Case 3. Obstacles to Vocation

Patrick, a secular priest and a missionary in England but born in Scotland, seeks the counsel of Caius, a regular, in these circumstances. A few years ago Patrick entered a certain diocesan seminary in England and, after taking the oath of the Mission, was at length ordained under the title of the Mission. Afterwards, serving a certain Mission for two years, he brought forth much fruit in the vineyard of the Lord. Nevertheless, having experienced the dangers of such a life and having been captivated by love of religious perfection [a conjectural restoration of one corrupt printed word], he asks the Bishop for permission to return to his native country with the intention of entering a certain monastery there. The Bishop refuses; indeed, he asserts that Patrick is already in a state of perfection and that there is no reason for desiring religious life. So that he may forget it more easily, the Bishop orders him to go to another, very poor Mission, where neither labor nor poverty will be lacking. Patrick therefore asks Caius:

1. What obligations to serve the Mission rest upon him?

2. Is it true that the state of a secular priest is a state of perfection?

3. Can he enter religion, and under what conditions?

4. Is he bound to obey the Bishop with regard to the other Mission?

1. Under what obligations does Patrick lie of serving the Mission?

Patrick is bound to serve the diocese for which he was ordained by the very fact of his ordination and by his promise of canonical obedience to the Bishop. He is also bound by the terms of the missionary oath which he has taken.¹

1 Trent, xxiii, c. 16 De Ref.; Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 634.

2. Is it true that the state of a secular priest is a state of perfection?

A certain stability of life is necessary to constitute a state of life in the strict sense, and that it may be a state of acquiring perfection it should impose the obligation and offer special means to attain perfection. The secular priesthood is not a state of acquiring perfection, as there is not the requisite stability, nor does it offer special means of acquiring perfection. On account of the want of stability it can not strictly be called a state in which perfection is exercised like the state of bishops, but in the opinion of Suarez it may be called an imperfect and inchoate state of exercising perfection on account of the priest's duty of working for the sanctification of others.²

2 Suarez, De Relig., tract, vii, lib. i, cc. 14, 15, 17.

3. Can Patrick enter Religion and under what conditions?

If Patrick can get the leave of the Holy See he may enter Religion, but that leave is required by the terms of the missionary oath. He should therefore be advised to make up his mind whether as far as can be known he has a true vocation, and then if he wishes to follow it he must ask leave from the Holy See, which will doubtless first consult the Bishop and then grant leave or not as it judges to be for the best.

4. Is he bound to obey the Bishop and accept the poor Mission assigned to him?

It may reasonably be doubted whether Patrick is so obliged if he does not wish to leave his present post. To transfer him to a poorer and harder Mission has the appearance not of promotion but of degradation, and Patrick has done nothing to deserve that. When the First Council of Baltimore laid it down that priests were obliged to obey the bishop when he bade them accept any mission within the diocese, the S. Cong, de Prop. Fide substituted for it this clause: “ We admonish priests that mindful of the promise made at their ordination they should not refuse to accept any mission assigned to them by the bishop ” (Collectio Lacensis recent. Concil., Ill, p. 22). Which is much less peremptory.