Case 9. A Wide Interpretation of the Rule

Caius, a religious, went to the city to consult a physician, having received from the superior the expenses of the journey and of a dinner to be eaten in the city. He, however, visited a certain friend in the city, dined most sumptuously at his house, and was furnished with a first-class railway ticket for returning home; he spent the money received from the superior for dinner and the return journey on buying cigars, for, as he told himself, he had received permission for small things. Afterwards, however, when the cigars had been consumed, he began to be tormented by scruples, especially since the friend had spent more than one pound sterling on him. Hence it is asked:

1. What permission of the superior excuses a religious from a violation of poverty?

2. What kind of sin do religious commit who violate poverty?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What sort of leave of the Superior excuses a Religious from a violation of poverty?

Express, virtual, and tacit leave certainly are sufficient to excuse a Religious from committing sin when he disposes of property. Presumed leave is also sufficient if the Superior can not be asked. Whether it is sufficient or not when the Superior can be got at but is not asked on account of the trouble it involves, or for some similar reason, is a disputed point. Probably it is sufficient, because a Religious who acts with the presumption that the Superior would give his consent if he were asked does not act independently of his Superior; he does not exercise an act of private ownership. Venial sin, however, may be committed even then, because the Superior is unwilling that leave should be presumed without necessity, though he would grant it if he were asked.¹

1 Génicot, vol. ii, n. 94.

2. What sort of sin do Religious who violate poverty commit?

This question was answered above, p. 70.

3. The case. Caius dined with his friend without leave of his Superior. If this act was against the will of his Superior so that he had not even presumed leave, he sinned against poverty according to the common opinion, as was said above. In accepting a first-class ticket for his railway journey back, he did not violate poverty any more than he would have done if his friend had driven him back in his carriage. In buying cigars with the money saved, he sinned against poverty, for he used the money as his own without any leave of his superior. It would, however, only be a venial sin, for the matter was not very grave, and the transaction cost the monastery nothing.