;

UMIVl· OF N, D, LIU

■£, ccksiastical IRanc»’
»

THLV „««.
,.... i

VOL. CX^V
JULY-DECEMBER, W51

’Ey ivl ττν^ΰματί, μια. ψυχή
συνα.θΧονντ€ί τη πίστει τον evayyeXiov
Phil. 1:27

Published by

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS

j
!

;I

THE LAYMAN’S OBLIGATION TO PERFECTION
Catholic thought of today shows increased interests in the pre­
cise nature of the layman’s obligation to perfection,1 and specula­
tion on this subject has not been without divergent tendencies. On
the one hand, moral theologians, legitimately concerned to preserve
liberty where liberty exists, have reiterated the truth that substan­
tial growth in holiness is continuous, if only the soul preserves the
state of grace. On the other hand, certain publications have so in­
sisted on the Divine invitation to sanctity, upon functional holi­
ness, upon a zealous opposition to secularism and naturalism, that
an incautious reader of these publications might conclude that the
counsels are of obligation for all.
Pope Pius XI gave impetus to this increased interest by his
encyclical on St. Francis de Sales, in which he declared his con­
viction that the holy Bishop seemed to have been raised up by
God to bear witness to the truth that holiness is for all Christians.
He further stated that it was among his dearest wishes that the
faithful should have recalled to them “the duty of each one to
cultivate his own holiness.”2 Pope Pius XI again expressed the
truth that holiness of life is not a singular gift conceded to only a
few but rather the “common destiny and common duty” of all.3
In praising the life and writings of the Bishop of Geneva, he warns
against “that opinion already old in his time, and still alive, that
holiness worthy of the name, such as the Catholic Church proposes,
either cannot be achieved by most of the faithful or demands such
arduous efforts that it is to be left to the few whom God has gifted
with high and lofty souls.”4 The Holy Father further condemns
the opinion that such holiness implies so wearying a labor that it is
simply not suitable for those outside the cloister. St. Francis de
Sales has himself showm to all the same way of Christian perfection
and holiness that he personally travelled.
These lines of Pius XI in Rcntm onuiium proposed nothing that
1 “The essence of perfection consists in love of God.” A. Tanquerey, S.S.,
The Spiritual Life, n. 320.
2 A AS, XV (1923), 59.
3 Ibid., p. 59.
*Ibid., p. 51.
284

THE LAYMAN’S OBLIGATION TO PERFECTION

285

t

■

i

1
,

WAS entirely new in the Church’s teaching on the subject, but
merely emphasized more clearly what it had been her teaching for
centuries. In 816 the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle had rebuked
those who felt that the narrow path of holiness was suited only to
the quiet tread of monks and obligatory on them alone.·' Catholic
theologians, leaning upon the unvarying exhortations of Scripture
and the traditional interpretations of the Fathers, had always
taught some obligation on the part of the ordinary Christian to
seek perfection. Only by stubbornly resisting the evidence of clear
and open Scripture could they have failed to do so.
Our Lord Himself had invited His followers to “be perfect as
your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). St. Paul is un­
remitting in urging his followers to be "perfect.” ΨΗε conclusion
of his Second Letter to the Corinthians encourages the Corinthians
to be perfected, to be comforted and to be of the same mind, at
peace, that the God of peace and love may dwell with them (II Cor.
13:11). Paul presses upon the Christian a preoccupation with
every virtue, that he may grow in holiness by consideration of these
things. “Whatever things are true, whatever humble, whatever
lovable, whatever of good repute, if there be any virtue, if anything
worthy of praise, think on these things” (Phil. 4:8). For the body
of Christians is the body of Christ and must be kept pure and
undefiled in God’s sight. “Now He has reconciled you in His body
of flesh through His death to present you holy and undefiled and
irreproachable before Him” (Col. 1:22-24). Paul’s constant prayer
is that the faithful may know more fully God’s will and live that
will more completely. “This is why we have been praying for you
unceasingly and asking that you may be filled with knowledge
of His will in all spiritual vision and understanding” (Col. 1:9).
The writings of St. Paul repeatedly refer to the early Christians
as “saints,” as those called to be saints, and St. Paul’s exhortations evidence a longing that this sanctity be whole, complete, in­
volving a dedication to perfection.6

I5 “. . . non solum monachis et clericis, verum etiam omnibus qui christiano
(
modo censentur vocabulo, per hanc arctam et angustam intrandum esse
f
viam.” Cited in J. De Guibert, S.J. (ed.l, Documenta ecclesiastica chris■
tianae perfectionis studium spectantia (Rome: Gregorian University Press,
I
1931), η. 117.
i
& Rom. 1 :7 ; I Cor. 1:2; Il Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1.

286

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

That the frequent exhortations to holiness in the Scriptures im­
ply more than a mere invitation is clear from Revelation itself.
We are commanded to love God with all our heart, all our soul and
all our mind (Dent. 6:5; Matt. 23:27). That charity, in which
perfection consists, is therefore urged upon us without restriction
or limit, as an ideal towards which we must constantly strive.'
The very frequency and insistence of Scriptural admonitions to
seek perfection forbid us to interpret them as mere counsels. Thus
St. Paul categorically states: “This is the will of God, your sanc­
tification.’’78 God’s will imposes upon us the obligation of a genuine
effort to fulfill it. St. Peter, in his exhortations, speaks in the same
terms as the Apostle of the Gentiles. “But as the one who has
called you is Holy, be ye also holy in all your behavior; for it is
written, ‘Ye shall be holy because I am Holy’ ’’ (I Pel. 1 ;15-16).
St. Peter stresses increasing growth for the Christian, everincreasing knowledge and love of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The
Christians should crave, as new-born babies, pure spiritual milk,
that they may grow to perfection (I Pet. 2:2; II Pct. 3:18).
St. Thomas Aquinas, interpreting the data of Scripture, and
taking into account the constant teaching of the Fathers, exposed
in clear-cut Scholastic terminology the truth which these sources
embodied. St. Thomas begins with the truth that the end of every
commandment is charity (I Tim. 1 :5). But when there is question
of an end, we do not seek for a measure to decide how much of
the end we will have. It is true that we measure the means to the
end, but this is merely to insure that they will be adapted to, pro­
portionate to the end so that we may attain the end in its fulness.
We cannot have too much of an end like health ; therefore we do
not measure health, but rather the means to it: the medicine, the
exercise, the food. Nor should we ever say: “So much charity is
enough; the rest is merely a matter of counsel”; for charity, in
which perfection consists, is an end in itself. It is in fact the end
7 Sum. theol., II-II, q. 184, a. 3.
81 Thess. 4:3; cf, I Thess. 3:13. Cf. J. M. Vosté, O.P., Commentarius in
epistulas ad Thessalonicenses (Rome and Parts, 1917), p. 117: “Sanctificatio
vestra : αγιασμός . · ■ distinguitur ab άγιότης, quae est abstracta qualitas
sanctitatis, ab άγιωσννη, quae est sanctimonia seu sanctitatis status; αγιασμός
est inter utrumque, ut via ad statum; est scii., prout in Vg. optime vertitur,
sanctificatio activa, quam, volente et adjuvante Deo, semper prosequi
debemus.”

THE LAYMAN’S OBLIGATION TO PERFECTION

287

of all precepts and counsels. The love of God is not a thing to be
measured out, in terms of greater and less; it is rather an ideal,
which does not admit of excess, but which is to be approached
more and more closely.9
The! obligation to perfect charity may seem an almost impossible
burden at first glance, but as St. Thomas explains it, this is not
true. The perfection of charity falls under the precept to love God
not as] the matter of the precept, but as the ciid.10 Jm-other-j&ords
we must always strive towards perfect charity as towards our end,
but we have not failed to obey the precept if our charity is not per­
fect. In discussing this question of the matter of the precept St.
Thomas points out that the substance of the commandment is ob­
served if nothing is loved more than God, if the lowest necessary
degree of charity is kept, if charity itself is kept through the
avoidance of mortal sin. He who avoids mortal sin has kept the
essence of the precept of charity and possesses essential perfection.
His charity will gain him an eternal reward if he perseveres in
that state, for his charity has fulfilled the lowest demands necessary
to attain beatitude. His perfection is essential, incipient perfection.
Only secondarily does Christian perfection consist in observing
the counsels which are most apt means to perfection. But at this
point we must distinguish between the spirit of the counsels and
the exterior acts which are at once a means of cultivating this
spirit and a manifestation of it. The Beatitude represents the high ·
peak of the spirit of the counsels ; and the Christian is obliged to
cultivate poverty of spirit, meekness, hunger and thirst after justice,
and all the other interior attitudes described by the Beatitudes. He
is not however obliged to externalize these attitudes in the cor­
responding outward acts, which are effective means of obtaining
perfection. That is, he is not obliged to actual observance of per­
petual evangelical poverty, chastity, and obedience. But he must
strive to maintain that spirit of detachment from the world which
such observance is intended to foster. And he must, furthermore,
» Sum. theol., II-II, q. 27, a. 6: “In dilectione Dei non potest accipi modus
sicut in re mensurata, ut sit in ea accipere plus et minus ; sed sicut invenitur
modus in mensura, in quo non potest esse excessus, sed quanto plus attingi­
tur regula, tanto melius est.”
10 On this and the following paragraph, see the whole of Sum. theol.,
II-II, q. 27, a. 6.

288

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

be ready for such observance as may, here and now, be necessary
that he may avoid serious sin.11
St. Thomas’ explanation of the obligation to perfection is a lucid
exposition, of what the ordinary Christian’s obligations are in this
matter ; but furthermore he insists on man’s needs to grow in
charity, to cultivate his holiness.12 It is the very nature of an end
that has not been perfectly attained that it should draw the person
on to that perfect possession : by an inherent drive in the case of
happiness in general, by a divine call to free will in the case of
charity. If then the Angelic Doctor’s position on the obligation to
perfect charity has at times been given a minimizing interpretation
(which would staticize charity and give it the nature of a means
instead of an end), such an interpretation does not do justice to
his conception of charity or to his metaphysics of finality. Fur­
thermore, the burden of fallen human nature is such that unless
man makes an effort to progress he will not long remain in the
state of grace. There are grave precepts whose fulfillment by the
ordinary Christian may at times demand lofty self-abnegation;
unless the Christian is schooled in generosity, it is difficult to see
how he can then avoid serious sin. Unless he has accustomed him­
self to do more than avoid serious sin, unless he has aimed at some
measure of perfection beyond avoiding grave sin, he will not long
preserve essential perfection.13
’ The life of grace and charity is a true life and implies the move­
ment, action, growth which accompany life. The ascetical the­
ologians and, in fact, Holy Scripture itself describe the spiritual
life as a journeying to God. Men are viatores, travelers on the
way, men who have not here a lasting city ; and it is expected of
them that they will move towards the goal of union with God.
We are “pilgrims and strangers on earth” (Heb. 11 :13). It is in
this sense that St. Peter urges Christians “as pilgrims and strang11 Cf. Cornelius a Lapide, Commentary on Matthew, V, 48.
12 The Church’s approval of this position of St. Thomas is reflected in the
encyclical Studiorum Ducem, AAS, XV (1923), 312.
13 A detailed discussion of the theology of the layman’s vocation to sanc­
tity may be found in Rev. William R. O’Connor, The Layman’s Call (New
York: Kenedy, 1942). The renowned Catholic philosopher, Dietrich von
Hildebrand offered a penetrating study of a similar theme in Katholisches
Berufsethos (1931).

’

i'
1

THE LAYMAN’S OBLIGATION TO PERFECTION

289

ers to abstain from carnal desires which war against the soul”
(J Pet. 2:11). This same theme—the necessity of progress—is
found in many of the doctors and fathers of the spiritual life.
St. Augustine is very forceful in addressing the faithful on the
subject of continual progress to perfection. Stressing the operative
character of charity, he asserts the impossibility of remaining sta­
tionary upon the road to perfection. Either we advance or we
retreat. He who has once said “enough” has already perished !
He who would return to a point of perfection already passed
regresses in the spiritual life.
You acknowledge that we are travelers, yet you would like to know
in what this traveling consists: I’ll answer briefly: “Get on the march”
—for fear that you would drift lazily along, not understanding how
necessary' it is to move onward. hrou must always be dissatisfied with
your present achievement if you want to arrive at a further goal. For
where you are content with your progress, there you will halt. But if
you once say : It is enough at that point you have already failed. Al­
ways give more, always keep advancing, always on the march ; don’t
dally on the way, don’t turn back, don’t turn from the path. Fie who
doesn’t advance, stands still ; he who returns to a point of perfection
already passed, is on the road back.14

St. John Chrysostom corrects those who would say that only
monks need strive for perfection, and he points out to his listener
that the Sermon on the Mount was addressed not only to monks
but to all who would follow Jesus. The whole human race and
not only monks are ordered to enter in by the narrow gate, to hold
their life in hatred in this world ; and all Christ’s great and won’ derful commandments were addressed to a universal audience.15
St. Bernard, in an engaging dialogue, exhorts his disciples to
continual progress in terms that would not have won him the title
of the Mellifluous Doctor :
Where are those who are saying: we’ve come far enough, we don’t
want to be better than our fathers ? Aly good monk, you don’t want to
make further progress? No. You want to be a failure then? Not at
all. Well, what then? I want to stay just as I am, I’m content with
the progress I’ve made. I won’t permit myself to slip back, but I’ve
no great anxiety to go ahead either. In that case you are simply asking*13
14 St. Augustine, Sermo 169, c. 15, n. 18; cf. Scrmo 96, c. 7, n. 9.
13 St. John Chrysostom, Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae, I, 3, n. 14.

290

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

for what is impossible. For what is there on this earth that stands still ?
At the point that I cease to press forward, at that point I’ve begun to
fall back. It’s perfectly clear that I’ve failed already, the moment I
stop looking for progress.16

Bernard urges the same truth in another letter even more point­
edly: in the spiritual life one either moves forward or backward.
Progress is absolutely necessary.
We have not here a lasting city. Nor have we yet arrived at the
goal; we are still in search of it. You must go up, then, or down; try
to stand still, and you will certainly come to ruin. It is by no means
certain that that man is a good man who doesn’t want to be better; and
the moment you are unwilling to better your state, at that moment you
already cease to be good.17

This dynamic notion of the spiritual life of the Christian is pres­
ent in all the great ascetical teachers ; it sounds through the Gos­
pels, the Fathers, the documents of the Church. The Christian is
always obliged to keep moving towards perfect charity. He must
always keep perfect charity in view as an ideal, and develop beyond
the degree of charity he already possesses. The great precept of
charity stands, as it were, at the summit of perfection and below
it stand its explicit determinations, the commandments. These
commandments form, on the negative side, a definite list of “don’ts”
whose complete neglect will destroy the domination of the great
precept over the soul. On the positive side, the commandments
point out the indispensable means of preserving the great precept.
The lower limits are fixed by what we call mortal sin. To have
escaped those lower limits and gained safety gives no one the right
to cease from effort. If one stops here and declares himself satis­
fied, he will not long preserve charity in his soul. The Christian
must always strive to press beyond the point of perfection reached ;
in fact, to call a halt is already a regression. In this sense it can
be said that the will to make no further progress is already a sin,
for the Christian has failed in his duty to tend to perfection.
There is a sense in which this obligation to progress is central
to Christianity, for it marks a radical departure from other reli­
gions, placing Christianity on a level all its own, giving to Chris16 St. Bernard, Ep. 254.
17 St. Bernard, Ep. 91.

THE LAYMAN’S OBLIGATION TO PERFECTION

291

tianity an orientation and a dynamism that set it apart. The ideal
of perfection set for the Christian assures him of an ever-present
stimulus to foster within himself the indefinite development of the
new life planted in him at Baptism. This may explain the solici­
tude of the saints before slight imperfections, a solicitude marvel­
ously combined with the liberty of the children of God. In the light
of Him who dwells in inaccessible light, darkness may seem more
dark. And the closer the Christian soul approaches to Infinite
Charity, the more imperious are the demands of its own love.
What has been said above represents the usual way of posing
the problem of the Christian’s obligation to perfection. But there
is another way of posing the problem that has recently received
considerable attention. It is skillfully presented in the writings of
the French theologian, Yves de Montcheuil, whose death in the
last war cut short a career of great distinction. Fr. Montcheuil
distinguishes two classes of Christians, as did Augustine.18 The
first class comprises those to whom Christianity appears primarily,
though not exclusively, as a law, as a “contract” with God promis­
ing a reward for faithful obedience and a great reward for ardent
obedience. For this class, the description of the obligation to per­
fection set forth above will be of great help. But there is a second
class of Christians also, and it is in treating of them that Fr.
Montcheuil complements the classical approach with valuable
insights.
The second class visualizes its relations to God more exclusively
in personal terms, more in terms of their personal love of God.
On this plane the notion of “obligation” is enveloped in the notion
of striving for a complete self-donation. Obligation does not have
the same force between two persons whose love is mutual ; neither
considers the other precisely under the aspect of obligation.19 One
is indeed ontologically still “obliged” to obey, but for the lover
there is no strict obligation to love ; his love wishes to realize itself
totally, grieves that it is still imperfect, and tends to perfection
from its own weight. He sees that there are faults gravely and
less gravely opposed to that love, but the perspective has changed,
for the lover no longer compares the faults to the recompense of
18 Yves de Montcheuil, Mélanges thélogiques (Paris: Aubier, 1944), ρ.
358; Problèmes de vie spirituelle (Paris: Editions de l’Epé, 1948), pp. 74 ff.
19 Problèmes de vie spirituelle, p. 75.

292

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEAV

which they would deprive him or which they would lessen, but
only to that love to which they are opposed.
In such a perspective the question as to whether what one does
is of supererogation is simply not raised ; for this notion of su­
pererogation has reference to a clearly defined limit, whereas love,
of its own nature, has an immanent tendency to be limitless. The
norm for judgment of what is supererogatory is somewhat foreign
to this plane of love and finds its full intelligibility rather in a con­
ception where there is a contract to be fulfilled, a recompense to
be gained if the minimum obligatory is observed. The personal re­
lation of love, in this second type of Christian, has not been super­
added extrinsically to his other relations with God, but has inter­
penetrated them, establishing a new norm of evaluation for his
acts, a new way of judging them.
For this second type of Christian, the obligation to tend to per­
fection, which remains dynamic, will not be suppressed ; the moti­
vating force of the divine reward will not be rendered weaker, but
both will be operative through his preoccupying effort to love more
completely. His obligation to perfection will be visualized by a
Christian of this class rather as a fidelity to that love with which
God has enriched him.
Fr. Montcheuil seems to have contributed certain insights to
the traditional speculations on the subject of the Christian’s obliga­
tion to perfection that will be of consoling value to many Christians.
In no w'ise does he deny the validity of the traditional approach or
its conclusions, but rather he gives us a picture that embodies all
of the fruit of previous thought on the subject while opening new
avenues for further speculation. The distinction of the two classes
which Fr. Montcheuil made could perhaps be a unifying force in
reconciling different approaches to the problem.
Robert W. Gleason, S.J.

■S"
THE PARISH CREDIT UNION IN THE FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION SYSTEM
The credit union, the modern descendant of the mediaeval
mont de piété, is a society organized among a definite group of
people and which operates under either a federal or a state charter
for the purpose of providing its members with facilities for saving­
money and for obtaining loans for provident and for productive
purposes at reasonable rates of interest. Credit union charters are
given only to groups having a definite bond of membership ; in
the parish credit union the membership base consists of the
parishioners of a particular parish.
The first credit union in North America was a Catholic parish
credit union. It was founded in 1900 by Alphonse Desjardins in
Lévis, Quebec. The first credit union in the United States was
a parish credit union. This was also founded by Desjardins in
1909 in the St. Marie Parish in Manchester, New Plampshire.1
As early as 1913 the Central A’erein advocated the formation of
credit unions and during the 1920’s it put the promotion of parish
credit unions on its program of social reform.2 The Department
of Social Action of the National Catholic Welfare Conference has
a committee organized to encourage the establishment of credit
unions on a parish basis.3
The philosophy of the credit unions is in the tradition of the
social teaching of the Catholic Church. Alphonse Desjardins, the
Canadian pioneer who brought the credit union to North America,
was knighted by the Pope for his work in organizing these credit
societies. One quotation from Desjardins will give a glimpse at
the philosophy motivating his efforts :
A cooperative people’s bank [credit union] is not an ordinary finan­
cial concern, seeking to enrich its members at the expense of the
general public. Neither is it a loan company seeking to make a profit
at the expense of the unfortunates who need loans, laboring men suf­
fering from unemployment, agriculturalists suffering from drought or
1 R. F. Bergengren, Credit Union North America, (Kingsport: Southern
Publishers, 1940), pp. 71-82; 89.
2 Social Justice Review, XLIII, 1 (April 1950), 22.
^The National Catholic Almanac, 1950 (Paterson, N. J.: St. Anthony’s
Guild), p. 432.
293