An Answer to an Objection Which Throws Much Light on This Matter

BUT someone will say: “There is an appearance of rigorism and excessive severity in this doctrine, since other religious also have their vow of poverty, and yet we see that they do not hesitate to receive from relation, penitent, or friend, money for a breviary and for a writing case, and even for a habit, and they are learned and God-fearing men. They are also wont to give to a friend in the house, or even outside, a book of those that they have, and even other things of greater value, without asking leave for it, and they have no scruple or suspicion that what they do may be against the vow of poverty. It follows that here in our own practice we should not sin against the vow of poverty either by doing the like, but at most against the perfection of it, and against the obedience due to the superior and to our constitution and rules.” This is a very good objection, and therefore we have inserted it here, that by the solution all that has been said and has to be said may be made clear.

I say, then, that it is quite true that in some orders the religious do all these things without scruple, and without sin against the vow of poverty; but it cannot be inferred from thence that we should not sin either in doing the like. Rather, I say, that if we did those things, we should not only act against obedience and against our rules, but also we should sin against the vow of poverty. And the reason of the difference is that in other orders these things are now done with leave of superiors. There is either express leave for it or, at least, a tacit and interpretative, or virtual, leave, which is, as doctors say, when a usage is now commonly established in an order and superiors know and see it, and, having it in their power to gainsay and stop it, they do not gainsay and stop it, but connive at it and let it goon. He who is silent when he might speak and stop what is being done, is reckoned to consent. Silence, they say, gives consent. The religious, then, who has express or tacit leave from his superiors to give or receive or dispose of anything, does not sin against the vow of poverty by acting accordingly. And, therefore, in doing these things many religious do not sin; but the Society is beginning now, and desires to continue, in the strict keeping up of this wall of poverty, so far as by divine grace shall be possible. There is in it no leave for doing these things, neither express nor tacit nor interpretative leave. Rather there is an express usage and practice quite to the contrary, and therefore anyone who should do these things in the Society would sin against the vow of poverty. And other religious also would sin hereby against the vow of poverty if they had not leave for what they do. Nuns also are religious and have made a vow of poverty, and nevertheless they have their pensions out of which they clothe themselves and buy and do other things, and we set it down as lawful because they do it with leave of their superiors. It is clear that if any of Ours were to do that without lawful permission, he would sin against the vow of poverty. Hence it is not a good argument that the thing is done in other orders, though there are in them learned and holy men, as though that gave any ground for thinking that the same is lawful in our order; for in those orders there is leave, either express or tacit, to do so, and in ours there is not, but a usage and practice to the contrary. And thus these maxims that we have laid down are not scruples or pieces of rigorism, but truths well founded in all strictness in the common teaching of doctors.

St. Bonaventure and Gerson, spiritual and holy men and grave theologians, set down in so many words many of these particular cases that we have mentioned. They reduce all this business of a religious giving or receiving to the question whether he has or has not express or tacit leave from his superior to that effect. If he has it not, they say that he can neither give nor take nor receive anything, and would sin against his vow of poverty in doing so, because thereby he would cease to be a poor man and constitute himself an owner and proprietor by giving, taking, and disposing of a thing as he likes. Gerson puts the case of the procurator or steward of a monastery, who has money to buy things necessary for the community, and he asks whether he would sin against the vow of poverty by buying for himself or another a knife, a spectacle case, or a pair of spectacles, and he even comes down to minute things, as a needle, a quill pen, or a little thread. His answer is that there will be no sin if he does it with leave of his superior, particular or general, express or tacit; but if he does it otherwise, he sins against his vow of poverty; and he says the same of giving anything to an outsider or receiving anything from him. Thus all doctors agree that a religious is bound by his vow of poverty not to have or give or take or dispose of anything without leave of his superior. And if in any orders it is taken to be lawful for a religious to have small articles or dainties in his cell, and to be able to receive such from friends or relations, or give away and dispose of other such things, it is because in that order there is express or tacit permission thereto; otherwise it would not be lawful, but against the vow of poverty.

Hence follows a thing worth noting, that to be able to give an answer to a religious as to whether he sins and acts against his vow of poverty in this or that particular, it is necessary to know the practice of his order on that point. Otherwise it is impossible to give a sound opinion to the said religious; for many things may be lawful in one order, on account of there being a tacit and interpretative permission thereto, which would not be lawful in another order where there is no such permission.

Hence it follows that, though certain authors say that a religious would not sin against the vow of poverty by receiving money from another to buy books, or the like things, provided that he does not hide his purchases but keeps them open and plain to view, and is prepared in mind to exhibit and give them up if his superior so commands, yet a religious of our Society doing that would sin against his vow of poverty. The authors referred to speak in that way because they judge that there is there a tacit and interpretative permission, and that superiors give themselves out as satisfied with that sort of subjection and resignation. But in the Society there is no manner of tacit and interpretative permission to that effect, but a clearly declared rule to the contrary. The soutane, mantle, and breviary which we use with leave of the superior, we are obliged to hold in this way, with this subjection and dependence on the superior and with this preparedness of mind to give them up if he commands us; otherwise we should sin against the vow of poverty by being proprietors and keeping the article as our own. For receiving anything to buy a soutane or books or anything of the sort, though afterwards we exhibit the purchase plain to view in our room, and with the readiness aforesaid, there is no manner of permission in the Society, but a tradition and practice quite to the contrary, and so it would be against the vow of poverty. It is a dead certainty that, if the receiving and keeping of things in this manner, without any further permission, were taken to be lawful in the Society, we should all cry out against it in the congregations, and take care to have this side door shut, whereby our poverty might be ruined.

Doctors also make another observation on this matter of tacit and interpretative leave. They say that to enable a religious to give or ask or receive and keep anything, it is not enough that he knows for certain that, if he were to ask leave for it, the superior would grant it at once; as it is not enough to authorize you to go out of the house without leave, or write a letter, that you know for certain that if you did ask leave it would be given you. What is required is that you should know that the superior will be glad, and take it to be all right, for you to give or receive and keep the thing without his leave, and that he will not at all mind your not asking him. That is what is meant by a tacit and interpretative and virtual leave, enabling you to give or receive without asking further leave in particular; and that is what they have in some orders for many things of which we have spoken. But far from there being this acquiescence on the part of superiors in the Society, there is nothing that they desire more than that everything should be authorized under obedience; nothing that they would resent more than anyone’s taking the liberty and having the boldness to do any of these things without leave. Thus in the Society we must use different language on this question of poverty, and on other particular questions, from what they use in some other orders. And the same held in other orders at their commencement, and some still keep it up very creditably.