§ III. On the Obligation of Tending to Perfection

1179. Principle. - A religious is held, not indeed to be perfect, but to tend in some way to perfection.

I say: 1° He is not held to be perfect, as a Bishop, who by force of his duty is obliged to acts of perfection, for example to laying down life for the sheep, since a religious per se, or by force of his state, is not held to acts of this kind.

I say: 2° He is held in some way to tend to perfection. For obligation to the evangelical counsels implies obligation of tending to perfection, since once these are observed, by that very fact you tend to this. For by exercising himself in these counsels, on the one hand he removes from himself the obstacles of charity or perfection, namely the threefold concupiscence, of the eyes by poverty, of the flesh by chastity, and the pride of life by the exercise of humble obedience; but on the other hand the observance of the same counsels disposes man so that he may become wholly God's, by handing over to Him all the things which he has, namely the goods of fortune by poverty, the body by chastity, the soul by obedience.

1180. Questions. - Query 1° By what means is a religious held to tend to perfection?

Resp. 1° He is held to tend primarily through the essential means of the religious state, namely through the observation of the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.

Resp. 2° He is held to tend secondarily also through accidental means, namely through the proper rules of the Order, at least by not contemning those helps. But then the religious is judged to omit the rules from contempt when he transgresses them with the mind of not subjecting himself to them or to his Prelates; or if he holds them as empty.¹

1181. • Query 2° When does a religious sin gravely against the precept of tending to perfection?

Resp. In this he offends gravely: 1° If he infringes the vows very often in a grave matter, as is clear; because he omits means essential and consequently altogether necessary for preserving this obligation. - Thus all. 2° If he generally transgresses the rules from contempt, as has just been said. But otherwise, if he violates them led by concupiscence, or because he thinks they are not necessary for him for salvation, or if he thinks that they are not prescribed under grave obligation. For to transgress rules in matters of slight moment, even from custom, contempt being set aside, does not exceed venial sin. - Thus expressly St. Alphonsus.²

1182. • Query 3° Whether a religious sins gravely who intends to observe only the mandates obliging under grave obligation, and to care in no way concerning the rest?

Resp. The denying opinion is the more common, and to St. Alphonsus³ the more probable. The reason is that by the very fact that the religious wishes to fulfill those several things which oblige under grave obligation, he already tends to perfection, since he wishes to fulfill several things which with respect to others do not oblige, but are of mere counsel.

Moreover the Holy Doctor rightly notes that a religious so disposed can be living in grave danger of sinning mortally under other heads, for example by reason of danger of transgressing the vows, or of inflicting grave damage on Religion as to discipline, etc.