Common Life

I. Notion. Common life, taken in the formal sense, seems to consist in this, that individual religious receive equally, from common goods alone held in common, with the license of the rule or of Superiors, all and only those things which they need here and now.

II. Division. Common life is distinguished as twofold, perfect and imperfect, according as it excludes or permits some peculium, as it is called. With regard to peculium note:

1. A peculium is a good capable of being valued by price which, separated from the things of the monastery, religious are permitted to possess, administer, and keep for their own uses, beyond what their present necessity morally requires.

2. A peculium is twofold, namely of perfect or imperfect right. It is of perfect right if the permission, once given from the beginning for spending goods on one's own uses, can no longer be taken away by the superior. It is of imperfect right if the faculty of disposing can always be circumscribed or taken away by the Superior.

III. Obligation of common life. The obligation of common life does not subsist by divine law, since a sufficient abdication of temporal goods can be had without it, as is clear from the example of the ancient hermits and from the nature of the thing. By present ecclesiastical law there exists an obligation of common life, and indeed of perfect common life (can. 594; cf. can. 2389).

Question 1. Does a defect of common life, at least of perfect common life, or the use of an imperfect peculium, persist from custom and by way of privilege for some religions (cf. can. 5)?

The matter seems doubtful;¹ whatever the case, however, with all agreeing, the mind of the Church is that perfectly common life be introduced where it does not exist. But Superiors who would introduce the use of a peculium, even only an imperfect one, would certainly sin gravely, both because ecclesiastical law excludes it, and because the use of a peculium gives occasion to abuses and is usually very harmful to religious discipline (St. Alphonsus IV, 15; Homo Apostolicus, tract 13, n. 6).

Question 2. Is the obligation of common life included in the vow of poverty itself?

Response. Affirmatively, at least with regard to the exclusion of a perfect peculium, as is clear from the very common doctrine which teaches that acts against common life are against the vow.

Question 3. Is moderate use, or a poor and uniform life, prescribed by the vow of poverty?

Response. With common law considered, it is disputed (cf. can. 594); therefore it is better to have recourse to the particular discipline of individual institutes.

¹ Cf. Vermeersch, Epitome, I, n. 696; Chelodi, De personis, p. 430.

“Common life shall be established in all houses of novitiate.… In other houses a common treasury shall be established…in which all the religious shall deposit money.…” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 22 April 1851; Bizzarri, pp. 852, 853; cited Norms, nos. 127, 128.

I. All theologians and canonists teach that Regulars are bound by force of an ecclesiastical precept gravely obliging to the community of goods, private purses being driven out. But whether this precept enter the very essence of the vow, or range outside it, comes to the same thing as regards that which is the head of the disputation. For whether Regulars violate the vow directly, while they retain a private purse, necessity being taken away, or the precept, they perpetrate a mortal sacrilege. Wherefore even if what I am about to say were false, they would not on that account perceive any emolument thence, since according to all theologians and canonists Regulars are bound by a most grave ecclesiastical precept of observing the common life.

II. And that what I am about to say may be more evidently plain, we must have before our eyes that the vow of poverty taken generally, precise from every circumstance, admits several degrees, mention of which was made in the preceding chapter; and that in this acceptation it betrays neither one before another, nor includes nor rejects community. Another thing is no less manifest, namely that any solemn vow whatsoever claims for itself a certain and predetermined matter. These things being constituted, I evince what I proposed.

III. All Regulars vow poverty to God — not an uncertain poverty, not one squared to the rule of some metaphysical definition which some have fashioned for themselves; but they vow that poverty which is determined in their own rules. This first proposition is inescapable. For poverty admits a latitude and very many degrees, as all confess and as in fact is established; therefore it must be determined by the intention of the one vowing. But this determination cannot be made by individual Regulars; otherwise there would be as many kinds of poverties as there are men vowing, and all things would be confused and disturbed. Wherefore all the sacred Orders have their own rules, in which is defined the poverty which all of the same Order ought to keep. But all the Rules — of Sts. Basil, Augustine, Benedict, Francis, and of all the holy Patriarchs — determine for the matter of the vow of poverty the common life. Therefore Regulars vowing poverty vow the common life. Unless the second proposition be true, I am willing that the cause should fall of its own accord. I could here transcribe the texts of all the Rules, which from a study of brevity I pass over. Let it suffice to indicate in passing that in all the aforesaid rules like things are had: Let all things be common to you, as you read in the Acts of the Apostles.

IV. But although this argumentation were false, not on that account, as I have said, would a private purse be lawful to Regulars, since according to all, both theologians and canonists, they are bound by a most grave ecclesiastical precept to observe the common life void of every private purse. Hence a Religious places all his goods, both present and future, under the dominion of the Religion, on this condition and agreement, that the Religion may dispose of those goods for the common use of the Religious as shall have seemed to it expedient; and the Religion in turn binds itself by the same bond to furnish food and clothing and all necessaries to the Religious. Further, just as in any contract whatsoever, one party failing in fulfilling its own duty, the other also necessarily fails; so likewise if the Religion be lacking to its own office in the congruous provision of food and clothing, forthwith there arises in the professed Religious a right of nature, antecedent to any contract whatsoever, of procuring that food and clothing which the Religion ought to bestow. This is the whole that can be said in favour of Religious and of a private purse. For the rest, the superiors of Religions as much as the Religious are bound by a most grave precept either to reintegrate the contract, if it be broken, or to observe it, if it stand, as I shall say below.

I. Of the decrees of the Councils and of the Pontiffs which prescribe the common life to Regulars, I shall transcribe only those which Trent prescribes, session 25, chapter 1: “Since the holy Synod is not ignorant how much of splendour and of utility arises in the Church of God from Monasteries piously instituted and rightly administered, it has judged it necessary, that the ancient regular discipline may the more easily and maturely be instituted where it has collapsed, and may more constantly persevere where it has been preserved, to command, as by this decree it does command, that all Regulars, both men and women, order and compose their life to the prescript of the Rule which they have professed; and above all that they faithfully observe those things which pertain to the perfection of their profession — as the vows of obedience, poverty, and chastity, and if there be any other vows and precepts peculiar to some Rule and Order, respectively pertaining to their essence, AND ALSO TO THE COMMON LIFE, FOOD, AND CLOTHING to be preserved; and let all care and diligence be employed by superiors, as much in general and provincial Chapters as in their visitations, which at their own times they should not omit to make, that they depart not from these things: since it is established that these things which pertain to the substance of the regular life cannot be relaxed by them. For if those things which are the base and foundations of the whole regular discipline be not exactly observed, the whole edifice must needs fall.”

II. Again the same Council, chapter 2, adds: “Let it therefore be lawful to no Regulars, whether men or women, to possess or to HOLD as their own, or even IN THE NAME OF THE CONVENT, immovable or movable goods of whatsoever quality they be, and in whatsoever manner acquired by them; but let them straightway be delivered to the superior and incorporated into the Convent. Nor let it hereafter be lawful for superiors to grant stable goods to any Regular, even for USUFRUCT, or USE, ADMINISTRATION, or COMMENDAM. But the administration of the goods of Monasteries or Convents shall belong to the officials of the same alone, removable at the nod of superiors. But the use of movables let superiors so permit that their furniture may befit the state of poverty which they have professed; and let there be nothing superfluous in it, nor let anything which is necessary be denied them. But if anyone be found or convicted of holding anything otherwise, let him be deprived for a biennium of active and passive voice, and let him also be punished according to the constitutions of his rule and order.”

III. Clement VIII confirmed the decrees of Trent by a constitution given in the year 1599, in which these things are prescribed: “I. That the decrees of the Tridentine Council concerning the guarding of the vow of poverty may be more faithfully observed, it is commanded that no one of the brethren, even if he be a superior, can possess immovable or movable goods, or money, proceeds, rents, ALMS, whether from sermons, or from lectures, or for MASSES to be celebrated both in his own Church and anywhere, or acquired by any other just labour of theirs, and by whatsoever cause and name, even if they be the subsidies of blood-relations, or the largesses of pious persons, legacies, or donations, as his own, or even in the name of the Convent; but let them straightway be delivered to the superior and be incorporated, and be confounded with the other goods, revenues, moneys, and proceeds of that place, that thence common food and clothing may be supplied to all. II. Nor let it be lawful IN ANY WAY to superiors, whosoever they be, to grant to the same Brethren or to any of them stable goods, even for USUFRUCT, or USE, ADMINISTRATION, or COMMENDAM, even under the name of DEPOSIT or CUSTODY. III. But of those things which shall have been granted for necessity, let no one possess anything as his own, nor use it as his own. IV. He who shall have offended in any of the aforesaid, let him incur not only the penalties prescribed by the Tridentine Council, but others also much graver to be imposed at the arbitration of superiors. V. NO DISPENSATION of any superiors whatsoever, NO LICENCE as regards immovable or movable goods, can excuse them from being obnoxious to the faults and penalties imposed by the decrees of the same Council and to be incurred by that very deed, EVEN IF SUPERIORS SHOULD ASSERT THAT THEY CAN GRANT DISPENSATIONS OR LICENCES OF THIS KIND: to whom in that matter we will that credence be by no means given. VI. Let the clothing of the brethren and the furniture of the cells be procured from the common money, and let it be altogether uniform for the brethren and for superiors whosoever they be, and befit the state of poverty which they have professed. Nor let anything which is necessary to anyone be denied. VII. Let all the garments of the brethren, whether woollen or linen, and all other furniture, be carried to some convenient place of the Convent, and there be diligently guarded by one or two brethren deputed to this office, that thence, at the superior's arbitration, they may be opportunely supplied according as each shall have need. VIII. Let all superiors also, whosoever they be, feed on the same bread, the same wine, and the same relish, or (as they say) portion, at the common table, first or second, unless they be hindered by cause of infirmity; nor let anything singular be able in any way to be offered, which anyone may use privately for food. If anyone shall have sinned in that matter, let him receive no nourishment that day save bread and water. IX. Let all superiors, even Generals, or those who have particular revenues or provisions by reason of their offices, take care that their receipts and expenses be faithfully and diligently noted in a distinct book; nor let them expend anything for other uses than those necessary by reason of their office. But when it shall happen that they tarry in some Convent, let them confer into the common stock that quantity of money out of which food may be supplied to themselves and to those who shall be with them according to the prescript of the rule and constitutions. X. Let no one of the superiors of places be able by himself to have or exercise the administration of goods or of other things, and the dispensation of moneys and of the revenues of his Convent; but let this whole burden be so committed by the General to three brethren of the same Convent, that one may have the care of collecting and exacting things, goods, and revenues; another, as depositary, may faithfully and exactly keep the moneys and the rest collected and exacted by the former; another may provide from the moneys and things received from the depositary for the Prior and the Brethren and the whole Convent in necessaries, the Prior nevertheless commanding, not according to his own affection but according to the rule of charity, as a good dispenser — the confusion of offices of this kind being utterly interdicted. XI. But let these three render an account of expenditure as well as of receipt every month to the local Superior, two or three Brethren of the same Convent, of the more approved and skilled in the use of things, being also employed. Then let them again render it in the presence of the Prior and the aforesaid skilled men to the General when he shall have come. Lastly let the General himself in any next general Chapter, at least before three Judges to be constituted by the Chapter itself for this, be bound to render an account of all these things, and of his whole administration both public and private, of which also an authentic copy shall be written out from the acts of the Chapter, to this end that it may be transmitted at every mandate of ours or of the Apostolic See. XII. In each Convent let that number of Brethren henceforth be constituted and retained which either from its own proper revenues, or from common ones, or even from the alms of individuals and any other receipts whatsoever to be conferred into the common stock as aforesaid, can conveniently be sustained. But let the revenues and all the aforesaid be diligently kept in a common and safe place. XIII. But to superiors we interdict and forbid that they can declare, interpret, or relax in any way at all the decrees of the Tridentine Council or these ours, decreeing, and so forth. But if anyone shall have presumed to attempt the contrary, let him by that very deed be deprived of every grade and office, and remain perpetually unfit for them.”

IV. Urban VIII confirmed the aforesaid constitution of Clement VIII, as is had in the Roman Bullary, Vol. IV, page 63. And Paul V, Gregory XV, Alexander VII, and Innocent X confirmed the constitutions of Clement and Urban. The testimonies of these Pontiffs I pass over, that I be not long.

V. Lastly Innocent XII confirmed the decrees of Trent and the constitutions of the preceding Pontiffs, and strengthened them against false and erroneous comments, and rooted out every root of tergiversating and cavilling. These decrees are had in the Bullary of the same Pontiff, page 167 and following. The beginning of the decrees is this: His Holiness, and so forth. That regular discipline may be kept whole and entire and may flourish for the salvation of Religious and for the edification and utility of the whole Christian people, and that if anywhere it has collapsed it may, the Lord helping, be repaired; he constituted and declared that the licence of receiving Novices in individual approved Orders was benignly granted, provided nevertheless that those things which have been salutarily constituted for the right instituting of the regular life, both by the most holy Tridentine Synod and by the Roman Pontiffs our Predecessors, chiefly by CLEMENT VIII of happy memory in his general decrees for the reformation of Regulars, and also by INNOCENT X and ALEXANDER VII for the reception of Novices and the education of the Professed — to all which His Holiness firmly adheres, and so far as need be confirms and renews them, saving nevertheless in this part the statutes or ordinations of individual Orders approved or published by the Apostolic See in FORM SPECIFIC after the same decrees — be exactly and inviolably observed.

VI. That clause (saving nevertheless in this part, and so forth) was omitted in the Apostolico-Monastic Discipline as not necessary, both because it does not regard the exact community, and because the discourse is of an approbation in specific form, by which approbation it is established that no constitutions of Regulars permitting a private purse were confirmed after Clement VIII. This will now be more clearly plain. The things therefore which follow settle the cause.

VII. Wherefore the sacred Congregation specially deputed by the same most holy Lord of ours upon regular discipline … by mandate of His Holiness announces by the tenor of the present decree to the Superiors of all and singular the regular Orders … both Generals and Provincials, by whatsoever name they be named, and to the rest whom it concerns, that in each Province throughout Italy and the adjacent Islands they depute as soon as possible some Convents, such as they shall have judged more fit, or at least one, and there establish by apostolic authority the entire observance of the Rule and Constitutions of each Order, and of the apostolic decrees, but chiefly of the EXACT COMMON LIFE. But after it shall have sufficiently appeared to the same Congregation that the regular observance, signally as regards the exact common life, has been WITH EFFECT established, both from the report of the same Superiors General or Provincial, and from the testimony confirmed by oath of the Superior and of the brethren dwelling in the aforesaid Convents, then His Holiness will benignly grant the aforesaid licence, which he has hitherto deferred, of receiving Novices there. …

Further, lest regular discipline, while it is established in Convents already erected, be relaxed in those to be erected, and what is constituted on the one part be at the same time destroyed on the other, the sacred Congregation, His Holiness likewise approving, willed and decreed that no Monasteries, Colleges, Houses, Convents, or other places of Religious ought henceforth to be founded, erected, or in any way instituted, save under the EXPRESS OBLIGATION of the exact COMMON LIFE to be perpetually and inviolably observed by all the Religious dwelling there; and moreover that no foundations of this kind are henceforth to be admitted, unless, besides the other things required for it, it be first lawfully established that there are annual revenues, or a certain hope of alms, by which at least twelve Religious can conveniently be sustained in the EXACT COMMON LIFE.

VIII. Let him now weigh the things which follow, who writing against me says that I of set purpose passed over the above-indicated clause saving nevertheless, and so forth — let him weigh, I say, what follows in the Innocentian decree.

IX. Notwithstanding as regards ALL and SINGULAR the aforesaid, apostolic constitutions and ordinations, and also the STATUTES, customs, and privileges of any Orders whatsoever, and all other things whatsoever to the contrary. At the last the same sacred Congregation seriously admonishes and beseeches all Regulars, of whatsoever Order and Institute they be, in the words of HIS HOLINESS, that, all delay being postponed, as befits sons of obedience, they institute and compose their life to the prescript of the Rule which they have embraced, and sincerely and faithfully obey the apostolic decrees published FOR THEIR ETERNAL SALVATION. Nor let them suffer themselves to be led away from this obedience by empty interpretations or fallacies, OR UNDER PRETEXT OF RELAXATIONS, TO EXCUSING EXCUSES IN SINS. But, mindful of their profession, by which they made themselves wholly over to God's service, let them briskly pursue the way of Christian perfection which they have undertaken — arduous indeed, but sprinkled with the sweetness of divine charity — the cares of earthly things being cast away.

X. Lastly, lest under pretext of the silence or toleration of the Apostolic See anyone should be able to follow a corruption contrary to honesty, the same Supreme Pontiff Innocent XII published the following decree, inserted in the cited Bullary, page 309, whose beginning is Debitum pastoralis officii, in which among other things these things are had:

XI. As we have not without grave trouble of soul learned, although the observance of decrees of this kind has been prosperously and happily introduced in very many Monasteries or Convents of religious men, and thence a richer harvest of holy works daily arises there, the Lord blessing it; yet the same seed does not elsewhere bear the same fruits: for neither has the enemy of the human race ceased, nor does he yet cease, to oversow in the field of the Lord cockle which chokes the mind of the Father of the family: hence it is that we, mindful of that prophetic admonition, Cry, cease not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet — that our constant and unshaken will of pursuing a work of this kind with peculiar study and the highest contention of soul may more and more become known, and that to ALL TRANSGRESSORS every occasion of excusing themselves UNDER THE VAIN AND FALSE PRETEXT OF OUR SILENCE may utterly be cut off — of our own motion approve in perpetuity by the tenor of the present the aforesaid Congregation of Cardinals and Prelates upon regular discipline, and so forth. … But let the faculties of the same Congregation thus confirmed by us be these … of designating and deputing Convents, Monasteries, Colleges, and Houses for Noviceships and Professorships, and so forth. … Of promoting the decrees both of CLEMENT VIII of happy memory, our Predecessor … chiefly upon the reformation of Regulars, and above all the observance of the EXACT COMMON LIFE; and to this effect alone of diligently examining new foundations of any Convents, Monasteries, Colleges, and Houses of this kind, lest henceforth it happen that places of religious men be founded, erected, or in any way instituted, save in those in which the same COMMON LIFE according to the prescript of the last of the said decrees can be perpetually and exactly observed, and so forth. Notwithstanding, and so forth, the statutes and customs of any Orders, Congregations, Societies, and Institutes whatsoever, and any others whatsoever strengthened even by oath, APOSTOLIC CONFIRMATION, or any other firmness whatsoever, and also privileges, indults, and apostolic letters granted, confirmed, and renewed to the same Orders, Congregations, Societies, and Institutes, and to their superiors and persons, and to others whatsoever, under whatsoever tenors and forms of words, and with any derogatory clauses whatsoever, even derogatory of derogatories, and other more efficacious, most efficacious, and unusual annulling clauses, and with other decrees in general or even in special, or in any other way whatsoever to the contrary, and so forth.

XII. Lastly Innocent XII instituted a peculiar Congregation which should receive the oath of the exact community to be observed, to be furnished by Regulars, before it impart the faculty of admitting to Religion. I reckon it worth the labour to subjoin the form of that oath. It is of the following tenor:

We the undersigned make faith, and testify IN THE WORD OF TRUTH, that in this Convent of N. a perfect community of goods has been established, and that all the goods of the particular Brethren, both as regards ALL MONEYS, and as regards clothes and other things, whether they be life-rents, or alms, whether proceeding from sermons or from whatsoever source, ARE ALL CONFOUNDED with the goods and revenues of the Convent, and incorporated with them, according to the decrees of Clement VIII of holy memory and of Innocent XII and of the sacred Congregation of Discipline, so that out of all these provision is equally made both in time of health and in time of infirmity. And a common Wardrobe has been established, in which are laid up the garments of all the Brethren, and all things which are for common use: out of which Wardrobe provision is equally made for all according to the need of each Brother. In this Convent also, besides the perfect community of the aforesaid goods, regular observance flourishes according to the rigour of our constitutions. And the Novices in this Convent are religiously nourished and educated in all the exercises pertaining to the state of our Religion, and are proved both by day and by night. Wherefore the undersigned humbly supplicate, affirming all the aforesaid WITH AN OATH, the sacred Congregation of regular Discipline for licence of receiving youths to the habit. Done on the day, and so forth, in the year, and so forth.

XIII. This is the oath which the Superiors of Regulars exhibit to the sacred Congregation upon regular Discipline every second or third year, that they may obtain from the same sacred Congregation the faculty of receiving youths to the habit of Religion. Let us form a hypothesis in which the Roman See could and would prescribe a common life void of every private purse. In this hypothesis could it have employed clearer words, more luculent and more urgent clauses, than those which it employed in the recounted decrees? Whither therefore will those who opine the opposite betake themselves? Can they themselves find either more luculent expressions or more efficacious formulas of prescribing the observance of an exact community? Will they deny to the Roman Church the power of prescribing a perfect community of things? No chink lies open here for escape.

I. The violation of poverty is the rock upon which cloistered men most easily strike. Hence Religions both ancient and later have suffered more or less relaxation. Nevertheless the Institutors of the sacred Orders not only did not mitigate this poverty circumscribed by an exact common life, but fortified it with stronger safeguards. The mendicant Orders, seeing monastic discipline collapsed on account of redundant riches, rejected riches and revenues even to be possessed in common, and determined to live by begging. To these succeeded the Clerks Regular, who, beholding the collapsed discipline of the Mendicants, that they themselves might not be obnoxious to this vicissitude, prescribed a poverty so severe that some determined not even to receive offerings for the celebration of Masses, others not even to seek alms. Why this? The counsel of poverty is free. To possess riches absolutely brings no evil. The Patriarchs of the sacred Orders learned by the experiment of so many ages that the observance of that common life is most difficult and most easily violated by those vowing it. It would have been of their charity to temper this poverty, to permit private purses and life-rents, that by this way they might remove from their subjects the occasions of sinning. For when a law concerning a free and innocuous thing is with difficulty observed by subjects, it is the part of a wise legislator either to take the same away, or to temper it and accommodate it to common use.

II. On the contrary, all the Patriarchs to a man not only did not relax the law of poverty, but strengthened it more severely and fortified it with new safeguards. Why did none of the holy Patriarchs grant private purses and revenues to individual Religious? Why did all without exception most severely forbid them? Let them object to me even one Patriarch who granted private purses and revenues, and I am willing to submit the fasces to them and to sing their victory.

III. What therefore is the cause why all the holy Patriarchs conspired to this, that by unanimous consent they should restrict, straiten, and by every conceivable mode confirm this vow of poverty? Because, the poverty of the common life being taken away, the vow of exact obedience and the observance of regular discipline must needs fall. Since indeed the profession of the regular life, as regards poverty, is a mutual contract, as I have indicated, by force of which subjects with a solemn rite cede all their goods, both present and future, to the Religion; the Religion in turn binds itself by the same sacred bond of feeding and clothing its subjects, both healthy and infirm. If the Prelates of Religions do not discharge their pledged faith, by ministering all necessaries to their subjects, it necessarily follows that subjects are loosed from the bond of obedience, as regards the procuring of those things which are necessary for food and clothing. Therefore, community being taken away, the vow of obedience, and consequently the regular discipline itself, falls in ruins.

IV. The industries, labours, and means which subjects employ that they may acquire a private purse most often are not congruous to Religion. If Prelates attempt to hinder them, subjects oppose the right of nature of providing for themselves in food and clothing not bestowed by the Prelates. Since indeed in cloisters from which a perfect community is exiled, some sum is delivered for clothing, in one place greater, in another less, which does not suffice for the whole. The furniture of cells is not given at least entire. For journeys, for letters, either little or nothing. For the curing of infirmity certain things are held out, as in a hospital; and those who have not whence to succour themselves languish most wretchedly. But those who abound — far be it that they bestow anything upon infirm brethren. Hence some depart in the highest penury; others dying leave very much money. By what helps did they procure vast private purses?

V. Suppose Prelates forbid unfit subjects to hold sermons, because they are not endowed with that probity of morals which is required that outside the cloisters they may be an example to Christians; that they hear not the confessions of Nuns; that they mingle not themselves in earthly businesses; that they seek not patronages; that they wander not through the cities. Straightway subjects cry out: we lose these gains; who will give us clothes; who will pay the expenses of letters, of journeys, of infirmities? Who will hold out chocolate, who tobacco, who so many other things either necessary or congruous? Life-rents are either scanty or none, and so forth; by the common patrimony provision is not made for us: therefore by the right of nature, which precedes every vow, we can justly procure these things for ourselves. What thence? Men rude in letters, destitute of integrity of morals or of prudence go forth from the cloisters; the unskilled preach, the unlearned hear confessions, the inept transact businesses. Those hunt favours and patronages; these canvass for prefectures and offices. If Prelates wish to interdict them, subjects oppose, as I have said, the right of nature.

VI. The evils, scandals, relaxation of discipline, and other absurdities which proceed thence I am unwilling to express in my own words. Dionysius the Carthusian, On the Reformation of the Cloister, chapter 16, writes these things: From a private purse, as from a poisonous root, many sins proceed — as for instance contumacy, pride, contention, partiality, avarice, vainglory, envy, lying, luxury. Since those abounding in a private purse become bold for resisting even superiors, nor do they patiently receive discipline and correction; and they effect partialities, and sometimes are free for revellings and drunkennesses, from which they slip into the vices of the flesh, and most wickedly break their vow of preserving chastity. What if we used this liberty of writing? Like and graver absurdities flowing from a private purse Trithemius and Nider, St. Antoninus, Cajetan, and the theologians commonly describe. Behold the weight of the reasons why the holy Patriarchs even of the last age declared war upon a private purse. Other austerities, as fasts, rough clothing, and several other exercises of penance, they either diminished or took away. But the community of goods, although they acknowledged it to have been a stone of stumbling against which very many struck, they not only did not diminish, but, as I have said, prescribed it more severely: because, this exact community of goods being taken away, the whole monastic discipline must needs fall in ruins.

I. QUESTION I. Are the Prelates of Regulars in a continual state of mortal sin who do not with sincere mind and with all their strength endeavour to restore the common life where it has collapsed? ANSWER. All the Fathers affirm it, and all the monastic Rules, and all the Councils, and at last from the pontifical constitutions adduced by me it is most luculent. If I should confirm it by reasonings however valid and unconquered, I should not decline the censure of rigorism and of exaggeration. Wherefore I shall adduce into the midst what not only holy men but other theologians of no such great estimation teach.

II. St. Antoninus, part 3, title 16, chapter 1: I sufficiently believe that those who betake themselves to Monasteries where the common life is not lived, if they be Prelates and do not do what is possible to them without notable scandal, that the common life may be lived, are not in a safe state.

III. John Excuria, On Reformation, part 3, article 2: All Prelates, both major and minor — each namely respectively according to his dignity, office, commission, or faculty — are bound by a debt of justice to reform their deformed religious subjects to the observance of the regular life. For from their hands the blood of their subjects is required.

IV. Sylvester, under the word Religious 6, § 7: If a Prelate does not do what he can without great scandal, that the common life be lived, he is not in a safe state.

V. Ludovicus Lopez de Texeda, Book 2, tract 2, controversy 7, doubt 2, no. 24: I add that Prelates of Religions are bound by the merits of their office to employ due diligence that their religious subjects pass their life in common; and therefore they are held to be exceedingly solicitous concerning those things which are necessary for food and clothing. Wherefore if they do not bestow them, when they conveniently can, they sin mortally, and are unworthy of the office of Prelates, and ought to be deposed: because they afford a handle to Religious to seek private purses and to infringe the laudable vow of poverty.

VI. Thomas Sánchez, On the Decalogue, Book 7, chapter 19, no. 27: It is deduced thirdly that a Prelate is not in a good state who, so far as he can without grave scandal, does not strive that Religious live in common, and that superfluous uses be avoided.

VII. Valentia, 2-2, disputation 3, question 4, no. 2: It follows fourthly that both Prelates and subjects are in a bad state who do not lead the common life, when from the common revenues they can sufficiently live.

VIII. Francis Pellizarius, Tract on Nuns, chapter 4, section 1, question 4: It is gathered from Sánchez, asserting with St. Antoninus and Sylvester, that just as a Prelate of Regulars is not in a good state if, so far as he can without grave scandal, he does not strive that Religious live in common and avoid superfluous uses; so also that subjects resisting are not in a good state, when they cannot sufficiently live, but when they wish to abound and to dispose more freely. For this is adverse to the vow of poverty.

IX. John Baptist Lezana, Regular Questions, chapter 18, no. 14: Prelates who, so far as they can, do not take care that their subjects live the common life without a private purse or property, and avoid superfluous uses, are not in a good state. The reason is, because the vow of poverty requires this, and the Councils and Supreme Pontiffs prescribe it.

X. Gabriel of St. Vincent, On the Religious State, disputation 3, question 10, no. 132: A Superior sins gravely by not providing his subjects with necessaries, both because he affords an occasion of the relaxation of Religion by giving occasion of introducing a private purse, and because he deprives subjects of the right which they have to the goods of the Monastery.

XI. Thomas of Jesus, Mirror of Religious, part 4, chapter 2: I conclude that a Prelate sins mortally who does not take care that the manner of the common life be observed in Monasteries. Let the same judgment be of him who does not, so far as in him lies, endeavour to reduce the common life, already relaxed, to its pristine observance. Nay even those subjects themselves who contradict Prelates willing to restore the common life are to be punished with the same fault. First, because they contravene by that very deed the decrees of Councils and of Pontiffs, by which the observance of this life is strictly prescribed. Secondly, because where the common life is not observed, the souls of monks are exposed to various dangers concerning the transgression of the vow of poverty. Thirdly, because Prelates neglecting to reform the observance of the common life contravene legal justice, since by office they are bound to consult the common good. Moreover they abuse the dispensation committed to them, and sin against fidelity, and often against distributive justice.

XII. Servatius Lairvelz, a most grave and at the same time most pious author, in his Optics of Regulars, mirror 12: It is certain to me that those Prelates are in continual mortal sin who, so far as they can, do not reform their own Monasteries, and who do not, so far as they can, reduce their own Religious to the common life.

XIII. QUESTION II. Are regular subjects resisting the introduction of the common life, private purses being driven out, in the state of mortal sin? ANSWER. From the things which have been said the resolution of the proposed question is evidently plain. Nevertheless for the greater confirmation I shall subjoin what the cited and other authors teach.

XIV. St. Antoninus, part 3, title 16, chapter 1: If subjects are, and resist this good when it is attempted — not because they cannot live sufficiently, but because they wish to abound and to do with their own after their own mode — they seem to be in a bad state, since they live in a secular manner and wish to persevere in a bad state.

XV. Cardinal de Turrecremata on the Rule of St. Benedict, tract 94: Most gravely do they sin who rashly resist the reformation of abuses of this kind in Monasteries, and defend themselves and others lest they be purged of a stain of this kind.

XVI. Sylvester, under the word Religious 6, § 7: But subjects resisting the said community, not because they cannot live sufficiently but because they wish to abound, seem to be in a bad state.

¶ I ASSERT that it is lawful to use a rough habit, nay, that it befits them. Thus St. Bonau. in cap. 2. Reg. et p. p. speculi discipl. ad novitios, cap. 25. This indeed contributes to poverty, humility, penance, and contempt of worldly things. Vuald. pursues these at length, lib. 3. doctr. fidei, cap. 27. Each orders obtains its own peculiar habit from the ancient custom and tradition of the Church, as is evident from St. Dionys. cap. 6. Eccl. Hier. from the Councils, Gangr. at the end, Aurel. V. cap. 19. Carth. IV. cap. 11. et 104. Tolet. VI. cap. 6. Tol. X. cap. 4. 5. 6. The Sixth General Synod, cap. 42. and excommunication is imposed upon one who rashly lays aside the habit, cap. es periculosa, tit. Ne Clerici, vel Monach. lib. 6. See Caiet. V. Excom. cap. 61. Valencia, d. 10. quaest. 5. puncto 4.

¶ I ASSERT that meanness of habit befits Religious.

¶ It is proved by St. Bonaventure first: The habit indicates the state of the person, Eccli. 19. The apparel of a man declares him, but the Religious ought to be discerned from delicate seculars. Surely they who are clothed in soft garments are in the houses of kings, Matth. 11.

LEARN THE COMPOSITION of the habit in the Seraphic Doctor.

FURTHERMORE he ENJOINS, that they not be stripped of the habit without necessity, even for a short time.

IT IS FORBIDDEN under excommunication incurred ipso facto, to lay aside the habit rashly, cap. Ut periculosa, cit.

NOTE that it is incurred through rashness, if it is laid aside without cause, and another is assumed unto apostasy, or he could be said to have laid it aside. See Politius in cap. 2. Reg. where he adds that excom. is not incurred by him who would strip himself in order to commit fornication, unless he put on another garment, that he might go unknown. Thus also Nauar. Man. cap. 27. num. 131. Sylvest. V. Excom. 9. num. 24. yet he would sin lethally. The habit ought to be worn openly abroad, from Trident. sess. 25. cap. 1. t. Rodrig. tom. 1. qq. quaest. 30. art. 2. It ought also to be worn at night, cap. Sanctimon. d. 23. See also Sanctem. ad cap. 2. Regulae.

St. BONAVENTURA published another little work on sandals, in which he shows that these were worn from the times of the infant Church even by the very Apostles. Read him through.

ELOQUENTLY the Seraphic Doctor expounds the abstinences and austerities of Religious c. 2. et 3. Responsionis secundae in Apologia Pauperum. The sectaries assail them with calumnies and taunts.

I ASSERT that austerity befits Religious.

It is proved from the Seraphic Doctor first, from Luke 1. where Ioannes is foretold great on that account: For he shall be great; he shall not drink wine, or strong drink. And he ate locusts, clothed in haircloth.

THEN from 1. Cor. 9. where Paul: I chastise my body, etc. Every one who contends in the arena abstains from all things.

THIRDLY from the austerities of the ancient Saints. See the excellent things there.