Case 6. A Religious Legatee

Caius, a religious, was visiting Titius, his old friend, whom he found dying. As Caius was about to leave, Titius called him back and said that in his will he had left him one thousand pounds sterling. Caius had already sought his dismissal from the Order, which he expected would take place within a few weeks; hence he asked Titius to arrange for the legacy to be paid to a certain bank, to be delivered to him whenever he should ask for it. After receiving his dismissal, Caius sought and received the legacy; anxious, however, as to whether this was lawful and valid or not, he consulted a confessor about the question. Hence it is asked:

1. What is the vow of poverty, and what are its effects?

2. How is the gravity of sins against poverty measured?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is the religious vow of poverty and what are its effects?

The essence of religious poverty consists in the voluntary renunciation of personal and independent ownership and use of property for love of Jesus Christ. The effects of the solemn vow differ from those of the simple vow. The effects of the solemn vow are to render the Religious incapable of individual and personal ownership of any property that has money value. The simple vow does not deprive the Religious of the direct, but of the indirect ownership of property; so that he can not lawfully use or dispose of anything that has a money value without the leave of his superior.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 649 f.

2. How is the gravity of sins against poverty measured?

By the same rule that measures the gravity of sins against justice, for as the malice of theft consists in taking what belongs to another against his reasonable wish, so the malice of sins against religious poverty consists in disposing of property without leave of the Superior against one’s promise made to God and against that Superior’s wish.²

3. The case. If Caius was under solemn vows at the time when the legacy was paid in to the bank at his request he has no right to keep the money except with the leave of the Order to which he belonged. For in that case the legacy belongs to his Order: Quidquid monachus acquirit non sibi sed monasterio acquirit. If, however, he was only under simple vows he was capable of receiving the legacy validly, as his personal property, and he may keep the money as his. Whether in accepting the legacy he sinned or not against his vow of poverty depends on whether he had at least the reasonably presumed leave of his superior or not.

‘Ibid., p. 651.