POVERTY
325
POVERTY
only is there a real detachment which sufficiently
mortifies the love of riches, cuts off luxury and vain
glory, and frees from the care for worldly goods.
Cupidity, vain glory, and excessive solicitude are,
according to St. Thomas, the three obstacles which
riches put in the way of acquiring perfection (Summa,
II-II, Q. clxxxviii, a. 7). This abandonment of
superfluities was the only way in which voluntary
poverty could be understood before the introduction
of the common life. The state of perfection, under-
stood in its proper sense, requires also that the renun-
ciation should be of a permanent character; and in
practice this stability follows as the result of a per-
petual vow of poverty. The warnings and counsels
of Jesus Christ are valuable even to those who are not
vowed to a state of perfection. They teach men to
moderate their desire for riches, and accept cheerfully
the loss or deprivation of them; and they inculcate
that detachment from the things of this world which
our Lord taught when He said, ' ' Every one of you that
doth not renounce all that he possesseth, cannot be
my disciple" (Luke, xiv, 33).
IL The Canonical Discipline of Povertt. — Among the followers of perfection, the spirit of poverty was manifested from the first by giving up temporal possessions; and among those living in com- munity, the use of goods as private property was strictly forbidden, being contrary to that common life which the patriarchs of monasticism, St. Pachomius and his disciple Schenoudi, St. Basil, and St. Benedict, imposed upon their followers. But there was at that time no ex-press vow of poverty, and no legal disabil- ity; the monastic profession required nothing but the rigorous avoidance of all that was unnecessary (cf . De Buck, "De sollemnitate votorum, pra?cipue pauper- tatis religiosa; epistola", x). Justinian ordained that the goods of religious should belong to the mon- astery (Novel. 5, iv sqq.; 123, xxxviii and xUi). This law gradually came into force, and in time created a disability to acquire property, although in the twelfth century, and even later, there were religious in pos- session of property. The rule of French law, under which a religious was considered as civilly dead, con- tributed to establish a necessary connexion between the vow of poverty and the idea of disability.
The express vow of renunciation of all private prop- erty was introduced into the profession of the Friars Minor in 1260. About the same time another change took place; hitherto no limit had been placed on the common possessions of religious, but the mendicant orders in the thirteenth century forbade the posses- sion, even in common, of all immovable property dis- tinct from the convent, and of all revenues; and the Friars Minor of the strict observance, desiring to go one step further, assigned to the Holy See the owner- ship of all their property, even the most indispensable. Following the examiilc of St. Francis and St. Dominic, many founders established tlicir orders on a ba,sis of common poverty, and the Church saw a large increase in the number of the mendicant orders until the foun- dation of the clerks regular in the sixteenth century; even then, many orders united common poverty with the regular clerical life: such were theTheatines (1524), whose rule was to hve on alms and contributions spontaneously given; and the Society of Jesus (1.540). It soon became evident that this profession of poverty which had so greatly edified the thirteenth century was exposed to grave abuses, that a certain state of destitution created more cares than it removed, and was not conducive either to intellectual activity or to strict observance; and that mendicity might become an occasion of scandal. Consequently the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, c. iii, de reg.) permitted all monasteries, except those of the Friars Minor Ob- servantines and the Capuchins, to possess immovable property, and consequently the income derived there- from; but the Carmchtes and the Society of Jesus, in
its professed houses, continue to practise the common
poverty which forbids the possession of assured in-
comes.
Congregations with simple vows were not bound by the canonical law forbidding the private possession or acquisition of property by members of approved or- ders: the disability of private possession was thus considered as an effect of the solemn vow of poverty; but this bond between the incapacity to possess and the solemn vow is neither essential nor indissoluble. So far as the effect of the vow on private possession is concerned, the vow of poverty taken by the formed coadjutors of the Society of Jesus has the same effect as the solemn vow of the professed fathers. St. Ignatius instituted in his order a simple profession preparatory to the final one with an interval between them during which the religious retains his capacity to possess property. A similar rule has been extended to all orders of men by Pius IX and to orders of women by Leo XIII (see Profession, Religious). On the other hand, since the Rescript of the Penitentiary of 1 Dec, 1820, confirmed by the declaration to the bishops of Belgium dated 31 July, 1878, the solemn profession of religious in Belgium (and Holland ap- pears to enjoy the same privilege) does not prevent them from acquiring property, or keeping and admin- istering it, or disposing of it: they are bound, however, in the exercise of their rights, to observe the submis- sion they owe to their legitimate superiors.
The Vow of Poverty in General. — The vow of pov- erty may generally be defined as the promise made to God of a certain constant renunciation of temporal goods, in order to follow Christ. The object of the vow of poverty is anything visible, material, appre- ciable at a money value. Reputation, personal ser- vices, and the application of the mass, do not fall under this vow; relics are included only on account of the reliquary which contains them, and (at least in practice) manuscripts, as such, remain the property of the religious. The vow of poverty entirely forbids the independent use, and sometimes the acquisition or possession of such property as falls within its scope. A person who has made this vow gives up the right to acquire, possess, use, or dispose of property except in accordance with the will of his superior. Neverthe- less certain acts of abdication are sometimes left to the discretion of the religious himself, such as the ar- rangements for the administration and application of income which professed religious under simple vows are required to make; and the drawing up of a will, by which the religious makes a disposition of his property to take effect after his death, may be permitted with- out any restriction. This license with regard to wills is of great antiquity. The simple fact of refusing to accept, for example, a personal legacy, may be con- trary to charity, but cannot be an offence against the vow of poverty. The vow of poverty docs not debar a religious from administering an ecclesiastical benefice which is conferred upon him, accepting sums of money to distribute for pious works, or assuming the administration of property for the benefit of an- other person (when this is consistent with his religious state), nor does it in any way forbid the fulfilment of obligations of justice, whether they are the result of a voluntary promise — for the religious may properly engage to offer a Mass or render any personal service — or arise from a fault, since he is bound in justice to repair any wrong done to the reputation of another person.
Submission to a superior (as we call the person whose permission, by the terms of the vow, is required for all acts tlisposing of temporal goods) does not necessarily call for an express or formal permission. A tacit permission, which may be inferred from some act or attitude and the expression of some other wish, or even a reasonable presumiition of permission, will be sufficient. There is no violation of the vow, when
