|
Objection 1: It would seem that religious perfection is diminished
by possessing something in common. For our Lord said (Mt.
19:21): "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell all thou hast and
give to the poor." Hence it is clear that to lack worldly wealth
belongs to the perfection of Christian life. Now those who possess
something in common do not lack worldly wealth. Therefore it would
seem that they do not quite reach to the perfection of Christian life.
Objection 2: Further, the perfection of the counsels requires that
one should be without worldly solicitude; wherefore the Apostle in
giving the counsel of virginity said (1 Cor. 7:32): "I would
have you to be without solicitude." Now it belongs to the solicitude
of the present life that certain people keep something to themselves for
the morrow; and this solicitude was forbidden His disciples by our
Lord (Mt. 6:34) saying: "Be not . . . solicitous for
tomorrow." Therefore it would seem that the perfection of Christian
life is diminished by having something in common.
Objection 3: Further, possessions held in common belong in some way
to each member of the community; wherefore Jerome (Ep. lx ad
Heliod. Episc.) says in reference to certain people: "They are
richer in the monastery than they had been in the world; though serving
the poor Christ they have wealth which they had not while serving the
rich devil; the Church rejects them now that they are rich, who in
the world were beggars." But it is derogatory to religious perfection
that one should possess wealth of one's own. Therefore it is also
derogatory to religious perfection to possess anything in common.
Objection 4: Further, Gregory (Dial. iii, 14) relates of a
very holy man named Isaac, that "when his disciples humbly signified
that he should accept the possessions offered to him for the use of the
monastery, he being solicitous for the safeguarding of his poverty,
held firmly to his opinion, saying: A monk who seeks earthly
possessions is no monk at all": and this refers to possessions held in
common, and which were offered him for the common use of the
monastery. Therefore it would seem destructive of religious perfection
to possess anything in common.
Objection 5: Further, our Lord in prescribing religious perfection
to His disciples, said (Mt. 10:9,10): "Do not possess
gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses, nor script for your
journey." By these words, as Jerome says in his commentary, "He
reproves those philosophers who are commonly called Bactroperatae
[staff and scrip bearers], who as despising the world and valuing all
things at naught carried their pantry about with them." Therefore it
would seem derogatory to religious perfection that one should keep
something whether for oneself or for the common use.
On the contrary, Prosper [Julianus Pomerius] says (De Vita
Contempl. ix) and his words are quoted (XII, qu. 1, can.
Expedit): "It is sufficiently clear both that for the sake of
perfection one should renounce having anything of one's own, and that
the possession of revenues, which are of course common property, is no
hindrance to the perfection of the Church."
I answer that, As stated above (Question 184, Article 3, ad
1; Question 185, Article 6, ad 1), perfection consists,
essentially, not in poverty, but in following Christ, according to
the saying of Jerome (Super Matth. xix, 27): "Since it is
not enough to leave all, Peter adds that which is perfect, namely,
'We have followed Thee,'" while poverty is like an instrument or
exercise for the attainment of perfection. Hence in the Conferences
of the Fathers (Coll. i, 7) the abbot Moses says: "Fastings,
watchings, meditating on the Scriptures, poverty, and privation of
all one's possessions are not perfection, but means of perfection."
Now the privation of one's possessions, or poverty, is a means of
perfection, inasmuch as by doing away with riches we remove certain
obstacles to charity; and these are chiefly three. The first is the
cares which riches bring with them; wherefore our Lord said (Mt.
13:22): "That which was sown among thorns, is he that heareth
the word, and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of
riches, choketh up the word." The second is the love of riches,
which increases with the possession of wealth; wherefore Jerome says
(Super Matth. xix, 23) that "since it is difficult to despise
riches when we have them, our Lord did not say: 'It is impossible
for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven,' but: 'It is
difficult.'" The third is vainglory or elation which results from
riches, according to Ps. 48:7, "They that trust in their own
strength, and glory in the multitude of their riches."
Accordingly the first of these three cannot be altogether separated
from riches whether great or small. For man must needs take a certain
amount of care in acquiring or keeping external things. But so long as
external things are sought or possessed only in a small quantity, and
as much as is required for a mere livelihood, such like care does not
hinder one much; and consequently is not inconsistent with the
perfection of Christian life. For our Lord did not forbid all care,
but only such as is excessive and hurtful; wherefore Augustine,
commenting on Mt. 6:25, "Be not solicitous for your life, what
you shall eat," says (De Serm. in Monte;De Operibus Monach.
xxvi): "In saying this He does not forbid them to procure these
things in so far as they needed them, but to be intent on them, and
for their sake to do whatever they are bidden to do in preaching the
Gospel." Yet the possession of much wealth increases the weight of
care, which is a great distraction to man's mind and hinders him from
giving himself wholly to God's service. The other two, however,
namely the love of riches and taking pride or glorying in riches,
result only from an abundance of wealth.
Nevertheless it makes a difference in this matter if riches, whether
abundant or moderate, be possessed in private or in common. For the
care that one takes of one's own wealth, pertains to love of self,
whereby a man loves himself in temporal matters; whereas the care that
is given to things held in common pertains to the love of charity which
"seeketh not her own," but looks to the common good. And since
religion is directed to the perfection of charity, and charity is
perfected in "the love of God extending to contempt of self"
[Augustine, De Civ. Dei xiv, 28], it is contrary to
religious perfection to possess anything in private. But the care that
is given to common goods may pertain to charity, although it may prove
an obstacle to some higher act of charity, such as divine contemplation
or the instructing of one's neighbor. Hence it is evident that to
have excessive riches in common, whether in movable or in immovable
property, is an obstacle to perfection, though not absolutely
incompatible with it; while it is not an obstacle to religious
perfection to have enough external things, whether movables or
immovables, as suffice for a livelihood, if we consider poverty in
relation to the common end of religious orders, which is to devote
oneself to the service of God. But if we consider poverty in relation
to the special end of any religious order, then this end being
presupposed, a greater or lesser degree of poverty is adapted to that
religious order; and each religious order will be the more perfect in
respect of poverty, according as it professes a poverty more adapted to
its end. For it is evident that for the purpose of the outward and
bodily works of the active life a man needs the assistance of outward
things, whereas few are required for contemplation. Hence the
Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 8) that "many things are needed for
action, and the more so, the greater and nobler the actions are. But
the contemplative man requires no such things for the exercise of his
act: he needs only the necessaries; other things are an obstacle to
his contemplation." Accordingly it is clear that a religious order
directed to the bodily actions of the active life, such as soldiering
or the lodging of guests, would be imperfect if it lacked common
riches; whereas those religious orders which are directed to the
contemplative life are the more perfect, according as the poverty they
profess burdens them with less care for temporal things. And the care
of temporal things is so much a greater obstacle to religious life as
the religious life requires a greater care of spiritual things.
Now it is manifest that a religious order established for the purpose
of contemplating and of giving to others the fruits of one's
contemplation by teaching and preaching, requires greater care of
spiritual things than one that is established for contemplation only.
Wherefore it becomes a religious order of this kind to embrace a
poverty that burdens one with the least amount of care. Again it is
clear that to keep what one has acquired at a fitting time for one's
necessary use involves the least burden of care. Wherefore a threefold
degree of poverty corresponds to the three aforesaid degrees of
religious life. For it is fitting that a religious order which is
directed to the bodily actions of the active life should have an
abundance of riches in common; that the common possession of a
religious order directed to contemplation should be more moderate,
unless the said religious be bound, either themselves or through
others, to give hospitality or to assist the poor; and that those who
aim at giving the fruits of their contemplation to others should have
their life most exempt from external cares; this being accomplished by
their laying up the necessaries of life procured at a fitting time.
This, our Lord, the Founder of poverty, taught by His example.
For He had a purse which He entrusted to Judas, and in which were
kept the things that were offered to Him, as related in Jn.
12:6.
Nor should it be argued that Jerome (Super Matth. xvii, 26)
says: "If anyone object that Judas carried money in the purse, we
answer that He deemed it unlawful to spend the property of the poor on
His own uses," namely by paying the tax---because among those poor
His disciples held a foremost place, and the money in Christ's purse
was spent chiefly on their needs. For it is stated (Jn. 4:8)
that "His disciples were gone into the city to buy meats," and
(Jn. 13:29) that the disciples "thought, because Judas had
the purse, that Jesus had said to him: But those things which we
have need of for the festival day, or that he should give something to
the poor." From this it is evident that to keep money by, or any
other common property for the support of religious of the same order,
or of any other poor, is in accordance with the perfection which
Christ taught by His example. Moreover, after the resurrection,
the disciples from whom all religious orders took their origin kept the
price of the lands, and distributed it according as each one had need
(Acts 4:34,35).
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (Question 184, Article
3, ad 1), this saying of our Lord does not mean that poverty
itself is perfection, but that it is the means of perfection.
Indeed, as shown above (Question 186, Article 8), it is the
least of the three chief means of perfection; since the vow of
continence excels the vow of poverty, and the vow of obedience excels
them both. Since, however, the means are sought not for their own
sake, but for the sake of the end, a thing is better, not for being a
greater instrument, but for being more adapted to the end. Thus a
physician does not heal the more the more medicine he gives, but the
more the medicine is adapted to the disease. Accordingly it does not
follow that a religious order is the more perfect, according as the
poverty it professes is more perfect, but according as its poverty is
more adapted to the end both common and special. Granted even that the
religious order which exceeds others in poverty be more perfect in so
far as it is poorer, this would not make it more perfect simply. For
possibly some other religious order might surpass it in matters relating
to continence, or obedience, and thus be more perfect simply, since
to excel in better things is to be better simply.
Reply to Objection 2: Our Lord's words (Mt. 6:34), "Be
not solicitous for tomorrow," do not mean that we are to keep nothing
for the morrow; for the Blessed Antony shows the danger of so doing,
in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. ii, 2), where he
says: "It has been our experience that those who have attempted to
practice the privation of all means of livelihood, so as not to have
the wherewithal to procure themselves food for one day, have been
deceived so unawares that they were unable to finish properly the work
they had undertaken." And, as Augustine says (De oper. Monach.
xxiii), "if this saying of our Lord, 'Be not solicitous for
tomorrow,' means that we are to lay nothing by for the morrow, those
who shut themselves up for many days from the sight of men, and apply
their whole mind to a life of prayer, will be unable to provide
themselves with these things." Again he adds afterwards: "Are we
to suppose that the more holy they are, the less do they resemble the
birds?" And further on (De oper. Monach. xxiv): "For if it
be argued from the Gospel that they should lay nothing by, they answer
rightly: Why then did our Lord have a purse, wherein He kept the
money that was collected? Why, in days long gone by, when famine was
imminent, was grain sent to the holy fathers? Why did the apostles
thus provide for the needs of the saints?"
Accordingly the saying: "Be not solicitous for tomorrow,"
according to Jerome (Super Matth.) is to be rendered thus: "It
is enough that we think of the present; the future being uncertain,
let us leave it to God": according to Chrysostom [Hom. xvi in
Opus Imperfectum], "It is enough to endure the toil for necessary
things, labor not in excess for unnecessary things": according to
Augustine (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 17): "When we do
any good action, we should bear in mind not temporal things which are
denoted by the morrow, but eternal things."
Reply to Objection 3: The saying of Jerome applies where there are
excessive riches, possessed in private as it were, or by the abuse of
which even the individual members of a community wax proud and wanton.
But they do not apply to moderate wealth, set by for the common use,
merely as a means of livelihood of which each one stands in need. For
it amounts to the same that each one makes use of things pertaining to
the necessaries of life, and that these things be set by for the common
use.
Reply to Objection 4: Isaac refused to accept the offer of
possessions, because he feared lest this should lead him to have
excessive wealth, the abuse of which would be an obstacle to religious
perfection. Hence Gregory adds (Dial. iii, 14): "He was as
afraid of forfeiting the security of his poverty, as the rich miser is
careful of his perishable wealth." It is not, however, related that
he refused to accept such things as are commonly necessary for the
upkeep of life.
Reply to Objection 5: The Philosopher says (Polit. i, 5,6)
that bread, wine, and the like are natural riches, while money is
artificial riches. Hence it is that certain philosophers declined to
make use of money, and employed other things, living according to
nature. Wherefore Jerome shows by the words of our Lord, Who
equally forbade both, that it comes to the same to have money and to
possess other things necessary for life. And though our Lord
commanded those who were sent to preach not to carry these things on the
way, He did not forbid them to be possessed in common. How these
words of our Lord should be understood has been shown above (Question
185, Article 6, ad 2; FS, Question 108, Article 2,
ad 3).
|
|