|
Objection 1: It would seem unlawful for religious to live on alms.
For the Apostle (1 Tim. 5:16) forbids those widows who have
other means of livelihood to live on the alms of the Church, so that
the Church may have "sufficient for them that are widows indeed."
And Jerome says to Pope Damasus [Can. Clericos, cause. i,
qu. 2; Can. Quoniam, cause xvi, qu. 1; Regul. Monach. iv
among the supposititious works of St. Jerome] that "those who have
sufficient income from their parents and their own possessions, if they
take what belongs to the poor they commit and incur the guilt of
sacrilege, and by the abuse of such things they eat and drink judgment
to themselves." Now religious if they be able-bodied can support
themselves by the work of their hands. Therefore it would seem that
they sin if they consume the alms belonging to the poor.
Objection 2: Further, to live at the expense of the faithful is the
stipend appointed to those who preach the Gospel in payment of their
labor or work, according to Mt. 10:10: "The workman is worthy
of his meat." Now it belongs not to religious to preach the Gospel,
but chiefly to prelates who are pastors and teachers. Therefore
religious cannot lawfully live on the alms of the faithful.
Objection 3: Further, religious are in the state of perfection.
But it is more perfect to give than to receive alms; for it is written
(Acts 20:35): "It is a more blessed thing to give, rather
than to receive." Therefore they should not live on alms, but rather
should they give alms of their handiwork.
Objection 4: Further, it belongs to religious to avoid obstacles to
virtue and occasions of sin. Now the receiving of alms offers an
occasion of sin, and hinders an act of virtue; hence a gloss on 2
Thess. 3:9, "That we might give ourselves a pattern unto you,"
says: "He who through idleness eats often at another's table, must
needs flatter the one who feeds him." It is also written (Ex.
23:8): "Neither shalt thou take bribes which . . . blind the
wise, and pervert the words of the just," and (Prov. 22:7):
"The borrower is servant to him that lendeth." This is contrary to
religion, wherefore a gloss on 2 Thess. 3:9, "That we might
give ourselves a pattern," etc., says, "our religion calls men to
liberty." Therefore it would seem that religious should not live on
alms.
Objection 5: Further, religious especially are bound to imitate the
perfection of the apostles; wherefore the Apostle says (Phil.
3:15): "Let us . . . as many as are perfect, be thus
minded." But the Apostle was unwilling to live at the expense of the
faithful, either in order to cut off the occasion from the false
apostles as he himself says (2 Cor. 11:12), or to avoid
giving scandal to the weak, as appears from 1 Cor. 9:12. It
would seem therefore that religious ought for the same reasons to
refrain from living on alms. Hence Augustine says (De oper.
Monach. 28): "Cut off the occasion of disgraceful marketing
whereby you lower yourselves in the esteem of others, and give scandal
to the weak: and show men that you seek not an easy livelihood in
idleness, but the kingdom of God by the narrow and strait way."
On the contrary, Gregory says (Dial. ii, 1): The Blessed
Benedict after leaving his home and parents dwelt for three years in a
cave, and while there lived on the food brought to him by a monk from
Rome. Nevertheless, although he was able-bodied, we do not read
that he sought to live by the labor of his hands. Therefore religious
may lawfully live on alms.
I answer that, A man may lawfully live on what is his or due to him.
Now that which is given out of liberality becomes the property of the
person to whom it is given. Wherefore religious and clerics whose
monasteries or churches have received from the munificence of princes or
of any of the faithful any endowment whatsoever for their support, can
lawfully live on such endowment without working with their hands, and
yet without doubt they live on alms. Wherefore in like manner if
religious receive movable goods from the faithful they can lawfully live
on them. For it is absurd to say that a person may accept an alms of
some great property but not bread or some small sum of money.
Nevertheless since these gifts would seem to be bestowed on religious
in order that they may have more leisure for religious works, in which
the donors of temporal goods wish to have a share, the use of such
gifts would become unlawful for them if they abstained from religious
works, because in that case, so far as they are concerned, they would
be thwarting the intention of those who bestowed those gifts.
A thing is due to a person in two ways. First, on account of
necessity, which makes all things common, as Ambrose [Basil,
Serm. de Temp. lxiv] asserts. Consequently if religious be in
need they can lawfully live on alms. Such necessity may occur in three
ways. First, through weakness of body, the result being that they
are unable to make a living by working with their hands. Secondly,
because that which they gain by their handiwork is insufficient for
their livelihood: wherefore Augustine says (De oper. Monach.
xvii) that "the good works of the faithful should not leave God's
servants who work with their hands without a supply of necessaries,
that when the hour comes for them to nourish their souls, so as to make
it impossible for them to do these corporal works, they be not
oppressed by want." Thirdly, because of the former mode of life of
those who were unwont to work with their hands: wherefore Augustine
says (De oper. Monach. xxi) that "if they had in the world the
wherewithal easily to support this life without working, and gave it to
the needy when they were converted to God, we must credit their
weakness and bear with it." For those who have thus been delicately
brought up are wont to be unable to bear the toil of bodily labor.
In another way a thing becomes due to a person through his affording
others something whether temporal or spiritual, according to 1 Cor.
9:11, "If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great
matter if we reap your carnal things?" And in this sense religious
may live on alms as being due to them in four ways. First, if they
preach by the authority of the prelates. Secondly, if they be
ministers of the altar, according to 1 Cor. 9:13,14, "They
that serve the altar partake with the altar. So also the lord ordained
that they who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel." Hence
Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xxi): "If they be gospelers,
I allow, they have" (a claim to live at the charge of the
faithful): "if they be ministers of the altar and dispensers of the
sacraments, they need not insist on it, but it is theirs by perfect
right." The reason for this is because the sacrament of the altar
wherever it be offered is common to all the faithful. Thirdly, if
they devote themselves to the study of Holy Writ to the common profit
of the whole Church. Wherefore Jerome says (Contra Vigil.
xiii): "It is still the custom in Judea, not only among us but
also among the Hebrews, for those who meditate on the law of the Lord
day and night, end have no other share on earth but God alone, to be
supported by the subscriptions of the synagogues and of the whole
world." Fourthly, if they have endowed the monastery with the goods
they possessed, they may live on the alms given to the monastery.
Hence Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xxv) that "those who
renouncing or distributing their means, whether ample or of any amount
whatever, have desired with pious and salutary humility to be numbered
among the poor of Christ, have a claim on the community and on
brotherly love to receive a livelihood in return. They are to be
commended indeed if they work with their hands, but if they be
unwilling, who will dare to force them? Nor does it matter, as he
goes on to say, to which monasteries, or in what place any one of them
has bestowed his goods on his needy brethren; for all Christians
belong to one commonwealth."
On the other hand, in the default of any necessity, or of their
affording any profit to others, it is unlawful for religious to wish to
live in idleness on the alms given to the poor. Hence Augustine says
(De oper. Monach. xxii): "Sometimes those who enter the
profession of God's service come from a servile condition of life,
from tilling the soil or working at some trade or lowly occupation. In
their case it is not so clear whether they came with the purpose of
serving God, or of evading a life of want and toil with a view to
being fed and clothed in idleness, and furthermore to being honored by
those by whom they were wont to be despised and downtrodden. Such
persons surely cannot excuse themselves from work on the score of bodily
weakness, for their former mode of life is evidence against them."
And he adds further on (De oper. Monach. xxv): "If they be
unwilling to work, neither let them eat. For if the rich humble
themselves to piety, it is not that the poor may be exalted to pride;
since it is altogether unseemly that in a life wherein senators become
laborers, laborers should become idle, and that where the lords of the
manor have come after renouncing their ease, the serfs should live in
comfort."
Reply to Objection 1: These authorities must be understood as
referring to cases of necessity, that is to say, when there is no
other means of succoring the poor: for then they would be bound not
only to refrain from accepting alms, but also to give what they have
for the support of the needy.
Reply to Objection 2: Prelates are competent to preach in virtue of
their office, but religious may be competent to do so in virtue of
delegation; and thus when they work in the field of the Lord, they
may make their living thereby, according to 2 Tim. 2:6, "The
husbandman that laboreth must first partake of the fruits," which a
gloss explains thus, "that is to say, the preacher, who in the field
of the Church tills the hearts of his hearers with the plough of
God's word." Those also who minister to the preachers may live on
alms. Hence a gloss on Rm. 15:27, "If the Gentiles have
been made partakers of their spiritual things, they ought also in
carnal things to minister to them," says, "namely, to the Jews who
sent preachers from Jerusalem." There are moreover other reasons for
which a person has a claim to live at the charge of the faithful, as
stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: Other things being equal, it is more perfect
to give than to receive. Nevertheless to give or to give up all one's
possessions for Christ's sake, and to receive a little for one's
livelihood is better than to give to the poor part by part, as stated
above (Question 186, Article 3, ad 6).
Reply to Objection 4: To receive gifts so as to increase one's
wealth, or to accept a livelihood from another without having a claim
to it, and without profit to others or being in need oneself, affords
an occasion of sin. But this does not apply to religious, as stated
above.
Reply to Objection 5: Whenever there is evident necessity for
religious living on alms without doing any manual work, as well as an
evident profit to be derived by others, it is not the weak who are
scandalized, but those who are full of malice like the Pharisees,
whose scandal our Lord teaches us to despise (Mt.
15:12-14). If, however, these motives of necessity and
profit be lacking, the weak might possibly be scandalized thereby; and
this should be avoided. Yet the same scandal might be occasioned
through those who live in idleness on the common revenues.
|
|