Question VII: On the thefts of religious

BASSEUS, v. Furtum, 2. num. 6., says that a religious who takes things of the monastery that are not necessary, or without leave, is a thief to the same extent as laymen stealing their own goods.

Religious indeed do not undergo the lot of servants, but of sons, as D. Bonaventure teaches in Apolog. pauperum, respon. 3. cap. 1., and it is clear ex C. litteris, de sepultur. in 6. et Leg. qui in potestate, ff. de testamen. et Authent. Ingressi. Cod. de Sacrosanctis Ecclesiis, Nauar. cap. Non dicatis 12. quaest. 1. num. 61., Sanchez l. 7. de Relig. cap. 21. num. 31., Rebell. p. 1. lib. 3. quaest. 15. s. 8. 3. num. 22. Hence the jurists do wrong when they count them among their own, wishing that whatever they acquire should accrue to the monastery, in the manner of servants.

From these texts the Doctors deduce, as is indicated quaest. 4. in fine, that thefts of religious are to be considered in the manner of thefts of sons of the family, not of the very rich, but of the middling, and consequently that five silver pieces, or thereabouts, are grave matter; although Caspensis, cited there, requires something more, and Fagundez l. 7. cap. 5. num. 15. two hundred denarii, that is, ten crowns.

ONE of the conditions excusing religious from theft and from proprietary guilt is that it be of edible things for one's own use; if this is licit for servants, as I showed quaest. 5., much more is it licit for sons to consume some edibles.

But for giving away, they held that one ought not exceed the value of three giulii: so thought Bartholom. a S. Fausto Thesauro, l. 8. quaest. 218. and Paulinus Berti on the Bull of Clement VIII on the giving of gifts. See also Fabrum in 4. disput. 45. cap. 5. num. 122. and Diana p. 1. Tract. de paupertate Religiosa, resol. 14.

IN MY judgment the opinion of Suarez seems discerning, T. 3. de relig. l. 8. cap. 11. num. 41., where he thus asserts:

Of the goods of the monastery, consumable in use, namely those pertaining to food and drink, if something is taken by religious for their own actual, so to speak, and transitory use, it does not regularly seem to be mortal sin, unless the damage to the Religion would be excessive, and in something extraordinary and more precious; outside a case of this kind, the things are considered of lighter condition. And although the prelates dislike this, they are not yet so unwilling that they regard it as grave matter in respect of poverty, but only in respect of decorum and religious perfection.

IT IS ADDED that religious are treated as sons as regards the use of such things; but between parent and son a similar act is not considered grave; it would be otherwise, however, if such things were taken in great quantity, and retained secretly, and little by little consumed, for that could be grave sin, although great prudence is necessary to discern it in the particular case. So Suarez, with whom Diana is pleased, p. 1. Tract. 6. de paupertate, resol. 30. See also Sanchez T. 2. l. 7. cap. 19. num. 53., Tanner 2. 2. disp. 7. quaest. 1. dub. 4. num. 106., where he says: Not even all the severity of Prelates can render such takings, as regards the substance of the thing taken, unjust. See again Diana ibi, resol. 35.

LEDESMA in addit. ad Summam, Tom. 2. cap. 4. and Cenedo tract. de paupertate Religiosa, dub. 20. num. 10. place eight or nine reales as matter deadly for religious; but they require a greater quantity in edibles.

RODRIQUEZ, however, Summa Tom. 4. cap. 118. num. 27. et 29., prescribes the sum of two gold coins for religious; the same Sotus taught, de Iust. l. 4. quaest. 3. ad 3., as did Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 66. art. 6. conclus. 3.; but Diana is not pleased with it, resol. 36.

BASSEUS, with Miranda, in Manuali prael. t. 1. quaest. 28. art. 17., thinks that a notable quantity in the thefts of religious is to be determined in the particular case, according to the difference of times, places, persons, Religions, and other circumstances, at the judgment of a good man. But Mendoza quaest. 8. posit. de paupertate, concl. 9. num. 12. teaches that two silver pieces are not a notable quantity. Ioan. de la Cruz de statu relig. l. 1. c. 3. dub. 5. and Sanchez Summa Tom. 1. l. 7. cap. 20. num. 3. et 6. think it to be four silver pieces. Diana subscribes. Bartholomaeus a S. Fausto l. 8. quaest. 193. num. 2. says that in the richest monasteries three silver pieces, in monasteries moderately endowed two silver pieces, but in poor ones one suffices for mortal proprietary guilt.

But our SANCTES, most poor, set one giulio, in cap. 6. Regulae; he did not remember that these thefts are committed against the most wealthy Pontiff. I confess, however, that they are committed from the pantry of the poor.

This is indeed a most poor opinion; for no one so religious is oppressed by it, nor does he himself rightly cite Navarrus. But this Doctor, in this as in many other decisions of the Rule, is severer than is altogether just.

Diana ADDS, resol. 41., ex Ioan. Cruz de statu relig. lib. 1. comp. 3. dub. 3. concl. 3., that a religious may take a meal or other edibles, from Lopez in Instruct. p. 1. cap. 6., who says: A religious may receive from laypersons some gifts of electuaries, or of heartening confections, two little vessels, or a pair of partridges, or hens, or something similar; but because in edibles of great value leave is not so easily presumed to be granted by the Superior, therefore one must proceed cautiously in such a case.

These things seem to me to be in the mind of D. Bonaventure, in 4. dist. 15. p. 2. art. 2. quaest. 1., and in this way is to be understood canon. 12. quaest. 1., where it is said: It is certain that a monk ought to have, or give, or receive nothing without the leave of his superior, unless perhaps he who is in need is in extreme necessity; then he ought not obey the Abbot, for he would plainly act against God. There he also teaches that there is no proprietary guilt unless it is expressly against the will of the Prelate. And he adds, cap. 2. speculi animae, these words: Fourthly, concerning the theft of religious in the retention of their own property, it must be noted what Augustine says, serm. 1. ad Fratres in Eremo, about religious: If anyone conceal a thing entrusted to him, he shall be condemned by judgment of theft; but I understand this concealing, and having as one's own, when it is so concealed that, even if the Prelate should command in virtue of holy obedience that it be revealed, it would still be concealed. Nor do I otherwise understand it as mortal, unless when it is retained against the preceptive will of the Prelate. This must also be noted of religious, and stewards, and sons of the family, and wives, that they can commit theft if they notably damage the owners of goods in dispensing, against the will and intention of the owners; but when, out of an eye to piety, and even in procuring the common good, without evil intention, they give or dispense some things, it is not to be judged mortal. The same, from D. Augustine, he reports in speculo disciplinae ad Novitios, p. 1. cap. 4.

Where you have, first, that religious are numbered together with sons and wives in this matter. Secondly, that not only is presumed leave not necessary to avoid theft and religious proprietary guilt, but that retention against the will of the Prelate is required, even if it were preceptive, for him to be a proprietor.

This is indeed a tacit leave, while the prelates do not forbid, and it suffices, because tacit and express leave have the same force, Leg. cum quod, ff. de rebus creditis, et cap. 2. de rescriptis, and so teach Sanchez l. 7. de Relig. cap. 9. num. 7. and Fagundez lib. 7. cap. 5. num. 12., who add that the use and received custom introduced in religion, of giving and receiving without leave for licit uses, excuses religious. The same must be said with respect to retention.

WHEREFORE the principal sign of proprietary guilt, which is to retain something without legitimate leave, as Navar. teaches, C. non dicatis, 12. quaest. 1., Suarez de Relig. T. 3. l. 8. cap. 12. num. 2., as is had in C. Monachi, de statu Monachorum, is removed, if he receives and retains with this intention, that if the Prelate should command, he would not wish to retain it.

For the S. Doctor considered that the grave penalties there enjoined are not to be imposed for any omission whatever of leave. For there it is ordered that they be removed from the altar unless they repent, and that in death they be deprived of suffrages and of Ecclesiastical burial if they die in that state, and in life be deprived for two years of active and passive voice, and formerly they were expelled from the monastery, as is had in cap. cum ad Monasterium. It is true that this penalty was corrected by cap. Finale de regularibus, as Sanchez notes, l. 7. de Relig. cap. 20. num. 77., and Abbas on the aforesaid C. Cum ad Monasterium, num. 13., and Fagundez cap. 5. num. 13.

Sanchez notes very well, however, that the penalties of proprietary guilt are not incurred by those who give or receive without leave, but only by those who possess their own property; of these the C. Monachi speaks.

It must also be noted, in order to incur these penalties of proprietary guilt, that any private property whatever, or proprietary guilt, does not suffice, but it is required that a monk be found to have a great private store. But how great that store ought to be is not found treated among the Doctors, as Fagundez says, num. 4.; it is only found in Ioannes Andreas, C. cum ad Monasterium, de statu Monach. numer. 4., Hostiensis numero 7., Anchar. num. 10., and others, that a proprietary monk is to be buried outside the Church with some part of money and of his own store found, in these words: Let thy money be with thee unto perdition. And they add that this part ought to be thirty silver pieces, because Christ the Lord was sold at that price, that is, three ducats. From this you have that the quantity ought to be much greater for one to be a proprietor; and thus Fagundez thinks it could be thirty ducats.

Secondly, a religious is EXCUSED from proprietary guilt by the presumed will of the superior for that occasion, and a certain epieikeia is said to apply. For this, however, it is necessary that the matter be pressing, and that the Superior be absent, so that he cannot be approached. So teaches D. Bonavent. p. 1. Speculi disciplinae ad Novitios, cap. 4. in fine, D. Thom. 2. 2. quaestione 32. articul. 8. ad 1., Lessius Tom. 1. lib. 2. cap. 41. de statu religion. dub. 9., Lopes p. 1. cap. 156., Rodriquez Tomo 2. summae, cap. 31., whom Fagundez cites and follows, in septimum Praeceptum, l. 7. cap. 5. num. 20. Hence Suarez says, Tomo 3. de Relig. lib. 9. cap. 9. num. 28.: If a necessity of relieving a parent, gravely suffering and in need, should befall a Friar Minor of St. Francis, by accepting money offered by someone, and then he has no opportunity of going to his superior, and there is no hope of having another similar occasion, he may accept that money by epieikeia; he affirms the same moreover if the superior should unjustly deny him leave.

But they ASK: whether one who has applied epieikeia in this manner is bound afterwards to report to the superior. It is answered with D. Bonav.: if the thing still exists, and the superior can revoke or amend it, he is bound to report to the superior, that he may not be a proprietor. The same thought Sanchez de Relig. lib. 7. cap. 19. num. 8. and Fagundez num 22.

But if he would probably not believe that the superior would revoke or amend it, he is not bound to approach him, even if the thing still exists. So Sanchez and Fagundez loc. cit., Nauar. in commentario, 2. num. 20. de regular. mendic. quaest. 8. quodlib. concl. 8., Graffius p. 1. l. 3. cap. 5. num. 54.

Further, to receive or to give with this intention, that afterwards we may wish to ask leave, the S. Doctor judges not altogether safe, loco adducto.