Coming Down to Particular Cases of Certain Things Contrary to the Vow of Poverty

IN the first place I say, and infer from what has been said, that, if the superior here in the house gives a religious money for his journey, he cannot out of that money buy rosaries or pictures or anything else, either for himself or to give to another, nor can he get his Agnus Dei or his reliquary mended, even though he subtracts from his food or saves what he might have otherwise spent. The reason is that the money is given him solely for his expenses on the way; and what he does not spend on that, however little it be, he must return to the superior who sent him or to the other superior of the place where he goes; and if he keeps it or spends it on anything else, he will be defrauding his order and sin against the vow of poverty. This is to be understood when the order gives the religious all that he needs for his journey, as is done in our Society. It would be another case if they gave him a determined and fixed sum, so much for each day, so that, though he needed more, they would not give it him; because then that would be a sign of an express or tacit or interpretative leave, enabling him to spend on other lawful things anything that he may save from what they give him.

Secondly, I say the same, though the journey-money is not given him by his order, but by parent, relation, or penitent. He cannot buy with it a breviary, or a spectacle case, or a pair of spectacles, or anything else, either for himself or to give away. Let no one deceive himself in this matter by saying: “This money was not given me by my order, but by my relation or friend;” for it does not matter whether your order has given it you, or your relation or friend, since in coming into your hands it is made over to your order, and is as though the superior or the procurator of the house had given it you. And so you cannot spend it except on that for which the superior gave it, that is, for your journey; and all that you have over, in whatsoever manner it be so, you must return to the superior; and if you spend it on anything else, or keep it, you sin against the vow of poverty, and are as though you had stolen it from your order. And this I say even in the case where one has received that money for his journey with leave of the superior; for if he had received it without leave, he would already have broken his vow of poverty by doing that.

Thirdly, it is the same when a man comes from a mission or from a visit to his relations, and there they have given him something, some article to ease him on his journey or some further article of clothing. When it comes into his hands, it becomes common property, and on reaching the house he must hand it over to the superior, or to the clothesroom in his name; and if he keeps it without leave, he will make himself a proprietor and commit a sin of theft against the vow of poverty.

Fourthly, though a religious be on his way to another house or college and has already his foot in the stirrup, he cannot ask or receive anything from any extern, not even for his journey-money, without leave of his present superior, though he understands that the other superior of the place to which he is going would be glad of it, as saving him the cost. The reason is because the one is at present his superior, and not the other, and so he would be receiving it without leave of his superior, having that superior present, as he is present, and being able to ask him. It would be another case if the traveler were away from the house and had no other superior of whom to ask leave; for in that case he might well receive what he understood to be according to the will of his superior, with the intention of declaring and giving an account of it as soon as he arrived at the house; for then he would be presuming the consent of his superior, a consent not to be presumed when there is an opportunity of having recourse at once to the superior or when the matter easily admits of delay.

Fifthly, it follows also from what has been said that, if the superior gives any religious leave to receive any money and keep it in the custody of the procurator for any definite purpose, as to get some writings copied, he cannot spend it on anything else without leave of the superior. Nor can he give a sixpence out of this money to any other religious of the house for any need that may occur, either his own, or that of some penitent or relation or friend, either by way of alms, for prizes of rosaries or pictures or anything else whatever, nor can the other receive it without leave; but both the one and the other in such a case would act against the vow of poverty, since it is against that vow to give or receive or dispose of anything temporal without the superior’s leave.

Sixthly, as a religious cannot give or take without leave of the superior, so neither can he lend or receive a loan, for every sort of contract is forbidden him by the vow of poverty; although in little things and things of frequent occurrence he may presume himself to have a tacit or general leave to lend to another religious of the same house things that he has with leave, at least for a short time, more or less, as the use and practice of the order shall declare.

Seventhly, a religious will sin against the vow of poverty if, without the superior’s leave, he receives a deposit from any person outside the house or within; for a deposit is a true contract and carries a liability of its own to the effect that the religious who charges himself with the deposit is bound to render an account of it and pay up if it be lost by any fault of his, legally investigated. There is also the embarrassment and anxiety that another man’s money or other precious article carries with it, and the scandal there would be if money were found in the possession of a religious without leave and without its being known what it is. But in ordinary things which a religious has with leave and can keep in his room, the use and practice of the order declares that he may also give them to the custody of another of the house.

Highthly, as it is against the vow of poverty to receive and keep in one’s possession money or anything else that costs money, without leave of the superior, so also is it to keep money or anything that costs money, in the hands of another without the superior’s leave; for it comes to the same thing to keep money in the hands of a friend or to keep it in one’s own hands. Thus, if a man keeps in the hands of a penitent or friend any article for use for a journey, or any other thing whatsoever, that it may be given him ~vyhen he goes out of his place of residence, it will be as much against the vow of poverty as if he kept it himself.

Ninthly, it is not in accordance with the poverty that we profess in the Society, rather it savors of ownership, to carry with one books or pictures or other like things, and take them with one when one changes residence. That, therefore, is not allowed in the Society; but all the things that one has are ordered to be inscribed and held for the property of the college or house where one resides, and there must stay when the man changes his residence, and he cannot take them with him. And if he takes them with him, it will be like stealing them from the house to which they were already applied, and so against the vow of poverty; and that although the donor had given them to this particular person and not to the order, for it comes to the same thing, as we have said above.

Tenthly, a religious will sin against the vow of poverty if he spends money on unlawful, vain, or superfluous things, even though the superior has given him leave for that, for it is forbidden by the vow of poverty, as the sacred canons declare. Not even the superior himself may spend money on such things, so neither may he give leave for it, but only on things necessary, useful, and becoming. Whence it follows that he who should receive such things as a religious had spent his money on ill, would be obliged to restore them to the order, according to what we said in the last chapter.

Eleventhly, it is contrary to the vow of poverty for a religious to keep anything hidden away, that the superior may not find it and take it from him; for, as the doctors observe, that is one way of seeking to appropriate a thing and keep it against the will of the superior.

Twelfthly, if you are a subordinate official to whom has been committed the distribution or disposal of certain things, you cannot do that at your own good pleasure and will, but must adapt yourself to the good pleasure and will of your superior. And to give more or less or worse than what you know to be the will of the superior will be against the vow of poverty, by using and dispensing things as if you were master and owner of them, instead of depending on another.

Thirteenthly, as he would sin against the vow of poverty who should of set purpose waste, or allow to go to waste, the things of the house that he has under his charge or that have been allowed him for his use, so also he will sin against the vow of poverty who wastes them or lets them go to waste by notable fault and carelessness. A gross fault, they say, is equivalent to malice. And the reason of this is, in the first place, that it is proper to him alone who is master of a thing to be able to consume and squander it at his whim; secondly, because the use of things given or ntrusted to a religious is granted him solely for the benefit and profit of himself and of his order; and if he squanders and consumes or spends those things without profit, he will sin against the vow of poverty. And in these things it ought to be observed that, though the loss inflicted on the order each time is small, yet when it is repeated many times it may amount to grave matter.

There is a noteworthy example of this which Cassian relates, taken from the monks of old. One.day the dispenser or procurator of the monastery went into the kitchen and saw on the floor three peas, which by chance had fallen from the hands of the cook when he was washing them to get them ready for cooking. He went and told the abbot, who called the cook and gave him a public penance for handling with negligence the goods of the monastery. These holy monks, says Cassian, regarded not only themselves, but all the things of the monastery, as things dedicated and consecrated to God, and so handled them with much care and reverence, no matter how small the thing was.