Case 4. A Dispensation in the Vow of Poverty

Caius, born in Belgium, entered a religious order of solemn vows in the English province with the intention of devoting himself to the foreign missions. When his studies were completed, he made solemn profession, and after a year received news of his father’s death in Belgium and of the legitimate portion of his father’s goods falling to him according to Belgian laws. But since regulars in Belgium, notwithstanding even a solemn vow of poverty, remain capable of ownership by a pontifical dispensation, Caius doubted whether he himself could enter upon the inheritance or not. Hence it is asked:

1. What is a vow?

2. What are the effects of the vow of poverty, and which of these are from the nature of the vow and which from ecclesiastical law?

3. How is the solemnity of the vow of poverty compatible with the capacity to have ownership?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. This question is answered in “Manual of Moral Theology,” vol. i, p. 246.

2. What are the effects of the vow of poverty and of these which follow from the nature of the vow, and which follow from positive ecclesiastical law?

By the vow of poverty the Religious makes a voluntary renunciation of temporal goods that have pecuniary value.

It belongs to the essence of such a vow that the Religious should not retain any independent use of such temporal goods, and the unlawfulness of such use independently of the will of the Superior is therefore a necessary effect of the vow of poverty. Ownership of property is not necessarily repugnant to religious poverty, provided that there be no independent use of it. But by ecclesiastical law the solemn vow of poverty makes the Religious incapable of possessing property as his own individually; he becomes civilly dead; individually he can neither own, acquire, or dispose of property that has pecuniary value. As a member of a corporation he remains capable of corporate ownership.

3. How is a solemn vow of poverty compatible with capacity for ownership ?

As has just been said, the incapacity for ownership is not a necessary effect of the vow of poverty by itself; it is a creature of positive ecclesiastical law. The whole distinction between solemn and simple vows, and therefore their different effects, are derived from positive law (C. un. de voto et voti redemp. in 6to). Hence if the Pope so wills it, for good reason a Religious may be under a solemn vow of poverty, and yet by special provision he may be capable of owning property, provided that he has not the independent use of it.

4. The case. Caius was born in Belgium, but entered the English province of a Religious order with solemn vows. After his profession he heard that his father was dead and that the legitimate part of his father's property had devolved on him according to Belgian law. Even solemnly professed regulars in Belgium are capable of succeeding personally to such property by dispensation, as Leo XIII declared, July 31, 1878.¹ Caius doubted whether he could accept his legitim or not. The words of the Pope’s decree are: “All and each of the regulars of Belgium of both sexes, even those who have pronounced solemn vows, validly and lawfully exercised and exercise all the aforesaid acts (to acquire, retain, and administer goods, and to dispose of them).” However, Caius belongs to the English province of his order, and he can not be called a “regular of Belgium.” “Moreover, the regulars of Belgium appear to be all those who are admitted into a community of Belgium,” says Fr. Vermeersch.² Therefore the legitim of Caius lapses just as if he were dead.

1 Lehmkuhl, vol. i, no. 524.

2 De Relig. Instit., vol. i, n. 243.