Case 8. A Meddling Lawyer

Caius, a priest of the Society of Jesus, while giving spiritual exercises in a certain convent of nuns who, with the approval of the Holy See, pronounced simple vows, was asked by the superior whether the convent could accept an inheritance coming to a nun from her father who died intestate. For a Catholic lawyer whose advice the convent used denied this, guided, as he said, by a recent example among the Jesuits, whose legal adviser he also was. Caius replied that it was desirable that the lawyer restrict himself to giving advice about the prescriptions of English law and not attempt ecclesiastical law; for since even professed members of the Society of Jesus may accept legacies for the monastery, and an inheritance in the sense of English law corresponds rather to a legacy than to an inheritance of Roman law, nothing prevents professed members of the Society of Jesus in England from also accepting inheritances for the monastery. Hence it is asked:

1. What is religious poverty, and what are its effects from the very nature of the matter?

2. What are the effects of religious poverty from the disposition of ecclesiastical law?

3. What is to be said of the opinions of the lawyer and of Caius?

1. What is religious poverty and what are its natural effects?

The first part of this question is answered above, p. 67.

The effects which follow from the nature of religious poverty may be summed up by saying that one who has taken a vow of poverty can not lawfully accept, dispose of, or use any property without leave of his superior. Acts of ownership are unlawful, not invalid.

2. What are the effects of religious poverty which are due to ecclesiastical law?

The personal incapacity of one who is solemnly professed to own property, and the consequent invalidity of acts of ownership exercised by him, are effects of positive law. Similarly, that one who has a simple vow may retain the direct ownership of property, but that its income must be spent and not allowed to accumulate, is due to positive law. To the same source is due the rule that whatever a Religious acquires he acquires for his monastery, not for himself; and the special rule of some Orders by which the solemnly professed can not acquire anything by inheritance or operation of law even for their monasteries.

3. The case. The rebuke administered to the lawyer by Caius was not undeserved. It by no means follows that because a professed Father of the Society of Jesus can not succeed to property left by an intestate relative, therefore a nun with only simple vows can not do so. In fact such property becomes hers, but she can not dispose of it or administer it without leave of her Superiors. There is some foundation for what Caius says about the difference between an inheritance in Roman and in English law. The heir in Roman law represented the person of the deceased and succeeded to all his rights and obligations. Hence one good reason why a Religious should not succeed as heir. In English law the executor or personal representative is more akin to the Roman heir than is the English heir-at-law. Still in practice Jesuits who have taken their last vows are held incapable of succeeding to property that would devolve upon them by operation of law if they had not taken their last vows. Entailed property and property of intestates come under the rule, but not legacies.