Chapter 132 — Of the ways of life followed by those who embrace voluntary poverty

This question would seem to be yet more relevant if one consider the ways in which those must live who embrace voluntary poverty.

One way of living is for the goods of each one to be sold, and for all to live together on the proceeds. This seems to have been done in Jerusalem under the apostles: for it is said: As many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need (Acts 4:34–35). Now, in this way it would seem that sufficient provision was not made for man’s livelihood.

First, because it is not probable that many with great possessions would embrace this kind of life. And the proceeds from the sale of the possessions of a few wealthy men, after being divided among many, would not last very long.

Also, because it is possible and easy for the price received to be lost through fraud on the part of the dispensers, or through theft or robbery. Consequently, those who embrace this kind of poverty will be left without a livelihood.

Besides. Many things happen which compel a man to change his abode. Hence it will be difficult to provide for those who may possibly be scattered about in various places, if the proceeds of the sale be assigned to them all in common.

There is another mode of life observed in many monasteries, where the possessions are held in common, and provision made for each one according to his needs. But neither does this way of life seem to be expedient.

For earthly possessions are attended by anxieties both in the acquisition of revenue, and in protecting them against fraud and violence. These anxieties are so much the greater and involve so many more persons according as greater possessions are needed to suffice for the upkeep of the greater number. In this way, therefore, the motive of voluntary poverty is frustrated, at any rate as regards many who must be solicitous in looking after the property.

Again. Possession in common tends to occasion discord. For it seems that people who have nothing in common, like the Spaniards and Persians, are not given to litigation, but those who hold something together in common. For this reason there are quarrels among brothers. Now, discords are a very great hindrance to the mind being occupied with divine things, as stated above. (Cc. 117, 128.) Therefore, this way of living would seem to frustrate the end of voluntary poverty.

There is again a third way of life, where those who embrace voluntary poverty live by manual labor. The apostle Paul followed this manner of living and by his example and institution counselled others to observe it. For it is said: We did not eat any one’s bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you. It was not because we have not that right, but to give you in our conduct an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: If any one will not work, let him not eat (2 Thess 3:8–10). Yet neither does this manner of life seem expedient.

For manual labor is necessary as a means of livelihood insofar as something is acquired thereby. Now it seems futile to renounce what is necessary and then work to get it back. Consequently, if after embracing voluntary poverty a man has to regain the means of livelihood by working with his hands, it were useless for him to renounce all that he had with which to support his life.

Also. Voluntary poverty is counselled so that by it a man may be disposed to follow Christ with greater promptitude by being free from worldly cares. Now, it would seem to involve greater solicitude that a man should gain a livelihood by his own toil than that he should live on what he already had: especially if he were moderately rich, or were possessed of movable goods, with which it were easy for him to gain the necessaries of life. Therefore, to live by manual labor would seem inconsistent with the purpose of those who embrace voluntary poverty.

To this we must add that our Lord apparently forbade his disciples manual labor when, using the comparison of the birds and the lilies of the field, he warned them against solicitude for earthly things. For he said: Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns (Matt 6:26). And again: Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin (Matt 6:28).

Also, this manner of life seems inadequate. For many desire perfection who have neither the ability nor the skill so as to be able to spend their life in toil, because they have neither been brought up nor taught to do such things. For thus peasants and laborers would be in a better position for the attainment of the perfection of life, than those who have studied wisdom, and have been brought up in wealth and ease, which they renounce for Christ’s sake. It also happens that some who embrace voluntary poverty lose their health, or are hindered in some other way from working. Consequently, they would be left deprived of the means of livelihood.

Again. No little time suffices that one may work for the necessities of life—as evidenced in the number of men who pass the whole of their time so doing, and yet are scarcely able to gain an adequate livelihood. But if those who embrace voluntary poverty have to live by manual labor, the result would be that they would spend the greater part of their life in this kind of work. Consequently, they would be debarred from actions of greater importance which also require much time, such as the study of wisdom, teaching and other like spiritual occupations. And so voluntary poverty would be a hindrance rather than a disposition to the perfection of life.

If someone say that manual labor is necessary in order to banish idleness, this is not to the point. For it were better to banish idleness by being busy in the exercise of moral virtues, which riches serve instrumentally (Nicomachean Ethics 1.8.) (for instance, in giving alms and the like), rather than by manual labor. Besides, it were useless to counsel poverty merely so that men, after becoming poor, might abstain from idleness by occupying their time in manual labor, unless the counsel were given that they might give themselves to higher occupations than those belonging to man’s ordinary life.

And if someone say that manual labor is necessary to tame the desires of the flesh, this is not to the point. For the question at issue is whether it be necessary for those who embrace voluntary poverty to live by manual labor. Besides, there are many other ways of taming carnal concupiscence, namely, by fasting, watching, and the like. Moreover, even the rich, who need not work in order to live, might use manual labor for that purpose.

There is yet another way of life, where those who embrace voluntary poverty live by the ministrations of others, who wish to be of service to the perfection of voluntary poverty by retaining their riches. This way seems to have been followed by our Lord and his disciples: for we read that certain women followed Christ, and provided for him out of their means (Luke 8:2–3). But neither does this way of life seem to be expedient.

For it seems unreasonable to renounce one’s own goods in order to live on another’s.

Moreover. It would seem unfitting to receive from another without making him a return, since the equality of justice is observed in giving and taking. It is, however, allowable to live on the alms of others, for those who tender them some kind of service. Hence it would not seem unreasonable that the ministers of the altar, and preachers, who give the people doctrine and other godly things, should receive their livelihood from them, for the laborer deserves his food, as our Lord says (Matt 10:10). For this reason the Apostle says that the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings (1 Cor 9:13–14). (Thomas has blended the two verses, which read in the Vulgate as follows: Nescitis quoniam qui in sacrario operantur quae de sacrario sunt, edunt: et qui altari deserviunt, cum altari participant? Ita et Dominus ordinavit iis qui Evangelium annuntiant, de Evangelio vivere.) Consequently, it were unfitting for those who perform no ministerial duty for the people to receive from the people the necessaries of life.

Further. This mode of living would seem to be harmful to others. For some there are who need to be supported by the bounty of others, through being unable to support themselves by reason of poverty or sickness. And this bounty would be lessened if those who embrace voluntary poverty had to be supported by the offerings of others, since people are both unable and unwilling to support a large number of poor. Hence the Apostle commands that if a man have a widow related to him, let him minister to her, that the Church may look after those who are widows indeed (The Vulgate text differs slightly: Si quis fidelis habet viduas, subministret illis, et non gravetur ecclesia: ut iis quae vere viduae sunt, sufficiat.) (1 Tim 5:16). It is therefore unseemly that those who choose voluntary poverty should follow this way of living.

Moreover. A free mind is a most necessary condition for perfect virtue, for without it a man easily becomes a partaker of other men’s sins: either by express consent, or by flattering approval, or at least by dissimulation. Now, this freedom is considerably prejudiced by the aforesaid manner of life, for a man cannot but fear to offend one on whose kindness he lives. Consequently, this manner of life is a hindrance to perfect virtue, which is the end of voluntary poverty: and so it would seem inexpedient to those who are voluntarily poor.

Besides. We cannot be sure of that which depends on another’s will. Now, the giving of his own depends on the will of the giver. Therefore, this way of living does not provide sufficiently for the voluntarily poor as regards their being sure of a livelihood.

Further. The poor who have to live on what others give them have to make their needs known to others, and ask for what they need. Now such begging renders the beggar contemptible, and even burdensome: for people deem themselves better than those who need their support; and many are slow to give. But those who choose the perfect life should be respected and loved, so that men may imitate them more readily, and embrace the state of virtue. If the contrary be the case, even virtue itself is despised. Therefore, to live by begging is harmful in those who prefer voluntary poverty for the sake of perfect virtue.

Again. Perfect men should avoid not only evil, but even what has the appearance of evil: for the Apostle says: from all appearance of evil refrain yourselves (Rom 12). (1 Thess 5:22.) And the Philosopher says (Nicomachean Ethics 4.9.) that a good man should shun not only what is wrong, but also what seems wrong. Now begging has the appearance of evil, since many beg for the sake of gain. Therefore, such a mode of life ought not to be embraced by the perfect.

Besides. Voluntary poverty is counselled so that a man’s mind, being withdrawn from earthly cares, may be more at liberty to give itself to God. But this way of living by begging is full of cares, for it seems that more care is attached to getting others’ goods than to using one’s own. Therefore, this way of living would seem unbecoming to those who make profession of voluntary poverty.

If, however, someone be desirous of praising beggary on account of humility, his contention would seem altogether unreasonable. For we praise lowliness according as we despise worldly eminence, which consists in riches, honors, renown, and the like; but we do not do so through contempt of the eminence of virtue, in respect of which we should be magnanimous. Therefore, humility would be blameworthy if for the sake of humility one were to do something derogatory to the eminence of humility. Now, begging is derogatory to it in this way, both because it is better to give than to receive, (Cf. Acts xx. 35.) and because it has the appearance of wrong. Therefore, beggary is not to be praised on account of humility.

There were some, too, who said to those who profess perfection of life that they should have no solicitude, neither by begging, nor by toiling, nor by keeping something back for themselves, and that they should look to God alone for their livelihood, because it is said: Do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat (or what you shall drink), (The words in brackets are not in the Vulgate.) nor about your body, what you shall put on (Matt 6:25); and again: Do not be anxious about tomorrow (Matt 6:34). But this seems utterly unreasonable.

For it is foolish to desire the end, and omit the means. Now, eating is the end to which is directed man’s solicitude, whereby he procures his food. Hence those who cannot live without eating must be solicitous about getting their food.

Besides. Solicitude about earthly things is not to be avoided except because it hinders the contemplation of things eternal. But as long as he is clothed in mortal flesh, man cannot live without doing many things that hinder contemplation, such as sleeping, eating, and the like. Neither, therefore, should he omit to be solicitous about the necessaries of life on account of their being a hindrance to contemplation.

Moreover, this leads to a strange absurdity. For a man might with equal reason say that he would not walk, or open his mouth to eat, or avoid a falling stone or the thrust of a sword, but that he would wait for God to act. This is to tempt God. Therefore, solicitude about one’s food is not to be avoided altogether.