Volume III, Treatise III, Chapter XII

A Solution of Some Difficulties Which Relate to the Vow of Poverty

From the principles which have been already laid down, and which are founded on the universal consent of doctors, we can infer the decision of all the particular cases which may occur; and as it will be very useful on this occasion to enter into a detail, we shall, by way of examples, quote some cases which will serve very much to elucidate all others.

The first consequence I draw from these principles is, that a religious, when he receives money from his superior to make a journey, is not permitted to buy beads, pictures, or anything else, either for his own use or to make presents, nor can he so much as get hie reliquary mended with it, though he should for this very design save some expenses which he might reasonably make. The reason of this is, because the money is given him barely to defray the expenses of his journey, and he is obliged to give up all that remains, either to the superior from whom he had it, or to him that is superior of the place he goes to; so that if he retains it or devotes it to any other use, he robs his order and sins against his vow of poverty. This is to be understood when the superior gives the religious what is really requisite for his journey, according to the practice amongst us. For, should he only be allowed so much a day and no more, though he should stand in need of it, the case is utherwise; for this would be a tacit consent for him to devote what he saved of his expenses to any other honest and lawful use.

The second is, that though he should be provided by. his parents or friends, and not by his superior, with this money, yet he cannot so much as buy a breviary, a pair of tweezers, spectacles, or any other thing, either to keep or give away. The circumstance of its being his friends and not his order that give the money, must not cause any mistake here; seeing the party it comes from signifies nothing, for it being once in his hands, it belongs.to his order; and it is the same thing, as we have already observed, as if he received it from the rector or procurator of the house. It is therefore to be devoted only to the expenses of his journey, as the superior permitted him to receive it only for this end, and he is bound to restore what remains; so that if he keep it or spend it any other way, he breaks his vow -and robs his order. I say this even on the supposition that the religious received this money from his friends with the superior’s leave; and if this is not obtained, it is another breach of his vow, as has been already said.

The third is, that when a religious comes from the mission or from visiting his relations, where he was made a present of a pair of boots, a cloak, or some other conveniencies for his journey, these things belong to the community he is of, and upon his coming home, he ought to deliver them up to the superior or to him who has charge of such things; for, should he keep them

~ without leave, he would become proprietor, and so commit a theft, and offend against his vow of poverty.

The fourth is, that though a religious should have his foot in the stirrup and be on the point of setting out for another house, he can neither ask nor accept of anything from seculars, though it should be only to bear his expenses upon the road, without license from the superior of the, house he leaves, even though he should be persuaded that the superior of the house he goes to would be glad he should do so in order to save expense. The reason of this is, because he is still under the authority of the superior he leaves, and not under his to whom he goes; and therefore not to ask his consent, which might still be done, is to receive things without his permission. If he were upon his journey indeed, then he might accept of as much as he should think the superior he goes to would permit, but still with an intention at his arrival to give him an account of it. What makes the difference is, that in this case he may presume of the supe- Tior’s consent; but never can this be presumed when we can have recourse to him, or when the thing in question may be deferred.

The fifth is, that if a superior permits his subject to receive money, and to put it into the procurator’s hands for some particular purpose—for example, to pay for copying out some of his writings—he cannot apply this money to any other use without leave, nor give any part of it to another religious who wants it, either for himself or his relations; nor can he employ it in charity, devotion, or any other way, any more than the other religious can receive it from him, without permission. And should they do it, they would both offend against their vow of poverty for, as I have already said, this vow is broken either by giving or accepting any temporal thing without the superior’s leave.

The sixth is, that as a religious can neither give nor take, so cannot he either borrow or lend, or make any contract without leave; for every species of contract is prohibited by the vow of poverty. Yet, notwithstanding this, there may be presumed a tacit or general consent of the superior, in respect of things of very small consequence; and religious may frequently have occasion to borrow of one another, provided it be but for a short time, and according to the practice of the house they live in.

VOL. Ml. 12 The seventh is, that it is a breach of the vow of poverty to receive a deposit, either from a domestic or an extern, without leave. For in all deposits there is a kind of contract, which obliges you in law to be responsible for the things put into your hands, and to return the worth of them if they be lost by your negligence. Moreover, the keeping of money, or any other thing of value, brings a great deal of care and trouble along with it, and it would be highly scandalous to find such things in a religious man’s custody, when he has no authority to receive them, and when nobody knows whence they came. As to the ordinary things which we are permitted to keep in our chambers, those we may commit to the care and custody of another religious in the same house.

The eighth is, a religious man, without leave, cannot have money, nor anything equivalent, in his own keeping, nor in the hands of a third person; for there is no difference between having it in one’s own hands and in the hands of another; so that, should he give some goods or clothes to his relations to keep for him till he should be making a journey, he would offend against the vow of poverty as much as if he had kept them himself without the knowledge of his superior.

The ninth is, it does not look like holy poverty, but rather has an appearance of propriety in it, to carry books, pictures, or anything of that nature along with you when you remove from one house to another. And, therefore, this is not allowed in the Society of Jesus, which takes care that all things which the religious have be accounted community-property, and that they shall not carry anything away with them when they are going elsewhere. And should any religious do it without permission, he would steal the goods of the house, and break the vow of poverty, even though what he took away came not from the house, but from some other place; for it is all the same, according to the reason already given..

The tenth is, he that should spend his money in vain and superfluous things, though with leave of the ‘superiors, would also sin against the vow of poverty: for the holy canons declare such expenses contrary to poverty: nor can the superior himself either buy, or give leave to buy, anything but what is necessary, profitable, and decent. Hence it is, that, should any one receive such vain curiosities from any reli-

gious which he has foolishly bought, he would be obliged to restore them to the order, as I have proved in the preceding chapter.

The eleventh is, when a religious hides anything for fear his superior should find it and take it from him, he sins against the vow of poverty; for, as divines observe, this secrecy is a desire of property, and manifests an inclination to keep it against the will of his superior.

The twelfth is, a religious who has the disposal and distribution of things committed to his care for the use of the community, is obliged to follow the orders of the superior, and not his own private judgment. And if he gives either more or less, better or worse, than the superior ordains, he offends against poverty; for by so doing he disposes of the things as if he were the master and proprietor of them, and not as if he depended upon another.

The thirteenth jis, that as a religious would sin against the vow of poverty by deliberately wasting or spoiling what is committed to his care, or what is given him to make use of: in like manner, according to the maxim of canon law, viz., “‘sross negligence is considered a fraud”, he would also sin, who, by his notorious carelessness, should lose or spoil anything committed to his charge. For, first it belongs only to the master of the goods, to waste and consume them at his pleasure. Secondly, things are given totally for the service of the religious; and those persons that are entrusted by their employments with things of the house, cannot dispose of them, unless it be for the advantage of the community; so that, if they should dissipate or waste them, they would certainly violate the vow of poverty. It is, moreover, to be observed that though perhaps once or twice doing so would not prejudice the house much, yet the loss would be very considerable in the end. Cassian has an example upon this subject, which shows how exact and strict the ancient fathers were in this point. The dispenser, or he who keeps and gives out all the provisions of a monastery, coming into the kitchen, perceiving that the cook, who had been washing his peas to boil for dinner, had let three fall upon the ground, immediately acquainted the abbot with it, who gave the cook a public penance for the little care he took of what belonged to the community. And Cassian adds, that those ancient religious did look not only upon themselves as consecrated to God, but

12 8 also upon all the goods of the monastery to be so too; and this made them to be so very careful even of the least thing that belonged to the community.

About ReligiousBookshelf.com · A Supernerd Media project