Chapter 135 — Solution of the objections urged against the various ways of life followed by those who embrace voluntary poverty

We must, in sequel to the foregoing, consider the ways in which those who embrace voluntary poverty have to live. (See ch. 132.)

The first way—namely, that all live in common on the proceeds of the sale of their possessions—suffices indeed, but not for a long time. And so the apostles instituted this way of living for the faithful in Jerusalem, because through the Holy Spirit they foresaw that they were not to remain long together in Jerusalem, both on account of the coming persecutions by the Jews, and on account of the imminent destruction of both city and nation. Hence there was no need to provide for the faithful except for a short time. For this reason, when they moved on to the gentiles, among whom the Church was to be firmly established and endure, we do not read of their instituting this way of life.

Nevertheless, the fact that the dispensers may be guilty of fraud is no argument against this way of living. For this is common to all ways of life in which people live together: yet in this particular way so much the less, since it seems less likely to happen that those who seek the perfection of life should be guilty of fraud. Besides, a remedy may be provided against this by choosing faithful dispensers. Hence, under the apostles, Stephen and others were chosen, who were reckoned to be worthy of this office.

The second way of living is also suitable to those who embrace voluntary poverty, namely, that in which they live on their common property.

There is nothing in this way of living derogatory to the perfection to which the voluntarily poor tend. For it is possible for one or a few to have the care of looking after the property, so that the others, being free of care for temporal things, may freely occupy themselves with spiritual things, which is the revenue accruing from voluntary poverty. Nor do those who take upon themselves this responsibility for the others’ sake forfeit anything from the perfection of life, since what they seem to lose through being disturbed is made up to them in their obedience to the call of charity, in which also the perfection of life consists.

Nor does this way of living destroy harmony on account of property being held in common. For those who embrace voluntary poverty ought to hold temporal things in contempt, so that they could not possibly be at variance for the sake of earthly goods; especially as they should not expect from temporalities anything besides the necessaries of life, and since the dispensers should be faithful. Nor is the fact that some abuse this way of life a sufficient reason for condemning it, since evil men make evil use even of good things, just as good men make good use of evil things.

The third manner of living is also suitable to those who take poverty upon themselves voluntarily, namely, that in which they live by manual labor.

For it is not useless to renounce temporal possessions in order to regain them by manual labor, as the first objection contended. For the possession of wealth both required man to be solicitous in administering it (or at least in keeping it), and attracted his affections: which is no longer the case when he is occupied in getting his daily bread by manual labor.

Now, it is clear that little time suffices, and no great solicitude is needed, in order that a man get a sufficient livelihood by manual labor. But to get rich or provide oneself with more than a sufficient livelihood, which is the aim of the worldly worker, requires one to spend much time and to exercise great care. Hence the reply to the second argument is clear.

We must observe that in the Gospel our Lord did not forbid labor, but mental anxiety about the necessaries of life. For he did not say: Do not work, but: Be not solicitous (Matt 6:31). He proves his statement with an a fortiori argument. For if divine providence maintains birds and lilies, which are of a lower condition, and cannot toil as men do in order to gain this sustenance, much more will it provide for man, who is of higher condition, and to whom it has given the means of getting his bread by his own labor; so that he need not be anxiously solicitous about the necessaries of this life. It is clear, then, that this mode of life is not condemned by our Lord’s words quoted in the objection.

Again, this mode of life cannot be condemned on the plea that it is insufficient. For it seldom happens that a man is unable to get a sufficiency for his livelihood by manual labor on account of sickness, or for some like reason. And an ordinance is not to be censured on account of its failing to apply in a few instances, for this happens in ordinances both of nature and of the will. Nor is there any mode of living that provides for man without a possibility of failing; riches may be taken away by theft or robbery, just as the man that lives by manual labor may become incapable of work. And yet there is still a remedy as regards the aforesaid manner of living, namely, that a man who cannot get enough for himself by his labor should be assisted either by others of the same association, who are able to work more than enough for themselves; or again by those who have means, according to the law of charity and natural friendship, whereby one assists another in his need. Thus the Apostle, after saying: If any one will not work, let him not eat (2 Thess 3:10), on account of those who are unable to get enough for themselves by their own work, adds this admonition to others: But you, do not be weary in well-doing (2 Thess 3:13).

Moreover, as few things are necessary for a sufficient livelihood, those who are content with little need not take much time in getting enough by manual labor. Hence they are not hindered much from doing other spiritual works, for the sake of which they embraced voluntary poverty. This is all the more true since, while working with their hands, they can think of God and praise him, and do other like things, which in private life men are bound to do. Yet, lest they be altogether hindered from attending to spiritual things, they may be assisted by the kindness of other members of the faithful.

Now, though voluntary poverty is not embraced in order by manual labor to banish idleness or chastise the flesh, since even those who have riches can do this, yet there is no doubt that manual labor avails for the things mentioned, even without being done to gain a livelihood. Idleness, however, may be removed by other more useful occupations, and the concupiscence of the flesh may be tamed by means of more effective remedies. Hence those who have a lawful means of livelihood, or are able to get it, are not bound for the above motives to undertake manual labor. For only the need of a livelihood binds a man to work with his hands. Hence the Apostle says: If any one will not work, let him not eat (2 Thess 3:10).

Again, the fourth way of living on the offerings of others is suitable to those who embrace voluntary poverty.

For it is not unfitting that he who has renounced his own for the sake of something profitable to others should be maintained by what others give. For were this not so, human society could not last, since if a man had no care save for his own, no one would be of service to the community. Hence it is expedient for human society that those who are of service to the community by renouncing the care of property should be maintained by those to whom they are of service; seeing that for this reason soldiers live on the contributions of others, and the rulers of the state are paid from the common exchequer. Now, those who embrace voluntary poverty in order to follow Christ renounce all things precisely that they may be useful to the community, since by their wisdom, learning and example they enlighten the people, and sustain them by their prayers and intercession.

From which it is also clear that it is no disgrace for them to live on what others give, since they pay them back in better kind by receiving temporal things for their maintenance and profiting others in spiritual things. Hence the Apostle says: Your abundance, namely in temporal goods, should supply their want of the same, so that their abundance, that is, in spiritual goods, may supply your want (2 Cor 8:14). For he who helps another shares in his deeds, both in good and in evil.

And when they encourage others to virtue by their example, the result is that those who profit by their example become less attached to riches through seeing that others renounce riches altogether for the sake of the perfection of life. Now, the less a man loves wealth, and the more he is inclined to virtue, so much the more readily does he give of his own wealth for the support of others. Hence those who embrace voluntary poverty, and live on what others give, become more useful to other poor people, encouraging others to works of mercy by word and example, than they are destructive through receiving the gifts of others for their maintenance.

It is also evident that men of perfect virtue, such as they ought to be who profess voluntary poverty through contempt of riches, do not forfeit their liberty just because they receive a few things from others for their maintenance; since man does not cease to be free except on account of things which dominate his affections. Hence he does not lose his liberty on account of the things he despises, if they be given to him.

And though the maintenance of those who live on what others give them depends on the goodwill of those who give, it is not for that reason insufficient for the support of Christ’s poor. For it depends on the goodwill, not of one, but of many. And it is not probable that in the multitude of the faithful there be not many who are ready to supply the needs of those whom they revere for the perfection of their virtue.

Nor is it unfitting that they even make known their needs and beg, whether for others or for themselves. Thus we read that even the apostles did this. They accepted not only for themselves the necessaries of life from those to whom they preached—which was an act of authority rather than of begging, since the Lord commanded that they who serve the Gospel should live by the Gospel (Cf. 1 Cor 9:13–14.)—but also for the poor in Jerusalem, who renounced their own property, and lived in poverty, but did not preach to the gentiles. Yet their spiritual administration could profit those by whom they were maintained. Hence the Apostle counsels that such people be maintained by alms given not of necessity, (Cf. 2 Cor 9:7.) but freely, which counsel is nothing else than begging. This beggary does not render men contemptible if it be done moderately, for the sake of need, not of excess, and without importunity, considerating both the condition of the person besought and of place and time: all of which must be observed by those who seek perfection of life.

It is, consequently, clear that there is no appearance of wrong-doing in begging thus, although there would be if it were done with importunity and indiscreetly for the sake of self-indulgence or greed.

Now, it is evident that begging implies a certain abasement. For as to be passive is inferior to being active, so too is receiving inferior to giving, and subjection and obedience to governing and commanding (although there may be a recompense in the shape of a concomitant circumstance).

Now, to make a deliberate choice of that which implies abasement is an act of humility; not indeed simply, but according as there is need for it. Since humility is a virtue, it does nothing indiscreetly; thus it is a sign not of humility, but of folly, if a man adopts every kind of abasement. On the other hand, if a man does not shrink on account of abasement from doing what virtue requires of him—for instance, if charity requires him to perform a humiliating service for his neighbor—through humility he will not shrink from doing it. Accordingly, if it be necessary to beg in order to embrace the life of poverty, it is an act of humility to suffer this abasement. Again, it is an act of virtue sometimes to take upon ourselves things that are degrading, although our duty does not bind us to do so, that by our example we may encourage others who are so bound so they may more easily suffer them. Thus the officer sometimes does the work of a common soldier so as to encourage others. Sometimes too the virtuous use of humiliation serves as a remedy. For instance, if a man’s mind be inclined to immoderate self-conceit, it is good for him to have recourse (with due moderation) to acts of self-abasement, either of his own choice, or as enjoined by others, in order to repress the elation of his soul, since by so doing he brings himself to the level of the lowest of men, whose duties are of the baser kind.

Those who hold that our Lord forbade all solicitude in seeking one’s bread are guilty of an utterly unreasonable error, for every act requires solicitude. Hence, if man should have no solicitude about the things of the body, it follows that he must perform no bodily action—which is both impossible and unreasonable. For God has appointed to each thing an action in proportion to its nature. Now, man is formed of a nature both spiritual and corporal. Therefore, according to the divine ordinance, it is necessary that man both perform actions of the body, and attend to the things of the soul, and he is the more perfect as he attends more to spiritual things. Yet man’s perfection does not depend on his performing no actions of the body, because, since the actions of the body are directed to what is needful for the maintenance of life, if a man omits them he neglects his life, which everyone is bound to maintain. Now a man is a fool and tempts God if he does nothing himself and looks to God to provide him with those things to which he can help himself by his own action. For it belongs to the divine goodness to provide for everything not by doing all things immediately, but by moving each other thing to its proper action, as we have proved above. (Ch. 77.) Therefore, man must not expect that God will provide for him without his doing any action whereby he is able to provide for himself, for this is contrary to the divine ordinance and goodness.

But because it is not through us that our actions attain to their due end, on account of the obstacles that may occur, although it is in our power to act, the outcome of everyone’s action is subject to the divine disposition. Accordingly, our Lord commanded us not to be solicitous about what concerns God—namely, the outcome of our actions—but he did not forbid us to be solicitous about what concerns us—namely, our actions. Therefore, a man does not disobey our Lord’s command if he be solicitous about what he has to do himself, but he does if he is solicitous about the possible result so that he omits to do what he ought in order to avoid such results, even if he does what pertains to him. Against this we should hope in the providence of God, who gives sustenance even to birds and plants. For to be solicitous in this way seems to savor of the error of the heathens, who deny divine providence. Hence our Lord concludes: Do not be solicitous for tomorrow (Matt 6:34). By these words he does not forbid us to keep till tomorrow what is necessary in its proper time, but to be solicitous about future happenings, despairing of the divine assistance, as it were: or to anticipate today the solicitude that we should reserve for tomorrow, since each day has its own cares; hence it is added: The day’s own trouble is sufficient for the day.

It is clear, then, that those who embrace voluntary poverty may live in various suitable ways. And among these ways, one is more commendable than the others according as it exempts man’s mind more from the solicitude of earthly things, and from being occupied with them.