Volume III, Treatise III, Chapter XV

Whether a Religious Can, Without Leave of His Supertor, Receive Money Tn Order to Do Works of Charity with It; and What Those Cases Are, Wherein He Would Sin Against His Vow of Poverty by Doing So

THE society requires of us so much purity and perfection in all things which concern holy poverty, and is so careful to take from us all pretences to have money at our own disposal, that we are forbidden by our institute to ask or receive money from any person, even our very penitents, in order to give alms or make restitution. So that if a penitent, who is obliged to restitution, should desire to leave money to be restored, in the hands of his ghostly father, he cannot take this charge upon him without leave of his superior. This rule is grounded upon reason, experience, and the doctrine and examples of holy men. It is conformable to the opinion of St. Basil; St. Francis Xaverius also very earnestly recommended the practice of it; and what St. Jerom relates concerning St. Hilarion upon this subject is very remarkable. A rich man, out of whom St. Hilarion had cast a legion of devils, finding the saint to refuse a considerable sum of money, which he would have presented him as an acknowledgment of the favour done him, pressed him at last to accept of it and distribute it amongst the poor. The saint persisting in his refusal, said to him: You can distribute it yourself much better than I can; you who know many great cities, and can inform yourself of their poor inhabitants; as for me, I did not relinquish my own property in order to charge myself with that of another. It is our duty to assist our neighbours by good advice and all other charitable works of that nature, but not to become their almoners; for such a concourse of indigent persons as would come to us, would create so great confusion, that two porters at the gate would not be sufficient to give answers to them all, and the confessors would be also disturbed in their confession-seats, and hindered from preaching and other spiritual duties. The apostles themselves knew by experience that they could not be employed in such affairs without failing at the same time in their duty of preaching the word of God. “It is not fit”, said they, “we should leave the word of God to serve at table” (Acts 6:2),—and therefore they committed that charge to others, that hereby being disengaged from the care of temporals, they might attend only to the conversion of souls. There are some who imagine this distribution of alms to be a very good way to gain the people’s hearts and induce them to a frequent use of the sacraments, but they live under a very great mistake; for a man rather loses than gains by it on account of the persons displeased, who are always the greater number. For some are dissatisfied because they had nothing given them, others because they had not as much as they desired, and in the end most will complain and cry out that the charity was distributed rather according to favour than justice, and that we converted part of it to our own use. Besides, it can never be a good motive to bring people to confession, but, on the contrary, becomes prejudicial thereunto, giving occasion to penitents of inventing many lies and forgeries, thereby to move their confessor to have compassion, and bestow on them part of the charity he has to distribute. Notwithstanding this, a religious may, with leave of his superior, receive money to make restitution: for example, when the thing requires secrecy, and the penitent cannot restore it himself without loss of his reputation. Yet, in this very case, divines counsel the confessor to take an acquittance from the person to whom he makes restitution, and to give it afterwards to the penitent, who, though he may endeavour to hinder his confessor from doing it, and give signs of his great confidence in him, yet will be always glad when he sees the acquittance; he will be more edified at his confessor, and more easy within himself: nor will he give way to any of those suspicions which sometimes occur when the confessor neglects this precaution.

But since we are speaking of what the vow of poverty obliges to in rigour, it will not be amiss to propose those cases wherein, by receiving money for charitable uses without leave, we either sin against the vow of poverty, or barely trespass against the obedience due to our rule. Divines discuss this very question, whether or not a religious would sin against the vow of poverty, if he should, without permission of his superior, receive money of a secular person, not for himself, but to apply to charitable uses, in the name of him who gave it? One would think that in this he would not sin against his vow of poverty, since the money is not for his own use, nor to be distributed in his own name, but in the name of the party from whom he received it. Yet the decision of this question is, that there are two ways of receiving money or anything else that is to be given to another. If the ‘giver says expressly that it is to be disposed of in his own name, and mentions the charities he would have it employed in, as, for example, when money is put into the hands of a confessor, either to make restitution or to distribute to the poor, then the religious that so receives it without leave of his superior, would only offend against the obedience he owes his rules, but not against his vow of poverty; for the giver would still remain master of it, and it would be disposed of at his pleasure, and the confessor would only be the instrument to convey it according to the other’s will. But should the giver leave the free disposal of it to the confessor, and should the latter employ it all in charity, or in any other way, he would sin against his vow of poverty by receiving and disposing of it without permission from his superior. For, first, the giver, by doing so, deprives himself of all propriety in the thing, and transfers it as much as he can to the religious, in order to dispose of it as he pleases, and certainly no religious is capable of propriety. Secondly, it is not propriety only which is inconsistent with the vow of poverty, but also the use and free disposal of anything without leave, these two latter being a breach of the former, and equally prohibited all religious by their vow of poverty. Again, this use and free.disposal of things is still more opposite to the vow of poverty than dominion or propriety, by reason it diverts a religious more from his duties, and proves a greater prejudice to him than propriety alone. Hence, the reason why the Church and holy fathers wish that no religious should have anything he might call his own, is, that being delivered from the care and trouble which the administration of temporals draws along with it, he might be the better qualified for the service of Almighty God: and by consequence, - though a religious has neither the dominion nor propriety of another man’s goods, but only the bare administration and use of them, without leave of his superior, yet hereby he sins against his vow of poverty. Would it not be very ridiculous, says St. Denis the Carthusian, speaking on this subject, if a father that had a son mad should content himself to take the propriety of a sword from him, but leave him the use of it? This, says he, is the practice of some religious, who are content not to hold anything in propriety, yet take upon them the use and administration of other people’s goods, which is the most dangerous thing that attends riches, and which most diverts them from the duties of religion. There are some who assert the first cause I laid down concerning this matter to be equally with the rest contrary to the vow of poverty, it being an acceptance and disposal of money or something equivalent, without leave of superiors; yet they say the sin is only venial and not mortal, because they apply the money to the person’s use for whom it was designed. Here we find an answer to the difficulty which frequently occurs, which is, whether a religious would sin against his vow of poverty, in case he should, without leave of his superior, ask money of any one to assist his parents or friends, and having got the money, should either effectually give it himself, or desire the party who does the charity to give it, or send it, to the person for whom he begged it? To this I answer, that this religious, if he asks and receives this money with an intention to be master of it, and to dispose of it as he pleases, sins against his vow of poverty, although at the same time he should design to give it, and should accordingly give it afterwards, or send it in the name of the party from whom he had it. But if he does not take it to dispose of at his pleasure, and should speak thus to the giver: For my part, I

have no need of it, nor can I receive it for my own use, but if you

please to give it to such a person in necessity, or to leave it with

me to give or send it to him as from you, I should be very much obliged to you, and thereby you would do a real act of charity. In this case, though the person should do this charity for the sake of the religious, and the religious should afterwards return him thanks for it, yet he would not sin against his vow of poverty, because he does not receive this money for his own use,

nor pretend to be master of it, but is only an executor of the

giver’s will, and an intercessor for the poor. Much less would he

offend against his vow, should the giver, at his request, send or give |

the money himself to the party for whom he petitioned; for though °

the charity really proceeds from the prayers and intercession

of the said religious, get this does not after the case, nor attach

either propriety or use of the thing to the religious. But, after

all, though this practice be not contrary to the vow of poverty,

yet it brings several inconveniencies along with it, when it is done

without permission. And it is to be feared that these limits here

prescribed would not stop persons thus disposed, but that they

would go on even to a breach of their vow of poverty. For I

cannot always examine whether the present be made to myself,

or in what manner I received it, nor whether I am to give it in

my own or another’s name, or whether it comes from another or

from myself. Besides it often happens that the desire of having

money at our own disposal blinds us, and at last, under some

plausible pretence, we come to act directly contrary to the vow

of poverty, and therefore we ought to be very careful to avoid all

danger of thiskind. Wherefore, let us give no occasion of having

that applied to us which St. Basil, as St. Cassian relates, said to

a senator, who, having forsaken his dignity to become religions,

reserved a small part of his estate to live upon, without being

obliged to work and labour as the other religious were: “You

have ordered the matter so”, says St. Basil to him, “that now you | are neither a senator nor a religious”.

About ReligiousBookshelf.com · A Supernerd Media project