The vow of obedience and sins against it

MEN of the world find it difficult to understand how one man can surrender his liberty and bind himself by vow to obey another. And yet this counsel of perfection, too, is contained in the life and teaching of the divine Founder of the Church. He did not intend that all the members of his Church should be equal; he placed some in authority over the others, and he gave them power to teach, instruct, correct, and guide those who were subject to them. He therefore laid a duty of obedience to spiritual rulers on all the faithful. Those who were content to observe the Commandments were bound only to obey such positive precepts as the rulers of the Church judged it expedient to impose on all Christians; but those who aimed at perfection became as a consequence subject to the teaching and authoritative guidance of their rulers in matters which pertain to perfection as well. Those who were content with observing the Commandments reserved some liberty for themselves; those who aimed at Christian perfection gave themselves wholly to obedience after the example of him who was obedient even unto death. The prelates of the Church are therefore the superiors of religious men and women, and even if some are exempt in some matters from the jurisdiction of the ordinaries, all are subject to the Pope, not only as the Supreme Head of the Church on earth, but as their highest religious superior.¹ In approving of a religious order or congregation the Pope and the bishops delegate the necessary authority to the lawful superiors of the order, and give them power to command their subjects in all that pertains to the observance of the rule.

A religious, therefore, who takes a vow of obedience binds himself thereby to obey all the precepts which his superiors lay upon him according to the rule of the order.

In order, then, that the obligation of the vow may become operative, a precept must be given by the superior, And here we must distinguish between the vow and the virtue of obedience. The virtue of obedience inclines to the most perfect conformity of will and judgement of the subject with the will and judgement of the superior. A subject who has the virtue of obedience will strive to execute the known will of his superior without waiting for a strict command. The obligation of the vow is not so extensive as the virtue of obedience. The vow will be saved if precepts are externally executed, for, according to the more common opinion, the vow of obedience does not extend to merely internal acts.

The superior’s authority is limited and defined by the rule, and so the subject is only bound to obey such commands of the superior as are sanctioned by the rule directly or indirectly. It is not, however, necessary that the precept should be expressly sanctioned by the rule in order to enable a superior to impose it with authority: it is sufficient if it be implicitly and indirectly sanctioned, as it will be if its imposition conduces to the better and more perfect observance of the rule.

¹ St Thomas, 2-2, q. 186, a. 5; can. 499, sec. 1.

Violations of the vow of obedience are grave sins of themselves. However, in practice, sins of religious against obedience are seldom mortal, for want of sufficiently grave matter, or because the superior does not intend to impose a grave precept. Such sins will be mortal when in grave matter the superior commands anything to be done in virtue of obedience, or when serious harm follows from disobedience, or when a subject refuses to obey from formal contempt of authority, wishing to exercise and display his independence.

When the vow of obedience is violated, there is a double malice in the sin. Such a violation is a sin against the vow, and thus it is a sacrilege; and it is also a sin against the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue, which prescribes obedience to be rendered to all lawful superiors. Such lawful superiors are armed with spiritual jurisdiction delegated to them by ecclesiastical authority, or at least they have the natural authority which belongs to all rulers of a community, great or small. Superioresses of nuns have this natural authority, and so they can impose even grave precepts of obedience on their subjects, although as women they cannot have ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

“65. Superiors must be obeyed in the exterior, and the extent of the vow of obedience of Religious reaches only to the exterior. But in the interior the matter is otherwise, where God alone and the director enter.—66. A certain new doctrine in the Church of God is worthy of ridicule: that a soul, as regards the interior, ought to be governed by the Bishop; and that if the Bishop is not capable, the soul should approach him with its director. I call the doctrine new because neither Sacred Scripture, nor Councils, nor Canons, nor Bulls, nor the Saints, nor authors have ever handed it down, nor can they hand it down, because the Church does not judge concerning hidden things, and the soul has the right of choosing whomever it sees fit.—67. To say that the interior must be manifested to the external tribunal of Superiors, and that it is a sin not to do this, is a manifest deception, because the Church does not judge concerning hidden things, and by these deceptions and dissimulations they prejudice their own souls.—68. In the world there is no faculty or jurisdiction to command that the letters of the director concerning the interior of the soul be disclosed; and therefore it is necessary to observe that this is an assault of Satan, etc.” Propositions of Michael de Molinos condemned by Innocent XI.

14. Bernard, a religious, easily transgresses the rules and constitutions of his order, and has no scruple. For he says that they are not contained under religious obedience. Besides, he adds that they of themselves bind neither under grave nor under light sin, as is declared in the rules and constitutions themselves. But the aforesaid rules and constitutions are a mere counsel, and no one can be obligated to counsel.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. Bernard is in error, and he acts altogether badly by so easily transgressing the rules and constitutions of his order. A religious is bound to obedience both from the vow and also from the pact implicitly entered into with the religion. By force of this pact he is bound to observe all things which are contained in the rules and constitutions, and which oblige under sin. In such a case the rules and constitutions are contained under religious obedience. But if the rules and constitutions of themselves do not oblige under sin, it does not therefore follow that one can transgress them freely without sin. For, practically speaking, by accident and from another source, fault is ordinarily not lacking in the aforesaid transgression. Nor does it follow that the rules and constitutions are a mere counsel. For although the rules and constitutions do not oblige in conscience immediately to doing or omitting that which is established in them, nevertheless they oblige mediately in conscience insofar as they subject the transgressor to some penalty, and insofar as they subject the religious to regular discipline, for observing and sustaining which in conscience one is obligated by natural law itself, by the very fact that he has entered religion, so that in it he may tend to perfection through regular discipline. — Suarez, de Relig., tome 3, book 10, chapter 7, no. 16; I. M. 249, 250, 302.

171. • QUESTION 4º. When does a Religious sin gravely against the vow of obedience?

Resp. He sins gravely in the following cases, which rarely occur, namely: 1º when he refuses to obey in grave matter a Superior commanding in virtue of holy obedience, or in the name of Jesus Christ, or by other similar formulas, which are very rarely to be used by Superiors; 2º when he responds to the Superior commanding: "I do not wish to obey, I do not wish to do it, I will not do it," or something similar which smacks of formal contempt of the authority of the one commanding ⁵; 3º when from disobedience there follows grave scandal of others, whether of subjects or seculars, or grave inconvenience either for the Community or for others, for example, for the salvation of souls, etc.

⁵ ** This has force even if the matter of the precept, viewed in itself, is not grave.

In other cases disobedience does not exceed venial sin; but since the aforesaid cases of mortal sin rarely occur, commonly the sins of Religious against obedience must be regarded as venial. - Much more rarely still will sins committed against the virtue alone become mortal.

172. • QUESTION 5º. To whom must obedience be given?

Resp. Obedience must be given not only to major Superiors, but also to inferiors, or ministers, or those placed over others who command from the mandate of superiors, since the authority which enjoins the command is the same ⁶.

⁶ ** These things are to be understood of the virtue of obedience; for a precept which constrains the subject by obligation of vow is usually reserved to the Superiors alone of the whole Convent or house, unless the special Constitutions of some Order dispose otherwise.

QUESTION 6º. How must obedience be given?

Resp. That the full perfection of obedience may stand, one must obey 1º from a supernatural motive, as the Apostle prescribes, Coloss. 3:22: "Not serving to the eye, as pleasing men.... Serve the Lord Christ." For otherwise obedience, even if it were immune from sin, would nevertheless lack all merit and would be merely material ⁷. - 2º Cheerfully, or with joy and a willing soul; for God loves a cheerful giver, 2 Cor. 9:7. - 3º Promptly, that is, either immediately or at the prescribed time, and with due care, without sluggishness. - 4º Entirely, or by completing the whole prescribed work.

⁷ ** That one obey the Superior as Christ the Lord is not required for the formal account of the virtue of obedience (see Suarez, De Relig., tr. 10, bk. 4, ch. 14, nn. 2-3); nor again is it required for the account of merit that someone act from a supernatural motive, as has been shown elsewhere (see tom. 1, n. 32, qq. 6, 7, 8).

Question 3. When does a Religious sin gravely against the vow of obedience?

Resp. He sins gravely in the following cases, which rarely occur; namely, 1st, when he refuses to obey in grave matter a superior commanding in virtue of holy obedience, or in the name of Jesus Christ, or through other similar formulas, which are to be employed very rarely by Superiors; 2nd, when to a superior commanding he responds, "I do not wish to obey, I do not wish to do it, I will not do it," or something similar which smells of formal contempt of the authority commanding, even if the matter of the precept in this case is not grave; 3rd, when from disobedience there follows grave scandal of others, whether of subjects or of seculars, or grave inconvenience either for the community or for others, for example, for the salvation of souls, etc. But since the aforesaid cases rarely happen, commonly sins of Religious against obedience are to be reckoned as venial. Much more rarely still do sins committed against the virtue alone become mortal.

Question 4. Whom must one obey?

Resp. By force of the vow, one must obey only Superiors properly so called, that is, those who, either in the house, or in the province, or in the whole Religious family which they govern, have no one above themselves, unless the special constitutions of some Order dispose otherwise. The reason is that only with Superiors properly so called does authority reside. - I said by force of the vow, because right order and the prescription of the rule, and therefore the virtue of obedience, altogether demand that simple officials be faithfully obeyed in all things which pertain to their office.

Question 5. How must one obey?

Resp. That obedience may be altogether perfect, one must obey: 1st, from a supernatural motive, as the Apostle prescribes, Coloss. iii, 22: "Not serving to the eye, as pleasing men . . . serve the Lord Christ"; otherwise obedience, even if it were immune from sin, nevertheless would lack all merit and would be merely material; 2nd, cheerfully, or with joy and a willing soul, for in II Cor. ix, 9 it is said: "God loveth a cheerful giver"; 3rd, promptly, that is, either at once, or at the prescribed time and with due care, without sluggishness; 4th, completely, or by completing the whole work prescribed.

Question 6. Can religious Superiors command their subjects, even in virtue of holy obedience, that they themselves celebrate according to the intention prescribed by the constitutions or established by the Superiors themselves, with exceptions sanctioned by the constitutions or by legitimate custom being safe?

Resp. Affirmatively, the Sacred Congregation de Religiosis, on the day 23 March 1914.

IV. Four conditions the holy Doctors commonly require for exact obedience: 1. That there be a prompt execution of that which is commanded; 2. That the interior will accede to the external execution; 3. That a subject submit his own judgment in a doubtful or controverted matter to the judgment of his superior; 4. That, the superior's will being known, a precept is not to be awaited, but that which the superior desires is to be fulfilled. These conditions nevertheless are required for the greater perfection of obedience, but not for the nature of the same virtue. For this, and that a sin at least a grave one be avoided, it is enough that in fact the subject obey and execute the imposed precept. It is nevertheless to be adverted that superiors sometimes suspend precepts that they may avoid scandal, because they foresee subjects by no means prepared for fulfilling the precept. And then subjects who afford these arguments for resisting the mandates of superiors are in a bad state, and can sin mortally, the gravity of the thing to be commanded being regarded. For in these things the circumstances are to be regarded.

V. Superiors can by right command all those things which are contained within the confines of the Rule and Constitutions, or which even indirectly conduce to the preservation and decorum of the Rule and of the Religion. Prelates can also forbid those things which tend to the violating of their own laws, and command other things which gravely expedite the observation of the Rule and Constitutions. Wherefore a superior can command, necessity urging, that subjects serve Religious and minister the sacraments to Christians infected with plague, chiefly if the Religious profess an Order instituted for procuring the salvation of neighbours.

VIII. Regulars sin gravely either while they refuse to fulfil the precept of a superior, or while they contemn his voice, or while they resist him reforming abuses and corruptions brought in against the Rule and Constitutions. They sin venially if they neglect to commit to execution those things which they know to be prescribed by a superior, although not under precept — as when they inculcate the observance of the Rule and Constitutions. And although Constitutions by their own nature do not oblige to fault, yet in fact they are never deliberately violated without some venial fault. But those who from habit and custom transgress them indiscriminately dispose themselves to a tacit contempt, and sin against the precept of aspiring to perfection.

I ASSERT thirdly. The vow also of obedience is a holy counsel of the Lord.

IT IS PROVED by D. Bonavent. loco cit. Diaetae, titulo 6. cap. 2. from Matth. 16.: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me, on which almost alone Bellarminus solidly relies, lib. 2. cap. 21.

IT IS PROVED secondly by D. Bonavent. in Pharetra, lib. 2. cap. 43. from the holy Fathers, whom Bellarminus also reports.

FIRST D. Augustinus, de operibus monachorum, cap. 17. Tom. 3.: The prayer of one obedient man is heard sooner than ten thousand of the scornful.

D. HIERONYMUS, epistola 4. ad Rufinum monachum, after the middle, Tom. 1.: Serve the brethren, wash the feet of guests, having suffered injuries keep silence, fear the Superior of the monastery as the Lord, love him as a father, believe that whatsoever he shall command is salutary for thee, and judge not the judgment of the greater, whose office it is to obey and to fulfill the things commanded.

D. BERNARDUS de praecepto, et dispensacione, before the middle: Whatsoever man commandeth in the place of God, which nevertheless is not certain to displease God, must be received altogether no otherwise than if God commanded it.

THE SAME, epistola 7. ad Adam monachum: This is to be noted, that some things are pure goods; some pure evils, and in these no obedience is owed by men: because neither are those to be let go, even when they are prohibited; nor these to be committed, when they are commanded. Moreover, between these there are certain middling things, which according to the manner, place, time, or person, can be both evil and good: and in these the law of obedience is laid, as it were in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which was in the midst of paradise. In these assuredly it is not lawful to prefer our own sense to the judgment of the masters: in these altogether neither the command nor the prohibition of the prelates is to be despised. O Monk most obedient, who from whatsoever words of the elders lettest not slip one iota, attendest not what sort of thing is commanded, content because it is commanded. And this is obedience without delay. D. Gregorius Magnus, who was a Monk, has like things, lib. 35. moral. cap. 10.

THE SAME D. Bernardus, in the Declamation upon the Gospel: Behold we have left all things; Go then, go to work, thou who disposest to leave all things; remember to count thyself also first among the things to be left; nay, indeed, above all and principally deny thyself, if thou deliberatest to follow him, who emptied himself for thee.

THE SAME, serm. 3. in Adventu Domini: Render reverence, and obedience, to the prelate, of which the one is of the heart, the other of the body. S. Bonavent. reports many other things, lib. 1. cap. 11. S. Bonavent. reports many other things, lib. 1. cap. 11.

MANY things I have adduced from D. Bernardo, whom Calvinus confesses to be a pious writer.

S. BENEDICTUS, in Regula, cap. 5.: Obedience then will be acceptable to God, and sweet to men, if what is commanded be done not lukewarmly, nor tardily, nor with murmuring, nor with the answer of one unwilling; because obedience, which is rendered to superiors, is exhibited to God; and cap. 7.: Obedience, a good, is to be exhibited not only to the Abbot by all, but the brethren also should obey one another, knowing that by this way of obedience they are to go to God.

S. Bonavent. reports also other testimonies of these Fathers, lib. 1. Pharetrae, cap. 11. and the twelfth. Finally S. Doctor shows the whole state of Religion to be holy, cap. 3. Resp. primae.

THAT is a holy state which leads swiftly to Charity: Such is the state of Religion: Therefore. The major is plain, because Charity is the end of perfection, 1. Timot. 1. and from D. Augustino lib. 1. retr. cap. 6. The minor is proved; for Christ praised this perfection above ordinary and necessary observance, Matth. 19. et 16. Hence D. Chrysostomus, homil. 17. ad populum, calls it the Philosophy of Christ. It is confirmed by S. Doctore; for he enjoins works of supererogation, as we saw above, which the SS. adduce as such: Cyprianus lib. de habitu Virg. Hieron. lib. 1. in Iovin. Ambrosius lib. de vid. Gregor. lib. 15. moral. cap. 9. Chrysostomus homil. 8. de Poenit. Basil. lib. de Virg. Nazianzenus orat. 2. in Iul.

WHATEVER Calvinus sees, lib. 4. cap. 13. sect. 12. denying works of supererogation, but saying all are commandments: Why then does he cry out that none is necessary to salvation?

IT IS PROVED still further by S. Doctore above: That state is holy which removes all incentives to evil: Such is Religion: Therefore. The minor is proved; for: Whatsoever fault there is in the world is either the concupiscence of the flesh, or the concupiscence of the eyes, or the pride of life, from D. Ioan. The first, as to occasions, is removed by the vow of Chastity. The second, of Poverty. The third, by the vow of Obedience. In this Evangelical declining consists perfection, as the scriptures, Councils, and Fathers teach, as S. Doctor says there.

The holy Church indeed has attested this in the Councils: Chalc. act. 15. cap. 6. Gangr. cap. 9. Ancyr. c. 18. Carth. I. cap. 3. Carth. 4. cap. 11. Tol. 4. et 10. Eliber. cap. 13. Tur. 2. cap. 21. Constan. sess. 8. Trid. sess. 25. The acts that are not of Religion are the acts of Religious, as S. Doctor says most beautifully, and with him Valentia.

THOU OBJECHEST first: Works spontaneous are dearer to God than compelled: But works from vows are necessary: Therefore. The major stands from the scriptures, Psalm. 5. prima Corinth. 7. where he protests that he wills not to compel them to the vow, but that they be free: Not that I cast a snare upon you; secunda Corinth. 3.: Not of sadness, or of necessity: The same he has ad Philem.

IT IS ANSWERED from D. Bonau. in 4. dist. 38. quaest. 2. especially in the first argument, second place: that he who vows spontaneously presents himself to the work not owed, and voluntarily submits himself to the obligation and necessity of rendering; which necessity is voluntary, and does not diminish but increases alacrity, because it proceeds from love. Nor does it oppose cheerfulness in rendering, which stands in the proposal of the heart and the serenity of countenance, as D. Bonau. teaches, in Diaeta, tit. 2. cap. 7. at the end.

BUT THAT of prima Corinth. 7. where Pseudomartyr cries out that the Apostle exhorts to continence, but does not will that they ensnare themselves by vow: S. Bonau. answers that the Apostle wills to say that he does not compel to vowing virginity, as if he reproved marriage; but that he exhorts to vowing it, as more honorable than marriage.

He wills also to indicate that a vow can be a snare holding by force unto ruin, if anyone vow rashly, or compelled; just as also marriages are snares to those marrying unwillingly. Bellarminus brings it in, cap. 29., that Prov. 20.: It is a ruin to man to devote holy things, and after vows to retract, where in Hebrew for the word ruina there is מוקש, which properly indicates a snare.

Thou objectest secondly against the first assertion, that the Apostle, prima Corinth. 7., exhorts to matrimony: Because of fornication, let every man have his own wife; and let every woman have her own husband; and prima Timot. 5.: I will the younger to marry, and to bear children.

S. Bonaventure answers, in 4. dist. 31. q. 1., that men are called to matrimony not on account of temptations alone, but on account of fornication, because otherwise the incontinent live. Therefore the Apostle first said: If they do not contain themselves, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn, that is, than not to be continent; and therefore he also says: It is good for a man not to touch a woman: but because of fornication let every man have his own wife, and he subjoins: But return again to the same, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. Thus S. Bonavent. answers, ad 2., from D. Hieronymo, and after him Bellarminus; they expound that to Timothy in the same way, because certain young women cast themselves after Satan, as the Apostle himself testifies there.

Thus indeed S. Hieronymus says, in the Apologia pro libris, contra Iovinianum: But if they cannot contain themselves, and wish to quench the ardor of lust not so much by continence as by fornication, it is better to marry than to burn, that is, it is better to take a husband than to fornicate. The SS. expound in the same manner: Clemens Alexand. lib. 4. stromatum, at the beginning, where he reprehends the exposition of the Basilidian heretics, namely that it is better to marry than to burn, that is, to be tormented with temptations; even if we do not assent to what is the example of Luther in the Epithalamio, of Calvin, and of Peter Martyr, on this place. For the innovators have overturned all errors, that they might dig a sewer fouler than the rest.

But our exposition is also that of the author on the epistles of D. Paul, who is judged to be Ambrosius; of D. Augustini, lib. de sancta Virginitate, cap. 34. and de bono coniugali, cap. 10.; of Theodoreti, nay even of Chrysostomi, if it be read attentively, as Bellarminus notes.

But grant that: If they do not contain themselves, let them marry. It is better to marry than to burn, be understood as being struck by the keener stings of the flesh; still they gain nothing; for matrimony is not commanded, as Calvinus wills, lib. 4. Instit. cap. 13. §. 17., but permitted, which the words of the Apostle plainly show; for as, to remove the burning, he says, let them marry; so in a more efficacious manner, namely in the imperative mode of words, he says to the married, if at any time they be continent: Again: return to the same, that Satan tempt you not, and he subjoins: But this I say according to indulgence, not according to commandment. Which expressed that matrimony was by him merely permitted, not commanded, as Bellarminus notes, cap. 30., after D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 31. art. 2. quaest. 2. in the second argument.

Thus also that is understood: I will the younger to marry, for in prima Corinth. 7. he says: I would that all were as I myself am. So Chrysostomus, Ambrosius here, Hieronymus epist. 11. Augustinus lib. de bono viduit. cap. 8.

Finally these things were said to those not having the vow, but to the free, as the SS. note: Ambrosius ad virg. lapsam, c. 5. Hieronymus lib. 1. in Iouin. Augustinus lib. 1. de adulter. coniug. cap. 15. Gregorius in Pastorali, part. 3. admonitione 28. Chrysostomus lib. de virginitate, cap. 39. Theodoretius, Theophylactus, Oecumenius, and others on that place.

Thou objectest thirdly against the first assertion. It is mad to vow what is not in our power: but continence is such, because it is a gift of God, as is had Sap. 8.: No man can be continent, except God give it. Matth. 19.: He that can take it, let him take it, and prima Corinth. 7.: But every one hath his proper gift from God; Therefore, etc. Bellarminus says this argument, cap. 31., is most difficult.

D. Bonaventure answers, in 2. dist. 28. art. 2. in corpore, that the gift of continence is indeed from God, in such a way that no one is continent by his own proper powers; nevertheless the help of God is always present, and to us willing it remains entire, with that help, to be continent, so that we can even vow continence. But this is the argument of Pelagius, whom the sectaries imitate, namely that what we cannot attain by the powers of free will alone is not in our power; which is most false, because the assisting grace of God is never wanting; for this is not of those gifts which communicate non-necessary actions, as prophecy; but that celibacy is in our power is certain, by the grace of God at least assisting, which is ready to each one willing.

The Seraphic Doctor splendidly illustrates OBEDIENCE under a twofold title, as the school of the Savior, and the ladder of salvation, in Diaeta salut. tit. 3. cap. 2. where he assigns the proofs and the degrees of this heavenly virtue, which obtains its empire by obeying; for the Savior taught it, whether in coming into the world, Ioan. 6. I came down from heaven, not to do my own will: or in remaining in the world, made obedient unto death, Phil. 2. or lastly in going out of it, Not as I will, but as Thou, Matth. 26. He there gathers the degrees of Obedience from St. Bernard; which are: that one be Willing, not recalcitrant, after the example of Paul Act. 9. Simple, not dissembling, after the likeness of the beast of burden Psal. 72. Cheerful, not murmuring, as was Simon of Cyrene Matth. 27. Swift, not putting off till tomorrow, such as Peter and Andrew had, who suddenly left their nets and followed Christ Matth. 4. Manly, not judging, as was the obedience of Peter, ready to be imprisoned with Christ, and to undergo death Lucae 22. Humble, not elated, as the Lord teaches in Luke 17. Say, we are unprofitable servants, etc. Finally let it be Persevering, not discontinuing, even unto death; that by these seven degrees, as by the ladder of Jacob, Heaven may be attained. From these the following question is in large part resolved.

I ASSERT that among the vows Obedience excels in Religion.

It is PROVED from St. Bonavent. ad cap. 1. Regulae Min. That is the most excellent among the vows, whereby the most excellent thing is offered: But in man this is the will; whereas by the Vow of chastity the body, and by the Vow of poverty external goods are offered: Ergo. It is confirmed, for by the Vow of obedience the whole man is consumed as a holocaust; for under it Chastity and Poverty are included. Hence some Religions make profession by promising obedience. It is the argument of John XXII. Extravag. Quorundam, de verb. signif. which the Fathers used, as at B. Bonavent. lib. 2. Phar. cap. 43. and St. Thomas here: Moreover that is more excellent whereby one offers himself, than that whereby he offers his things; but man offers himself by obeying: Ergo.

This vow, however, whereby it is more excellent than the rest, and therewith richer, was at all times harassed by the railings of Heretics; and before all others, from almost the first centuries, the Lampetians dreamed the impious dream that a man, in the worship of God, at the nod of another, renounces his own will; yet they did not think it so evil to promise any vow for another moral end outside the worship of God: Thus walking in darkness they judge perversely, so that what belongs to the service of God is charged with crime, while what is destined to another end is honored by them: This error was followed by the Waldenses, as also by the Beghards and Beguines, as Castro has it, verb. obedientia; finally the rest of the innovators in a body, with Luther at their head, swore to the same heresy. They were refuted by Bellarmine lib. 2. de Monachis, cap. 8. Suarez lib. 10. de voto obedientiae, and other defenders of the truth: Nor indeed can they bring forward any foundation of their error which does not readily collapse for a universal reason: for whatever is in itself good and honest, without doubt becomes better and more honest, while it is placed in a firmer, securer, and immovable state; for this reason, an act elicited from a long-standing habit is more perfect and better than an act from some light disposition, because it becomes more immovable, and proceeds into its act more intensely and more firmly with a stable will; such is that which proceeds from a vow, since it is a state, more stable even than a habit. Who, moreover, will deny that obedience in itself, even when rendered to a man, in the service of God, is good and honest, since for God Christ was made obedient unto death, and was subject to his parents, so that at their nod he even left behind the assembly of the Doctors.

NOTE from St. Bonavent. ad cap. 1. Regulae Min. and l. 2. de profectu Religiosi, cap. 39. whom all Theologians imitate with St. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 104. art. 2. ad 1. that obedience and disobedience are twofold. One is called material, or general. The former is the execution of whatever virtue is commanded. The latter is the omission, or transgression, of any precept; nor does it induce any other sin; just as neither does the former induce another virtue. The other is called formal and special, inclining the subject to carry out the commands of superiors as they are commands, and it is a special virtue; just as the opposite disobedience is a special vice, and sin.

THEREFORE only those things that are commanded are the object of this virtue, as St. Bonaventura admonishes lib. 2. Profec. cap. 41. and lib. 2. Pharetrae, cap. 43. and the holy Fathers, D. Thom. quaest. 186. art. 9. and quaest. 104. art. 2. Valentia d. 7. quaest. 8. puncto 1. Azor. tom. 1. lib. 12. cap. 13. quaestio 1. Less. de inst. lib. 2. cap. 46. d. 4. Sanchez tom. 2. lib. 6. cap. 1.

St. Bonavent. also INFERS, prima pars, Centil. sect. 18. et opusc. Declaratio term. Theol. that formal disobedience is to be unwilling to obey the command, as it is a command, and that contempt consists in this: So also D. Thom. loc. cit. ad 1.

I ASSERT that under the vow of obedience issued by Religious only the commands of superiors are included. So D. Bonavent. lib. 2. de profec. Relig. cap. 41. D. Thom. quaest. 186. art. 9. whom the rest follow.

It is PROVED by the holy Doctors, because by this vow we subject ourselves to the Prelate to the end of Religious governance: Therefore only that which, at the Prelate's bidding, is put forth to this end, is the object of religious obedience. So Less. lib. 2. cap. 46. d. 4. num. 23. Valent. quaest. 3. puncto 1. and Bass. V. Obed. 2.

AMONG Prelates the supreme is the Roman Pontiff, the Father of the Religious, whom we are bound to obey, especially we Friars Minor, because St. Francis cap. 1. Regulae professes this.

Yet we are NOT bound to obey from the formal motive, because it is commanded; for it is an act of virtue even from the motive of Religion; nor can the Prelate command this internal act. So Sylv. p. 2. quaestio 100. art. 9. Vasquez ibi, num. 5. Lessius cited d. 6. num. 42. Sanch. lib. 1. mor. cap. 13.