Doubt I: Whether prelates can grant religious an annual allowance

Truly the superior cannot grant an IRREVOCABLE use of things, as the Doctors warn at Bassaeus num. 19.

Indeed by ancient law it was granted revocably, for a cause, for determinate necessities; yet so that it be in the hand of the Official of the convent, to whom he may expose his singular necessity, and receive moderately, and let that peculium be incorporated into the goods of the Monastery; Rodrig. tom. 2. cap. 33. Azor. tom. 1. lib. 12. cap. 9. question 1. Sanch. lib. 7. cap. 19. although others stand opposed to him there; for he does not appropriate anything to himself.

NOR does the Council of Trent revoke this sess. 25. cap. 2., but only declares the ancient law, as is clear to one reading, and very many teach with Sanchez lib. 7. cap. 21. num. 11. Diana part. 1. tract. on poverty resol. 32. Although others teach the opposite, as reported at those cited and at Bassaeus num. 10., among them Rodrig. tom. 3. 99. question 27. art. 10. Less. lib. 2. cap. 4. num. 30. Molin. tom. 2. d. 276. Valent. d. 10. question 4. point 3.

Truly I do not see that, with the peculium remaining with the aforementioned cautions, there should flow forth any stain of ownership, the use in fact remaining in the hand of the official for relieving singular necessities. See also Faustus in the treasury l. 8. question 30.

Yet Religious must BEWARE lest they squander a peculium granted chiefly for their indigence on disgraceful acts: for these act against poverty and are liable to restitution: although Diana, citing many yet fearing, grants it loosely part. 3. tract. 2. resol. 65. and part. 2. tract. 15. resol. 54. Nor does Bordonus teach more correctly in the cons. of the rule resol. 53. question 17., that an express license for spending money on illicit uses excuses from ownership and restitution.