Volume III, Treatise III, Chapter XI

How Far Tt Ts Against the Vow of Poverty to Give or Receive Without Permission, Anything, Though Even Tt Should not Belong to the House

WE have said, that in general, all divines maintain, that a religious breaks his vow of poverty, not only when he takes any thing belonging to the house for his own use, or when he gives it to another, but also when he receives anything from abroad, without his superior’s leave. For example, should your parents, friends, or any other person give you money to buy a habit, a book, or any other thing whatsoever, and you take it and make use thereof without permission, you sin against your vow of poverty; and this is the case whether you asked the thing or not, though it was given you purely out of friendship, or by way of alms, or through any other motive whatsoever. But some will object, that it is easy to comprehend how the vow of poverty is broken by appropriating to one’s self a thing which belongs to the community; but how can it be broken when the thing is given me from abroad; when no injustice is done; nay, when even the house gains so much as it should have expended in purchasing for me what my friends make me a present of? Sure this is no sin, nor is it against any commandment. I answer that this is a sin of theft, and that you offend against the seventh commandment. This St. Austin says expressly in his rule: “Tf anything”, says he, “be given to any particular person, for example, a religious habit, let it be kept for the common use, and be given to him who shall be judged to stand most in need of it” —Reg. 3, c. 28. If therefore any one should offer a thing to a religious, he cannot receive it without leave; since it belongs to the superior to receive it, and it is not for him to whom it is given, but for all in common; and he receives it, in order to give it afterwards to the person who, in his opinion, will want it most. Ifa habit is sent you from a friend, and the superior is pleased to bestow it upon another, he does no injury to you; for it is as much mine as yours, and every one in the community may pretend equal right with you unto it. But to decide this question, St. Austin subjoins these words:—“If any one should have anything given him, and he conceal it, he is guilty of theft”——Reg. 3, c. 28. St. Basil is of the same opinion, when he says, “To possess anything as an individual, without the superior’s consent, is theft”—Jn Const. Mon., c. 35. You will ask, from whom it is that the religious person steals. In answer to this, St. Basil tells you, “that you steal from the community, by applying to your own use the least thing imaginable, let it come from whom it would”. These are no exaggerations of these holy doctors, nor do they speak on this occasion, as they sometimes do, when they wish to create a horror of a thing. They only assert an evident truth, admitted by all divines, and founded upon this principle, universally approved of, viz., that the vow of poverty renders a religious incapable of possessing or disposing of anything. As he belongs not to himself, but to his order, so whatever he acquires, whatever is given him, whatever he obtains in any manner whatsoever, belongs to his order the very moment it belongs to him. Hence, in all communities, if in consequence of any place he had filled while in the world, a religious has a pension, this pension does not belong to himself, but to the monastery, in whose name the superior orders it to be received, like every other revenue, and with part of it supplies the necessities of this religious, as would be done if had had no pension.

Hence we see clearly that a religious who receives or keeps anything in private, without leave of his superior, is guilty of theft. For theft consists in taking away, or retaining against his will, what belongs to another; now, what a religious has received belongs to his order, and consequently, by retaining it without leave, he usurps it, and steals it from his order. Hence it follows — also, that the person to whom a religious gives anything without leave, though by way of alms, acquires no right to it, nor is he the true owner, but is really bound to restore it. This clearly shows that those err, who think that they can, as they please, dispose of a book, a picture, or a relic given them from abroad, or in short, of anything else, provided it does not come from the house. For, as it is a theft and a breach of the vow of poverty, to dispose of anything belonging to the house without leave, so it is an equal crime to receive anything from abroad, and dispose of it without the superior’s consent.

But admit that there should be no theft committed, nor any prejudice done to the community, as it may happen, yet to receive anything, and make use of it, or dispose of it according to our own will, without license from the superior, is of its own nature a mortal sin; for this is absolutely prohibited all religious, and by their vow of poverty they are rendered incapable of it, Besides, should any one receive a present from a religious, the receiver would not be the true master of the present, for it belongs to the community, and he would be obliged to restitution, because he received it from a person who had no more power to give it than a minor has.

The truth of this doctrine is confirmed by what St. Gregory the Great did to a monk in the monastery which he built in Rome after he was made pope. I take the following relation from his own dialogues, and from Surius in the life of this holy doctor. One Justus, a religious of this monastery, desired a brother he had in the world to buy him an under garment, and his brother, to free himself from any further trouble, gave him money sufficient to buy what he demanded. Surius says, that they were three Spanish reals, and this author declares he took his history from the original copies. St. Gregory says they were three ducats, but it avails nothing whether they were reals or ducats, as at that time either would be sufficient to buy an under garment. Now, to come to the fact, the religious took the money without permission, and happened to fall sick whilst it was in his custody. Another monk, who by accident knew of it, acquainted the abbot; for, as it is at present practised by us, so it was practised then, that if any one should discover anything of moment done by another religious, he should immediately give notice of it to the superior. The abbot judging this a matter of consequence, thought proper to go.and inform the pope of it, that he may learn his will on the occasion. Upon hearing it, St. Gregory, then pope, gave orders, that the sick person should be looked upon as excommunicated, and that none of the monks should visit or have any conversation with him in his sickness, because he had broken his vow of poverty. Moreover, he commanded that he should not be buried in consecrated ground with the rest of the monks, but in a dunghill outside the monastery, and that the money should be thrown upon the body whilst the monks all said, “May thy money perish with thee” (Acts 8:20) The monk died of this sickness, and all things were put in execution according to St. Gregory’s orders, who tells us farther, that this fact created such general fear and consternation amongst the religious, that having most diligently examined everything they had, even the smallest things which they could keep with permission, they brought them immediately to the superior, for a farther assurance that they might retain nothing that was contrary to holy poverty. The sacred canons, in conformity to this example and to the practice of the ancient fathers, have ordained the same punishment for all religious who die proprietors of anything.

About ReligiousBookshelf.com · A Supernerd Media project