 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
Objection 1. It would seem unlawful for religious to teach, preach, and the like. For it is said (VII, qu. i, can. Hoc nequaquam) in an ordinance of a synod of Constantinople [Pseudosynod held by Photius in the year 879]: "The monastic life is one of subjection and discipleship, not of teaching, authority, or pastoral care." AndJerome says (ad Ripar. et Desider. [Contra Vigilant. xvi]): "Amonk'sduty is not to teach but to lament." AgainPope Leo [Leo I, Ep. cxx ad Theodoret., 6, cf. XVI, qu. i, can. Adjicimus]: says "Let none dare to preach save thepriests of the Lord, be hemonk orlayman, and nomatter whatknowledge he may boast of having." Now it is not lawful to exceed the bounds of one's office or transgress the ordinance of theChurch. Therefore seemingly it is unlawful for religious to teach, preach, and the like.
Objection 2. Further, in an ordinance of theCouncil of Nicea (cf. XVI, qu. i, can. Placuit) it is laid down as follows: "It is our absolute and peremptory command addressed to all thatmonks shall not hear confessions except of one another, as is right, that they shall not bury the dead except those dwelling with them in the monastery, or if by chance a brother happen to die while on a visit." But just as the above belong to theduty ofclerics, so also do preaching and teaching. Therefore since "the business of amonk differs from that of acleric," asJerome says (Ep. xiv ad Heliod.), it would seem unlawful for religious to preach, teach, and the like.
Objection 3. Further,Gregory says (Regist. v, Ep. 1): "Noman can fulfil ecclesiastical duties, and keep consistently to the monastic rule": and this is quoted XVI, qu. i, can. Nemo potest. Nowmonks are bound to keep consistently to the monastic rule. Therefore it would seem that they cannot fulfil ecclesiastical duties, whereof teaching and preaching are a part. Therefore seemingly it is unlawful for them to preach, teach, and do similar things.
On the contrary,Gregory is quoted (XVI, qu. i, can. Ex auctoritate) as saying: "By authority of this decree framed in virtue of our apostolic power and theduty of our office, be it lawful tomonkpriests who are configured to theapostles, to preach,baptize, give communion,pray for sinners, impose penance, andabsolve fromsin."
I answer that, A thing is declared to be unlawful to aperson in two ways. First, because there is something in him contrary to that which is declared unlawful to him: thus to noman is it lawful tosin, because eachman has in himself reason and anobligation toGod's law, to which thingssin is contrary. And in this way it is said to be unlawful for aperson to preach, teach, or do like things, because there is in him something incompatible with these things, either by reason of a precept—thus those who areirregular by ordinance of theChurch may not be raised to the sacred orders—or by reason ofsin, according toPsalm 49:16, "But to the sinnerGod hath said: Why dost thou declare Myjustice?"
In this way it is not unlawful for religious to preach, teach, and do like things, both because they are bound neither byvow nor by precept of their rule to abstain from these things, and because they are not rendered less apt for these things by anysin committed, but on the contrary they are the more apt through having taken upon themselves the practice ofholiness. For it is foolish to say that a man is rendered less fit forspiritual duties through advancing himself inholiness; and consequently it is foolish to declare that the religious state is an obstacle to the fulfilment of such like duties. Thiserror is rejected by Pope Boniface [Boniface IV] for the reasons given above. His words which are quoted (XVI, qu. i, can. Sunt. nonnulli) are these: "There are some who without any dogmaticproof, and with extreme daring, inspired with a zeal rather of bitterness than of love, assert thatmonks though they be dead to the world and live toGod, are unworthy of the power of thepriestly office, and that they cannot confer penance, nor christen, norabsolve in virtue of the power divinely bestowed on them in thepriestly office. But they are altogether wrong." He proves this first because it is not contrary to the rule; thus he continues: "For neither did the Blessed Benedict the saintly teacher ofmonks forbid this in any way," nor is it forbidden in other rules. Secondly, he refutes the aboveerror from the usefulness of the monks, when he adds at the end of the same chapter: "The more perfect a man is, the more effective is he in these, namely inspiritual works."
Secondly, a thing is said to be unlawful for a man, not on account of there being in him something contrary thereto, but because he lacks that which enables him to do it: thus it is unlawful for adeacon to say mass, because he is not inpriestly orders; and it is unlawful for apriest to deliver judgment because he lacks theepiscopal authority. Here, however, a distinction must be made. Because those things which are a matter of an order, cannot be deputed to one who has not the order, whereas matters ofjurisdiction can be deputed to those who have not ordinaryjurisdiction: thus the delivery of a judgment is deputed by thebishop to a simplepriest. On this sense it is said to be unlawful formonks and other religious to preach, teach, and so forth, because the religious state does not give them the power to do these things. They can, however, do them if they receive orders, or ordinaryjurisdiction, or if matters ofjurisdiction be delegated to them.
Reply to Objection 1. It results from the words quoted that the fact of their beingmonks does not givemonks the power to do these things, yet it does not involve in them anything contrary to the performance of these acts.
Reply to Objection 2. Again, this ordinance of theCouncil of Nicea forbidsmonks to claim the power of exercising those acts on the ground of their being monks, but it does not forbid those acts being delegated to them.
Reply to Objection 3. These two things are incompatible, namely, the ordinary cure of ecclesiastical duties, and the observance of the monastic rule in a monastery. But this does not preventmonks and other religious from being sometimes occupied with ecclesiastical duties through being deputed thereto by superiors having ordinary cure; especially members of religious orders that are especially instituted for that purpose, as we shall say further on (II-II:188:4).
Objection 1. It would seem unlawful for religious to occupy themselves with secular business. For in the decree quoted above (Article 1) of Pope Boniface it is said that the "Blessed Benedict bade them to be altogether free from secular business; and this is most explicitly prescribed by the apostolic doctrine and the teaching of all the Fathers, not only to religious, but also to all the canonical clergy," according to (2 Timothy 2:4), "Noman being a soldier toGod, entangleth himself with secular business." Now it is theduty of all religious to be soldiers ofGod. Therefore it is unlawful for them to occupy themselves with secular business.
Objection 2. Further, theApostle says (1 Thessalonians 4:11): "That you use your endeavor to be quiet, and that you do your own business," which agloss explains thus—"by refraining from other people's affairs, so as to be the better able to attend to the amendment of your own life." Now religious devote themselves in a special way to the amendment of their life. Therefore they should not occupy themselves with secular business.
Objection 3. Further,Jerome,commenting onMatthew 11:8, "Behold they that are clothed in soft garments are in the houses of kings," says: "Hence we gather that an austere life and severe preaching should avoid the palaces of kings and the mansions of the voluptuous." But the needs of secular business induce men to frequent the palaces of kings. Therefore it is unlawful for religious to occupy themselves with secular business.
On the contrary, TheApostle says (Romans 16:1): "I commend to you Phoebe our Sister," and further on (Romans 16:2), "that you assist her in whatsoever business she shall have need of you."
I answer that, As stated above (186, 1 and 7, ad 1), the religious state is directed to the attainment of the perfection ofcharity, consisting principally in the love ofGod and secondarily in the love of our neighbor. Consequently that which religious intend chiefly and for its own sake is to give themselves toGod. Yet if their neighbor be in need, they should attend to his affairs out ofcharity, according to (Galatians 6:2), "Bear ye one another's burthens: and so you shall fulfil thelaw ofChrist," since through serving their neighbor forGod's sake, they are obedient to the divine love. Hence it is written (James 1:2)7): "Religion clean and undefiled beforeGod and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless andwidows in their tribulation," which means, according to agloss, to assist the helpless in their time of need.
We must conclude therefore that it is unlawful for eithermonks orclerics to carry on secular business from motives of avarice; but from motives ofcharity, and with their superior's permission, they may occupy themselves with due moderation in the administration and direction of secular business. Wherefore it is said in the Decretals (Dist. xxxviii, can. Decrevit): "Theholy synod decrees that henceforth nocleric shall buy property or occupy himself with secular business, save with a view to the care of the fatherless, orphans, orwidows, or when thebishop of the city commands him to take charge of the business connected with theChurch." And the same applies to religious as toclerics, because they are both debarred from secular business on the same grounds, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 1. Monks are forbidden to occupy themselves with secular business from motives of avarice, but not from motives ofcharity.
Reply to Objection 2. To occupy oneself with secular business on account of another's need is not officiousness butcharity.
Reply to Objection 3. To haunt the palaces of kings from motives of pleasure,glory, or avarice is not becoming to religious, but there is nothing unseemly in their visiting them from motives of piety. Hence it is written (2 Kings 4:13): "Hast thou any business, and wilt thou that I speak to the king or to the general of the army?" Likewise it becomes religious to go to the palaces of kings to rebuke and guide them, even asJohn the Baptist rebuked Herod, as related inMatthew 14:4.
Objection 1. It would seem that religious are bound to manual labor. For religious are not exempt from the observance of precepts. Now manual labor is a matter of precept according to (1 Thessalonians 4:11), "Work with your own hands as we commanded you"; whereforeAugustine says (De oper. Monach. xxx): "But who can allow these insolent men," namely religious that do no work, of whom he is speaking there, "who disregard the most salutary admonishment of theApostle, not merely to be borne with as being weaker than others, but even to preach as though they wereholier than others." Therefore it would seem that religious are bound to manual labor.
Objection 2. Further, agloss [St. Augustine, (De oper. Monach. xxi)] on (2 Thessalonians 3:10), "If anyman will not work, neither let him eat," says: "Some say that this command of theApostle refers tospiritual works, and not to the bodily labor of the farmer or craftsman"; and further on: "But it is useless for them to try to hide from themselves and from others the fact that they are unwilling not only to fulfil, but even to understand the useful admonishments ofcharity"; and again: "He wishesGod's servants to make a living by working with their bodies." Now religious especially are called servants ofGod, because they give themselves entirely to the service ofGod, asDionysius asserts (Eccl. Hier. vi). Therefore it would seem that they are bound to manual labor.
Objection 3. Further,Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xvii): "I would fainknow how they would occupy themselves, who are unwilling to work with their body. We occupy our time, say they, withprayers, psalms, reading, and the word ofGod." Yet these things are no excuse, and he proves this, as regards each in particular. For in the first place, as toprayer, he says: "Oneprayer of the obedientman is sooner granted than ten thousandprayers of the contemptuous": meaning that those are contemptuous and unworthy to be heard who work not with their hands. Secondly, as to the divine praises he adds: "Even while working with their hands they can easily sing hymns toGod." Thirdly, with regard to reading, he goes on to say: "Those who say they are occupied in reading, do they not find there what theApostle commanded? What sort of perverseness is this, to wish to read but not to obey what one reads?" Fourthly, he adds in reference to preaching [Cap. xviii]: "If one has to speak, and is so busy that he cannot spare time for manual work, can all in the monastery do this? And since all cannot do this, why should all make this a pretext for being exempt? And even if all were able, they should do so by turns, not only so that the others may be occupied in other works, but also because it suffices that one speak while many listen." Therefore it would seem that religious should not desist from manual labor on account of such likespiritual works to which they devote themselves.
Objection 4. Further, agloss onLuke 12:33, "Sell what you possess," says: "Not only give your clothes to thepoor, but sell what you possess, that having once for all renounced all your possessions for the Lord's sake, you may henceforth work with the labor of your hands, so as to have wherewith to live or to givealms." Now it belongs properly to religious to renounce all they have. Therefore it would seem likewise to belong to them to live and givealms through the labor of their hands.
Objection 5. Further, religious especially would seem to be bound to imitate the life of theapostles, since they profess the state of perfection. Now theapostles worked with their own hands, according to (1 Corinthians 4:1)2: "We labor, working with our own hands." Therefore it would seem that religious are bound to manual labor.
On the contrary, Those precepts that are commonly enjoined upon all are equally binding on religious and seculars. But the precept of manual labor is enjoined upon all in common, as appears from2 Thessalonians 3:6, "Withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly," etc. (for by brother he signifies everyChristian, according to (1 Corinthians 7:12), "If any brother have a wife thatbelieveth not"). Now it is written in the same passage (2 Thessalonians 3:10): "If anyman will not work, neither let him eat." Therefore religious are not bound to manual labor any more than seculars are.
I answer that, Manual labor is directed to four things. First and principally to obtain food; wherefore it was said to the firstman (Genesis 3:19): "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread," and it is written (Psalm 127:2): "For thou shalt eat the labors of thy hands." Secondly, it is directed to the removal of idleness whence arise manyevils; hence it is written (Sirach 33:28),29): "Send" thyslave "to work, that he be not idle, for idleness hath taught muchevil." Thirdly, it is directed to the curbing ofconcupiscence, inasmuch as it is a means of afflicting the body; hence it is written (2 Corinthians 6:5-6): "In labors, in watchings, in fastings, inchastity." Fourthly, it is directed toalmsgiving, wherefore it is written (Ephesians 4:28): "He that stole, let him now steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which isgood, that he may have something to give to him that suffereth need." Accordingly, in so far as manual labor is directed to obtaining food, it comes under anecessity of precept in so far as it isnecessary for that end: since that which is directed to an end derives itsnecessity from that end, being, in effect, so farnecessary as the end cannot be obtained without it. Consequently he who has no other means of livelihood is bound to work with his hands, whatever hiscondition may be. This is signified by the words of theApostle: "If anyman will not work, neither let him eat," as though to say: "Thenecessity of manual labor is thenecessity of meat." So that if one could live without eating, one would not be bound to work with one's hands. The same applies to those who have no other lawful means of livelihood: since a man is understood to be unable to do what he cannot do lawfully. Wherefore we find that theApostle prescribed manual labor merely as a remedy for thesin of those who gained their livelihood by unlawful means. For theApostle ordered manual labor first of all in order to avoidtheft, as appears from (Ephesians 4:28), "He that stole, let him now steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his hands." Secondly, to avoid the coveting of others' property, wherefore it is written (1 Thessalonians 4:11): "Work with your own hands, as we commanded you, and that you walk honestly towards them that are without." Thirdly, to avoid the discreditable pursuits whereby some seek a livelihood. Hence he says (2 Thessalonians 3:10)-12): "When we were with you, this we declared to you: that if anyman will not work, neither let him eat. For we have heard that there are some among you who walk disorderly, working not at all, but curiously meddling" (namely, as agloss explains it, "who make a living by meddling in unlawful things). Now we charge them that are such, and beseech them . . . that working with silence, they would eat their own bread." HenceJerome states (Super epist. ad Galat. [Preface to Bk. ii of Commentary]) that theApostle said this "not so much in his capacity of teacher as on account of the faults of the people."
It must, however, be observed that under manual labor are comprised all thosehuman occupations wherebyman can lawfully gain a livelihood, whether by using his hands, his feet, or his tongue. For watchmen, couriers, and such like who live by their labor, are understood to live by their handiwork: because, since the hand is "the organ of organs" [De Anima iii, 8], handiwork denotes all kinds of work, whereby a man may lawfully gain a livelihood.
In so far as manual labor is directed to the removal of idleness, or the affliction of the body, it does not come under anecessity of precept if we consider it in itself, since there are many other means besides manual labor of afflicting the body or of removing idleness: for the flesh is afflicted by fastings and watchings, and idleness is removed by meditation on theHoly Scriptures and by the divine praises. Hence agloss onPsalm 118:82, "My eyes have failed for Thy word," says: "He is not idle who meditates only onGod's word; nor is he who works abroad any better than he who devotes himself to the study ofknowing thetruth." Consequently for these reasons religious are not bound to manual labor, as neither are seculars, except when they are so bound by the statutes of their order. ThusJerome says (Ep. cxxv ad Rustic Monach.): "The Egyptian monasteries are wont to admit none unless they work or labor, not so much for the necessities of life, as for the welfare of thesoul, lest it be led astray bywicked thoughts." But in so far as manual labor is directed toalmsgiving, it does not come under thenecessity of precept, save perchance in some particular case, when a man is under anobligation to givealms, and has no other means of having the wherewithal to assist the poor: for in such a case religious would be bound as well as seculars to do manual labor.
Reply to Objection 1. This command of theApostle is ofnatural law: wherefore agloss on2 Thessalonians 3:6, "That you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly," says, "otherwise than thenatural order requires," and he is speaking of those who abstained from manual labor. Hencenature has providedman with hands instead of arms and clothes, with which she has provided other animals, in order that with his hands he may obtain these and all other necessaries. Hence it is clear that this precept, even as all the precepts of thenatural law, is binding on both religious and seculars alike. Yet not everyonesins that works not with his hands, because those precepts of thenatural law which regard thegood of the many are not binding on eachindividual, but it suffices that oneperson apply himself to this business and another to that; for instance, that some be craftsmen, others husbandmen, others judges, and others teachers, and so forth, according to the words of theApostle (1 Corinthians 12:17), "If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were the hearing, where would be the smelling?"
Reply to Objection 2. Thisgloss is taken fromAugustine's De operibus Monachorum, cap. 21, where he speaks against certainmonks who declared it to be unlawful for the servants ofGod to work with their hands, on account ofour Lord's saying (Matthew 6:25): "Be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat." Nevertheless his words do not imply that religious are bound to work with their hands, if they have other means of livelihood. This is clear from his adding: "He wishes the servants ofGod to make a living by working with their bodies." Now this does not apply to religious any more than to seculars, which is evident for two reasons. First, on account of the way in which theApostle expresses himself, by saying: "That you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly." For he calls allChristians brothers, since at that time religious orders were not as yet founded. Secondly, because religious have no otherobligations than what seculars have, except as required by the rule they profess: wherefore if their rule contain nothing about manual labor, religious are not otherwise bound to manual labor than seculars are.
Reply to Objection 3. Aman may devote himself in two ways to all thespiritual works mentioned byAugustine in the passage quoted: in one way with a view to the commongood, in another with a view to his private advantage. Accordingly those who devote themselves publicly to the aforesaidspiritual works are thereby exempt from manual labor for two reasons: first, because it behooves them to be occupied exclusively with such like works; secondly, because those who devote themselves to such works have a claim to be supported by those for whose advantage they work.
On the other hand, those who devote themselves to such works not publicly but privately as it were, ought not on that account to be exempt from manual labor, nor have they a claim to be supported by the offerings of thefaithful, and it is of these thatAugustine is speaking. For when he says: "They can sing hymns toGod even while working with their hands; like the craftsmen who give tongue to fable telling without withdrawing their hands from their work," it is clear that he cannot refer to those who sing the canonical hours in the church, but to those who tell psalms or hymns as privateprayers. Likewise what he says of reading andprayer is to be referred to the privateprayer and reading which evenlay people do at times, and not to those who perform publicprayers in the church, or give public lectures in the schools. Hence he does not say: "Those who say they are occupied in teaching and instructing," but: "Those who say they are occupied in reading." Again he speaks of that preaching which is addressed, not publicly to the people, but to one or a few in particular by way of private admonishment. Hence he says expressly: "If one has to speak." For according to agloss on (1 Corinthians 2:4), "Speech is addressed privately, preaching to many."
Reply to Objection 4. Those who despise all forGod's sake are bound to work with their hands, when they have no other means of livelihood, or of almsgiving (should the case occur where almsgiving were a matter of precept), but not otherwise, as stated in the Article. It is in this sense that thegloss quoted is to be understood.
Reply to Objection 5. That theapostles worked with their hands was sometimes a matter ofnecessity, sometimes a work of supererogation. It was ofnecessity when they failed to receive a livelihood from others. Hence agloss on (1 Corinthians 4:1)2, "We labor, working with our own hands," adds, "because noman giveth to us." It was supererogation, as appears from1 Corinthians 9:12, where theApostle says that he did not use the power he had of living by the Gospel. TheApostle had recourse to this supererogation for three motives. First, in order to deprive thefalse apostles of the pretext for preaching, for they preached merely for a temporal advantage; hence he says (2 Corinthians 11:12): "But what I do, that I will do that I may cut off the occasion from them," etc. Secondly, in order to avoid burdening those to whom he preached; hence he says (2 Corinthians 12:13): "What is there that you have had less than the other churches, but that I myself was not burthensome to you?" Thirdly, in order to give an example of work to the idle; hence he says (2 Thessalonians 3:8-9): "We worked night and day . . . that we might give ourselves a pattern unto you, to imitate us." However, theApostle did not do this in places like Athens where he had facilities for preaching daily, asAugustine observes (De oper. Monach. xviii). Yet religious are not for this reason bound to imitate theApostle in this matter, since they are not bound to all works of supererogation: wherefore neither did the otherapostles work with their hands.
Objection 1. It would seem unlawful for religious to live onalms. For theApostle (1 Timothy 5:1)6) forbids thosewidows who have other means of livelihood to live on thealms of theChurch, so that theChurch may have "sufficient for them that arewidows indeed." AndJerome says to Pope Damasus [Cf. Cf. Can. Clericos, cause. i, qu. 2; Can. Quoniam, cause xvi, qu. 1; Regul. Monach. iv among the supposititious works ofSt. 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 ofsacrilege, 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 theysin if they consume thealms belonging to the poor.
Objection 2. Further, to live at the expense of thefaithful is the stipend appointed to those who preach the Gospel in payment of their labor or work, according toMatthew 10:10: "The workman is worthy of his meat." Now it belongs not to religious to preach the Gospel, but chiefly toprelates who are pastors and teachers. Therefore religious cannot lawfully live on thealms of the faithful.
Objection 3. Further, religious are in the state of perfection. But it is more perfect to give than to receivealms; for it is written (Acts 20:35): "It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive." Therefore they should not live onalms, but rather should they givealms of their handiwork.
Objection 4. Further, it belongs to religious to avoid obstacles tovirtue and occasions ofsin. Now the receiving ofalms offers an occasion ofsin, and hinders an act ofvirtue; hence agloss on2 Thessalonians 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 (Exodus 23:8): "Neither shalt thou take bribes which . . . blind the wise, and pervert the words of the just," and (Proverbs 22:7): "The borrower is servant to him that lendeth." This is contrary to religion, wherefore agloss on2 Thessalonians 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 onalms.
Objection 5. Further, religious especially are bound to imitate the perfection of theapostles; wherefore theApostle says (Philippians 3:15): "Let us . . . as many as are perfect, be thus minded." But theApostle was unwilling to live at the expense of thefaithful, either in order to cut off the occasion from thefalse apostles as he himself says (2 Corinthians 11:12), or to avoid givingscandal to the weak, as appears from1 Corinthians 9:12. It would seem therefore that religious ought for the same reasons to refrain from living onalms. HenceAugustine says (De oper. Monach. 28): "Cut off the occasion of disgraceful marketing whereby you lower yourselves in the esteem of others, and givescandal to the weak: and show men that you seek not an easy livelihood in idleness, but thekingdom 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 amonk 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 onalms.
I answer that, Aman may lawfully live on what is his or due to him. Now that which is given out of liberality becomes the property of theperson to whom it is given. Wherefore religious andclerics 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 withoutdoubt they live onalms. 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 aperson may accept analms of some great property but not bread or some small sum of money. Nevertheless since thesegifts 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 suchgifts 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 theintention of those who bestowed thosegifts.
A thing is due to aperson in two ways. First, on account ofnecessity, which makes all things common, asAmbrose [Basil, Serm. de Temp. lxiv, among the supposititious works ofSt. Ambrose] asserts. Consequently if religious be in need they can lawfully live onalms. Suchnecessity 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: whereforeAugustine says (De oper. Monach. xvii) that "thegood works of the faithful should not leaveGod's servants who work with their hands without a supply of necessaries, that when the hour comes for them to nourish theirsouls, 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: whereforeAugustine 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 toGod, 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 aperson through his affording others something whether temporal orspiritual, according to (1 Corinthians 9:11), "If we have sown unto youspiritual things, is it a greatmatter if we reap your carnal things?" And in this sense religious may live onalms 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 Corinthians 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." HenceAugustine 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 thesacraments, 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 ofHoly Writ to the common profit of the wholeChurch. WhereforeJerome 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 thelaw of the Lord day and night, end have no other share on earth butGod 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 thealms given to the monastery. HenceAugustine 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 salutaryhumility to be numbered among the poor ofChrist, 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 allChristians belong to one commonwealth."
On the other hand, in the default of anynecessity, or of their affording any profit to others, it is unlawful for religious to wish to live in idleness on thealms given to the poor. HenceAugustine says (De oper. Monach. xxii): "Sometimes those who enter the profession ofGod's service come from a servilecondition of life, from tilling the soil or working at some trade or lowly occupation. On their case it is not so clear whether they came with the purpose of servingGod, or of evading a life of want and toil with a view to being fed and clothed in idleness, and furthermore to beinghonored by those by whom they were wont to be despised and downtrodden. Suchpersons 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 richhumble themselves to piety, it is not that the poor may be exalted topride; 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 ofnecessity, 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 acceptingalms, 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 to2 Timothy 2:6, "The husbandman that laboreth must first partake of the fruits," which agloss explains thus, "that is to say, the preacher, who in the field of theChurch tills the hearts of his hearers with the plough ofGod's word." Those also who minister to the preachers may live onalms. Hence agloss onRomans 15:27, "If theGentiles have been made partakers of theirspiritual things, they ought also in carnal things to minister to them," says, "namely, to theJews who sent preachers from Jerusalem." There are moreover other reasons for which aperson has a claim to live at the charge of thefaithful, 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 forChrist'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 (II-II:186:3 ad 6).
Reply to Objection 4. To receivegifts so as to increase one'swealth, 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 ofsin. But this does not apply to religious, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 5. Whenever there is evidentnecessity for religious living onalms without doing any manual work, as well as an evident profit to be derived by others, it is not the weak who arescandalized, but those who are full ofmalice like thePharisees, whosescandal our Lord teaches us to despise (Matthew 15:12-14). If, however, these motives ofnecessity and profit be lacking, the weak might possibly be scandalized thereby; and this should be avoided. Yet the samescandal might be occasioned through those who live in idleness on the common revenues.
Objection 1. It would seem unlawful for religious to beg. ForAugustine says (De oper. Monach. xxviii): "The most cunning foe has scattered on all sides a great number ofhypocrites wearing the monastichabit, who go wandering about the country," and afterwards he adds: "They all ask, they all demand to be supported in their profitable penury, or to be paid for a pretendedholiness." Therefore it would seem that the life of mendicant religious is to be condemned.
Objection 2. Further, it is written (1 Thessalonians 4:11): "That you . . . work with your own hands as we commanded you, and that you walk honestly towards them that are without: and that you want nothing of anyman's": and agloss on this passage says: "You must work and not be idle, because work is both honorable and a light to the unbeliever: and you must not covet that which belongs to another and much less beg or take anything." Again agloss [St. Augustine, (De oper. Monach. iii)] on (2 Thessalonians 3:10), "If anyman will not work," etc. says: "He wishes the servants ofGod to work with the body, so as to gain a livelihood, and not be compelled by want to ask for necessaries." Now this is to beg. Therefore it would seem unlawful to beg while omitting to work with one's hands.
Objection 3. Further, that which is forbidden bylaw and contrary tojustice, is unbecoming to religious. Now begging is forbidden in thedivine law; for it is written (Deuteronomy 15:4): "There shall be no poor nor beggar among you," and (Psalm 36:25): "I have not seen the just forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread." Moreover an able-bodied mendicant is punished bycivil law, according to thelaw (XI, xxvi, de Valid. Mendicant.). Therefore it is unfitting for religious to beg.
Objection 4. Further, "Shame is about that which is disgraceful," asDamascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 15). NowAmbrose says (De Offic. i, 30) that "to be ashamed to beg is a sign ofgood birth." Therefore it is disgraceful to beg: and consequently this is unbecoming to religious.
Objection 5. Further, according toour Lord's command it is especially becoming to preachers of the Gospel to live onalms, as stated above (Article 4). Yet it is not becoming that they should beg, since agloss on2 Timothy 2:6, "The husbandman, that laboreth," etc. says: "TheApostle wishes the gospeler to understand that to accept necessaries from those among whom he labors is not mendicancy but a right." Therefore it would seem unbecoming for religious to beg.
On the contrary, It becomes religious to live in imitation ofChrist. NowChrist was a mendicant, according toPsalm 39:18, "But I am a beggar and poor"; where agloss says: "Christ said this of Himself as bearing the 'form of a servant,'" and further on: "A beggar is one who entreats another, and a poorman is one who has not enough for himself." Again it is written (Psalm 69:6): "I am needy and poor"; where agloss says: "'Needy,' that is a suppliant; 'and poor,' that is, not having enough for myself, because I have no worldlywealth." AndJerome says in a letter [Reference unknown]: "Beware lest whereas thy Lord," i.e.Christ, "begged, thou amass other people'swealth." Therefore it becomes religious to beg.
I answer that, Two things may be considered in reference to mendicancy. The first is on the part of the act itself of begging, which has a certain abasement attaching to it; since of allmen those would seem most abased who are not only poor, but are so needy that they have to receive their meat from others. On this way some deserve praise for begging out ofhumility, just as they abase themselves in other ways, as being the most efficacious remedy againstpride which they desire to quench either in themselves or in others by their example. For just as a disease that arises from excessive heat is most efficaciously healed by things that excel in cold, so proneness topride is most efficaciously healed by those things which savor most of abasement. Hence it is said in the Decretals (II, cap. Si quis semel, de Paenitentia): "To condescend to the humblest duties, and to devote oneself to the lowliest service is an exercise ofhumility; for thus one is able to heal the disease ofpride andhumanglory." HenceJerome praises Fabiola (Ep. lxxvii ad ocean.) for that she desired "to receivealms, having poured forth all herwealth forChrist's sake." The Blessed Alexis acted in like manner, for, having renounced all his possessions forChrist's sake he rejoiced in receivingalms even from his own servants. It is also related of the Blessed Arsenius in the Lives of the Fathers (v, 6) that he gave thanks because he was forced bynecessity to ask foralms. Hence it is enjoined to some people as a penance for grievoussins to go on a pilgrimage begging. Since, however,humility like the othervirtues should not be without discretion, it behooves one to be discreet in becoming a mendicant for the purpose of humiliation, lest a man thereby incur the mark ofcovetousness or of anything else unbecoming. Secondly, mendicancy may be considered on the part of that which one gets by begging: and thus a man may be led to beg by a twofold motive. First, by the desire to havewealth or meat without working for it, and such like mendicancy is unlawful; secondly, by a motive ofnecessity or usefulness. The motive is one ofnecessity if a man has no other means of livelihood save begging; and it is a motive of usefulness if he wishes to accomplish something useful, and is unable to do so without thealms of the faithful. Thusalms are besought for the building of a bridge, or church, or for any other work whatever that is conducive to the commongood: thus scholars may seekalms that they may devote themselves to the study of wisdom. On this way mendicancy is lawful to religious no less than to seculars.
Reply to Objection 1.Augustine is speaking there explicitly of those who beg from motives ofcovetousness.
Reply to Objection 2. The firstgloss speaks of begging from motives ofcovetousness, as appears from the words of theApostle; while the secondgloss speaks of those who without effecting any useful purpose, beg their livelihood in order to live in idleness. on the other hand, he lives not idly who in any way lives usefully.
Reply to Objection 3. This precept of thedivine law does not forbid anyone to beg, but it forbids the rich to be so stingy that some are compelled bynecessity to beg. Thecivil law imposes a penalty on able-bodied mendicants who beg from motives neither of utility nor ofnecessity.
Reply to Objection 4. Disgrace is twofold; one arises from lack of honesty [Cf.II-II:145:1], the other from an external defect, thus it is disgraceful for a man to be sick or poor. Such like uncomeliness of mendicancy does not pertain tosin, but it may pertain tohumility, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 5. Preachers have the right to be fed by those to whom they preach: yet if they wish to seek this by begging so as to receive it as a freegift and not as a right this will be a mark of greaterhumility.
Objection 1. It would seem unlawful for religious to wear coarser clothes than others. For according to theApostle (1 Thessalonians 5:2)2) we ought to "refrain from all appearance ofevil." Now coarseness of clothes has an appearance ofevil; forour Lord said (Matthew 7:15): "Beware offalseprophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep": and agloss onApocalypse 6:8, "Behold a pale horse," says: "Thedevil finding that he cannot succeed, neither by outward afflictions nor by manifestheresies, sends in advancefalse brethren, who under the guise of religion assume the characteristics of the black and red horses by corrupting thefaith." Therefore it would seem that religious should not wear coarse clothes.
Objection 2. Further,Jerome says (Ep. lii ad Nepotian.): "Avoid somber," i.e. black, "equally with glittering apparel. Fine and coarse clothes are equally to be shunned, for the one exhales pleasure, the other vainglory." Therefore, since vainglory is a graversin than the use of pleasure, it would seem that religious who should aim at what is more perfect ought to avoid coarse rather than fine clothes.
Objection 3. Further, religious should aim especially at doing works of penance. Now in works of penance we should use, not outward signs of sorrow, but rather signs ofjoy; forour Lord said (Matthew 6:16): "When you fast, be not, as thehypocrites, sad," and afterwards He added: "But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head and wash thy face."Augustine commenting on these words (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12): "In this chapter we must observe that not only the glare and pomp of outward things, but even the weeds of mourning may be a subject of ostentation, all the more dangerous as being a decoy under the guise ofGod's service." Therefore seemingly religious ought not to wear coarse clothes.
On the contrary, TheApostle says (Hebrews 11:3)7): "They wandered about in sheep-skins in goat-skins," and agloss adds—"as Elias and others." Moreover it is said in theDecretal XXI, qu. iv, can. Omnis jactantia: "If anypersons be found to deride those who wear coarse and religious apparel they must be reproved. For in the early times all those who wereconsecrated toGod went about in common and coarse apparel."
I answer that, AsAugustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12), "in all external things, it is not the use but theintention of the user that is at fault." On order to judge of this it isnecessary to observe that coarse and homely apparel may be considered in two ways. First, as being a sign of a man's disposition orcondition, because according toSirach 19:27, "the attire . . . of theman" shows "what he is." On this way coarseness of attire is sometimes a sign of sorrow: wherefore those who are beset with sorrow are wont to wear coarser clothes, just as on the other hand in times of festivity andjoy they wear finer clothes. Hence penitents make use of coarse apparel, for example, the king (Jonah 3:6) who "was clothed with sack-cloth," andAchab (1 Kings 21:27) who "puthair-cloth upon his flesh." Sometimes, however, it is a sign of the contempt ofriches and worldly ostentation. WhereforeJerome says (Ep. cxxv ad Rustico Monach.): "Let your somber attire indicate your purity of mind, your coarse robeprove your contempt of the world, yet so that your mind be not inflated withal, lest your speech belie yourhabit." On both these ways it is becoming for religious to wear coarse attire, since religion is a state of penance and of contempt of worldlyglory.
But that aperson wish to signify this to others arises from three motives. First, in order tohumble himself: for just as a man's mind is uplifted by fine clothes, so is ithumbled by lowly apparel. Hence speaking ofAchab who "puthair-cloth on his flesh," the Lord said to Elias: "Hast thou not seenAchabhumbled before Me?" (1 Kings 21:29). Secondly, in order to set an example to others; wherefore agloss onMatthew 3:4, "(John) had his garments of camel's hair," says: "He who preaches penance is clothed in thehabit of penance." Thirdly, on account of vainglory; thusAugustine says (cf. Objection 3) that "even the weeds of mourning may be a subject of ostentation."
Accordingly in the first two ways it is praiseworthy to wearhumble apparel, but in the third way it issinful.
Secondly, coarse and homely attire may be considered as the result ofcovetousness or negligence, and thus also it issinful.
Reply to Objection 1. Coarseness of attire has not of itself the appearance ofevil, indeed it has more the appearance ofgood, namely of the contempt of worldlyglory. Hence it is thatwickedpersons hide theirwickedness under coarse clothing. HenceAugustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 24) that "the sheep should not dislike their clothing for the reason that the wolves sometimes hide themselves under it."
Reply to Objection 2.Jerome is speaking there of the coarse attire that is worn on account ofhumanglory.
Reply to Objection 3. According toour Lord's teaching men should do nodeeds ofholiness for the sake of show: and this is especially the case when one does something strange. HenceChrysostom [Hom. xiii in Matth. in the Opus Imperfectum,falsely ascribed toSt. John Chrysostom] says: "Whilepraying a man should do nothing strange, so as to draw the gaze of others, either by shouting or striking his breast, or casting up his hands," because the very strangeness draws people's attention to him. Yet blame does not attach to all strange behavior that draws people's attention, for it may be done well or ill. HenceAugustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12) that "in the practice of theChristian religion when a man draws attention to himself by unwonted squalor and shabbiness, since he acts thusvoluntarily and not ofnecessity, we can gather from his otherdeeds whether his behavior is motivated by contempt of excessive dress or by affectation."Religious, however, would especially seem not to act thus from affectation, since they wear a coarsehabit as a sign of their profession whereby they profess contempt of the world.