CHAPTER XXII

SHOWING THAT THE LIABILITY TO SUSPENSION DOES NOT SUFFICE TO PROVE, THAT PARISH PRIESTS OR ARCHDEACONS ARE IN A STATE OF PERFECTION

MANY objections are made to the proposition, that archdeacons or parish priests are not in a state of perfection because they can, without sin, resign their office. We are told, first, that pastors of souls may resign their posts and retire into religion; because, while the pastorate is a more useful and more perfect state than the religious, the religious life is the safer of the two. In proof of this, the passage, Nisi cum pridem from Extra de renuntiat. is quoted. A husband may not put his wife away against her will, in order to become a religious (Extra de conversione conjugatorum, cap. Uxoratus). This, however, is not because the married state is more perfect than, or even equal to, the religious, but because a husband binds himself indissolubly to his wife. And, a pari, the fact that a parish priest can pass into the religious life, does not prove that the religious state exceeds, or even equals, the pastorate in perfection.

             The example of David is also alleged as an argument against our proposition. Being unable to meet Saul with ordinary armour, which would have been too heavy for him, David provided himself with lowlier weapons, to wit with a sling and stones; and with these alone he overthrew the mighty Philistine. After this example, a parish priest may, likewise, take to himself arms of greater humility, i.e., he may transfer himself from his own more perfect state to the religious life.

             It is further objected, that, if the essence of a state depend upon the fact that that state cannot be changed, it would not be lawful for a man to pass from one state to another. Hence, immutability is not essential to a state. Again, according to the written law, a prelate can recall to a parish one of his priests who has entered religion, if he know that he is likely to be of use in the diocese; and if a priest go into a monastery, without the consent of his bishop, he is liable to a canonical penance (Extra de renuntiatione, cap. Amovet; et de privilegiis et excessu privilegiatorum, can. Cum et plantare in ecclesiis, and VII. quaest. I. can. Episcopus de loco). Hence, it is not true to say, that the religious state is more perfect than that of parish priests, because the latter can embrace the religious life. But, on the other hand, a monk may, for the good of the Church, and for the welfare of souls, pass from the religious life to a secular church with parish work (XVI. quaest. I. cap. Vos antem, and cap. Monachos). For, the profit of many is to be preferred to the advantage of an individual (VII. q. I. cap. Scias).

             Again, the fact that men are liable to fall from the perfection of charity, is no proof that they never were in the perfection of charity. Their fall is rather a witness to the contrary. Hence, the lapse of a parish priest does not prove that before his sin he was not in a state of perfection.

             An ecclesiastical decree, promulgated in the time of Pope Innocent, forbids prelates of the highest rank (i.e. bishops) to become religious, without the permission of the Sovereign Pontiff. This appears in the decretal Extra de renuntiatione, cap. Nisi cum pridem. But before the promulgation of this decree, the highest in the Church as well as the lowest, were free to become religious; and yet bishops are in a more perfect state than are the inferior clergy. The fact, then, that parish priests can become religious without the permission of the Sovereign Pontiff, does not prevent their being in a more perfect state than are religious.

             Again, no one can be consecrated bishop who has not already received Holy Orders (LX. distinct. Nullus in episcopum). But no ordained person can marry. Hence it is untrue to say that a bishop elect can marry.