Volume III, Treatise III, Chapter XIV

That the Vow of Poverty Obliges Under Pain of Mortal Sin

It may now be asked if what we have said to be a breach of the vow of poverty is a mortal sin, or in what case is it mortal? All divines agree, as we have said before, that a breach of the vow of poverty is, at the same time, a sin against the seventh commandment, which prohibits theft. This presupposed, I answer, that as this commandment obliges under pain of mortal sin of its own nature, yet, if the thing stolen be very inconsiderable, for example, an apple, or a farthing, it is then only a venial sin; in like manner, the vow of®poverty obliges under mortal sin, unless the transgression be so small, that it prove only venial. If you desire to know what kind of transgression against this vow is a mortal sin, you must first inform yourself what kind of theft is a mortal sin; for one is the measure of the other, and the theft which amounts to a mortal sin is a mortal breach of the vow of poverty, as all doctors hold who have written upon this subject.

For the further elucidation of this matter, some divines say, that there are two causes, whence arises the grievousness of this sin. The first is, an unjust usurpation of another man’s goods against his will: the second is, a breach of a vow made to God. As to the first cause, they require the thing should be more considerable to make a sin mortal against poverty, than against the seventh commandment; because the goods a religious man disposes of, are not so properly another person’s, as when an ordinary theft is committed; nor is the disposition with which it is done so contrary to the owner’s intention as in theft. But if we consider the second cause, that which is sufficient to make theft a mortal sin, is also a mortal breach of the vow of poverty; the obligation we have contracted by the vow of poverty, of not taking or disposing of anything without our superior’s consent, being far greater than that which the seventh commandment imposes upon us—namely, not to take another man’s goods against his will.

In the affair of St. Gregory, which we lately quoted, we see that the money given the religious by his brother to buy him an under garment, was no more than three crowns, both according to the relation of Gregory and Surius, and it was to purchase that, which the monastery must have furnished him with, had not his brother’s kindness prevented them; and yet St. Gregory judged it a mortal sin, as appears by the severe punishment and the excommunication he inflicted. Amongst modern authors who treat of this subject, some require three reals to make a mortal sin, others four, others five. And amongst the Carthusians a far less thing would be a mortal sin, and be sufficient to incur an excommunication, and to deprive one of their monks of Christian burial.

But let us put the case, that the thing be of greater value than divines require, and that three reals be too little to make a mortal sin against the vow of poverty: shall a religious who ought daily promote his advancement in perfection, expose himself to the danger and trouble of examining if the thing he has received, given, or kept, amounts precisely to six, or only to four reals, and thereby be at least in danger of plunging himself into mortal sin? It is ordinary for servants that go to market, to defraud their masters of a penny or a halfpenny in their bargains, and yet nobody says they sin mortally, by reason of the smallness of the sum; but does it become a religious to do the like, though it be only a venial sin? If therefore you are ashamed to do this, and you look upon it as an infamous thing, take care not to receive or give the least thing, under pretence that it is only a venial sin, for this is as infamous in you, as it is in a servant secretly to play the thief. We ought to be very cautious in a thing so essential as that which relates to one of the three vows. For he that would deliberately commit a sin against poverty under pretence that it is only venial, is in very great danger of sinning mortally against his vow. The desire of having and of giving and receiving, is a passion natural to man, and so violent that we may be easily deceived by it, and carried farther than we imagine. Besides, it will often happen that we are left in doubt and perplexity, whether the sin be mortal or not; now a religious ought never expose himself to doubts and incertitudes of this nature.

—_—¢———

About ReligiousBookshelf.com · A Supernerd Media project