The peculium

In some orders it was customary for the religious to have money, books, eatables, for their own use, and such allowance was called the peculium of the religious. Such a practice is against the purity of religious poverty, and it was forbidden by the Council of Trent, as well as by several Roman Pontiffs. Indeed, if it was understood that subjects had the right to use and dispose of the peculium as they pleased, in perfect independence of the will of their superior, it would be against In many orders the the very essence of religious poverty. custom is still sanctioned of having a peculium in more or less dependence on the will of the superior.

It is not against poverty to administer money in the name of another, for such administration is not an act of ownership. A religious may, then, act as the almoner of another, but he must not distribute alms in his own name as if the money were his own. To keep a deposit of money with the obligation in justice of accounting for it is against religious poverty.

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.

Is it lawful for religious to have a peculium, i.e., a temporal good destined for their own uses, but by no means for the common uses of the monastery? - It is certain that such a peculium with independent use of it is illicit; for it is against poverty and against Trent s. 25, c. 2 de Reg. - But it is disputed whether peculia with dependent use were prohibited by Trent s. 25, c. 2 de Reg. From custom and permission of the Apostolic See, the use of a peculium and life allowance still perseveres in several monasteries and is licit. All agree that in those convents in which common life is not observed because of poverty, or because of the negligence of superiors in supplying necessary things to subjects, peculia can be conceded at the nod of the prelates. The reason is that the Tridentine Council then commands common life to religious when "nothing that is necessary is denied" by the convent. - A regular cannot refuse common life if the superiors wish to choose it. The reason is that this would be against the vow of poverty, for it would be to have goods independently of the will of superiors. - Clement VIII, Constitution on the Reform of Regulars; L. 15; E. M.

In the Norms of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, art. 127, 128, it is said: "All things in the Institute are to be called and to be common, as regards furnishings, food, and clothing. Yet it is fitting for each, indeed in common custody but separately, to keep and distribute clothing of strict personal use. The furnishing which the sisters use, with superiors permitting, is to befit poverty, and nothing superfluous is to be in it, nor is anything necessary to be denied to them." As is clear, no distinction is made between superiors and subjects as regards common life. And from the Decrees of Clement VIII for the Reform of Regulars, art. 10, it is explicitly commanded that common life is to be observed also by Superiors.

I. Riches and evangelical poverty are no less opposed than chastity and luxury. Wherefore Christ said: If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor. To sell and to retain — do they not mutually fight in hostile fashion? Do not these two — to sell all things, as all the Fathers interpret, which the Gospel itself has clearly and perspicuously published, and to retain some things — constitute a monstrous chimera? And yet this chimera is familiar. Before young men make profession, they reserve to themselves life-rents, richer or smaller, as the domestic patrimony permits.

II. They reply that they reserve these revenues not for themselves but for the Religion. For the Religion has the absolute dominion of these revenues, but the Religious the pure and mere use, by the licence and faculty of Superiors. But dominion, and not the mere use of fact, fights with the vow of poverty. Rightly and prettily. What fills and saturates our appetitions — dominion or use? Dominion absolutely is sterile, and is uniquely sought on account of use. If you separate dominion from use, it becomes futile and vain. I would most easily concede to you a most perfect dominion, provided the Religion always had the use of the moneys. What would that dominion in such a case profit you? If a husband had the dominion and another the use of his wife, would he keep chastity? The husband with his dominion would be continent and chaste; the other with his sole use would fulfil venery.

III. They insist that the Superior can at his nod revoke this use. Excellently. But he never revokes it, as experience establishes. If Superiors could revoke at their nod the use of a private purse, why do they not revoke it? Why do they not bring in community at nightfall? Why do they not obey the decrees of so many Councils and Supreme Pontiffs? I have already exhibited a perspicuous answer.

Truly the superior cannot grant an IRREVOCABLE use of things, as the Doctors warn at Bassaeus num. 19.

Indeed by ancient law it was granted revocably, for a cause, for determinate necessities; yet so that it be in the hand of the Official of the convent, to whom he may expose his singular necessity, and receive moderately, and let that peculium be incorporated into the goods of the Monastery; Rodrig. tom. 2. cap. 33. Azor. tom. 1. lib. 12. cap. 9. question 1. Sanch. lib. 7. cap. 19. although others stand opposed to him there; for he does not appropriate anything to himself.

NOR does the Council of Trent revoke this sess. 25. cap. 2., but only declares the ancient law, as is clear to one reading, and very many teach with Sanchez lib. 7. cap. 21. num. 11. Diana part. 1. tract. on poverty resol. 32. Although others teach the opposite, as reported at those cited and at Bassaeus num. 10., among them Rodrig. tom. 3. 99. question 27. art. 10. Less. lib. 2. cap. 4. num. 30. Molin. tom. 2. d. 276. Valent. d. 10. question 4. point 3.

Truly I do not see that, with the peculium remaining with the aforementioned cautions, there should flow forth any stain of ownership, the use in fact remaining in the hand of the official for relieving singular necessities. See also Faustus in the treasury l. 8. question 30.

Yet Religious must BEWARE lest they squander a peculium granted chiefly for their indigence on disgraceful acts: for these act against poverty and are liable to restitution: although Diana, citing many yet fearing, grants it loosely part. 3. tract. 2. resol. 65. and part. 2. tract. 15. resol. 54. Nor does Bordonus teach more correctly in the cons. of the rule resol. 53. question 17., that an express license for spending money on illicit uses excuses from ownership and restitution.

It is CERTAIN that both the superior granting and the Religious having are guilty of a mortal sin, from the Council of Trent sess. 25. cap. 2., and the holy Congregation at Quarant. V. Reserved case, and the Clementine at Nauarr. Com. 4. on the Rules num. 27.

But whether he is an owner against Poverty; I judge this man guilty, for I do not see of what other crime he would be guilty, except ownership, since he uses superfluous things against the will of the Pontiff, the supreme Father, as is had in the Council of Trent loc. cit. Thus Maior in 4. d. 38. q. 9. Petr. Nauar. lib. 3. on Restitution cap. 1. d. 1. n. 168. Graff. 2. p. lib. 3. cap. 19. Bassaeus Baffaeus num. 11., where he explains the superfluity of things with D. Bernard in the Apology to William, and in the letter to the brothers of Mount Dei, and sermon 4. Adveniens.

S. Bonaventure defers it most excellently to c. 1. of the Rule in these words: Let them be clothed in poor garments.

The Saintly Doctor condemns superfluity in things, above all pomp in buildings, q. 6. on the Rule, where he says these act gravely against poverty. Moreover, he declares them guilty of scandal and of the sins of others.

IN the Apology of the poor, of the first response c. 2. and 3. he gravely reproves superfluity of food; more closely c. 3. respons. 3. But gravely cap. 2. respons. 5. He refutes what a certain adversary objects from the riches of the ancient Levites, from the august pomp of the temple of Solomon, in order to overturn Evangelical Poverty. And cap. 3. he approves a poverty that lacks abundance. He confirms the same, c. 4. and in the Letters to the Ministers.

These things one would have to transcribe with no Iota changed. But I beg you, run through and drink in the flowing wisdom of the Saintly Doctor. Truly I wonder at Baffaeus not to defer to S. Bonaventure; indeed, not even to name him.

The PRELATE, on the other hand, not ministering necessaries to his subjects, when he can, and offering a particular occasion, sins gravely. From D. Antonin. 3. part. tit. 16. c. 1. §. 11. Silvest. V Relig. 6. q. 7. Sanchez l. 7. c. 11. n. 26. Less. l. 2. c. 41. dub. 5. Val. disp. 10. q. 4 point 2. Baff. n. 13. He sins also by receiving more than can be sustained by revenues, or alms, as you have in the Council of Trent sess. 25. cap. 3. and in the Decree on the celebration of Mass under Urban VIII.

But those things which are necessary for the Religious life must be held in common. See the Saintly Doctor in the opuscula cited, with D. Basil. in the Constitutions of Monks c. 9. Chrysost. homily 58. to the people of Antioch.

Whether a Religious sins by accepting alms for others.