Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 36: That It Is Lawful for Children to Enter the Religious State Against Their Parents’ Will
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Monachis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book II), On Monks (On the Members of the Church, Book II). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Of the second point — namely, whether sons can become religious against the will of their parents — Luther (in the book On Monastic Vows) says that sons, however great their age, cannot enter the religious life without the consent of their parents, if these still survive. The same teach the Magdeburgians (Century 4, chapter 10, column 1304, and Century 6, chapter 6, column 354) and Martyr (in the book On Celibacy and Vows). Their first reason is that the precept of obeying parents obliges at every age, and, as it is not lawful for anyone to vow that he will not obey his parents, so it is not lawful to vow anything against their will. Secondly, because a wife cannot enter the religious life without the consent of her husband, nor a slave without the consent of his master; therefore neither can sons without the consent of their father; and it is confirmed from the Council of Gangra (chapter 16): “Whatsoever sons depart from their parents under the pretext of divine worship, and do not pay them due reverence, let them be anathema.” The contrary Blessed Thomas teaches (2a2ae, question 88, article 8, to the second); and before that he had proved the same by his own example, seeing that against the will and resistance of his mother and brothers he professed the Order of Preachers.
We briefly answer that it is lawful for sons to pass to the religious life against the will of their parents, two conditions being kept. One, that they have come to the years of puberty. Now puberty in men is at 14 years, as we have (chapter 1, De Regularibus, in the Sixth); in women at 12 years, as we have (canon Puella, cause 20, question 2). The other condition is that the parents be not in such necessity that they cannot live without the aid of their children. For then they are bound by God’s precept to be present to their parents.
This opinion is proved, first, by the Scriptures. For although the Scriptures do not teach this expressly, yet it is very conformable to them. Genesis 12: Go forth out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and out of thy father’s house. Deuteronomy 33: Who hath said to his father and to his mother, I know you not; and to his brethren, I know not them. These have kept thy word, and observed thy covenant. Where Moses sets among the praises of the Levites that they deserted parents and brethren, that they might more freely be free for God. Whence the interlinear gloss expounds: who said, I know you not, to father and mother impeding the course of the mind. Likewise Psalm 44: Forget thy people, and thy father’s house, and the King shall desire thy beauty. Likewise Matthew 10: He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. And (Luke 9) the Lord did not permit him whom He called to go home to salute or to bury a parent.
Secondly, by the sacred canons; for in the Tenth Council of Toledo (last chapter): “Parents,” it says, “shall be able to have license to deliver their children to the religious life no further than up to the fourteenth year of their age. But afterward, whether with the will of the parents, or by a solitary vow of their own devotion, it will be lawful for sons to assume the habit of religion.” Likewise (cause 20, question 2, canon Puella, which is taken from the Council of Tribur, canon 24): “A girl,” it says, “if before the twelfth year of her age she of her own accord assume the sacred veil, the parents or guardians can at once make that act void if they will. But if in a stronger age a young woman or young man choose to serve God, the parents have no power to forbid.” Likewise (chapter Cum virum, De Regularibus) Clement III, speaking of a marriageable girl: “Then,” he says, “because she has free choice in the election of her purpose, she is not compelled to follow the will of her parents.”
Thirdly, by the testimonies of the Fathers. Chrysostom (at the end of Book 3 against the vituperators of monastic life): “But if,” he says, addressing the parents, “you contend, the sons indeed, if they be endowed with excellent virtue, even though you be unwilling, will attain to this monastic philosophy, and enjoy everlasting joys; but you heap up for yourselves infinite torments.” The same (homily 84 on John): “When,” he says, “parents impede spiritual things, they are not even to be acknowledged.” Similar things he has on Ephesians chapter 6, on that, Children, obey your parents in the Lord; for he will have it that it is added, in the Lord, because we ought not to obey them when they impede piety.
Theophylact (on John 19, on that, Behold thy mother): “One ought indeed,” he says, “not to obey parents resisting piety; but those not resisting, to serve with all care.”
Ambrose (Book 3 On Virgins), speaking of those who professed against the will of their parents, does not accuse them, but their parents, who tried to use force, whom he says are worse than the Gentiles, who invited their daughters to virginity by rewards: “There they are recalled from marriage by rewards; here shall they be constrained to marriage by injuries? There violence is done that they be taken; here shall violence be done that they profess not? And can there be such patience of the priests, that they do not, even death being offered, if so it be necessary, vindicate the sacrifice of integrity?”
Jerome (in the epistle on suspected fellowship): “If anyone reproach thee,” he says, “that thou art a Christian, that thou art a virgin, that thou carest not that thou hast deserted thy mother to live in a monastery among virgins: such detraction is thy praise; for thou preferrest to thy mother Him whom thou art commanded to prefer even to thy own soul.” The same (to Heliodorus, which is the first of all): “Though the little nephew hang from thy neck, though, with hair disheveled and garments rent, thy mother show the breasts with which she nursed thee, though thy father lie on the threshold, trample over thy father and pass on, and with dry eyes fly to the standard of the cross. The only kind of piety in this matter is to be cruel.” The same (in the life of Malchus) testifies that he, when he was compelled by his parents to marriage with threats and blandishments, betook himself to a monastery against their will.
Augustine (in epistle 38 to Laetus, who was hindered by his mother from following the perfect life): “But what,” he says, “does she say, or what does she allege? Perhaps those ten months in which thou didst burden her womb, and the pains of childbearing and the labors of upbringing? Slay this with the salutary word, destroy this of thy mother, that thou mayest find her unto eternal life. Remember this, that thou hate in her, if thou love her, until thou be a recruit of Christ, until thou hast laid the foundations of the tower.”
Gregory of Tours (in the life of Leobard and Papula) praises them, that both he and she undertook monastic profession against the will of their parents. Gregory (homily 37 on the Gospels, on that, He that hateth not father, etc.): “Whom we suffer as adversaries in the way of God, let us know not, by hating and fleeing them.”
Finally, Blessed Bernard (epistle 3, which he writes in the name of Elias the monk to his parents): “The only cause,” he says, “for which it is not lawful to obey parents, is God. For He Himself says, He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. If you truly love me, as good and pious parents, why do you disquiet me, striving to please God the Father of all, and try to draw me back from His service, to serve whom is to reign? But now I know that a man’s enemies are they of his own household. In this I ought not to obey you; in this I acknowledge you not as parents, but as enemies. If you loved me, you would surely rejoice, because I go to my Father and yours — nay, the Father of all. Otherwise, what have I to do with you? what have I from you but sin and misery?” etc.
Fourthly, it is proved by the reason of Blessed Ambrose (in the book On Virgins): “To whom it is lawful,” he says, “to choose a husband, why is it not lawful to prefer God?” But it is lawful for sons, against the will of their parents, to contract marriage; why is it not also lawful for them, against their will, to profess continence? Besides, it is lawful for a husband, his wife being unwilling, to pass to the religious life, when the marriage was indeed contracted de praesenti, but not yet consummated, as we have (chapter Verum, and chapter Ex publico, De Conversione Coniugatorum); therefore much more will it be lawful against the will of the father. Besides, any freeborn person after the years of puberty is of his own right, as to those things which pertain to his person and state. For in this slaves differ from the free. Finally, God is more to be obeyed than men (Acts 5); but God counsels the perfect life (Matthew 19) to all in general, and in particular by internal inspiration calls some; therefore if parents resist, they are not to be heard.
Nor have the arguments to the contrary any force. The first is: God commands to obey parents and to honor them (Ephesians 6).
I answer that two things are owed by children to parents: obedience, and honor — that is, temporal support. As to the first, I say, from the exposition of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Jerome, and others on that passage, that the Apostle therefore added, in the Lord, that we may understand that they are not to be obeyed except in those things which do not impede piety. As to the other, I say that that precept, like all other affirmative ones, does not oblige except in the case of necessity, when, namely, the father cannot live without the child’s labor. For if he be either rich, or have others by whom he is fed, the son is not bound to be present to him, as the Lord expressly teaches (Luke 9), when He says: Let the dead bury their dead. For, as Theophylact expounds, he who had said, Suffer me to go and bury my father, did not mean to say, My father is dead, I ought to bury him; but, Suffer me to remain with my father until his death; but when he shall have died, and I shall have buried him, then I will follow thee.
The second argument was: A wife cannot enter the religious life without the consent of her husband, nor a slave without the consent of his master; therefore neither a son without the consent of his father.
I answer: the husband has not power over his own body, but the wife (as it is said, 1 Corinthians 7), and therefore the husband cannot dispose of his person without the consent of his wife. But sons, as to their person, are free after the years of puberty. Whence Blessed Augustine, who (in epistle 36 to Laetus) taught that sons can follow perfection against the will of their parents, the same (in epistle 199 to Ecdicia) teaches that a wife cannot do this without the consent of her husband. By like reasoning a slave has not power over his own person, but his master; therefore he cannot dispose of it. Blessed Thomas adds (2a2ae, question 189, article 6) that since servile subjection is a penalty of sin, but not filial subjection, it ought not to seem strange if something is taken from slaves which before belonged to them, and is not taken from sons.
The third argument, from the Council of Gangra (chapter 16). I answer that there were at that time certain persons who, ill understanding the words of the Lord (Luke 14), If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, etc., under the pretext of the Gospel left not only their parents, but also their wife and children, and bore no care of them, even though they were in the greatest need. These, then, the Synod subjects to anathema. Whence (chapter 14) it says anathema to spouses deserting their spouses; and (chapter 15) to parents deserting their children; and (chapter 16) to children neglecting their parents.
From which it appears that this decree makes nothing against the religious, who are present to their parents if they necessarily need their presence. But if they do not necessarily need it, they are indeed absent in body from them, yet they help them in the way that befits religious — namely, by prayers before God. For even secular sons do not help their parents in the same way, but some by counsel, some by wealth, some by craft, as befits the state of each one.
Peter Martyr adds a fourth argument from Basil (question 15 fully explained), where he says that children are not to be received to the monastic discipline unless they be offered by their parents. I answer: Saint Basil speaks of children who on account of their lesser age are still subject in all things to the paternal power, which the text of Basil says most openly: “Those,” he says, “who are under parents, while they are brought by those very parents, we will receive before many witnesses.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT xxxvi. Licere filiis ingredi Religionem parentibus invitis. De secundo, an videlicet filii invitis paren¬ tibus fieri possint religiosi, Lutherus, in lib. de votis monasticis dicit, non posse filios, quamvis maximae aetatis sint, ingredi religionem sine consensu parentum, si adhuc supersint. Idem docent Magdeburgenses Cent. IV. cap. 10. coi. 1304. et Cent. VI. cap. 6. coi. 354. et Martyr in lib. de coeli- batu, et votis. Ratio eorum prima est, quia praeceptum de obediendo parentibus, in omni aetate obligat, et sicut non licet ulli vovere, quod non obediet parentibus, ita non licet vovere aliquid eis invitis. Secundo, quia uxor non potest ingredi religionem sine con¬ sensu viri, nec servus sine consensu domini, ergo nec filii sine consensu patris, et confir¬ matur ex Concilio Gangrensi, cap. 16. « Qui¬ cumque filii a parentibus praetextu divini cultus abscedunt, nec debitam reverentiam dependunt illis, anathema sint. » Contrarium docet B. Thomas in 2. 2. quaest LXXXVIII. art. 8. ad 2. et antea idem probaverat exem¬ plo suo, quippe invitis et repugnantibus matre et fratribus, ordinem Praedicatorum professus est. Nos breviter respondemus, licere filiis in¬ vitis parentibus ad religionem transire, dua¬ bus servatis conditionibus. Una, ut ad annos pubertatis pervenerint. Porro pubertas in viris est anno 14, ut habemus cap. I. de regularib. in VI, in foeminis anno 12, ut habemus can. puella 20. qu. 2. Altera con¬ ditio est, ut parentes non sint in tali neces¬ sitate, ut sine filiorum auxilio vivere non possint. Tunc enim tenentur ex praecepto Dei, parentibus adesse. Probatur jam haec sententia, primo Scrip¬ turis. Etsi enim hoc Scripturae diserte non docent, tamen eis valde conforme est. Genes. XII : Egredere de domo tua , et de cognatione tua , et de domo patris tui. Deuter XXXIII. Qui dixit patri suo, et matri suce : Nescio vos ; et fratribus suis : Ignoro illos. Hi custodierunt eloquium tuum , et pactum tuum servaverunt (1). Ubi Moses in laudinus Levitarum ponit, quod parentes et fratres deseruerint, ut Deo liberius vacarent. Unde glossa interlinearis exponit, qui dixerunt : nescio vos, patri et > matri cursum mentis impedientibus. Item Psal. XLIV. Obliviscere populum tuum , et do¬ mum patris tui , et concupiscet Rex decorem tuum : Item Matth. X. Qui amat patrem vel matrem plus quam me, non est me dignus. Et Lucae IX, non permisit Dominus eum, quem vocabat, ut iret domum ad salutandum, vel ad sepeliendum parentem. Secundo sacris canonibus, nam in Conci¬ lio Toletano X, cap. ult. : « Parentibus, inquit, filios religioni tradere non amplius, quam usque ad quartumdecimum eorum aetatis annum licentia poterit esse. Postea vero, an cum voluntate parentum, an suae devotionis sit solitarium votum, erit filiis licitum religionis assumere cultum. » Item 20. quaest. 2. can. Puella., qu, sumptus est ex Concilio Triburiensi, can. 24. « Puella, inquit, si ante duodecimum aetatis annum sponte sua velamen sibi sacrum assumpserit, possunt statirn parentes vel tutores id factum irritum facere si voluerint. Si vero in fortiori aetate adolescentula, vel adolescens servire Deo elegerit, non est potestas parentibus prohibendi.» Item cap. Cum virum, de regu¬ larib., Clemens III, loquens de puella nubili : « Tunc, inquit, quia liberum habet arbitrium in electione propositi, parentum sequi non cogitur voluntatem. » Tertio, testimoniis Patrum. Chrysostomus • in fine lib. III. contra vituperat, vitae monas¬ ticae : « Sin autem, inquit, alloquens paren¬ tes, vos contenderitis, filii quidem si fuerint egregia virtute praediti, etiamsi nolueritis, ad hanc pervenient Philosophiam monasti¬ cam, sempiternisque gaudiis fruentur : Vos (1) I. Gen. XII, 1 ; Deut. XXXIII, 9. — (2) Psal. XLIV, 11 et 12 ; Math, X, 37, 606 LIBER II. autem infinitos vobis ipsis cruciatus conge¬ ritis. « Idem homil. 84. in Joan. : «Cum spi¬ ritualia, inquit, impediunt parentes, nec agnoscendi quidem sunt. » Similia habet in cap. VI. epist. ad. Ephes. in illud : Filii obe¬ dite parentibus in Domino (1); vult enim addi¬ tum esse, in Domino , quia non debemus eis parere, cum pietatem impediunt. Theopbylactus incap.XIX. Joann. in illud: Ecce mater tua : « Oportet, inquit, quidem parentibus ad pietatem obsistentibus non pa¬ rere ; non obsistentibus autem omni cura servire. » Ambrosius lib. III. de virginibus loquens de illis, quse invitis parentibus profitebantur, non arguit ipsas, sed eorum parentes, qui vim facere conabantur, quos dicit esse pe¬ jores Gentilibus, qui filias praemiis ad virgi¬ nitatem invitabant : « Illic praemiis, inquit, revocantur a nuptiis : hic ad nuptias coarc- tabuntur injuriis ? Illic violentia fit ut capian¬ tur? hic fiet violentia ne profiteantur? Et potest esse patientia Sacerdotum, ut non vel morte oblata, si ita necesse est, integritatis sacrificium vcndicent ? » Hieronymus in epist. de suspecto contub : « Si quis, inquit, te corripit, quod sis Chris¬ tiana, quod sis Virgo, non cures quse matrem deserueris, ut in monasterio inter virgines viveres : talis detractio laus tua est, illum enim prsefers matri, quem prseferre juberis et animae tuae. » Idem ad Heliodorum, quae prima est omnium : « Licet, inquit, parvulus ex collo pendeat nepos, licet sparso crine, et scissis vestibus ubera, quibus te nutrierat mater ostendat, licet in limine pater jaceat, percalcato perge patre, siccisque oculis ad vexillum crucis evola. Solum pietatis genus est, in hac re esse crudelem. » Idem in vita Malchi testatur, eum, cum a parentibus ad nuptias minis et blanditiis cogeretur, eis in¬ vitis, ad monasterium se contulisse. Augustinus in epist. 38 ad Letum, qui a matre impediebatur, ne ad vitam perfectam sequeretur : <t Sed quid, inquit, dicit, aut quid allegat? forte decem illos menses, qui¬ bus viscera ejus onerasti, et dolores partu- ritionis ac labores educationis? Hoc inter¬ fice verbo salutari, hoc perde matris, ut in vitam eeternam invenias eam. Hoc memento, ut oderis in ea, si diligis eam, sityro Christi 6s, si turris fundamenta posuisti. » Grego rius Turonicus in vita Leobardi et Pappulse, laudat eos, quod tam ille, quam illa, invitis parentibus, monasticam profes¬ sionem susceperint. Gregorius homil. 37. in Evangelia in illud. Qui non odit patrem , ete : « Quos, inquit, adversarios in via Dei pati¬ mur, odiendo et fugiendo nesciamus. » Denique B. Bernardus epist. 3. quam scri¬ bit nomine Elise Monachi ad parentes ejus : « Sola, inquit, causa, qua non licet obedire parentibus, Deus est. Ipse enim dicit, qui amat patrem , aut matrem plus quam me, non est me dignus. Si vere me, ut boni, et pii parentes diligitis, quid me Patri omnium Deo placere satagentem inquietatis, et ab ejus servitio, cui servire regnare est, retra¬ here tentatis? Verum nunc cognosco, quia inimici hominis domestici ejus. In hoc vobis obedire non debeo, in hoc non agnosco vos parentes, sed hostes. Si diligeretis me, gau¬ deretis utique, quia vado ad meum atque vestrum, imo universorum Patrem. Alioqui quid mihi et vobis? quid a vobis habeo, nisi peccatum, et miseriam etc. » Quarto, probatur ratione B. Ambrosii lib. de virginibus : « Cui licet, inquit, maritum eligere, cur non licet Deum prseferre? » At licet filiis parentibus invitis, matrimonium contrahere, cur non etiam liceat iisdem in¬ vitis continentiam profiteri? Preeterea licet viro, uxore invita, ad religionem transire, quando matrimonium de praesenti quidem contractum erat, sed nondum consummatum, ut habemus c. Verum, et c. Ex publico, de conversione conjugatorum : ergo multo ma¬ gis licebit invito patre. Praeterea quilibet ingenuus post annos pubertatis est juris sui, quantum ad ea, quse ad personam et statum suum pertinent. In hoc enim differunt servi a liberis. Denique, magis obediendum est Deo, quam hominibus, A et. V. Deus autem consulit perfectam vitam, Matth. XIX omni¬ bus in genere, et in particulari interna ins¬ piratione vocat quosdam : ergo si parentes resistant, audiendi non sunt. Neque argumenta in contrarium vim ullam habent. Primum est, Deus jubet obedire pa¬ rentibus, et eos honorare. Ephes. VI. Respondeo : parentibus duo a filiis deberi^ obedientiam, et honorem, id est, temporalia subsidia. Quantum ad primum, dico ex Chrysostomi, Theophylacti, Hieronymi, et aliorum expositione in eum locum, ideo Apostolum addidisse, in Domino, ut intelli- CAPUT XXXVII. 607 gamus, non esse eis obediendum, nisi in iis, quae non impediunt pietatem. Quantum ad alterum, dico, praeceptum illud, ut alia om¬ nia affirmativa, non obligare, nisi in casu necessitatis, cum videlicet pater sine filii opera vivere non potest. Si enim vel dives sit, vel habeat alios, a quibus alatur, filius non tenetur ei adesse, ut expresse docet Luc. IX. Dominus cum ait : Sine mortuos se¬ pelire mortuos suos. Nam ut Theophylactus exponit, qui dixerat : Sine , ut vadam, et spe - liam patrem meum (1), non dicere voluit : Pater meus mortuus est, debeo eum sepe¬ lire ; sed, sine ut maneam cum patre meo, usque ad mortem ejus ; cum autem obierit, et eum sepeliero, tunc sequar te. Secundum argumentum erat : Uxor non potest ingredi religionem sine consensu viri, nec servus sine consensu domini ; igitur nec filius sine consensu patris. Respondeo : vir non habet corporis sui potestatem, sed uxor, ut dicitur I. Cor. VII, et ideo non potest vir de persona sua dis¬ ponere sine consensu uxoris. Filii autem, quoad personam suam, liberi sunt post annos pubertatis. Unde B. Augustinus, qui epist. 36. ad Letum docuit posse filios invitis pa¬ rentibus sequi perfectionem ; idem in 'epist. 199. ad Ediciam, docet, uxorem id facere non posse sine consensu viri. Pari ratione servus non habet personae suae potestatem, sed dominus ejus : ideo de ea disponere non potest. Addit. B. Thomas 2. 2. quaest. CLXXXIX art. g. quod cum subjectio servilis sit poena peccati, non autem subjectio filialis, non mirum videri debet, si servis adimitur aliquid, quod antea eis competebat, et id non adimitur filiis. Argumentum tertium ex Concilio Gan- grensi, cap. 16. Respondeo : fuisse eo tem¬ pore quosdam, qui male intelligentes verba Domini, Luc. XIV ; Si quis venit ad me , et non odit patrem , et matrem , et uxorem , et filios , etc. (2) praetextu Evangelii relinque¬ bant non solum parentes, sed etiam uxorem, et liberos, «nec eorum ullam curam gerebant, etiamsi maxime indigerent. Hos ergo Syno¬ dus anathemati subjicit. Unde cap. 14. ana¬ thema dicit conjugibus deserentibus conju¬ ges. Et cap. 15. parentibus deserentibus filios, et cap. 16 filiis negligentibus parentes. Ex quo apparet, nihil facere hoc decretum contra religiosos, qui parentibus adsunt, si eorum praesentia necessario indigeant. Si autem non indigeant necessario, absunt qui¬ dem corpore ab eis, tamen eos juvant quo¬ modo religiosos decet, nimirum precibus apud Deum. Nam etiam filii saeculares non eodem modo juvant parentes, sed alii consi¬ lio , alii opibus, alii artificio, prout con¬ venit statui uniuscujusque. Addit quartum argumentum Petrus Martyr ex Basilio quaest. 15 fuse explicata, ubi filios dicit non esse recipiendos ad monasticam disciplinam, nisi a parentibus offerantur. Respondeo : loquitur S. Basilius de filiis, qui ob minorem aetatem adhuc subsunt in omnibus patriae potestati, id quod textus Basilii loquitur apertissime : « Eos, inquit, qui sub parentibus sunt, dum ab illis ipsis adducuntur, coram multis testibus susci¬ piemus. »