CHAPTER III

CAN A RELIGIOUS LAWFULLY BELONG TO A COLLEGE OF SECULAR TEACHERS

THOSE who are hostile to religious, make a malicious effort to prove that they ought not, in anything pertaining to study, to have dealings with seculars. Their object in thus acting, is to place obstacles in the path of such religious as are employed in teaching, if they cannot entirely hinder them in the exercise of that function. They adduce several authorities in support of their principles.

             First they quote the following words of XVII. CAP. VII. In nova actione: "Those engaged in the same work, ought not to differ in profession. This was forbidden by the law of Moses, 'Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together' (Deut. xxii.), which means 'thou shalt not associate in one office men of different professions.'" The reason given is, "they whose aims and desires are dissimilar, cannot unite nor coalesce." Since, then, laymen and religious differ in profession, they ought not to be joined in the teaching office. Again, St. Augustine says, that every man ought to adhere to such a manner of life as befits him. Now, it does not appear seemly, that the same man should belong, at one and the same time, to a secular and to a religious establishment. For, the members of one institute cannot imitate the usages of the other. Hence, a religious, belonging to his own community, should not be a member of a secular college.

             Again, a legal statute has ruled, that, without a dispensation, the same man shall not belong to two lay associations. Much less, then, ought a religious, belonging to his own community, to be a member of a secular establishment. Again, all who belong to any society are bound to obey its rules. Now, religious cannot conform to regulations drawn up for lay professors and scholars; nor can they promise to abide by those ordinances which laymen bind themselves to observe; nor to take the oaths which seculars take. For, religious are not their own masters, but live under authority. Hence they cannot belong to secular societies.

             But, the malicious enemies of religious, in their desire to exclude them from any intercourse with seculars, strive, in default of legitimate arguments, to accomplish their purpose by calumny. They maintain that religious are a source of offence and scandal to the world; and they exhort their fellows to avoid all communion with them. They quote the words of St. Paul (Rom. xvi. 17), "Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who cause dissensions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and to avoid them." Religious are accused of living in idleness. Therefore, according to the words of St. Paul (2 Thess. iii. 6) they ought to be shunned by good men. For, the Apostle says: "We charge you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us." St. Paul goes on to speak of the manual labour practised by the Apostles. He then continues, "For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us." He concludes his exhortation by the following command: "If any man obey not our word," (i.e. our injunction to manual labour), "by this epistle, note that man; and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed."

             Religious are, further, denounced by their enemies as being the source of all the evils which are to flood the world in the latter days. Hence, they must be shunned by all men. For, St. Paul, writing to Timothy, (2nd Ep. iii.), gives a most emphatic order on this head. "Know," he says, "that in the last days shall come on dangerous times. Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, etc., ... having an appearance indeed of goodness (or of religion, as the Gloss says), but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid." But, as, in the same chapter, St. Paul says, "Evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring and driving into error," so, these defamers of religious, not satisfied with calumny, try to make void the authority of the Apostle, saying, that, not even at his bidding, are they bound to admit religious to their society. For, according to civil law, there is no obligation which can compel them to permit religious to associate with them; since society is established on the basis of free will. Hence, the Apostolic authority is limited to ecclesiastical affairs. St. Paul himself said, (2 Cor. x. 13), "We will not glory beyond our measure: but according to the measure of the rule, which God has measured to us." Now, ecclesiastical affairs include the collation of benefices, the administration of the Sacraments, and the like, but not association in studies. Hence, secular students are not, by Apostolic authority, bound to admit religious to their society.

             Again, power is committed to the ministers of the church, not "unto destruction, but unto edification" (2 Cor. xiii. 10). Hence, as the enemies of religious consider that they have proofs that union between religious and seculars would be "unto destruction," they hold, that the authority of the Apostles cannot compel them to form such an union.

             This opinion, however, is censurable, mistaken, and ill-founded. It deserves censure inasmuch as it detracts from that unity in the Church, which, as St. Paul says (Rom. xii. 5), is based on the fact, that, "We being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." The Gloss interprets these words as meaning, that, "we are members one of another, since we are of service to each other, and are in need of the assistance of one another." This is true of all men alike; neither the greater, nor the lesser amongst us, being excluded. Hence, whosoever hinders one man from serving another, as far as he be able, impairs the unity of the Church. Now, the work of teaching is one adapted to religious. St. Paul mentions this, saying, "he that teacheth in doctrine." Thereby the apostle means, says the Gloss, "he that has the gift of teaching, should, by his instruction, prove himself a member of another." Hence, it is a violation of ecclesiastical unity, to hinder religious, either from teaching others, or from learning from them. It is, likewise, an infraction of charity. For, as Aristotle says (Ethics viii. and x.), "friendship is based on intercourse, and by it is fostered." These words are borne out by the saying of Solomon, "A man amiable in society, shall be more friendly than a brother" (Prov. xviii. 24). Anyone, therefore, who hinders intercourse, in scholastic matters, between laymen and religious, weakens charity, and sows the seed of quarrels and dissensions.

             Again, obstacles thrown in the way of such intercourse, will tend to impede the progress made by students. In all social matters, the companionship of others is of great advantage. "A brother that is helped by his brother, is like a strong city," says Solomon (Prov. xviii. 19). "It is better, therefore, that two should be together than one: for they have the advantage of their society" (Ecclesiast. iv. 9). But it is, especially, in study, that society is of use; for among many students some will know or understand that, of which others are ignorant. Hence Aristotle (I. lib. Caeli et Mundi) says, "that the ancient philosophers did, at divers meetings, investigate the truth concerning the heavenly bodies." The exclusion then of any class of men from the society of other students, is a manifest injury to the studies of all. This applies, especially, to the exclusion of religious, who are peculiarly well adapted to make progress in learning; since, by their state of life, they are not distracted by worldly anxieties. "He that is less in action, shall receive wisdom" (Ecclesiast. xxxviii. 25).

             By excluding religious from studying in common with laymen, an injury is committed against the community of faith, which is called Catholic because it ought to be one. Those who do not associate with each other by agreeing on religious matters, may easily end by teaching different, and even contradictory,

doctrines. St. Paul says of himself (Gal. ii. 1), "Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. And I went up according to revelation, and communicated with them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but apart to them who seemed to be something: lest perhaps I should run, or had run, in vain." We learn from the decretals (distinct. XV. cap. CANONES), that Councils began to be convoked in the time of Constantine. Before that period, there was, on account of frequent and violent persecutions, very little facility for the instruction of the faithful; and, as bishops had no opportunity for meeting to debate together, the Christian religion was torn by many heresies. This fact proves, that there is great danger of schism, in matters of doctrine, when the preachers of the faith are not able to assemble for purposes of discussion. Hence, any attempt to exclude religious from intercourse with other teachers and students, is highly to be condemned.

             The reason given for such an exclusion, is, likewise, ill-founded, being opposed to Apostolic doctrine which cannot err. St. Peter (1 Ep. iv. 10), writes in these terms: "As every man hath received grace, ministering the same one to another; as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." The Gloss thus comments on this passage: "The Apostle signifies by the word 'grace,' any gift of the Holy Spirit which may be used for the assistance of others, in things either temporal or spiritual. He exemplifies his meaning by the words which follow. "If any man speak, let him speak as the words of God." The Gloss adds, "If any man know how to speak, let him attribute his knowledge not to himself, but to God." Let him stand in fear, lest he teach aught contrary to the will of God, the authority of Scripture, or the good of his brethren; or, lest he be silent, when he ought to speak." Hence, the assertion that Religious and laymen ought not, mutually, to communicate their gift of knowledge, is, patently, opposed to the teaching of the Apostles.

             Again, we read in Ecclesiast. xxxiii. 18, "See that I have not laboured for myself only, but for all that seek discipline." These words, as the Gloss observes, apply to the teachers of the Church, who, by their writings and instruction, profit not themselves alone, but others also. The wise man, in the text that we have quoted, says, that he has laboured for all men, without exception. Therefore, both religious and secular teachers, ought, by their teaching, to labour for the benefit of all their brethren, whether laymen or religious.

             As the body is composed of several members, so in the Church there exist divers offices. This comparison, we find in the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (xii.). Now, as in the physical body there are eyes, so in the mystical body of the Church there are teachers. Hence the Gloss understands the text in the Gospel of St. Matthew (xviii. 9), "If thine eye scandalise thee" etc., to refer to ecclesiastical doctors and counsellors. Physical eyesight is useful to the whole body alike; and one limb subserves another in its functions. For, as St. Paul says (1 Cor. xii. 21), "the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help; nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you." Therefore, everyone who undertakes the office of teaching, must perform it for the benefit of all men, of whatsoever condition they may be. Thus, religious must assist laymen; and laymen must help religious.

             Again, any person who is competent to perform some special function, has a right to be admitted to the society of those who are selected for the exercise of that function. For, an association means the union of men, gathered together for the accomplishment of some specific work. Thus, all soldiers have a right to associate with one another in the same army; for an army is nothing but a society of men, banded together for the purpose of fighting. Hence religious of a military order, do not exclude from their society secular soldiers, and vice versa. Now, an association of study is a society, established with the object of teaching and of learning; and as not only laymen, but also religious, have a right to teach and to learn, there can be no doubt that, both these classes may lawfully unite in one society.

             The objection made to intercourse between seculars and religious, on matters bearing on study and teaching, are altogether frivolous. They are based on wholly untenable grounds; and they only serve to show the ignorance of their authors. For, as we have already said, a society means a union of men, assembled together for one and the same purpose. Hence, as everything ought to be judged with regard to the end for which it is ordained, the different societies which exist, ought to be distinguished and judged, according to the purpose for which they are formed. Aristotle, (VIII. Ethics), classifies different communications. By this term he means associations, formed for divers objects, wherein the members hold communication one with the other. The Philosopher distinguishes friendships according to these communications. He refers to the friendship of those brought up together, or that based on commercial transactions, or the friendship of men engaged in the same business. Hence arises the distinction between public and private societies. A public society is that wherein men assemble for purposes connected with the common weal. Thus, fellow citizens, or compatriots, form a public society, and become one city, or one kingdom. A private society is one established by a few persons, for some private end. Thus, two or three enter into partnership in a mercantile negotiation. Now, each of these classes of society may be either temporary or perpetual. Sometimes a number of men, or only two or three individuals, band together in a perpetual society. This is the case with those, who, when they become citizens of some city, form an association, choosing that city for their dwelling-place for ever. They, thus, establish a political society. Again, there may be a perpetual private society, formed between husband and wife, or master and slave, based upon the durable nature of the tie binding together the members of such a society. This is called an economical society. But, when men associate in order to engage in some temporary business, as, for example, to hold a fair, they form a temporary and public society. Or, when two friends are engaged in the management of the same inn, the society which they establish is private, and at the same time temporary.

             Now, these various classes of association, must be judged by different standards. To apply the name of association or society, indiscriminately, to all, is to prove one's own ignorance. For this reason, we shall have no difficulty in answering the objections brought against the association of seculars and religious.

             We are told, first of all, that "men of different professions ought not to be associated in the same office." These words are quoted, "thou shalt not join together men of different professions." This objection is perfectly true if it be understood to mean, that men of different professions, should not be associated in matters upon which they differ. Hence, laymen and clerics should not be associated in ecclesiastical matters. Therefore the following words are found before the words just quoted: "A bishop ought not to have a lay vicar; and the clergy ought not to be judged in lay courts of justice." For the same reason, religious cannot associate with laymen in commercial and mercantile transactions, in which religious are forbidden to take part. "No man being a soldier of God entangleth himself with secular businesses" (2 Tim. ii. 4). But, as we have seen, the exercise of teaching and of learning concerns both seculars and religious. Hence, there is no reason against religious being associated with laymen in scholastic affairs. For, men of different conditions, who agree in unity of faith, form the body of the Church. "There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galat. iii. 28). It is objected, that, although, in an association of laymen and religious, there are some points common to both classes, there are, likewise, some on which they differ. Thus, there may be a purely secular society, formed of members whose interests are limited to secular affairs. Or, there may be an exclusively religious institute, of which the system is directed towards the formation of the religious life. There is, however, one point which is common both to laymen and to religious. For, religious and seculars have this in common, viz., that they belong to the Society of the one Church of Christ, by that agreement in one faith, whereby the unity of the Church is made perfect. Hence, as teaching and learning are functions pertaining alike to seculars and religious, an association of study ought not to be known as, exclusively, either a lay or a religious college; but, rather, as a college including both seculars and religious.

             The objection that no one can belong to two associations, is, for three reasons, untenable. First, because a part cannot be numerically accounted as opposed to the whole. A private society is part of a public society, as a house is part of a city. The fact that a man forms part of a family causes him to form part of a city, which is composed of many families. Nevertheless, he does not, on this account, belong to two distinct associations. Now, as an association of studies is a public association, a man who forms part of a private society, (be it secular or religious), wherein a few students meet together for the purposes of study, belongs, on this very account, to a general scholastic association. But, he does not, for this reason, belong to two associations. Again, there is no law to prohibit a man from belonging to some public, perpetual association, and, at the same time, from forming part of a public or private, temporary society. Thus, a man who belongs to some civic society, may, likewise, form part of a military association; and the member of a family, may be associated with others in an inn. Now an institute of studies is a temporary, not a perpetual, association. For men attend it, not as a permanent residence; but they go and come, at their own convenience. Hence, there is no reason why a man belonging to a perpetual society, such as a religious order, should not also attend a scholastic establishment. The third reason which stultifies the objection to the admission of religious to secular colleges is, that this objection applies the particular to the general. The assertion, that a man cannot belong to two associations, was, originally, formulated about ecclesiastical societies. Thus, a man cannot be a canon in two churches, without a dispensation or a legitimate reason. We read (XXI. quaest. I.), "From this date, no cleric shall be attached to two churches." But, this rule does not apply to other associations. For, the same man can be a citizen of two cities. Therefore, as a scholastic association is not an ecclesiastical society, there is no reason why a man belonging to a religious or secular association, should not also be a member of a scholastic society.

             The fourth reason given for the exclusion of religious from association with secular students is that religious cannot either teach or study without the authorisation and permission of their superiors, who have the power to absolve their subjects from their oaths and other engagements in order to enable them to belong to such an association. Now, we must remember, that, as the perfection of a whole consists in the union of its parts, a whole cannot exist unless its parts agree. Hence, any decrees drawn up for the welfare of a state and city, ought to be formulated with a view to the advantage of all its members. Any statutes which would hinder the unity of a commonwealth, ought to be abolished. For laws are established in order to preserve the concord of a state, and not to promote internal dissension. In the same way, there ought not to exist in any scholastic association, statutes which do not suit all students alike. The words of the Apostle, (Rom. xvi. 17), "Now I beseech you, brethren," etc., quoted by our opponents in support of their objections, are no argument on their side. First, because those words of St. Paul do not apply to religious, but to heretics, and to schismatics. This is clearly shown in the text, wherein St. Paul warns the Romans to avoid such as cause dissensions "contrary to the doctrine which they had learned," learned that is, as the Gloss explains, "from the true Apostles." Those against whom St. Paul gave this warning, were men who strove to impose the Jewish law upon the Gentiles. Again the words (2 Thess. iii. 6), "We charge you, brethren," etc., were not uttered against religious, but against men who passed their time in idleness and misdeeds. Of these St. Paul says, "we have heard there are some among you who walk disorderly, working not at all, but curiously meddling," or as the Gloss says, "providing for their necessities by iniquitous means." Again the words (2 Tim. iii. 1), "Know also this," etc., were written not to religious, but to heretics, "blasphemers" as St. Paul calls them, "who by their heresy blaspheme God" (Gloss). "As Jannes and Manbres resisted Moses so these also (i.e. heretics) resist the truth," continues the Apostle, "men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith." It is true that he says, that the heretics of whom he speaks, had "an appearance indeed of Godliness," i.e., of religion; but religion in this passage signifies latria, which makes a profession of faith. In this sense, it is, as St. Augustine says, (lib. 10 De civitate Dei), equivalent to piety.

             But even granted, that all, or some, religious were as infamous as certain men consider them to be, that would be no reason for excluding them from intercourse with others. The Gloss, referring to the passage of St. Paul (1 Cor. v.), concerning the man guilty of incest, wherein he bids the Corinthians not so much as to eat with such an one, observes that, "the Apostle's words, 'if anyone that is named a brother,' show, that men are not to condemn each other, rashly and carelessly; but, that it is only after judgment has been pronounced, that any sinner is to be excluded from communion with the Church. If such a sinner cannot be judicially excommunicated, he must be tolerated." We have no right to exclude any man from the society of his fellows, unless he be, by his own confession, found guilty of some crime, or be denounced, and convicted, by some secular or ecclesiastical tribunal. Hence, a man may not be condemned on suspicion, or by someone usurping the office of judge. He must be tried, accused, and convicted, according to the law of God, interpreted by the Church. Hence, even were religious as reprobate as they are said to be, they ought not to be excluded from intercourse with the laity, unless they have been brought to judgment, and have been condemned.

             The attempt to derogate from the authority of the Apostles, is not only based on false premises, but is closely akin to heresy. For we find in the Decretals (dist. XXII. cap. Omnes.) the following passage: "Whosoever endeavours to wrest from the Roman Church the privilege bequeathed to her by the supreme head of all the churches, is, undoubtedly, guilty of heresy." And again, "He acts contrary to faith, who acts against her who is the Mother of the Faith." Now Christ granted to the Roman Church the privilege of being obeyed by all, as He Himself is obeyed, in order, as says St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria (Lib. II. Thesaurorum), "that we may continue to be members under our Head, the Roman Pontiff, seated on the throne of the Apostles. From him must we learn what we are to believe and uphold. We are bound to revere him, and to entreat him for all things. To him alone, does it belong to rebuke and to correct, and to unloose, in the place of Him who has established him. To none other has this power been given, but to him alone, before whom, all men do, by the divine command, abase their heads, and who is, by all the princes of the world, obeyed as if he were Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself." Hence, it is clear, that anyone who maintains that the Pope need not be obeyed, is a heretic.

             The objection that, according to law, no one can be forced to join an association against his will, applies only to a private society, established by two or three members. But a man can be compelled to form part of a public association, which cannot exist without the consent of authority. Thus, a prince may force the inhabitants of a certain city to accept an individual as their fellow-citizen; and an ecclesiastical society can be compelled to accept a man as a canon, or a brother. Hence, as any general scholastic association is, in a certain sense, a society, any man may be obliged, by the authority of a superior, to belong to it.

             The assertion that the Apostolic authority is limited to ecclesiastical affairs, is false. The president of a republic is bound to provide food for those over whom he rules, and to undertake the proper education and training of the young (10 Ethic). He is, likewise, obliged to supervise the legislation of his republic, and to establish rules for the well-being of the citizens (1 Ethic). Thus, we see, that the legislation concerning education, is one of the duties of the president of a republic. It must, therefore, come under the authority of the Apostolic See, by which the whole Church is governed.

             The last objection is founded on an absolute falsehood. The association of religious with the laity, in matters concerning education, is not intended for the destruction, but rather for the advancement, of learning. Hence, there can be no possible doubt that, by the authority of the Apostolic See, seculars may be compelled to admit religious into their scholastic societies.