Dist. 44, Art. 3, Q. 2
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/2/d/44/q/bon-sent-II-d44-a3-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether religious are bound to obey their prelates in all things which are not against God.*

Secondly it is asked, whether religious are bound to obey their prelates in all things which are not against God. And that they are, it seems:

**To the contrary.**
1. *First*, by the authority of the Lord, *Matthew*, chapter twenty-three: *Upon the chair of Moses have sat the Scribes and Pharisees; what they say to you, do:* therefore if the Lord commands without distinction that the things which they say are to be done, even of evil prelates, it seems that they are to be obeyed in all things. If you should say that it is understood only of those things which they say, and to which a man is bound by the precept of the law; against this is the fact that elsewhere the Lord says: *He who hears you hears me, and he who spurns you spurns me:* therefore if God is in all things to be heard and in nothing to be spurned, it seems that prelates appointed by God ought to be obeyed by their subjects in all things.

2. Likewise, to the *Colossians*, chapter three: *Children, obey your parents in all things;* therefore if carnal children ought to obey their carnal parents in all things, and spiritual children ought not to be less obedient to their spiritual fathers than carnal children to their carnal parents: therefore religious ought to obey their prelates in all things.

3. Likewise, blessed Benedict in his rule: « If a prelate enjoin the impossible, one must try to do it »: therefore if one must obey him in impossible things, much more in possible things: therefore in all things.

4. Likewise, Jerome to Rusticus: « Fear the prior of the monastery as a lord, love him as a father, believe whatever he says to be salutary, and do not judge the judgment of your superiors, whose office it is to obey and to fulfill what is commanded, Moses saying: *Hear, O Israel, and be silent* ».

5. Likewise, Hugh of Saint Victor: « Obedience is a virtue which embraces all enjoined things as necessarily to be fulfilled, unless the authority of the one commanding stand in the way »: therefore it seems that if one does not obey in all things, he does not have true obedience: therefore if he is bound to have true obedience, he is bound to obey in all things.

6. Likewise, it seems by reason. As a man vows poverty and continence, so he vows obedience; but he who vows continence is bound to abstain from all intercourse, and he who vows poverty is bound to renounce all temporal things: therefore he who vows obedience is bound to obey in all things which are enjoined upon him. Therefore as someone is judged a proprietor if he have but a single *picta* [a small coin]; so he ought to be judged disobedient if he pass over but a single word of the prelate: therefore he is bound to obey him in all things.

**The fundamental arguments.**
**On the contrary:** 1. *Acts*, chapter five: *One must obey God rather than men:* therefore in some things we are bound to obey God, in which we are not bound to obey men: therefore it seems that we are not bound to obey the prelate in all things.

2. Likewise, Bernard in the book *On Dispensation and Precept*: « The subject is neither to be restrained short of what was promised, nor to be compelled beyond it by the law of obedience »: therefore if some prelate command him beyond that which he promised, it does not seem that he is bound to obey him.

3. Likewise, the perfection of the religious life consists chiefly in the perfection of obedience: therefore if all religious were bound to obey in all things, all religious orders would be of equal perfection. But if this is plainly false: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, a religious is not bound to obey his prelate except by the law of the vow; but by the law of the vow a man is not bound to discharge anything except what he vowed spontaneously: therefore it seems that the prelate cannot exact from him anything except what he promised to observe.

### Conclusion

> According to necessary obligation, the obedience of religious has its term and measure according to the magnitude of the vow made, although it is sound counsel that they obey in all things which are not against God.

**I respond:** It must be said that one must speak otherwise of the obedience to be shown to a prelate by a religious subject according to the *perfection* of obedience, and otherwise according to the *obligation* of necessity. If we speak of it according to perfection, then it must be said that, as Bernard says, « perfect obedience knows no end », and the perfect obedient one has a ready disposition to submit to the precept of the prelate not only in those things which he commands, but even beyond those things which he commands, desiring to imitate him who, *humbling himself, became obedient to the Father unto death*. — But if we speak of obedience according to necessary obligation, then it has its term and measure according to the magnitude of the vow made. For they are not bound to obey their prelates further than in those things « which they promised the Lord to observe and which are not contrary to the soul and to their rule ». Whence if the prelate command something which is beyond the vow, the subject is not bound to fulfill it. — And therefore it must be granted that religious are not bound to obey their prelates in all things, although it is sound counsel that they obey in all things which are not against God. Whence the arguments which are adduced for the second part are to be granted, because they conclude truly.

**Solution of the contrary arguments.**
*To 1.* To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that one must obey in all things those who sit in the chair; it is true of those things which pertain to the chair, and of the precepts of the law; but of other things he does not command. — And as to what it objects, that the Lord himself says: *He who hears you* etc.; it must be said that it is true, that he speaks of those things which the Apostles and their successors command from the person of Christ and also from the authority given to them; yet in nothing that they say is their authority to be spurned. **Note.** Whence, although we are not bound to obey prelates in all things, we are nonetheless bound to spurn no command of theirs. Whence it is said in the *Law*, that « the sentence of the shepherd, whether just or unjust, is to be feared ».

*To 2.* To that which is objected from the word of the Apostle: *Children, obey your parents in all things;* it must be said that if it be understood of those things which pertain to the divine command, it is a precept; but of other things it is an admonition, not a precept.

*To 3, 4, 5.* To that word of blessed Benedict and of Jerome and of Hugh it must be said that they do not speak of obedience according to the obligation of necessity, but according to the perfection of charity.

*To 6.* **The vow of obedience differs from the others.** To that which is objected, that as a man vows poverty and continence, so he vows obedience; it must be said that it is so, and it is not so. So indeed in this, that he takes away from himself the dominion of his own will. But not so, because he does not bind himself to do all things which may be commanded him, but to do those things which are expressed in the rule. And since in every religious order of perfection there is contained simply a renunciation as to the work of the flesh, and as to the work of property whether in particular or in common, but not all things which can be commanded are thus commanded; therefore he is not thus bound to obey in all things, as to renounce all things. — **A notable reason.** Now the reason for this is that it is possible for someone to renounce property and even quite easily, especially where there is a possession held in common; but to comply with all things which are said, this is not only not easy, but even impossible. And therefore limits are set to the promise of obedience; they are not thus set to the promise of poverty, or even of chastity. **The Rule of St. Francis.** Whence in the rule of blessed Francis it is simply commanded that the professors of that rule have nothing at all of their own upon the earth; it is also simply commanded to be continent perpetually not only from the act, but even to abstain from suspect company and counsel of women; but it is not simply commanded to obey their prelates in all things, but « in all things which they promised the Lord to observe, and are not contrary to the soul and to their rule ». I know not whether anyone could know how to add anything to any of these vows. On this peak of perfection, therefore, it is fitting to end the discourse of the aforesaid question.