Question IV: Whether there is a precept to give superfluities to the poor in common necessities

( D. Thom. quaest. 32. art. 5.

I explained extreme necessity above. Grave is that which deprives one of the necessaries for his state. Ordinary, however, is that which the poor have in common.

The first opinion is negative, and is followed by Gerson p. 2. Alphab. 52. litt. E.; Alensis 4. p. quaest. 113. membr. 1.; Panormitanus in cap. si vero, extra de Iureiurando; Turrecremata in cap. sicut hi, dist. 47; Antoninus 1. p. tit. 1. cap. 24; Summa Rosella, and Pisana verbo Eleemosyna; Gabriel in 4. dist. 26. quaest. 1. Durandus 4. dist. 15. quaest. 6 leans that way; Ioan. Med. quaest. 5; and it seems to be that of D. Thomas art. 5. in fine corporis; Fernandez in suo Exam. Theol. p. 4. cap. 20. §. 2; Victorellus in the notes to Navarrus cap. 23. num 74; Turtianus 2. 2. disp. 82. dub. 2; Vasquez opusc. de eleem. cap. 1. dub. 3. num. 21; Malderus 2. 2. quaest. 27. art. 6. dub. 4; Peter Navarrus lib. 3. cap. 1. num. 358; Couarruvias lib. 3. var. cap. 14 — whom Diana cites and follows Tom. 1. tract. 15. resol. 32. et tom. 5. tract. 8. resol. 17, adding Hurtado disp. 159. sect. 4. §. 131. Nor is Granado absent Contr. 3. tract. 11. disp. 2. sect 4, saying that to withhold is only venial. Barlaeus inclines to it v. Eleem. num. 5. in praxi, and others.

The second opinion is that one is absolutely held. So D. Thom. hic, art. 7, where Cajetan, and Bannes, and the other Thomists; Paludanus 4. dist. 15. quaest. 3. art. 2; Richardus quaest. 2. art. 2; Abulensis in cap. 6. Matth. quaest. 34; Lyra in cap. 3. prima Ioan; Caesarius in eundem locum; Adrian in 4. de restit; Navarrus in manual. cap. 24; Valencia disp. 3. quaest. 9. p. 4, where he says it is already received in the schools; Becanus 2. 2. cap. 21; Bellarmine lib. de Eleemos. cap. 7; Beia in resolut. casuum, p. 2. casu in Sabb. die 19. Octob; and others, whom Tanner cites and follows disp. 2. quaest. 5. dub. 2. num. 12. It is also clearly the opinion of D. Bonaventure in the places to be alleged in the arguments.

Caspensis, walking in a certain middle way tract. 17. disp. 5. sect. 2, indeed denies such a precept universally. But he adds that one is at times held, in such a way that he who should have the purpose, even virtual, of not giving alms except in grave necessity, would sin mortally. He alleges Suarez disp. 7 sect. 3; Castro Palao: de Lorcam disp. 39. sect. 3. membr. 3; Tanner disp. 2. quaest. 5. dub. 2. num. 12; and others; but unwillingly he returns to our opinion; for he gives the reason why the rich are not universally held, because they prudently believe that the common necessities of the poor are to be driven off by others. A droll reason indeed. So therefore this good man is either never held in good faith, or always held; because they ought not believe this of other rich men; or if this is given universally as the rule, all will believe it of the others, and no one will be held to succor, nor will he succor.

I assert that the rich are held in common necessities to give alms from their superfluities.

It is proved first from D. Bonaventure ad 11. Lucae, at those words: Verumtamen, quod superest, date eleemosynam: et ecce omnia munda sunt vobis — Nevertheless, what remains, give alms: and behold, all things are clean to you. Now he explains this as being about alms owed to our own necessity, certainly necessary for penance, that we may be cleansed. Then about true alms from superfluities. And from the effects he shows its necessity. For the reasoning of Christ is: Et ecce omnia munda sunt vobis, that is, since you are full of iniquity, he teaches you to cleanse yourselves, as Valencia and Tanner also note.

For first, by alms the soul is cleansed; for it is disposed to grace, prima Timot. 4: Pietas ad omnia utilis est, promissionem habens vitae, quae nunc est, et futurae — Piety is useful for all things, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that to come. Eccles. 3: Eleemosyna enim Patris non erit in oblivione: et sicut in sereno glacies, solventur peccata tua — For the alms of the Father shall not be forgotten: and as ice in clear weather, your sins shall melt away.

Secondly, it frees from eternal punishment, Tobiae 4: Eleemosyna ab omni peccato, et a morte liberat, et non patietur, animam ire in tenebras — Alms frees from all sin, and from death, and shall not suffer the soul to go into darkness.

Thirdly, it defends from transitory punishment, Dan. 4: Peccata tua eleemosynis redime — Rede your sins with alms.

Fourthly, it mitigates the tinder of concupiscence, Ecclesiast. 3: Ignem ardentem extinguit aqua, et eleemosyna resistit peccatis — Water extinguishes a burning fire, and alms resists sins.

Fifthly, it gives victory over the enemy, Ecclesiastici 29: Conclude eleemosynam in corde pauperis, et haec pro te exorabit ab omni malo. Super Scutum potentis, et super Lanceam, adversus inimicum tuum pugnabit — Shut up alms in the heart of the poor man, and it shall pray for you against all evil. It shall fight for you as a shield of the mighty, and as a lance, against your enemy.

Sixthly, it preserves grace, Eccles. 17: Eleemosyna viri, quasi signaculum cum ipso, gratiam hominis quasi pupillam conservabit — The alms of a man, as a signet with him, shall preserve the grace of a man as the apple of the eye.

Seventhly, it gives confidence of arriving at glory, Tob. 4: Fiducia magna erit coram summo Deo eleemosyna facientibus eam — Great shall be the confidence before the most high God for those who give alms. And he adds, that these things are judged in the Judgment, Matth. 25: namely, that those who have given alms are called to life; and those who omitted them are cast into eternal fire.

That he speaks of common necessities is clear; for the inquiry is made universally about the works of mercy toward all the needy.

Moreover, he gives the conditions of these: The first is simplicity of heart, Matth. 6: Te autem faciente eleemosynam, nesciat sinistra tua, quid faciat dextera tua — But when you make alms, let not your left hand know what your right hand does. The second, discretion, Eccles. 12: Si benefeceris, scito cui benefeceris — If you have done well, know to whom you have done it. The third, compassion, Isa. 58: Cum effuderis esurienti animam tuam — When you shall pour out your soul to the hungry. And Iob. 30: Flebam quondam super eo, qui afflictus erat, et compatiebatur anima mea pauperi — I once wept for him that was afflicted, and my soul had compassion on the poor. The fourth, sweetness in speech, Eccles. 18: Nonne ardorem refrigerabit ros? Sic et verbum melius quam datum — Does not the dew refresh the heat? So also a word better than a gift. The fifth, cheerfulness in face, Eccles. 35: In omni dato hilarem fac vultum tuum — In every gift make a cheerful face. The sixth, due quantity, Tob. 4: Quomodo poteris; ita esto misericors. Si multum tibi fuerit, etc. — As you are able, so be merciful. If you have much, etc. — and he speaks of common necessities. The seventh, speed, Proverb. 3: Ne dicas amico tuo: vade, et revertere — Say not to your friend: Go, and come again,

He infers therefore D. Bonaventure from that text the argument of Christ: Since you Pharisees are full of uncleanness and iniquity, I teach you the necessary mode of cleansing yourselves, namely true penance, and alms from superfluities. For so you will make fruits worthy of penance.

Similar is the passage Lucae tertio, where John, questioned by the crowds about how they could make fruits worthy of penance — about which he had said: Omnis arbor, quae non facit fructum bonum, excidetur, et in ignem mittetur — Every tree that does not make good fruit shall be cut down and cast into the fire — answered: Qui habet duas tunicas, det non habenti, et qui escas habet, similiter faciat — He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise. The force of whose sentence D. Jerome rightly interprets, epist. ad Hedibiam, quaest. 1, as being that it is necessary to spend superfluities on the needy, as S. Doctor notes on that place of Luke. Therefore (says S. Doctor), since they had heard that it was necessary to make fruits worthy of penance, they ask; and he also brings forward Lucae 11, alleged above. But he admonishes most beautifully, with Bede and Gregory, homil. 20. in Evangelia, that a precept is given about dividing two coats, because one is superfluous; not about dividing one, if he does not have another; for so neither would be clothed — although that would be an eminent work, such as that of the most glorious Martin at the gate of Amiens, when he divided his cloak. Behold, S. Bonaventure plainly notes, with the Holy Fathers, that it is a precept. Therefore it is the same precept, Lucae 3. et 11. Quod superest, date — What remains, give. Where the particle superest does not signify what we call "for the rest," but what supplies or super-exists, as is had in the Greek, and Valencia observes, with the same Bede and D. Bonaventure, who reads: De eo, quod superest, or "from what super-exists," from the Greek idiom, of which S. Doctor was most skilled, as they know who read his works through. Moreover, here and in the places to be alleged, they observe that the precept is taken from mere superfluity.

It is proved thirdly from D. Bonaventure in Diaeta, tit. 2. ad finem, from that 1. Timot. cap. 6. Divitibus huius saeculi praecipe facile tribuere, communicare, thesaurizare sibi fundamentum bonum in futurum — Charge the rich of this world to give easily, to communicate, to lay up for themselves a good foundation for the future. But S. Doctor notes that this is a precept given to the rich, not with respect to poor men in grave need, but precisely insofar as those riches of the rich, since they are superfluous to them, are owed to the Lord as tribute, or as a debt out of justice. And as Princes take away even the capital from those who defraud them of tributes; so also the Lord, from those who deny alms and retain their superfluities, takes away not only grace, but also, and often, temporal goods. Which must be gravely admonished; and of this he interprets Matth. 25. Tollite ab eo talentum, et date ei, qui decem talenta habet — Take away the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents; for from the avaricious man temporal substance is to be taken and given to him who, pitying the poor, fulfills the commands of the Lord and trades those riches so that he may receive a hundredfold in this life, and then life eternal. Hence I shall infer the reason.

Then S. Doctor considers the motives with which one ought to be led to give alms generously. The first motive is that Christ declares alms made to himself, Matth. 25. Therefore he imposes on all who wish for the eternal kingdom that they make alms. Hence it is no great thing that rich men who wish for the kingdom from God buy it with a morsel of bread; and they ought to fear hearing: Ite maledicti — Go, you cursed — according to Proverb 21. Qui obturat aures suas ad clamorem pauperis, clamabit ipse, et non audietur — He who stops his ears at the cry of the poor shall himself cry, and shall not be heard. Therefore the first motive is: Quis postulet? — Who asks? — namely, God in the poor man. The second motive is: Quid petatur? — What is asked? — because God in the poor asks what is his own: Wherefore (says S. Doctor) David said, Psal. 29. Tua sunt Domine omnia, et quae de manu tua recepimus, dedimus tibi — All things are yours, O Lord, and what we have received from your hand we have given to you.

The third motive is: Ad quid petis Deus? — For what do you ask, God? — namely that he repay as at usury: Centuplum accipiet, et vitam aeternam possidebit — He shall receive a hundredfold, and shall possess life eternal. S. Doctor uses these arguments, mingled with so many ornaments of Scripture, most useful also for sermons.

It is proved thirdly from D. Bonaventure in 3. dist. 30. quaest. 5, from that Proverb. 25. Si esurierit inimicus tuus, ciba illum; et si sitierit, potum da illi — If your enemy hunger, feed him; and if he thirst, give him drink. And Exodi 23. Si occurreris bovi inimici tui, aut asino erranti, reduc ad eum. Si videris asinum odientis te iacere sub onere, non pertransibis, sed sublevabis cum eo — If you meet the ox of your enemy, or his ass going astray, bring it back to him. If you see the ass of him who hates you lying under its burden, you shall not pass by, but shall lift it up with him. This indeed is not a ceremonial law or judicial precept, but the Natural and Divine Law, on account of which, Matth. 25, all shall be examined in judgment.

It is proved fourthly from D. Bonaventure ad 18. Lucae with those words: Facilius est, camelum per foramen acus transire, quam divitem intrare in regnum caelorum — It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. But Christ said this to him who wished to give his riches in some part to the poor — against whom it is said, Eccles. 7. Noli esse pusillanimis in animo tuo: exorare, et facere eleemosynam ne despicias — Be not fainthearted in your mind: to pray, and to make alms, do not despise — as S. Doctor observes with Theophylactus.

Therefore clinging men are not saved, he says, because, as it is said prima Timot. 6. Incidunt in laqueum Diaboli, et desideria, quae mergunt homines — They fall into the snare of the Devil, and into desires which drown men. Where note that this is not said of the rich who are unwilling to give up everything and vow poverty; for that is the counsel which Christ gave to that young man; but seeing him bitter, resisting any alms whatsoever from superfluities, he said: Quam difficile est, etc. Facilius est, etc. ut supra ad 18. Lucae — How difficult it is, etc. It is easier, etc., as above at 18. Luke.

It is proved fifthly from S. Doctor ex illo Lucae 16, where that rich man Sepultus est in inferno — was buried in hell — doubtless because of his lack of mercy toward Lazarus.

It is proved sixthly from S. Doctor ex illo Lucae 12, where that rich man, whose field had yielded abundant fruits, said: Destruam horrea mea, et faciam maiora: et illuc congregabo omnia, quae nata sunt mihi, et bona mea — I will destroy my barns and make greater ones, and there I will gather all things that are born to me and my goods — but by night he heard: Stulte, hac nocte animam tuam repetent a te; quae autem parasti, cuius erunt? Sic est (inquit Christus) qui sibi thesaurizat, et non est in Deum dives — Fool, this night your soul shall be required of you; whose then shall those things be which you have provided? So is he (says Christ) who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God — where he admonishes that which he had taught Matth. 6, where alms is enjoined, and the simple manner handed down: Cum facis eleemosynam noli tuba canere — When you make alms, do not sound a trumpet. He adds: Thesaurizate vobis thesauros in caelo, etc. Nolite thesaurizare vobis thesauros in terra — Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, etc. Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth. As if to say: Everyone who lays up treasure on earth, retaining his superfluities, loses the treasures of heaven, destitute of Divine grace. Tanner also uses these means.

Hence Basil, on that passage: Destruam, etc. — I will destroy, etc. — says: Cur tu abundas; ille vero mendicat, nisi ut tu bona dispensationis merita consequaris; ille vero patientia braviis decoretur. Est panis famelici, quem tu tenes; tunica, quam in conclavi conservas; discalceati calceus, qui penes te marcescit; indigentis argentum, quod possides infossum. Quocirca tot iniuriaris, quot dare valens es — Why do you abound, while that man begs, unless that you may obtain the merits of dispensation of goods, and that he be adorned with the prizes of patience? The bread of the hungry is that which you hold; the coat, which you keep in your closet; the shoe of the barefoot, which withers in your keeping; the silver of the needy, which you possess buried. Wherefore you commit as many injuries as you are able to give.

Crying out SIMILAR things is S. Gregory of Nyssa, and he concludes, in the oration on loving the poor: O pauperum inimici! an nescitis horum causa commemorari in Evangelio exempla horrenda, et terribilia? — O enemies of the poor! Do you not know that for their sake horrible and terrible examples are recounted in the Gospel? And he adds the two examples of the twin rich men alleged above Lucae 12. et 16.

And D. Ambrose lib. de Nabuthe, cap. 11 has the same, and serm. 81: Quis tam iniustus, tam avidus, quam, qui multorum alimenta suum non usum, sed abundantiam, et delicias facit? Neque enim maius est crimen habenti tollere, quam cum possides, et abundas, indigentibus denegare. Esurientium panis est, quem tu detines — Who is so unjust, so greedy, as he who makes the food of many his own abundance and delights, not his use? For no greater crime is it to take from one who has, than, when you possess and abound, to deny the needy. The bread of the hungry is that which you detain.

D. HIERONYMUS in regula, cap. 6, as cited by Gratian, says: Aliena rapere convincitur, qui ultra necessaria sibi retinere probatur — He is convicted of seizing what belongs to others who is proved to retain for himself beyond the necessaries.

D. AUGUST. in Psal. 147: Caetera, quae superflua iacent, aliorum sunt necessaria: superflua igitur necessaria sunt pauperum; res aliena possidetur, cum superflua retinentur — The rest, which lie superfluous, are the necessaries of others: therefore superfluities are the necessaries of the poor; another's property is possessed, when superfluities are retained. The same he asserts in serm. 119, where he concludes: Quidquid enim Deus nobis, plusquam opus est dederit, non nobis specialiter dedit, sed per nos aliis erogandum transmisit: quod si non dederimus, res alienas invasimus — For whatever God has given us more than is needed, he gave not specially to us, but transmitted through us to be spent on others: and if we do not give, we have invaded the goods of others. Beda has similar things in cap. 11. Lucae.

It is CONFIRMED by D. Bonaventure lib. 2. Pharetrae, cap. 49, from that Lucae 16. Matth. 6: Facite vobis amicos de mamona iniquitatis — Make for yourselves friends of the mammon of iniquity — where D. Gregory: Si caelestis patrimonium eleemosynis emitur, pauperes non sunt audiendi, ut egeni; sed ut patroni exorandi — If the heavenly patrimony is bought with alms, the poor are not to be heard as needy, but to be entreated as patrons — thus homil. 40. in Evang. near the end. But S. Doctor notes in connection with that passage that Mammon is called the mammon of iniquity, not because the goods were acquired by rapine and iniquity; but because riches mostly lead to iniquity, as is said Eccles. 11: Si dives fueris, non eris immunis a peccato — If you shall be rich, you shall not be free from sin. But it is understood (says D. Bonaventure) that it ought to be given from riches which are possessed by a just title, and yet beget iniquity unless they are distributed, according to that Eccles. 10: Nihil est iniquius, quam amare pecuniam — Nothing is more iniquitous than to love money. For he who does so has even his soul for sale. Of these riches, I say, friends ought to be made to you through the bestowal of alms, which manifest the affection of piety; for it is said prima Ioan. 3: Qui habuerit substantiam huius mundi, et viderit fratrem suum necessitatem habere, et clauserit viscera sua ab eo: quomodo charitas Dei manet in eo — He who shall have the substance of this world, and shall see his brother have need, and shall shut up his bowels from him: how does the charity of God remain in him? And Eccles. 29: Perde pecuniam propter fidem, et amicum, et ne abscondas illam sub lapidem in perditionem — Lose your money for faith and a friend, and hide it not under a stone to perish. And Proverb. 11: Qui abscondit frumenta maledicetur in populis — He who hides up grain shall be cursed among the peoples. Thus far S. Doctor at 16. Lucae.

AGAIN in the Pharetra the same confirms it, from that Matth. 25, where he adds D. Gregory homil. 40: Ad tribuendum pigri cur estis, quando hoc, quod iacetis in terra porrigitis, sedenti in caelo datis? Dominus ait: Quidquid fecistis uni de his fratribus meis minimis, mihi fecistis — Why are you slothful in bestowing, when you give to him who sits in heaven what you extend lying on the earth? The Lord says: What you have done to one of these my least brethren, you have done to me.

These authorities, indeed, speak not of grave necessities only, but of ordinary ones, as is evident to the reader. Nor is this precept only at certain times, but it is taken from the very nature of superfluous riches, and binds by the very fact that superfluous riches are present.

It is PROVED also by the reason indicated in argument 2, from D. Bonav. in Diaeta, tit. 2, which is taken from the Holy Fathers — Basil, Ambrose, August., Nyssenus, and others above — and which D. Thomas 2. 2. quaest. 66. art. 7, Valencia here, and others use. The division of things made by the law of nations was just, when before all things were common. But if it is just, it ought to have constituted a human mode of living from things before common by the law of nature: Yet what would be an equal distribution, if some washed their robes in wine, swam in butter, abounding in all riches, flowing with all commodities; while others had not even bread enough; and yet the most opulent were not held to furnish necessaries to these poor men? Surely this is the pedagogy reserved to God, that if the rich have redundancies, they give to the needy something at least for necessity. This indeed would be iniquitous, to leave the greater part of men in misery, when by the law of nature they were equally owners before.

THAT that distribution was just is proved; for in it all the peoples consented unanimously, by the dictate of natural reason; otherwise the Laws of the law of nations would have to be rescinded, which are nevertheless everywhere held in the highest esteem.

THEREFORE God, from nature, preserved this in that law of nature: that superfluities be distributed to the poor. Hence Ambrose, serm. 81: Numquid iniquus est Deus, ut nobis non aequaliter distribuat vitae subsidia? ut tu quidem esses affluens, et abundans, aliis vero deesset, et egerent? — Is God iniquitous, that he does not distribute the helps of life equally to us? so that you indeed should be affluent and abounding, while others lack and are needy? Behold the reason of D. Bonaventure assigned above.

You OBJECT first with Diana, and others collected by him: If all superfluities were to be given to the poor, it would be necessary to condemn all rich men who have superfluities, and all their Confessors. Vasquez presses it num. 14: Laity can retain from patrimonial goods for their own state, or that of their blood relations, to be increased; but then it will never be superfluous. Hence you will scarcely find superfluities among seculars and Kings. These things indeed are plausible to the Confessors of the rich.

Valencia ANSWERS, from the doctrine of D. Bonaventure above in the arguments, that the precept of spending alms on the needy arises not from grave, but from ordinary necessity, not from the force of necessity; but from the force of superfluity, which indeed is to be prudently estimated, so that he is not held to spend to every needy man, but to those whom he shall see, with a prudent proportion, to pertain to him, the things to be retained being retained, for his state and the preservation of that state; indeed, and with some cautious augmentation, as men of a scrupulous conscience are wont. Yet the avarice of that rich man, Lucae 12, who wished to enlarge his barns so as to change his state, is to be shunned, for this mode is reprobated by God. Hence that rich man is called a fool by God. Therefore the rich ought to distribute a part to the needy from their superfluities, with regard had to place, time, and other circumstances. And so in our opinion the rich, or their Confessors, are not condemned so headlong; but avarice and cupidity are condemned, which if any Confessors foster (Valencia says) they will be blind, giving leadership to the blind, and both will fall into the pit, as is said Matth. 15.

You OBJECT secondly. If he is held to give his superfluities, and cannot retain them: Therefore neither can he acquire them.

Valencia ANSWERS, denying the sequel, because it is not a sin simply to have superfluities; but to retain them, not giving on occasions, even to the needy; indeed, to acquire some, so that he may provide prudently both for himself and be able to give generously to the needy: but it would be a sin if at once the possessions were ill-gotten. Those things indeed cannot be acquired which are detained against justice; nor if they are acquired with that mind, that you wish to retain them tenaciously, denying alms to the needy on occasions; But to acquire them simply is not evil; for these can be licitly retained, giving on occasions even to poor Churches for pious uses, etc. Hence nor are even certain things prohibited for their own state, as banquets, etc.

From which it is elicited that, much more in grave necessity, one is held to spend alms from superfluities. So hold Diana resol. 14. tract. 8. Granado is cited contr. 3. tract. 11. disp. 2. sect. 4. num. 18; Vuigers quaest. 36. art. 6. concl. 3; Laymann lib. 2. tract. 3. cap. 6. num. 4; Sanchez in opusc. tom. 1. lib. 1 cap. 5. disp. 5; Bannes quaest. 32. art. 6; Soto de Iustitia, lib. 5. quaest. 3. art. 4; Aragon quaest. 32. art. 5; Salo quaest. 32. art. 5; Salo quaest. 71. art. 1. controv. 1. ad 1; Navarrus de restit. lib. 3. cap. 1. num. 358; Malderus quaest. 32. art. 6. dub. 4; Valencia disp. 3. quaest. 9. p. 4; Hurtado disp. 159. sect. 4. §. 82; Azorius tom. 2. lib. 22. cap. 7. quaesito 4; Coninck disp. 27. dub. 8. num. 125. et 130; Turrianus disp. 82. dubio 1; Vasquez opusc. de eleemosyna, cap. 1; Tannerus disp. 2. quaest. 5. dub. 2. num. 13, citing very many.

It is PROVED, because charity commands one to relieve the grave evil of his neighbor. It is confirmed from all that has been said for the common necessity, which here presses much more.

Moreover, monasteries also that abound are held to this alms. So Sanchez tom. 1. lib. 2. cap. 2. dub. 28. num. 17, and both Rodriguez, Emanuel and Hieronymus — the latter here in Compend. qq. regul. quaest. 59, the former in qq. regul. tom. 2. quaest. 57. art. 1; Soto de Iustitia lib. 10. quaest. 4. art. 4; Reginaldus tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 21. num. 283; Tostatus ad cap. 6. Matthaei, quaest. 60 — who bring forward that Lucae 11. Quod superest, date eleemosynam — What remains, give alms — as it is cited cap. Quia sua, 12. quaest. 1. These speak also in ordinary necessities. But Diana Resol. 33, with Suarez tom. 2. de Relig. tract. 1. lib. 2. cap. 26. num. 13, limit it to grave necessities only, to whom add Peirinus de Praelatis tom. 2. quaest. 1. cap. 3. num. 57. To these I add, with D. Bonav. in 4. dist. 15. p. 2. quaest. 1, that individual religious also can do this by the license of the prelate.

Also all who have ownership are HELD, as sons in castrensian goods. See Filliuccius tom. 2. tract. 28. cap. 4. num. 94; Diana loc. cit. resol. 25. So also wives, from paraphernal goods — namely those which, when she married, she reserved to herself, besides the dowry, for her own uses, and which, the marriage standing, came to her by inheritance, or from donation. So D. Thom. quaest. 32. art. 8; D. Bonaventura in 4.

SIMILARLY, Tutors and curators, having administration, are held, in grave necessities.