§ 1. On The Vow Of Poverty

DEFINITION. Religious poverty is placed in a certain abdication of dominion, whether radical or useful, over temporal goods.²¹

DIVISION. A FOURFOLD grade is distinguished by which evangelical poverty can be vowed: the first grade excludes the use of superfluous things; the second, the free and independent use of temporal things; the third, dominion over these things; finally the fourth, the very capacity of dominion. - This last grade is proper to Regulars who have bound themselves by solemn vow. But for the essence of the vow of poverty, in the religious state properly so called, the second grade is required and suffices, as is clear from the practice of the Church in approving various Institutes.¹ Hence we establish the following:

2156. • Principles. I. A Religious, through the SOLEMN vow of poverty, so ABDICATES the right of ownership over every temporal thing estimable by price, that 1) he can licitly have neither independent use nor independent disposition; 2) nor can he possess anything as his own; 3) nor does he retain the very capacity of possessing. This is clear both from cap. Cum ad monasterium 6, de Statu monach., and from Trent, sess. 25, c. 2, de Regul., and from the common interpretation of Canonists as regards the capacity of dominion. - But he retains dominion over spiritual goods, e.g. reputation, honor, etc. And the same is commonly taught concerning sacred Relics enclosed in cases of small value, and concerning manuscripts whether his own or received from another: both because they are fruits of genius, although of another, and therefore something spiritual; and because they pertain to knowledge, which does not fall under the vow of poverty; and because such is the common custom. But otherwise if the work has in any way been printed by type.²

It is said 1. neither independent use nor independent disposition...; for this is first and essential in every vow of poverty, whether solemn or simple, that it take away the free use of goods; and consequently the one vowing cannot, without the consent of the Superior, use any thing, or dispose of any thing, even if conceded to him for his own use. - Indeed, in order that Regulars and Nuns can, after solemn vows have been emitted, make a testament, cede their leases or a sum of money to blood-relations, or in turn receive rich revenues from them, they need not only the license of the Superior, but also of the Holy See.³

But it must be NOTED: 1) Although a Religious can neither donate nor remit the things which are owed to him, e.g. legacies left to him, the wage owed for his labors, an annual pension to be paid by parents, because the right to these is with the monastery; nevertheless he can refuse gifts offered to him without wounding the vow of poverty; but one refusing without a just cause sins against charity, namely by impeding the good of his Religion. - 2) It is not prohibited to Religious to invite outsiders to banquets, and to bestow gifts on them moderately, if a just cause suggests this: e.g. so that they may free the monastery from some vexation, so that they may conciliate benevolence toward it, indeed so that they themselves may testify their benevolence to friends.⁴

It is said 2. nor can he possess anything as his own. For the Council of Trent, loc. cit., c. 2, decreed thus: "Let it be licit to no one of Regulars, both men and women, to possess or hold immovable or movable goods as their own, or even in the name of the Convent; but let them immediately be handed over to the Superior and incorporated into the Convent." - And this is the ancient rule: that no one be reputed an owner, but that all ownership pertain to the monastery itself. - Nor indeed is it opposed to the vow of poverty if Religious have goods, even immovable, in common. Except Capuchins and Minors of the Observance, from Trent, l.c., c. 3, de Reg. (cf. n. 2136, 3).

It is said 3. nor does he retain the capacity of possessing. For this, by unanimous consent of the Doctors, is imported by the very solemnity of the vow: not that one professed with solemn vows cannot acquire, e.g. from labor, from donation, or even from inheritance, for he is capable of acquisition; but that he acquires not for himself, but for the monastery or Religion, according to that celebrated saying of law: "Whatever a monk acquires, he acquires for the monastery."

And this incapacity of dominion in a solemnly professed Religious is indeed so absolute and immutable that it can never be taken away by the Superior of the Order; because it is annexed, by the law of the Church, to the very solemnity of the vow, whose effects can be taken away by the Supreme Pontiff alone, through dispensation from a most urgent cause⁵ (cf. n. 2176).

2157. II. A Religious, through the SIMPLE vow of poverty, circumscribes the right of ownership for himself by such limits that, although he retains direct dominion of his goods, nevertheless he cannot licitly dispose of them or use them according to his own will and without legitimate license. This is clear from various Rules approved by the Holy See, and from the Declarations already cited (n. 2148) made on 12 June 1858, in which⁶ these things are read: "The professed of simple vows will be able to retain radical dominion, as they say, of their goods, but administration of them and expenditure and use of revenues are altogether forbidden to them. Therefore before profession of simple vows they must cede, for the time in which they shall have remained in the same profession of simple vows, the administration, usufruct, and use to whomever they please, and even to their own Order, if they shall have judged thus according to their choice."

We have said 1. although he retains direct dominion: which dominion indeed extends: 1) to temporal goods which he possessed before the vows; 2) to the fruits or revenues of the same goods; 3) to those things which come to him by right, as paternal inheritance, legacies of relatives, etc.; 4) to all goods which he receives from parents, kin, friends, with the license of Superiors and of the Constitutions.⁷ But such dominion is retained by Religious especially for this end, that the Institute may be able with greater liberty to dismiss them when it shall have been necessary, as Gregory XIII said in the Constitution Ascendente Domino.⁸ Today another end also has been added, namely the end of avoiding difficulties which civil law creates when it does not recognize religious vows.

We have said 2. they cannot dispose according to their own will; for the things said in n. 2156 concerning Regulars and Nuns are also valid concerning Religious emitting simple vows; with this difference, however, that the former dispose both illicitly and invalidly without license, but the latter only illicitly. Nevertheless dispositions of this kind seem to be voidable through the Superior, because all Religious are subjected to the dominative power of Superiors.⁹

We have said 3. nor can he use according to his own will; for to Religious of whatever Order or Congregation there is forbidden the active use of any thing, or use as of one's own thing; but to them there is conceded only use of fact, and indeed precariously, that is, as long as it shall seem good to the Superior. Hence a Religious sins when he uses a thing as his own, or beyond the use legitimately conceded to him.¹⁰

2158. Questions. QUESTION 1. What is the PECULIUM of Religious, and is it licit?

Resp. 1. By PECULIUM is understood whatever from stable or movable goods, e.g. from leases, pension, alms, sermons, Mass stipends, is conceded by the Superior to some member of the Community, and is permitted to him to have, without any right of ownership (in those solemnly professed), and for mere use of fact, and therefore revocably at the nod of the one conceding.

Resp. 2. The Council of Trent indeed prohibited it, by forbidding that a Religious possess, etc., even in the name of the Convent; likewise Clement VIII, Const. Nullus, 25 July 1599. But from a custom long since tolerated by the Apostolic See, it is licit, in some Religions, to have a moderate peculium for necessary and honest uses, e.g. for obtaining food, clothing, and books; provided the subject does not hold it hidden, and is ready, at the nod of the Superior, to deprive himself of it. For thus the use of a temporal thing is not independent, and the substance of poverty remains safe.¹¹

But St. Alphonsus admonishes, saying:¹² 1) "In practice, let all Prelates persuade themselves as certain, that if they introduce the use of peculium anew in monasteries, scarcely the name of poverty will survive there, and from this innumerable evils will supervene upon the Community as regards observance. - Wherefore, even if they themselves can be excused from grave sin by conceding the use of peculium with respect to the vow of poverty, nevertheless they will not be excused on account of the relaxation of the rule, to which by this concession they will without doubt give their work." 2) Subjects cannot refuse common life if Superiors wish to erect it; because although not to observe common life is not against the vow of poverty, nevertheless it is against the vow to reject common life, when nothing which is necessary is denied by the Convent; because this is to have goods independently of the will of Superiors.¹³

Nor must there here be passed over in silence what Pius IX, in the decree of 22 April 1851, enacted on this matter:¹⁴ "In all novitiate houses let perfectly common life be introduced; but in other houses let money be deposited in the common chest."

QUESTION 2. Of what kind must the Superior's LICENSE be, so that a Religious can legitimately use it?

Resp. 1. License expressly conceded can bring with it no difficulty, provided it is true and reasonable: true, i.e. conceded by a legitimate Superior, immediately or mediately through another, and neither extorted from the one conceding by fear nor by fraud; reasonable, i.e. conceded for honest uses. But whether one conceded for illicit or vain uses is valid? - The absolutely more probable opinion denies this, since the Superior is not the owner of the goods of the monastery, but only the administrator of them, nor is Religion ever to be judged to wish to concede anything unto the spiritual ruin of its own members. Whence, if a Prelate concedes to some Religious a general license of spending a sum of money at will, he can by no means spend it for illicit or vain uses. - Nevertheless he can validly, from that license, expose it to play, provided the game is licit and not of mere chance, and the sum moderate, and provided he himself does not belong to an Order of stricter observance.¹⁵

2. They commonly say that tacit license, or presumed license concerning the present, suffices: namely when the Superior knows and sees the subject receive, give, spend something, etc., and does not prohibit it, although he easily could; for then by being silent he is judged to consent. - Except if something else must be gathered from the circumstances.¹⁶

3. It is indeed doubted whether interpretative license, or license presumed concerning the future, is valid, namely that to which the Superior is presumed going to consent if he were asked; but the more probable opinion holds that it suffices whenever the presumption is reasonable, "because then the subject already proceeds with dependence on the will of the Superior, and this effects that he himself is freed from the fault of ownership."¹ And St. Thomas favors this opinion, when he teaches: "A monk ought not to give alms, except in extreme necessity, or, the Abbot being absent, something small under hope of ratification."² "Moreover," says St. Alphonsus, "such dispositions by subjects from presumed license, for the most part, are illicit at least venially; because the Superiors, at least as regards the manner, are unwilling, and not rarely even gravely, and especially when those dispositions have been expressly prohibited by them."³

4. License sought and undeservedly denied does not excuse from transgression of the vow, unless there is danger of grave harm in delay; because in such a case at least the license of major Superiors is presumed to be present, or one can act from epikeia, because necessity has no law.

QUESTION 3. What things are commonly permitted to a Religious from PRESUMED license?

Resp. Generally the following things are permitted: - to succor a poor person reduced to great want, when access to the Superior is not open; - to bestow moderate alms on the needy, if he is staying outside the Convent with due license; and if he is in the Convent, to give them something of food; - to make slight donations to friends and blood-relations as a sign of gratitude, or of due friendship, or for conciliating benevolence toward Religion; - likewise, to make remunerative donations from goods conceded to him for use, because they are as it were payments of debts; - to donate, according to the more probable opinion, those things which he subtracts for himself by living more sparingly, if a certain quantity is assigned to individual subjects, in such a way that neither the monastery must furnish more, nor are the subjects bound to render an account of the assigned thing; - to accept from outsiders, unless it is clear concerning the contrary will of the Superior, a thing to be handed over to the Superior; - to buy a thing which he judges will be pleasing to the Superior, if recourse to him is not easy, e.g. on a journey; - to give something to Peter, if he has license to give to Paul, unless the Superior gave license for Paul because of a peculiar reason and would have denied it if it had been sought for Peter. - Thus commonly.⁴

NB. Concerning the LICENSE of the Superior, it is also helpful to note the following: - 1. In obtaining or conceding it, account must be taken of each Institute; for what is permitted in one is often reproved in another. In stricter ones certain general and tacit faculties are not admitted which are tolerated in mitigated ones. 2. When the Superior gives license to one to give, although in the rigor of law license to receive is also required in the one receiving, in fact he is judged to give it to his own subject. 3. License conceded by one Superior perseveres under his successor, unless it has been explicitly or implicitly revoked by this successor.⁵

QUESTION 4. What QUANTITY is required for GRAVE sin against the vow of poverty?

Resp. 1. As regards the goods of the monastery or of others, this is the rule: that quantity which suffices in theft for constituting mortal sin against justice also suffices for constituting mortal sin against Religion, or against the vow. Nevertheless it must be noted that more is required in these thefts than in thefts from outsiders, but less than in thefts by children; for these have at least hope of dominion, but Religious do not; and Prelates are certainly more unwilling than parents, because the detriment which is inflicted on the monastery is at once temporal and spiritual. - Account must besides be taken of the very material harm really inflicted, which indeed is had less: 1) if the monastery is wealthy; 2) if the Religious does not give a thing of the Community to outsiders, but converts it to his own use; or if the thing is bestowed on Religious of the same monastery, because thus the thing remains at home;⁶ 3) if there is question not of money, but of eatables, or of other things consumable by use; for minute thefts in this last case do not coalesce unless they bring great detriment to the monastery.⁷ And "regularly a Religious does not sin gravely by secretly receiving, for example, a book for temporal use, even for a long time, but not in perpetuity; because then the Prelate is not judged unwilling as regards the substance, but only as regards the manner."⁸

2. As regards goods whose dominion a Religious with a simple vow retains, grave matter for violation of the vow is not easily determined; for in this case not justice itself, but only the vow is violated. Concerning this matter St. Alphonsus speaks thus: "But if something is received from outsiders, to be furnished to others, and therefore without wounding justice, still more is required; for then Jerome Garcia with others among the Salmanticenses assigns for grave matter a value greater than sixty silver pieces."⁹ Today we would say: greater than 60 francs.

QUESTION 5. Does a Religious violate the vow of poverty who expends money IN ANOTHER'S NAME?

Resp. Distinguish. 1) If he has received money with at least some designation of the persons to whom it is to be distributed, he does not violate the vow, because then he is a naked minister and like a servant; nevertheless he can offend against the rule of his Order. - 2) If he has received it with an indeterminate faculty of expending, so that he can confer it, according to his own judgment, on any good work whatsoever or on any needy person whatsoever, he violates the vow: "for, as Azor says,¹⁰ even to the vow of poverty there is opposed a use or administration from which the Abbot cannot remove the monk by his nod."¹¹

QUESTION 6. Whether and when must RESTITUTION be made to the monastery?

Resp. 1. He who without license, in a grave matter, donates or consumes, etc., goods of the monastery is certainly bound to restitution; nevertheless he is not bound to restore from the things given to him for use, unless they are superfluous; because the Prelate is not presumed to wish to oblige the subject with so great an inconvenience.¹²

Resp. 2. One receiving from a Religious a gift of great moment is bound to restore it, not indeed to the Religious from whom he received it, but to the monastery (cf. n. 1772 concerning the case reserved to the Supreme Pontiff).

2159. From what has been said you will resolve: 1. A PRELATE sins against the vow of poverty "if he permits a subject to expend goods coming from whatever cause or title for vain or illicit uses; or to have with him things superfluous, precious, and indecorous to his state."¹³ Indeed, it is more probable that this license is of itself invalid, according to what was said n. 2158, q. 2. - Likewise a procurator, economus, administrator, or official sins if he expends anything against the statutes or custom of the Order, or against the will of the Superior.¹⁴

2. A RELIGIOUS sins: - 1) By receiving or possessing illicitly: namely if he receives, possesses, or retains as his own something estimable by price, even something pertaining to food or clothing; or if he receives gifts, if he is a Religious not solemnly professed, without due license; - likewise, if without license he receives from outsiders, by loan or commodate, money or other things estimable by price; - likewise, if he retains a peculium, or things obtained from it, as owner, against the legitimate will of the Superior; - likewise, if he hides anything for the end of withdrawing it from the disposition of the Superior: nor can he be excused in this by the fact that he had previously obtained license.

2. By disposing illicitly: namely, if without the license of the rule or Superior he alienates, exchanges, lends by commodate, or donates anything estimable by price; - if he remits to others things owed to him, e.g. the wage of his labor, or, if he has solemn vows, an inheritance, a legacy left to him; - if he culpably loses or destroys things conceded to him for use; for it is the act of an owner to neglect a thing, or to make it worse at will; - if he gives things given to him for use to others by commodate or loan; this, however, is a light sin if he is certain concerning restitution, and there is not question of a thing necessary to the Community here and now.

3. By using illicitly: namely if he uses things against or apart from the will of the Superior, e.g. by retaining a thing beyond the limits of time fixed by the Superior; - by applying a thing determinately conceded for one use to another, even honest, use: for with respect to the other use, license is lacking; - much more by expending it on vain, base, or indecorous uses for a Religious. - Likewise he sins against the vow if he eats or drinks among outsiders without the permission of the Superior; if, while making a journey, he turns aside from the straight way to see curious things, unless perhaps the distance is brief and no expenses, or very moderate expenses, must be incurred.¹⁵

Note. A Religious sins against the VIRTUE of poverty, although the vow remains uninjured, if toward the things which he holds from legitimate license he fosters excessive affection; if he indulges his own comforts more than is fitting, etc. Concerning this we note that the vow, of itself, regards external acts alone; but the virtue, which is the end of the vow, is extended even to internal acts, and labors for the extirpation of every inordinate affection toward earthly things. - We have said that the vow regards only external acts; nevertheless, if someone should conceive a desire or purpose of acting externally against the vow, he would violate this very vow:¹⁶ as is clear from what was said concerning Internal Sins (n. 347 and 348).