To What and How a Religious Is Bound by the Vow of Poverty

v remains to say to what the vow of poverty binds us in strictness, and when one would sin against it, and when it would be a mortal sin, for it is reasonable for a religious to understand the obligation he is under by being such, and by reason of the vow that he has made. At other times we treat of matters of perfection; here we will treat of what is of obligation, which must always come first and is, as it were, the foundation on which all the rest is built. We will gather together with all possible brevity what the doctors say on this point, as well theologians as jurists, drawn from the canon law and the writings of the saints. The vow of poverty of itself binds a religious to have no dominion nor ownership, nor the use of any temporal thing without the lawful permission of the superior. This is the common opinion of all the doctors and is expressly laid down in the sacred canons. Hence it follows, first, that a religious is bound by his vow of poverty not to hold, or possess, or give, or take, or receive any temporal thing to keep, or use, or dispose of it, without leave of his superior, because all these are the acts of one who is, or may be, proprietor or owner of the thing; and so he who should act thus would act against the vow of poverty. This is the inference and assertion of all the doctors, and is expressed and declared in the sacred canons.

Secondly, it follows that not only would a religious act against his vow of poverty by taking, or retaining, or giving away, or disposing of anything of the house without leave of the superior, but also by receiving anything from outsiders, relations, friends, or penitents, and retaining or disposing of it without leave of the superior. This is also the common opinion of the doctors, and is laid down in the canon law as a thing certain.

These are the principles and foundations of all this matter, and upon them we shall rest all that is to be said, drawing conclusions from these principles in resolution of particular cases that may occur.

Our Father in his Constitutions, dealing with this matter, puts before us and explains it all; and it is drawn out in the Rules that we may have it before our eyes. It is said in the Twenty-sixth Rule: “Let all understand that they cannot lend, or take, or dispose of anything in the house without the superior’s knowledge and consent.” And that no one might think that the only thing against poverty was taking or disposing of anything in the house without leave of the superior, but as for receiving from persons outside, or disposing of what was received from them, without leave, such a proceeding would not be against the vow of poverty, he further enforces this second point in another rule: ‘“‘No one shall take to himself anything of the house, or from the room of another, or receive anything in any way from an extern, whether for himself or for another, without leave of the superior.” In these rules our Father briefly sums up what is that to which our vow of poverty binds us in all rigor.

But we must here observe that none should fall into the mistake of thinking that it is no sin—or at least no mortal sin—to break these rules, on the ground that our Constitutions and Rules do not bind under sin. A man might deceive himself in this way, saying: “I quite see that one acts against the rule by receiving anything from another or giving anything; but as our Rules do not bind under sin, I do not think that it would be a sin, but only the breaking of a rule.” It is true that our Rules and Constitutions do not bind under sin, as our Father declares in the same Constitutions (p. vi. cap. 5), but the vows that we take do clearly bind under sin, and that sin is mortal of its own nature. And so our Father declares, that no one may pretend ignorance or take occasion to err, although the thing is clear in itself. As a religious who should violate chastity would sin mortally against the vow he had taken thereof, and that would be a new sacrilege, so he who should violate the vow of poverty would sin mortally against his vow of poverty. Of that there can be no doubt. It was in your power to have remained where you were in the world with your property, and used it at your discretion, and not to enter religion, nor make any vow of poverty. But now that you have entered and made that vow it is no longer in your power to receive a shilling, or keep it without leave, because you are bound to that by the vow you have made.

This is what the Apostle St. Peter in the Acts said to Ananias and Sapphira, who had made a vow of poverty, as the saints observe, and had sold an inheritance that they had, and then, in bringing the price to the feet of the apostles as the others did, kept and reserved for themselves a part of the price, and said that they had not sold it for more than they presented. St. Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and keep back part of the price of the land? Remaining, did it not remain to thee; and sold, was it not in thy power? Thou hast not lied to man but to God (Acts v. 3). And God’s chastisement fell upon him immediately; he fell down suddenly dead, and the like happened presently to his wife, who had shared in the offense; and great fear fell upon the whole Church, and upon all who heard these things (Acts v.11). So it is reasonable that great fear should fall upon us of doing anything against the vow of poverty, seeing that it is punished so vigorously.

Now, coming back to the point, I say that if there were nothing more than a rule there, the breaking of it would not be a sin; but when the Constitutions or Rules contain and declare the matter of a vow, they express an obligation under sin, not by any force of their own to bind you under sin, but by reason of the obligation of the vow that binds in that way. It is as when rules contain and declare any matter of chastity or natural law; they tell of an obligation under sin, not by virtue of the rule, but by the obligation which chastity or the natural law of itself carries with it. And because these rules tell and declare the substance of the vow of poverty, and what it is to which the vow binds of itself; therefore, he who breaks these rules will sin, not by breaking the rule, but by breaking the vow of poverty which the rule declares. So the having of these rules before our eyes should not serve to give us occasion to think that it is only a rule, but to let us know from the outset that we have here a summary and abridgment of the substance of the vow of poverty, and of what it binds us to in all rigor, drawn from the canon law and all the doctors, as we have said. St. Augustine says, speaking of religious who live in community: “It is certain that they ought to have nothing, possess nothing, give or receive nothing, without the superior’s leave,” which is our rule letter for letter. This, then, it is to be poor; and for one to be able of his own will, without leave from another, to take, or give, or hold, or dispose of anything, is to be a proprietor, and, consequently, against the vow of poverty.

That this, which must be taken as a first principle in this matter, may be better understood, it must be observed that the distinction which doctors, theologians, and jurists draw between use and dominion—hetween being the owner of a thing and having only the use of it—is that the owner of a thing can commonly do what he likes with it. He can give it to whom he likes, lend it, sell it, spend, or dispose of it as he thinks good. But he who is not absolute owner, but has only the use of the thing, cannot dispose of it as he likes; he cannot give it to another, nor sell it, nor alienate: it, but only use it for the purpose for which it was granted him. They illustrate this by an example. When one man invites another to dinner, he only gives him leave to eat there in the dining room of all that is put before him, but he does not make him master of the viands laid on the table. He cannot carry them off to his house, nor send them to another friend, nor sell them, nor make of them what he likes; he has only the use of them to eat on the spot what he wishes; and, therefore, they say that use is distinguished from dominion, even in things that are consumed by use, and that the first use. In this relation doctors say that private religious stand, even as regards those things which they have with leave of their superiors. The only thing allowed them is the use of those things, to avail themselves of them and benefit by them. But it is clear that you cannot give to another the habit and dress that you wear, without leave of the superior, because it is not yours; and if you were to give it without leave, you would act against the vow of poverty, because that would be making yourself absolute master of the thing, since you do with it what you will. And what I say of this is to be understood of all the other things that we have; you cannot give another your breviary, nor your writing case, nor your hat, without leave of the superior, since nothing of that is yours; they have granted you the use of it only for yourself, as in the case of a guest invited to dinner. Let us always remember that example, since it is very proper and illustrates the matter well. And if of the things which a religious has with leave for his own use we say that he cannot do what he likes with them, nor give them to others, it is clear that still less can he give, take, or dispose of other things of the house without leave of the superior, in the way of taking anything from the clothesroom, library, refectory, dispensary, or other place, either to give to another or for his own private use; that would be still more clearly against poverty.