Question III: Whether it is lawful to seek or to refuse the episcopate

IT MUST BE NOTED that there are three kinds of those who seek a Bishopric: some are unworthy; others are worthy, but seek it perversely out of avarice or ambition. Others are worthy, and seek it for right reasons of faith, as the holy Doctor teaches, lib. 1. Pharetrae, cap. 19, from the Fathers.

I ASSERT first: that it is a mortal sin for an unworthy man to seek a Bishopric.

IT IS PROVED because it is against Justice, nor can he receive the revenues; it is also against charity, for he harms the sheep. So Laym., tract. 2. lib. 4. cap. 15. num. 10; Valencia tom. 3. disp. 10. quaest. 3. puncto 1; Navarr. de orat. miscel. 42; Diana part. 4. tract. 4. res. 100; Bassaeus verb. Episcopus.

I ASSERT secondly, that to seek a Bishopric out of ambition or avarice is perverse and mortal.

IT IS PROVED by D. Bonaventure, loc. cit. Pharetrae: for it is to order the Bishopric perversely to lower goods; hence D. Augustine, ad Oros. quaest. 65, says that such a man is not a bishop. Likewise he has lib. 19. de civitate cap. 19, which D. Jerome subscribed in Sophoniae cap. 3, where he cries out that such a man will quickly fall, as he related in quaest. 1. This is asserted also by Caiet. here, Sotus de Iustitia lib. 10. quaest. 2. art. 1, Tanner. disp. 6. quaest. 3. dub. 3, and Bassaeus.

IT IS CONFIRMED by D. Bonaventure from 1. Timot. 3, where he says: if anyone desire a Bishopric, he desireth a good work. Where the episcopal work is to be desired, if a Bishopric is desired, namely laboring for the glory of God and watching over the salvation of subjects; otherwise it would be perverse, and against the institution, he admonishes with the holy Fathers: Jerome loc. cit., Chrysostom homil. 35. in Matth., Augustine 19. de civitate, cap. 19, Gregory in the Pastoral, part. 1. cap. 8, whom Tannerus also relates.

I ASSERT thirdly, that it is lawful to seek a Bishopric in order to serve God and the Church.

IT IS PROVED by D. Bonaventure, de sex alis Seraphim, cap. 5, from the passage of the Apostle cited above. Hence he observes that very many have in the Episcopate reached the summit of sanctity and have been canonized; but he notes that this was true in that laborious time of the Church's need, from D. Gregory in the prologue of the Pastoral, whom St. Bonaventure relates in the Pharetra, in the place cited.

INDEED in the Pharetra, loc. cit., he says with D. Thomas, art. 1, that it is dangerous. Valencia adds, punct. 2. concl. 2, that commonly this appetite is mortal, because he casts himself into peril of his salvation. And truly the one seeking it makes himself unworthy, says D. Clement, epist. 1, from the sentence of D. Peter, where he says: This chair does not seek one who desires himself, and boldly seeks it, but one adorned in morals and erudite in words.

I ASSERT fourthly, that it is not necessary for him who recognizes that he is to be assumed to judge himself certainly worthy, but it is enough not to have a conscience of an evil condition. So D. Thomas, art. 3.

IT IS PROVED from Tannerus num. 57, arguing from St. Bonaventure, lib. 4. Pharetrae, cap. 35, taken from D. Bernard, serm. 76. in Cant., where he says: Not in vain has it been so often repeated: Peter, lovest thou me, in the commission of the sheep; I indeed think that this was signified thereby, as if Jesus had said to him, unless thy conscience bears thee witness that thou lovest me, and lovest me most perfectly, that is, more than thine own, more than thy friends, and even more than thyself, so that the number of my repetitions be fulfilled, thou shalt in no wise undertake this care, nor intermeddle with my sheep, for whom surely my blood was poured out.

Therefore if he does not have a conscience that he would set aside all things for the service of God and neighbor, even if he does not see that he has all the conditions, he may accept it.

The same the holy Doctor maintains, citing D. Gregory in the Pastoral, parte 1. cap. 9, who says: Let him who is strong in virtues come compelled to the government; let him who is empty of virtues, not compelled, not approach.

AND in the Prooem. of the Pastoral: When the necessity of things demands it, great thought must be given to how each one comes to the summit of government: and how, duly arriving at this, he lives: and living well, how he teaches: and teaching rightly, with what daily consideration he recognizes his own infirmity: lest either humility flee the access, or life contradict perfection, or doctrine desert life, or presumption exalt doctrine.

THE SAME, homil. 22. in Evang.: They ought to take up the pastoral care who know in their own heart how to tame luxuries that pass away: so that when they preach mighty things to others, they themselves may not weakly succumb to soft desires.

HENCE I add fifthly, that it is not lawful for him who is worthily elected to refuse the Bishopric. So St. Bonaventure in the places cited with the Fathers, D. Thomas art. 2, Sanch. lib. 4. mor. cap. 8. num. 38, Bassaeus num. 4.

FOR thereby, Can. 37. Apost., he is excommunicated who refuses a Bishopric enjoined upon him, as D. Bonaventure intimates in the 4th, in the place cited. It is evident also from the council of Antioch cap. 10, and from the sentence of D. Peter in Clement, epist. 1, saying that he sins more gravely who, in the necessity of the Church, on account of private peril, rejects a Bishopric, than he who would not bring aid to a Christian people laboring amid the waves, when he could. Therefore the latter would act against charity.

HERE, however, they ask, who is the one who has the power to oblige one to accept a Bishopric: I say it is the Pope. See Diana, part. 6. tract. 8. resol. 33.

IN the creation of a Bishop three things intervene: Election, confirmation, and consecration. c. inter. c. licet extra de translat. Episcopi, et extra de elec. c. cum in cunctis.

BEFORE Confirmation he cannot by common law exercise any acts, C. qualiter, extra de elec. But he can by dispensation, C. nihil est. The one confirmed, however, can exercise all acts of Jurisdiction, but not of Order, until he is consecrated. See Valencia, quaest. 3. puncto 3.

THEREFORE the election and confirmation of Bishops belongs to the Roman Pontiff, as St. Bonaventure teaches, serm. 22. Hexaemer., and in 4. d. 29. quaest. 3. ad 3, where he also says it must be supposed that a just precept is given by the Pope; yet if the elected one knows that he exposes himself to peril of soul on account of his insufficiency, he teaches that he is not bound to obey. The same holds Soto, lib. 10. de iust. quaest. 3. art. 2. But Valencia denies it, indeed says he is bound, citing the dictum of B. Peter above; but he speaks of peril of life, not of soul, as is evident.

That these things belong to the Roman Pontiff is established from the perpetual tradition of the Church: thus Anacletus Pope, epist. 2. ad Episcopos Italiae, related at 75. cap. 1; Innoc. I. epist. 1. ad Decentium; Pelagius epist. 2; Leo epist. 84, or 82; Gregor. lib. 4. regist. epist. 34; Concil. Later. cap. 5; Concil. Tolet. XII. cap. 6. See Valencia loc. cit.

Thus, Can. 31. Apost., he is excommunicated who has been created a Bishop by secular power; and in the Eighth Synod, Can. 22, Princes are excommunicated who constitute Bishops by their own authority. See Valencia on these.

Note, however, that the Roman Pontiff cannot elect for himself a successor, as the Gloss notes on cap. Apostolica, 8. quaest. 1; yet he can establish the mode of electing the Roman Pontiff, as Symmachus defined in the first Roman Synod, celebrated under him, which is related at 79. dist. cap. si quis Papa, cap. si transitus. Hence Nicholas I. decreed that this election is to be made from the concordant vote of the Cardinals, as is had in dist. 23. cap. in nomine Domini, and dist. 79. cap. si quis Apostolicae. But afterwards Alexander III. in his Lateran Council, cap. 1, decreed that two parts of the Cardinals suffice. It is related in extra de elect. cap. licet; and this is observed even to these times, as is evident from cap. ubi periculum, de elect. in 6.

Yet Peter could do this by the singular nod of God. See Turrecremm., lib. 2. summae Ecclesiae, cap. 51.

Therefore the Pope alone can oblige anyone to accept a Bishopric; not indeed Prelates.

I assert sixthly, that for a grave cause one can renounce a Bishopric. So D. Thomas art. 4, D. Bonaventure loc. cit. above in 4. The reason is, because an impediment may be present, rendering him insufficient, such as ignorance, sin, infirmity, etc.

This, however, cannot be done without the authority of the supreme Pontiff, from Innocent III., cap. nisi cum pridem, extra de renunc., and many decrees 7. quaest. 1.

I assert seventhly, that outside of such a cause, since he is necessary to the people, the one renouncing sins.

The reason is, because he prefers his own good to a grave public good. Therefore a Vow in religion would be null, since it concerns a lesser good.

I assert eighthly, that in many cases one sins by not renouncing.

Six causes, moreover, for which one is held to renounce a Bishopric are enumerated by Innocent III. loc. cit. The first is a sin impeding the execution of the episcopal office, even after penance has been performed. The second, weakness of body, impeding the execution of the pastoral office. Third, a lack of knowledge. Fourth, such malice of the people that there is no hope of profiting for that Bishop. Fifth, the scandal of the little ones, when from some probable cause they are so offended with the Bishop that he profits nothing among the people: Sixth is bigamy, or another irregularity. These D. Bonaventure also relates here and there.

The holy Doctor concludes on cap. 2. regulae min. that he who desires a Bishopric in order to decline the rigor of Religion shall sit with Lucifer on the sides of the North.