V. On the Vow of Poverty

What is the force of the solemn vow of poverty in relation to the ownership of goods? - A Religious, by force of the solemn vow of poverty, is rendered absolutely incapable of dominion in particular, or personally, over any temporal thing estimable by price, even with the license of the superior. - Absolutely incapable, i.e., incapable perpetually and immutably, both on the part of the religious and on the part of religion.

In particular, or personally: for the solemnity of the vow of poverty does not prevent the community from being able to acquire and possess goods, whether by itself or through subjects, unless its constitutions stand in the way. Hence the widely spread axiom of canon law: Whatever a monk acquires, he acquires not for himself, but for the monastery. Cf. Schmalzgr. l. 3, t. 27, n. 75 ff. Of a temporal thing estimable by price: because the religious retains dominion over spiritual goods, honor, reputation, and similar things.

Likewise he retains the right of electing, presenting, and conferring a regular benefice. Even with the license of the superior, namely of the regular superior: for this incapacity can be removed by the Supreme Pontiff, without the solemnity of the vow being thereby impeded. Cf. 248. Of dominion, i.e., of dominion both direct and also merely useful. Therefore the ownership of temporal goods, the right of enjoying, the right of using, the right of simply retaining or possessing, the right, i.e., in one's own name and by one's own judgment, is opposed to the solemn vow of poverty; but by no means the usufruct, use, and retention of mere fact, i.e., with the license of the superior, dependently on the superior, and also mere administration. For through this he acquires no temporal advantage for himself by which he might become rich or less poor, and disposes of no thing for his own temporal emolument. Lugo d. 3, n. 155. - C. Cum ad monasterium 6 de Stat. monach.; Trent s. 25, c. 2, 3 de Reg.; Bizzarri ed. 1885, p. 276, 279, 335, 336, 384; E. M.

You will resolve: A Religious solemnly professed is altogether incapable of any act of ownership, of donation, sale, etc. Therefore he cannot make a testament. Incapable, namely unless the dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff is added, which in fact was given to regulars of Belgium, so that they could acquire, retain, administer, and dispose of goods. S. C. Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, July 31, 1878.

Act of ownership, by which he receives some advantage and emolument; but mere causing of damage is by no means against poverty, e.g., to kill at night a barking and troublesome or dangerous dog. D'Annibale p. 3, n. 222. All gifts which are made to religious solemnly professed are thereby acquired for the monastery, legacies and inheritances not excepted, unless a special rule or constitution of the Order stands in the way. Trent s. 25, c. 1 de Reg.; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 3, d. 14. - Manuscripts are proper to religious.

For they are something spiritual, since they are the offspring of their own intelligence. And this has already been introduced also by custom. Likewise holy Relics can be had, because they are not estimated by price. - The S. C. of Religious, July 13, 1913, declared that Religious, both of solemn vows and of simple vows, who during vows have written some manuscript do not have dominion over the same, so that they can donate it or alienate it by any title whatsoever. - "To have something proper is said to be against poverty, not because it is against some special virtue, for there is none, but because it is against the vow of poverty; and thus that sin is properly against religion." Suarez, de Rel. tr. 10, l. 4, c. 14. For indeed the virtue of poverty excludes only the affection and disordered use of earthly things, not ownership. This is not excluded unless, with a vow added, it is restricted and narrowed. Therefore the virtue of poverty can easily be reduced to modesty, a part of temperance. - L. 14, 22.

What is the force of the simple vow of poverty in relation to exterior goods? - A Religious bound by a simple vow of poverty can indeed have direct dominion of goods; but he can licitly dispose of nothing concerning them without particular or general license of the superior. Licitly, since a religious preserving direct dominion of goods can validly dispose of them without license, since he is truly lord of those goods. Yet the simple vow which formed coadjutors emit in the Society of Jesus renders one incapable even of dominion. Suarez, de Relig. tr. 10, l. 4, c. 6, n. 12; Lugo, de Iust. d. 3, n. 78; Schmalzgr. l. 3, t. 35, n. 9; E. M.

You will resolve: A Religious who is not solemnly professed has direct dominion: of temporal goods which he possessed before vows. The reason is that simple vows do not deprive one of dominion already had. - Of the fruits or revenues of the same goods. The reason is that a thing fructifies for its lord, and simple vows do not deprive one of the right of acquiring dominion. But cf. n. 274. - Of those things which come to him by law, without new acceptance, such as paternal inheritance, legacies, etc. The reason is clear from what has been said. - Of all goods which he receives from parents, relatives, friends, with the license of superiors; if however those donations are made specifically with regard to the private person, and not insofar as he is religious; otherwise donations come to the monastery. For that principle is also applied to these religious: Whatever a monk acquires, etc. - Of all goods which he receives from parents, relatives, friends, etc., given with regard to the private person, without license of superiors. The reason is that since he has the right of acquiring, the defect of license makes him acquire illicitly, not acquire invalidly, just as the defect of license makes him donate illicitly, not donate invalidly.

Manual works, whatever they are, which are made by religious pertain to the community. Therefore private persons, although craftsmen, cannot dispose of them, nor can they receive any emolument from them. The same is to be said of honoraria which are given to regulars for Masses or other spiritual ministries. Yet it is not against poverty, with material furnished by another, at his petition to paint, for example, a small panel, which he then receives. For it is gratuitous work, not an act of dominion from which advantage or emolument is acquired. The same is to be said if a religious gratuitously teaches another canon law, theology, etc. It is a gratuitous office, not an act of ownership. Likewise it is not against poverty to eat and drink at the house of an outsider, for this is the act of dominion of the outsider, not of the religious. Lugo d. 2, n. 51; d. 3, n. 149; Norms art. 126.

A Religious bound by a simple vow acts illicitly if at home, or also outside, even from those things which pertain to food and clothing, he receives, retains, consumes, exchanges, gives to another, lends for consumption, or lends for use, or makes any contract in which an act of ownership intervenes, without the consent of the superior. - He sins against the vow of poverty if he expends for another use anything from the things conceded for his use, or culpably loses or destroys it. The reason is that in these he has only use of fact, and that precariously, as long as it shall seem good to the superior; and it is at the same time an act of dominion to be able to destroy one's own or quasi-own thing by one's own decision. - He also sins against the vow of poverty if he usurps for himself things of the monastery, if he hides or subtracts some thing from the disposition of the superior; if he remits a debt; if he renounces an inheritance or legacy which would be in favor of the community. If he renounces a donation, he does not sin against justice or the vow, but he can sin against charity toward his own convent. L. 19, 20; Norms of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, art. 124.

What is required so that a religious can receive or give a thing? - So that a religious may licitly, by reason of the vow of poverty, receive, donate, etc., a thing, the license of the superior is required and suffices, at least reasonably presumed or interpretative. - Presumed or interpretative license is distinguished from express and tacit license. Express is called that which is openly conceded by word or writing; and this can be formal express, or virtual, as if he says: I concede to you that you call a physician; this will be formal express license in order to consult the physician, virtual in order to apply the prescribed remedies. Tacit is called that when from custom, signs, or other circumstances, it is reasonably concluded that the superior approves the matter.

Presumed or interpretative is called that when, because of some occurring necessity or another just cause, it is believed or presumed that the superior would consent or give license if this were sought in these circumstances. Reasonably presumed: otherwise there is no license, since it is against the will of the superior. - Moreover, for acting against the vow of poverty it is required that the religious act in his own name and independently of the will of the superior. But one who acts from the consent of the prelate according to prudent interpretation does not act in his own name and independently. Therefore. St. Alphonsus 18 calls this opinion more probable, and St. Thomas teaches it expressly, 2. 2, q. 32, a. 8 ad 1, and 4 d. 15, q. 2, a. 5, q. 4.

You will resolve: If the prelate gives or permits to be given to a subject images, rosaries, etc., knowing that he does not need all these for his own use, he is judged tacitly to concede the faculty of giving them to others. - If to a religious for his support a certain quantity is assigned in such a way that neither is the monastery held to provide anything else to him, nor he himself to render an account, then whether he stays within the cloister or outside, whatever he has withheld for himself from that portion he will be able to expend at his good pleasure, provided he expends it for an honorable use.

But otherwise, if no certain quantity is assigned to him, but all necessary things are supplied by the monastery, because then it is not presumed, as in the first case, that the prelate concedes license. - By authors it is permitted to religious, because of the same presumed license, to make some moderate alms, likewise to make light donations for reconciling the love of others toward religion, as a sign of due friendship or due gratitude. And here attention is to be given to the Constitution Religiosae of Clement VIII, moderated by the Decree Nuper of Urban VIII, prohibiting to religious the giving of gifts, unless they are from causes containing by their nature an act of virtue and merit, yet modestly and discreetly, and with license of superiors. By this prohibition convents also and their chapters are comprehended; and those receiving are held to restitution. Illicit donations are also void from these Constitutions. If these exceed the sum of ten scudi, absolution cannot be given unless first, if it can be done, restitution be made. Innocent XII, C. Romanus Pontifex, 1692. - L. 17, 21, 23; E. M.

Note: License sought but unduly denied does not excuse from transgression of the vow, unless there is danger of grave harm in delay, e.g., if the superior denies things necessary for food and clothing, or to relieve the want of one in extreme need. For then the consent of the major superior is presumed to be present. Thus St. Alphonsus 33, and it agrees with the doctrine of St. Thomas 1. 2, q. 106, a. 6; 2. 2, q. 120, a. 1; Schmalzgr. l. 3, t. 35, n. 35, and of others. When the matter has already been done and consummated with reasonably presumed license, there is not given from the vow of poverty an obligation of manifesting the fact to the superior. Otherwise that license would serve for nothing, and can no longer serve for anything. Lugo d. 3, n. 128. - A superior cannot licitly and validly give permission for things extraordinarily superfluous and illicit. For these are unbecoming to the state of poverty of religious, and the superior is not the lord, but the simple administrator of the things of the monastery. L. 29 f.; Lugo d. 3, n. 139 ff.; Kenrick tr. 8, n. 75. - If the preceding superior gave license, it is valid even if he has departed from office. On the contrary, although a superior licitly accepts and retains during the time in which he himself is superior money given to him, nevertheless he will not be able to expend it when he has ceased from office without leave of his superior. La Croix l. 4, n. 116.

As already said, the giving of gifts is prohibited to Regulars of either sex, apart from a cause of virtue and merit, yet modestly and discreetly. And those doing otherwise incur infamy of law ipso facto, deprivation of active and passive voice, and perpetual inability for all offices and dignities. But restitution of things received is to be made to the Convents.

Economic obligations are to be undertaken by religious families according to the Decree Inter ea of the S. C. of Religious, July 30, 1909. - Without the consent of the respective council, obligations cannot be contracted for individual houses which exceed 500 lire and do not reach 1000 lire; for provinces, which exceed 1000 lire and do not reach 5000; for Generalitial Curias, which exceed 5000 lire; and for the sum of 10000 lire, besides license of the respective Council, the Apostolic good pleasure is needed. And no foundation of a house is to be made, and no amplification of a foundation, if the money to be paid is not had. Stipends accepted for Masses can in no way be expended before the celebration of the Masses themselves. And the dowries of Religious women are by no means to be alienated as long as they live. Cf. § 7, Second Supplement, E. M., p. 74 ff.

What is grave matter in transgression of the vow of poverty? - It is difficult to hand down some determined rule as regards the quantity required for grave sin, as is established from the very multiplicity of opinions concerning this matter. - Generally speaking, that matter is to be held grave which constitutes grave sin in theft. For an act of ownership which is grave by reason of matter against justice is also grave against religion when the vow of poverty is added. For the vow of poverty precisely impedes this, namely an act of ownership. But some say that only that matter is grave which is grave in thefts of children in the household, which others more probably deny. For their condition is altogether different as regards the goods of the monastery and as regards paternal goods. And since, as regards religious, it is a question of spiritual detriment, the superior must always be judged more unwilling than the father of a household. And hence it is clear that the aforesaid grave matter is not absolutely grave matter in theft, if the monastery is very wealthy, but only relatively grave matter, namely relative to a monastery moderately rich, as to the common rule, with attention given to the harm which Religion suffers from the sin of ownership. For if it is grave in the reason of an act of theft, it is already grave in the reason of an act of ownership against the vow of poverty. But here the harm of society or community, from which absolutely grave matter is determined, certainly cannot be attended to, but merely the act of ownership, and the grave matter of this act as respectively such. And if the harm of society or community had to be attended to here, since the harm to be attended to here is spiritual harm, it is clear that not only then must absolutely grave matter be rejected, but even on the contrary respectively grave matter must be restricted rather than extended. But this respectively grave matter as regards a monastery moderately rich is that very matter which is respectively grave as regards a person moderately rich. But it is altogether discordant to introduce, for constituting grave sin against the vow of poverty alone, a still greater quantity than that absolutely grave for theft.

Yet this grave matter, according to diverse circumstances, as in theft, can be still greater or lesser. More is required for rich convents than for other poor ones. - More also if a religious usurps things of the monastery for his own use, or for others of the same community, than if he were to expend them on outsiders; for in the former case the thing remains at home. More, if the thing is not from money, but from clothing, books, and similar things. It is not mortal to steal edible things on several occasions, even if they come to a great quantity, provided they are not reserved by the religious, and provided the damage to the convent is not excessive and in an extraordinary and more precious thing. More is also required in small thefts, which moreover, with a notable interval interposed, do not coalesce into grave matter, than in other ordinary thefts. Furthermore, more is required in sins against religion alone, or committed against the vow alone, than at the same time against justice; for in the former case the act of ownership, as is clear, is less. Hence also in the same case of sin against religion alone more is required for sinning gravely when gifts are received from outsiders to be expended on others in one's own name, than if these were retained for one's own uses; and more is also required if someone expends or retains goods of which he has radical dominion. For the whole malice of the act is in this, that it is an act of ownership without dependence on the superior, against his will. Finally more or less is required according as the act participates more or less in ownership. And thus generally a religious does not sin gravely when he secretly receives some thing from the community for his own use, or if he lends for consumption or lends for use to another a thing conceded to him for use. - L. 24, 25, 27; l. 3, n. 545; H. A. tr. 3, n. 10;

Lugo d. 3, n. 170 ff.

Those things which are light only against the vow of poverty, and therefore only against religion, do not coalesce to constitute at the same time a grave sin, because the reason of grave real harm inflicted is lacking, as in sins against justice.

Is it lawful for religious to have a peculium, i.e., a temporal good destined for their own uses, but by no means for the common uses of the monastery? - It is certain that such a peculium with independent use of it is illicit; for it is against poverty and against Trent s. 25, c. 2 de Reg. - But it is disputed whether peculia with dependent use were prohibited by Trent s. 25, c. 2 de Reg. From custom and permission of the Apostolic See, the use of a peculium and life allowance still perseveres in several monasteries and is licit. All agree that in those convents in which common life is not observed because of poverty, or because of the negligence of superiors in supplying necessary things to subjects, peculia can be conceded at the nod of the prelates. The reason is that the Tridentine Council then commands common life to religious when "nothing that is necessary is denied" by the convent. - A regular cannot refuse common life if the superiors wish to choose it. The reason is that this would be against the vow of poverty, for it would be to have goods independently of the will of superiors. - Clement VIII, Constitution on the Reform of Regulars; L. 15; E. M.

In the Norms of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, art. 127, 128, it is said: "All things in the Institute are to be called and to be common, as regards furnishings, food, and clothing. Yet it is fitting for each, indeed in common custody but separately, to keep and distribute clothing of strict personal use. The furnishing which the sisters use, with superiors permitting, is to befit poverty, and nothing superfluous is to be in it, nor is anything necessary to be denied to them." As is clear, no distinction is made between superiors and subjects as regards common life. And from the Decrees of Clement VIII for the Reform of Regulars, art. 10, it is explicitly commanded that common life is to be observed also by Superiors.

Does he sin against the vow of poverty who receives money from an outsider to be spent at will on pious works? - R. In the negative, if the pious works are determined by the donor himself. For then no act of ownership is had. The Religious is only the executor of another's commission. - But if the works are in no way determined by the donor, Fr. Gury 157 affirms it, because he would make an act of ownership. But Sanchez, in Decal. l. 7, c. 30, denies it. The reason is that while he distributes that money not in his own name but in another's, he makes no act of ownership. - St. Thomas Quodl. 3, a. 15.

Are religious by the vow of poverty prohibited from receiving another's thing in deposit without the license of the prelate? - R. In the affirmative, if it is by force of the contract of deposit, because then there is present a true right and obligation from justice. In the negative, if it is only into faithful custody, for then no right and obligation from justice is had.