Chapter 131 — Concerning the error of those who condemn voluntary poverty

Some, in contradiction of the Gospel teaching, have condemned intentional poverty. The first of these was Vigilantius, who was followed by others, pretending (Vulgate: desiring.) to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions. (1 Tim 1:7.) They based their contention on the following and similar arguments.

The natural appetite demands that every animal should provide itself with the necessities of life. Hence those animals which are unable to find the necessities of life at all times of the year gather such things together by natural instinct at the time they are to be found, and store them: for instance, bees and ants. Now, men need many things for the support of life which cannot be found at all times. Hence it is natural to man to procure and keep the things he needs. Therefore, it is contrary to the natural law to scatter by poverty all the things one has gathered.

Again. Everything has a natural liking for those things by which its being is preserved, inasmuch as all things seek to exist. (Nicomachean Ethics. 9.7.) Now man’s life is supported with the substance of external things. Therefore, by the natural law every man is bound to maintain the substance of external things even as life itself. Hence, it is as much against the natural law for a man to deprive himself of the necessities of life by voluntary poverty as it is to lay hands on himself.

Moreover. Man is by nature a social animal, (Nicomachean Ethics 1.7.) as stated above. (Ch. 129.) Now, society cannot endure among men unless one help another. Consequently, it is natural to men for one to help another in his need. But they make it impossible for themselves to afford this help, if they renounce the substance of external things, by which especially assistance is given to others. Therefore, it is contrary to the natural instinct, and to the good of pity and charity that a man, by voluntary poverty, renounce all worldly substance.

Besides. If it be an evil to possess the substance of this world, and if it be good to free one’s neighbor of an evil, and evil to bring evil upon him, then it follows that it is evil to give of the substance of this world to one who is in want, and good to take it away from one who has it. This is absurd. Therefore, it is good to possess the substance of this world; to renounce it altogether by voluntary poverty is evil.

Again. Occasions of evil should be avoided. Now, poverty is an occasion of evil, for through it men are led to thieving, flattery and perjury, (See below: These arguments . . .) and the like. Therefore, poverty should not be deliberately embraced; rather should we avoid it lest it befall us.

Further. Since virtue follows the mean, it is destroyed by either extreme. Now, liberality is a virtue which gives what should be given, and holds to what should be retained. And illiberality is a vice on the side of deficiency, holding to what should be retained, and to what should not be retained. It is also a vice on the side of excess when all is given: this is done by those who embrace voluntary poverty. Therefore, it is sinful and allied to prodigality.

These arguments would seem to be confirmed by the authority of Scripture. For it is said: Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, “Who is the Lord?” or lest I be poor, and steal, and profane the name of my God (Prov 30:8–9).