Volume III, Treatise III, Chapter X

The Obligation of the Vow of Poverty

I SHALL now proceed to show what, in religion, we are bound to by the vow of poverty, and to point out when one offends venially or mortally against it; for it is fit that religious should understand precisely the obligation of their profession and of their vows. Hitherto I have spoken of perfection; now I shall treat of what regards the obligation, which should always precede, as being the foundation on which the remainder of the edifice rests. For this purpose, I shall lay before you as briefly as I can what is said on this subject by divines and canonists, whose opinions are maintained by saints, and confirmed even by the decision of the canon law. They tell us-that a religious is bound by the vow of poverty to have no dominion, no property, no use of any temporal thing, without license from his superior. Hence, two things necessarily follow: first, that the vow of poverty obliges a religious not to possess, or take, or receive any temporal thing, in order to keep, make use of, or to dispose of it in any manner whatsoever, without leave of his superior; for this cannot be done, but by such as have, or can have, a property and dominion in temporals. The second is, that a religious acts contrary to his vow of poverty, not only when, without permission, he takes, retains, or in an manner disposes of anything that belongs to the house, but likewise when he accepts of anything from persons abroad, though they be his parents, friends, or penitents, and keeps or disposes of it without license from his superior. These two consequences drawn from the premisses above, are admitted by all divines, and looked upon as certain and infallible, and the canon law sets them down as such. These being fixed and undeniable principles, whatever I shall say upon this subject shall be grounded upon them, and whatever decisions I shall give on particular cases, shall be conformable to them.

St. Ignatius, treating of this subject in his constitutions, speaks of it in the same manner; and that his doctrine might be always before our eyes, he has inserted it in one of his rules. Be it known to all, says he in the sixth rule, that no religious can take or lend, or in any sort dispose of anything that belongs to the house, without the knowledge and consent of the superior. Had he said no more than this, some might have believed that they offended not against poverty but by disposing of things of the house, and so might receive presents from strangers without acquainting the superior; but he explains himself still farther upon this point in another rule, and says, that no person shall take the least thing belonging to the house, or out of another’s chamber, or receive anything, let it be what it will, upon any account, from strangers, either for himself or another, without permission of his superior. Here you have, in a few words, that to which the vow of poverty binds in rigour: our holy founder has comprised it all in these two rules.

It must be observed, however, that you must be on your guard, lest you deceive yourself by imagining that, as our constitutions and rules do not bind under pain of sin, you therefore commit no sin, at least no mortal sin, by violating these two rules. For it may easily happen that some one may be so far mistaken as to argue thus: To give or receive anything without leave is a breach of a rule; but since our rules do not oblige us under pain of sin, therefore I only transgress the rule, but commit no sin. It is true that St. Ignatius has declared in his constitutions that his rule does not oblige under pain of sin, yet, doubtless, the vows we make in profession bind under pain of mortal sin, as the same saint positively asserts in the same place, lest, though this truth is clear in itself, any one failing in his duty should set up the plea of ignorance. For as it is certain that, by offending against chastity, a religious sins mortally against his vow of chastity and commits a sacrilege, so it is equally certain that, by offending against poverty, he is guilty of a mortal sin against the vow of poverty. This is what no one can deny. Had you not entered religion, and there made the vow of poverty, but continued in the world master of your property, then you might have disposed of it at your pleasure, and you would not have incurred any obligation to the contrary; but, having entered into religion and vowed poverty, it is not in your power to receive or keep anything without leave, this being an obligation arising from the vow you have made. St. Peter’s answer to Ananias was something like this, when, after having sold a field, the latter brought in only part of the purchase-money, pretending it to be the whole, and retaining the rest for his wife and himself, notwithstanding the vow of poverty which holy doctors say they had made. ‘ Why has Satan”, says the apostle, “tempted thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of thy field? Possessing it, did it not remain to thee, and being sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God himself” (Acts 5:3,4) Now, what was the event of this? Ananias immediately fell down dead in punishment of his crime, and a little after the same happened to his wife Saphira, who was his accomplice. ‘‘ Upon this”, says the Scripture, ‘there fell great fear upon the Church, and upon all those that heard these things” (Acts 5:11) Certainly we cannot be too cautious in the vow of poverty, since we see how severely those that break it are chastised by Heaven.

To return to our subject, I say that, were poverty enjoined

‘ only by our rule, a breach of it would not be a mortal sin; but when a rule contains the matter of a vow, there is no doubt but that we are obliged to keep it under pain of mortal sin; not that the rule itself has power to bind us, but because the vow expressed in it binds us. Hence it is that these rules which concern chastity or the law of nature, oblige under mortal sin, not barely of themselves, but on account of the obligation which the vow of chastity and the law of nature impose on us. Now, as the rules here mentioned contain in substance the vow of poverty and all its obligations, it follows that he who violates them sins mortally, not because he violates the rules, but because he breaks the vow of poverty contained in the rules. Whenever, then, we read these rules, we are not to look upon them barely as rules, but to consider that they explain the vow of poverty, its essence, and indispensable obligations, according to the decisions of the canon law and the opinion of all divines. St. Austin, speaking of those religious that live in communities, says: “It is certain that they ought not to have, possess, give, or take anything without permission of their superior’—de Com. Vit. Cler. Our rules say the same in express terms, and indeed; exterior poverty consists in this. For the power of giving, taking, possessing, or disposing of temporals at pleasure, or without leave from another person, most certainly argues a propriety which is directly opposite to the vow of poverty.

In order that this, which is received as a sort of first principle, may be more clearly understood, I shall here note the distinction which divines and canonists make, between having the dominion, and having but the use of a thing. He that has the dominion of it, can give, lend, sell, or dispose of it as he pleases: whereas he who is not master of it, but has only the use of it, cannot do so; for he can neither give it away, nor buy nor sell it, nor make any other use of it, than that for which it was placed in his hands, This is wont to be made more clear and evident. by the following example. You invite a person to dine with you: the invitation does not make him master of what is set upon the table. He cannot carry anything away with him, send it to his friends, or sell or dispose of it at his pleasure, for you only grant him the liberty of eating what is set before him; and: hence a distinction between the use and the dominion is made in things which are consumed by using them, nay, in such things as are consumed the very first time they are used. Now the same holds amongst religious, as divines teach, in respect of the things they possess by permission of their superiors. They have only the bare use of them; for they are given to them for this end only, and they cannot dispose of them at their pleasure, seeing they are not masters of them. For example, you cannot, without leave of your superior, give to another the habit you wear; and if you should give it away of your own accord, you would sin mortally against the vow of poverty, because the act of giving it away would show you had been master of it. What I here say of a habit, is applicable to everything else we have the use of; and hence you cannot give away your hat, breviary, or anything, in fine, because you have not the dominion of them. You have only the use of them, just as guests have the use of what is served at table; and I wish this comparison may never be forgotten, for it is a very just one, and very explanatory of our subject. If then it be true, that we cannot dispose at our pleasure of what the superior permits us to make use of, it is most evident that we cannot dispose of what belongs to the house without license from the superior, and consequently that we cannot take a book out of the library, or anything out of the wardrobe, refectory, or any other place, without acting in a still more direct opposition to the vow of poverty.

About ReligiousBookshelf.com · A Supernerd Media project