that
which is perfect when he said: And have followed Thee."
Reply to Objection 2: The words quoted mean that continence is to
be preferred, not to all other acts of virtue, but to conjugal
chastity, or to external riches of gold and silver which are measured
by weight. Or again continence is taken in a general sense for
abstinence from ali evil, as stated above (Question 155, Article
4, ad 1).
Reply to Objection 3: The Pope cannot dispense a religious from
his vow of obedience so as to release him from obedience to every
superior in matters relating to the perfection of life, for he cannot
exempt him from obedience to himself. He can, however, exempt him
from subjection to a lower superior, but this is not to dispense him
from his vow of obedience.
|
|