Article I. On the Vow of Poverty

I say. 1st. A Religious bound by the solemn vow of poverty, at least by force of ecclesiastical law, and therefore, with dispensation of the Roman Pontiff excluded, is altogether incapable in particular, or personally, of any dominion over a temporal thing estimable by price, even with the permission of the superior. - I said personally, because the community can acquire and possess goods either through itself or through subjects, unless its constitutions stand in the way. Hence the common axiom of canon law: "Whatever a Monk acquires, he acquires not for himself, but for the monastery." - This is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 25, cap. 2.

I say. 2nd. A Religious bound by the simple vow of poverty can indeed have direct dominion of goods; but he cannot licitly dispose of anything concerning them without the particular or general permission of the superior, although he can validly. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 18 and seq.

Question 1. What is the difference between the vow and the virtue of poverty?

Resp. The vow regards only external acts of ownership; but the virtue extends also to the internal affections of the heart. For the object of the vow is to despoil the Religious outwardly of temporal goods. But the virtue has as its end to cut away entirely every disordered affection of the heart toward earthly things. Therefore the vow of poverty is, as it were, a means to the virtue, which is the end to be obtained; and consequently the virtue of poverty extends much more widely than the vow: for as often as someone infringes the vow, at the same time he also wounds the virtue; but not vice versa. - I said that the vow affects only external acts of ownership; nevertheless the vow could be violated by an internal act which would regard and touch an external act, namely by the desire of acting externally against the vow; since desire takes on all the malice and species of the external act, as was said in the tract on sins, n. 136.

Question 2. To what things does the direct dominion of a Religious not solemnly professed extend?

Resp. §1. Any professed of simple vows, whether perpetual or temporary, unless something else has been provided in the constitutions, preserves the ownership of his goods and the capacity of acquiring other goods, with those things safe which are prescribed in can. 569.

§2. But whatever he acquires by his industry or in view of religion, he acquires for the religion.

§3. The professed can change the cession or disposition of which in can. 569, §2, not indeed by his own judgment, unless the constitutions allow this, but by permission of the supreme Moderator, or, if there is question of nuns, by permission of the local Ordinary and, if the monastery is subject to regulars, of the regular Superior, provided that the change, at least concerning a notable part of the goods, is not made in favor of the religion; but through departure from the religion a cession and disposition of this sort ceases to have force (Can. 580). - Cf. Above, n. 611, Q. 20.

Question 3. Can a Religious, without permission of the superior, keep his own manuscripts and transfer them to another?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the common opinion; for manuscripts, as offspring of the mind, are held as something spiritual. Moreover they pertain to knowledge, which does not fall under the vow of poverty; but the more powerful reason is that the common and received custom among Regulars so bears. And the same is to be said, according to many, concerning Relics of the Saints. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 14.

Question 4. Does a Religious sin against the vow of poverty if he expends something from things granted for a determinate use into another use?

Resp. Affirmatively; and the reason is that in these things a Religious has only use of fact, and that precariously, as long as it shall seem good to the superior. But to dispose of some thing according to one's own judgment is an act of ownership or dominion; and otherwise the will or permission of the superior, unless something else is manifest, is restricted to the use assigned. Wherefore a Religious cannot, without permission, give to others or in any way alienate those things which by living more sparingly he has taken away for himself from the things granted for use. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 19 and 23.

Question 5. Does a Religious sin against the vow of poverty who receives money from an outsider to be spent at pleasure upon pious works?

Resp. Affirmatively, if he receives it as given absolutely to himself, in order that he may distribute it in his own name. The reason is that by acting thus the Religious would make an act of ownership. But otherwise it must be said if he received it as to be distributed in the name of the donor, even if there is left to him the faculty of choosing the poor or some pious work, or how much is to be distributed; and a fortiori if a faculty of this sort is not left to him. The reason is that then the Religious would indeed make an act of prudence, but not of ownership; for he would be as it were the channel and mandatary of the donor. Hence a Religious does not sin against the vow of poverty who receives from an outsider money to be expended upon such a poor person, such a monastery, church, such a pious cause, etc. Indeed he does not sin if he himself, without the permission of the superior, asks money from an outsider to be handed over to another determinate person, although, if there is question of a matter of great moment, prudence counsels and the right order of religious discipline requires that the subject do nothing unless first he has obtained the assent of the superior, even if he incurs no danger of violating poverty. Cf. Sanchez, Decal., lib. 7, cap. 30. - Lugo, de just. et jure, disp. 3, n. 155. - Salmant., de Restit., cap. 6, n. 15. - Baller., note (a), p. 97; note (a), p. 99; and note (b), p. 104.

Question 6. Does a Religious sin against the vow of poverty who refuses those things which are offered to him by outsiders?

Resp. Negatively, if there is question of mere donations, alms, or gifts to which he does not have a strict right. The reason is that the vow of poverty does not oblige him to receive those things which he has not yet acquired, or to which neither he himself nor the monastery has a strict right. Nevertheless, if the Religious has no reason for refusing, he sins against charity by impeding the good of his Religion. - But otherwise one must answer if there is question of things owed by title of justice, or indeed donated but already accepted; for once acceptance has been placed, the monastery immediately acquires a right. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 20.

Question 7. Does a Religious sin not only against the vow of poverty, but also against justice, who unduly expends or consumes things of the monastery?

Resp. If he expends or consumes without any, not even tacit or presumed, permission of the superior, he is guilty of violated justice, because he commits true theft by converting another's thing to his own use against the reasonable will of the owner. But if he expends or consumes, the superior permitting or conniving, but for illicit or notably superfluous uses, he certainly sins against the vow; but whether he sins against justice is controverted. St. Alphonsus with others affirms it, because such permission is invalid and void; for the superior is not the owner, but a simple administrator of the goods of the monastery. De Lugo, Elbel, and many others deny it, because, although the Prelate is only administrator of the goods, it is not established by any law, at least universal law, that the owner himself, namely the community or religious Order, wished to invalidate permission of this sort, although it altogether disapproves it. Either opinion seems probable. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 30.

Question 8. What matter is to be judged grave in violation of the vow of poverty?

Resp. 1st. In sins which are at once against religion and justice, generally speaking, that is to be held as grave matter which constitutes mortal sin in theft; and although a few theologians say that that matter alone is grave matter which is judged grave in thefts of sons of a family, namely matter about twice greater than in thefts against outsiders, nevertheless this in no way seems to be admitted. The reason is that sons are in hope of the goods of the father of the family, but Religious are not. Moreover Superiors are more, and indeed reasonably, unwilling as regards thefts of subjects than parents are concerning thefts of sons. Besides, graver detriments follow as regards the soul in the former than in the latter. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 24. - Lugo, de just. et jure, disp. 3, n. 172. - Sanchez, Decal., lib. 7, cap. 20, n. 3.

But in order that judgment be made concerning the gravity of matter in thefts of Religious, it is to be noted that monasteries moderately wealthy are commonly equated with private masters sufficiently wealthy. Hence the same measure as for them generally constitutes grave matter. But if they are very wealthy, a greater quantity is required. A greater quantity is also to be required if a Religious usurps things of the monastery for his own use or gives them to others of the same community, than if he expended them upon outsiders, because in this way they remain at home. Greater also in petty thefts, which moreover, with a notable interval interposed, do not coalesce into grave matter. Greater again in foodstuffs, as we said concerning servants.

Resp. 2nd. In sins against religion alone, or committed against the vow alone, the difficulty increases and there is greater disagreement of theologians. Nevertheless more commonly they generally require the same matter for mortal sin as in the preceding case, where justice is violated, because an act of ownership seems to be of the same gravity. Nevertheless not improbably some grave Doctors require a greater quantity for grave sin. Cf. Elbel, n. 646. Salmant., tract. 15, cap. 6, n. 12.

But they commonly agree that a much greater value is required for sinning gravely when gifts are received from outsiders to be expended upon others, because then the act of ownership is much less than if these were retained for one's own use. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 24.

Question 9. When can one professed by simple vows not validly renounce, when can he validly renounce, and when must he renounce the goods which he actually has?

Resp. §1. One professed by simple vows cannot validly do so before, but within sixty days before solemn profession, with peculiar indults granted by the Holy See being safe, he must renounce all the goods which he actually has, to whom he prefers, under the condition of profession to follow.

§2. After profession has followed, all those things are to be done at once which are necessary in order that the renunciation obtain effect also in civil law (Can. 581).

Therefore he must, within sixty days before solemn profession, with indults being safe, renounce conditionally all goods which he actually has; before that time he cannot validly make that renunciation.

Question 10. To whom do goods fall which come in any way to a regular after solemn profession?

After solemn profession, peculiar indults of the Apostolic See likewise being safe, all goods which in any way come to a regular:

1st. In an Order capable of possessing, fall to the Order, or province, or house according to the constitutions;

2nd. In an incapable Order, are acquired as property for the Holy See (Can. 582).

Question 11. What is not lawful for those professed by simple vows in religious Congregations in relation to the abdication of dominion and the change of a testament already made according to the norm of can. 569, §3?

Resp. 1st. By an act among the living it is not lawful to abdicate the dominion of one's goods by a gratuitous title;

2nd. It is not lawful to change a testament made according to the norm of canon 569, §3, without the permission of the Holy See; or if the matter is urgent and time does not suffice for recurring to it, without the permission of the major Superior, or, if even he cannot be approached, of the local Superior. Cf. Can. 583.

Question 12. How is an invalid religious profession validated?

Resp. §1. A religious profession invalid because of an external impediment is not validated by subsequent acts, but it is necessary either that it be sanated by the Apostolic See, or that, the nullity having been known and the impediment removed, it be emitted legitimately anew.

§2. But if it was invalid because of a merely internal defect of consent, once this has been furnished, it is validated, provided that on the part of the religion consent has not been revoked.

§3. If there are grave arguments against the validity of the religious profession and the religious refuses, for safety, either to renew the profession or to seek its sanation, the matter is to be referred to the Apostolic See (Can. 586).

Wherefore a subsequent renewal would not validate the profession, but this must be emitted legitimately when at last the nullity has been known and the impediment removed.

You Will Resolve. 1st. A Religious sins against the vow of poverty if without any consent of the superior he accepts, retains, consumes, exchanges, or gives to another, at home or outside, anything, even from those things which pertain to food or clothing. Likewise if without the permission of the superior he accepts money or other things on loan or for use from outsiders. But as regards things received or handed over on loan or for use without the permission of the Prelate, generally speaking, he will not sin gravely against the vow of poverty if he gives things for his use to outsiders on loan or for use, provided he is certain about recovering them and does not therefore bring grave damage upon the community, which on this account, for example, lacks the use of a thing gravely necessary here and now. Much less gravely will he sin if he lends or gives for use to other Religious of the same monastery things granted to himself for use. The reason is that, although he makes some act of ownership in these things, nevertheless this is not here estimable at so great a price that it reaches grave matter, according to the common interpretation of theologians. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 27.

2nd. He sins against the vow of poverty who retains a thing accepted with permission for use beyond the limits of time fixed beforehand by the superior; who employs it for another use with detriment to it; who keeps a thing with the intention of withdrawing it from the free disposition of the superior, for example, if he hides it so that it may not be seen; and indeed this one cannot be excused from the fact that he had previously obtained permission. But, generally speaking, grave fault is not present if a thing is taken secretly from the community, for example, a book for one's own use even for a long time, but not perpetually, unless it is so hidden that it cannot be found by Superiors; because then the Prelate is not judged unwilling as regards the substance, but only as regards the manner. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 24.

3rd. He sins against the vow of poverty who, without the faculty of the superior, buys something even for the community, because he acts as an owner. Sometimes, however, he can presume permission, namely when he knows that it will be pleasing to the superior and easy recourse to him is not open, for example, on a journey. But permission of this sort can more easily be presumed in matters of lesser moment, and much more easily still if there is question of a thing to be accepted from outsiders and handed over to the superior. - Cf. Lacroix, lib. 4, nn. 118 and seq.

4th. A Religious cannot accept any deposit properly so called without permission. The reason is both because according to the opinion of many he would make an act of ownership, and because a deposit is a contract; but a Religious without the faculty of the superior cannot enter into any contract concerning temporal things. - Many, however, think that this is not against the vow, although it is against the perfection of poverty and for the most part against the rule. - Cf. Suarez, de Relig., tract. 7, lib. 8, cap. 11, n. 45.

5th. If a former superior gave you permission to have some thing, it still has force, even if he has departed from office. - Cf. Lacroix, n. 115.

6th. If you have permission to give something to Paul, and you give it to Peter, you do not sin, unless the superior gave permission for Paul because of a peculiar reason and would have denied it if you had asked this for Peter. - Cf. Lacroix, n. 119.

7th. If Titius the Religious has permission to give something to anyone whatsoever, Caius of the same community by this very fact has the faculty of accepting, because to give and to accept are correlatives, and therefore permission for one is judged also to be for the other.

8th. Concerning manuscripts, certain recent replies are to be kept before the eyes:

"Religious belonging to Institutes of simple vows are held by the same laws as Regulars of solemn vows as regards the Imprimatur, or good-pleasure, to be requested from their Superiors, whenever they desire to publish some manuscript of their own." And as often as "publication of some manuscript has been interdicted" by their Superiors, they cannot "hand the same manuscript to some printer who publishes it with the Imprimatur of the local Ordinary, the author's name being suppressed." - S. Cong. de Relig., 11 June, 1911.

It was asked of the same Congregation: "Whether Religious, both of solemn vows and of simple vows, who during vows have written out some manuscript, have dominion of the same in such a way that they can give it or alienate it by any title whatsoever?" and the answer was: Negative, 13 July, 1913. These replies are connected with one another. Cf. the preface to the last one in the context itself. The most recent reply simply excludes the case of a Religious who, permission to print a manuscript having been denied, gives it to a friend, and this friend, having been made owner of it, sees to the printing. Therefore from that reply a Religious cannot give to another, or alienate by any title whatsoever, a manuscript written out by himself during vows. Indeed the Sacred Congregation is not speaking of a manuscript work by a Religious who has been assigned to writing by mandate of the superior, nor of a work of no value. For as regards the first, no one affirms that he can alienate it, just as no one denies it of the second. A manuscript written out seems altogether to be taken as signifying either some complete work composed by industry with labor, or something similar, which by law can be the object of a contract. Moreover the reply is expressed entirely cautiously: "written out during vows"; nothing is said concerning others, concerning which certainly he is obliged now as before, neither more nor less, at least when this reply is considered; it is said, "Whether . . . they so have dominion of the same that they may give it, etc." To which the Congregation responded: "Negative." Therefore the decree is not opposed to the doctrine contained in Question 3. - Cf. De Religiosis, Periodica, v. 7, p. 165. - Nouvelle Rev. Theol., v. 45, p. 709. - Ferreres, n. 156.

Note. - Let these things be said concerning religious poverty in general; but in particular attention must be given to the constitutions of individual Orders or to the custom tolerated by Superiors; for in many monasteries it is generally permitted to Religious to ask, accept, or procure for themselves many things necessary for food, clothing, books, and other things of this kind.