Case 7. Various Questions on Poverty

Caius, a religious, asks his confessor whether a violation of religious poverty or a sin is present in any of the following acts done by him. (a) He received five pounds sterling from a friend to distribute to the poor, which he distributed without any permission of the superior. (b) He asked a friend to pay the expenses of a certain boy’s education. The friend agreed on the condition that Caius should ask him for and pay the required sums as often as necessary; Caius did this also without consulting the superior. (c) A secular priest, who was burdened with more Masses to be celebrated for stipends than he could celebrate, asked Caius to accept twelve to be celebrated without charge; he did this, again without consulting the superior. (d) Although the superior had forbidden his subjects ever to dine outside the house without express permission, Caius dined sumptuously at a friend’s house without the superior’s knowledge. Hence it is asked:

1. To what does the vow of religious poverty oblige?

2. What kind of sin is a violation of poverty?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. To what does the vow of religious poverty oblige?

The vow of poverty obliges the Religious not to exercise any act of ownership with regard to things that have a money value without the leave of the superior.

2. What sort of a sin is a breach of poverty?

Of its kind a breach of poverty is a mortal sin, but it may be venial for lightness of matter. Matter which is grave in theft is also grave in violations of poverty.

3. The cases, (a) Caius, a Religious, received from a friend £5 for his poor, and distributed the money without the Superior’s permission. If he distributed it as his own in his own name he violated poverty; otherwise, if he acted merely as the almoner of his friend. Often Religious are forbidden by rule to keep money, and if the Order to which Caius belonged had such a rule, he broke it by having money in his keeping. (b) In asking a friend to pay for a boy’s education and acting as his intermediary Caius did not violate poverty. There was no act of ownership in the matter. We suppose that Caius did not make himself liable for the money, (c) Caius did not sin against poverty by promising to say twelve Masses gratis for the secular priest. He merely disposed of his Mass, which he may do without violating poverty. (d) Against the express orders of his Superior, Caius took dinner with a friend outside the monastery. He sinned against obedience and also against poverty, according to the common opinion. For without the leave of his superior he disposed of food, a thing which has money value. Lugo excuses him from a violation of poverty on the ground that one who eats a dinner merely passively receives a benefit; but it may be replied that one who eats a good dinner is by no means merely passive.