" Therefore it
is disgraceful to beg: and consequently this is unbecoming to
religious.
is disgraceful to beg: and consequently this is unbecoming to
religious.
Summa Theologica
): "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 the soul, lest it be led astray by wicked thoughts. " But in
so far as manual labor is directed to almsgiving, it does not come
under the necessity of precept, save perchance in some particular case,
when a man is under an obligation to give alms, 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 the Apostle is of natural law:
wherefore a gloss on 2 Thess. 3:6, "That you withdraw yourselves from
every brother walking disorderly," says, "otherwise than the natural
order requires," and he is speaking of those who abstained from manual
labor. Hence nature has provided man 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 the natural law,
is binding on both religious and seculars alike. Yet not everyone sins
that works not with his hands, because those precepts of the natural
law which regard the good of the many are not binding on each
individual, but it suffices that one person 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 the Apostle (1 Cor. 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: This gloss is taken from Augustine's De operibus
Monachorum, cap. 21, where he speaks against certain monks who declared
it to be unlawful for the servants of God to work with their hands, on
account of our Lord's saying (Mat. 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
of God 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 the Apostle
expresses himself, by saying: "That you withdraw yourselves from every
brother walking disorderly. " For he calls all Christians brothers,
since at that time religious orders were not as yet founded. Secondly,
because religious have no other obligations 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: A man may devote himself in two ways to all the
spiritual works mentioned by Augustine in the passage quoted: in one
way with a view to the common good, in another with a view to his
private advantage. Accordingly those who devote themselves publicly to
the aforesaid spiritual 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 the faithful, and it is of these that Augustine is
speaking. For when he says: "They can sing hymns to God 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 private prayers.
Likewise what he says of reading and prayer is to be referred to the
private prayer and reading which even lay people do at times, and not
to those who perform public prayers 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 a gloss on 1 Cor. 2:4, "Speech is
addressed privately, preaching to many. "
Reply to Objection 4: Those who despise all for God'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 the gloss quoted is to be understood.
Reply to Objection 5: That the apostles worked with their hands was
sometimes a matter of necessity, sometimes a work of supererogation. It
was of necessity when they failed to receive a livelihood from others.
Hence a gloss on 1 Cor. 4:12, "We labor, working with our own hands,"
adds, "because no man giveth to us. " It was supererogation, as appears
from 1 Cor. 9:12, where the Apostle says that he did not use the power
he had of living by the Gospel. The Apostle had recourse to this
supererogation for three motives. First, in order to deprive the false
apostles of the pretext for preaching, for they preached merely for a
temporal advantage; hence he says (2 Cor. 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
Cor. 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 Thess.
3:8,9): "We worked night and day . . . that we might give ourselves a
pattern unto you, to imitate us. " However, the Apostle did not do this
in places like Athens where he had facilities for preaching daily, as
Augustine observes (De oper. Monach. xviii). Yet religious are not for
this reason bound to imitate the Apostle in this matter, since they are
not bound to all works of supererogation: wherefore neither did the
other apostles work with their hands.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful for religious to live on alms?
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 [*Cf. Cf. 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 Mat. 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,
among the supposititious works of St. Ambrose] 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
Rom. 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 ([3808]Q[186], A[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 (Mat. 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful for religious to beg?
Objection 1: It would seem unlawful for religious to beg. For Augustine
says (De oper. Monach. xxviii): "The most cunning foe has scattered on
all sides a great number of hypocrites wearing the monastic habit, 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 pretended holiness. " Therefore it would seem that the life
of mendicant religious is to be condemned.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (1 Thess. 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
any man's": and a gloss 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 a gloss [*St. Augustine, (De oper. Monach. iii)]
on 2 Thess. 3:10, "If any man will not work," etc. says: "He wishes the
servants of God 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 by law and contrary to
justice, is unbecoming to religious. Now begging is forbidden in the
divine law; for it is written (Dt. 15:4): "There shall be no poor nor
beggar among you," and (Ps. 36:25): "I have not seen the just forsaken,
nor his seed seeking bread. " Moreover an able-bodied mendicant is
punished by civil law, according to the law (XI, xxvi, de Valid.
Mendicant. ). Therefore it is unfitting for religious to beg.
Objection 4: Further, "Shame is about that which is disgraceful," as
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 15). Now Ambrose says (De Offic. i,
30) that "to be ashamed to beg is a sign of good birth.
" Therefore it
is disgraceful to beg: and consequently this is unbecoming to
religious.
Objection 5: Further, according to our Lord's command it is especially
becoming to preachers of the Gospel to live on alms, as stated above
[3809](A[4]). Yet it is not becoming that they should beg, since a
gloss on 2 Tim. 2:6, "The husbandman, that laboreth," etc. says: "The
Apostle 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 of Christ.
Now Christ was a mendicant, according to Ps. 39:18, "But I am a beggar
and poor"; where a gloss 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 poor man is one who has not enough for himself. " Again
it is written (Ps. 69:6): "I am needy and poor"; where a gloss says:
"'Needy,' that is a suppliant; 'and poor,' that is, not having enough
for myself, because I have no worldly wealth. " And Jerome says in a
letter [*Reference unknown]: "Beware lest whereas thy Lord," i. e.
Christ, "begged, thou amass other people's wealth. " 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 all men those would seem
most abased who are not only poor, but are so needy that they have to
receive their meat from others. In this way some deserve praise for
begging out of humility, just as they abase themselves in other ways,
as being the most efficacious remedy against pride 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 to pride 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 of humility; for thus
one is able to heal the disease of pride and human glory. " Hence Jerome
praises Fabiola (Ep. lxxvii ad ocean. ) for that she desired "to receive
alms, having poured forth all her wealth for Christ's sake. " The
Blessed Alexis acted in like manner, for, having renounced all his
possessions for Christ's sake he rejoiced in receiving alms 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
by necessity to ask for alms. Hence it is enjoined to some people as a
penance for grievous sins to go on a pilgrimage begging. Since,
however, humility like the other virtues 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 of
covetousness 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 have
wealth or meat without working for it, and such like mendicancy is
unlawful; secondly, by a motive of necessity or usefulness. The motive
is one of necessity 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 the alms of the
faithful. Thus alms are besought for the building of a bridge, or
church, or for any other work whatever that is conducive to the common
good: thus scholars may seek alms that they may devote themselves to
the study of wisdom. In 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 of covetousness.
Reply to Objection 2: The first gloss speaks of begging from motives of
covetousness, as appears from the words of the Apostle; while the
second gloss 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 the divine law does not forbid
anyone to beg, but it forbids the rich to be so stingy that some are
compelled by necessity to beg. The civil law imposes a penalty on
able-bodied mendicants who beg from motives neither of utility nor of
necessity.
Reply to Objection 4: Disgrace is twofold; one arises from lack of
honesty [*Cf. [3810] Q[145], A[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 to sin, but it may pertain
to humility, 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 free gift and not as a right this will be a mark of
greater humility.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful for religious to wear coarser clothes than others?
Objection 1: It would seem unlawful for religious to wear coarser
clothes than others. For according to the Apostle (1 Thess. 5:22) we
ought to "refrain from all appearance of evil. " Now coarseness of
clothes has an appearance of evil; for our Lord said (Mat. 7:15):
"Beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep":
and a gloss on Apoc. 6:8, "Behold a pale horse," says: "The devil
finding that he cannot succeed, neither by outward afflictions nor by
manifest heresies, sends in advance false brethren, who under the guise
of religion assume the characteristics of the black and red horses by
corrupting the faith. " 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 graver sin 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 of joy; for our Lord said (Mat. 6:16): "When
you fast, be not, as the hypocrites, 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 of
God's service. " Therefore seemingly religious ought not to wear coarse
clothes.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb. 11:37): "They wandered about in
sheep-skins in goat-skins," and a gloss adds---"as Elias and others. "
Moreover it is said in the Decretal XXI, qu. iv, can. Omnis jactantia:
"If any persons be found to deride those who wear coarse and religious
apparel they must be reproved. For in the early times all those who
were consecrated to God went about in common and coarse apparel. "
I answer that, As Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12), "in all
external things, it is not the use but the intention of the user that
is at fault. " In order to judge of this it is necessary to observe that
coarse and homely apparel may be considered in two ways. First, as
being a sign of a man's disposition or condition, because according to
Ecclus. 19:27, "the attire . . . of the man" shows "what he is. " In
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 and joy they wear finer
clothes. Hence penitents make use of coarse apparel, for example, the
king (Jonah 3:6) who "was clothed with sack-cloth," and Achab (3 Kings
21:27) who "put hair-cloth upon his flesh. " Sometimes, however, it is a
sign of the contempt of riches and worldly ostentation. Wherefore
Jerome says (Ep. cxxv ad Rustico Monach. ): "Let your somber attire
indicate your purity of mind, your coarse robe prove your contempt of
the world, yet so that your mind be not inflated withal, lest your
speech belie your habit. " In both these ways it is becoming for
religious to wear coarse attire, since religion is a state of penance
and of contempt of worldly glory.
But that a person wish to signify this to others arises from three
motives. First, in order to humble himself: for just as a man's mind is
uplifted by fine clothes, so is it humbled by lowly apparel. Hence
speaking of Achab who "put hair-cloth on his flesh," the Lord said to
Elias: "Hast thou not seen Achab humbled before Me? " (3 Kings 21:29).
Secondly, in order to set an example to others; wherefore a gloss on
Mat. 3:4, "(John) had his garments of camel's hair," says: "He who
preaches penance is clothed in the habit of penance. " Thirdly, on
account of vainglory; thus Augustine says (cf. OBJ[3]) that "even the
weeds of mourning may be a subject of ostentation. "
Accordingly in the first two ways it is praiseworthy to wear humble
apparel, but in the third way it is sinful.
Secondly, coarse and homely attire may be considered as the result of
covetousness or negligence, and thus also it is sinful.
Reply to Objection 1: Coarseness of attire has not of itself the
appearance of evil, indeed it has more the appearance of good, namely
of the contempt of worldly glory. Hence it is that wicked persons hide
their wickedness under coarse clothing. Hence Augustine 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 of human glory.
Reply to Objection 3: According to our Lord's teaching men should do no
deeds of holiness for the sake of show: and this is especially the case
when one does something strange. Hence Chrysostom [*Hom. xiii in Matth.
in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says:
"While praying 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. Hence Augustine says (De
Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12) that "in the practice of the Christian
religion when a man draws attention to himself by unwonted squalor and
shabbiness, since he acts thus voluntarily and not of necessity, we can
gather from his other deeds 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 coarse habit as a sign of their profession whereby they profess
contempt of the world.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF RELIGIOUS LIFE (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We must now consider the different kinds of religious life, and under
this head there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether there are different kinds of religious life or only one?
(2) Whether a religious order can be established for the works of the
active life?
(3) Whether a religious order can be directed to soldiering?
(4) Whether a religious order can be established for preaching and the
exercise of like works?
(5) Whether a religious order can be established for the study of
science?
(6) Whether a religious order that is directed to the contemplative
life is more excellent than one that is directed to the active life?
(7) Whether religious perfection is diminished by possessing something
in common?
(8) Whether the religious life of solitaries is to be preferred to the
religious life of those who live in community?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there is only one religious order?
Objection 1: It would seem that there is but one religious order. For
there can be no diversity in that which is possessed wholly and
perfectly; wherefore there can be only one sovereign good, as stated in
the [3811]FP, Q[6] , AA[2],3,4. Now as Gregory says (Hom. xx in
Ezech. ), "when a man vows to Almighty God all that he has, all his
life, all his knowledge, it is a holocaust," without which there is no
religious life. Therefore it would seem that there are not many
religious orders but only one.
Objection 2: Further, things which agree in essentials differ only
accidentally. Now there is no religious order without the three
essential vows of religion, as stated above ([3812]Q[186], AA[6],7).
Therefore it would seem that religious orders differ not specifically,
but only accidentally.
Objection 3: Further, the state of perfection is competent both to
religious and to bishops, as stated above ([3813]Q[185], AA[5],7). Now
the episcopate is not diversified specifically, but is one wherever it
may be; wherefore Jerome says (Ep. cxlvi ad Evan. ): "Wherever a bishop
is, whether at Rome, or Gubbio, or Constantinople, or Reggio, he has
the same excellence, the same priesthood. " Therefore in like manner
there is but one religious order.
Objection 4: Further, anything that may lead to confusion should be
removed from the Church. Now it would seem that a diversity of
religious orders might confuse the Christian people, as stated in the
Decretal de Statu Monach. et Canon. Reg. [*Cap. Ne Nimia, de Relig.
Dom. ]. Therefore seemingly there ought not to be different religious
orders.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 44:10) that it pertains to the
adornment of the queen that she is "surrounded with variety. "
I answer that, As stated above (Q[186], A, 7;[3814] Q[187], A[2]), the
religious state is a training school wherein one aims by practice at
the perfection of charity. Now there are various works of charity to
which a man may devote himself; and there are also various kinds of
exercise. Wherefore religious orders may be differentiated in two ways.
First, according to the different things to which they may be directed:
thus one may be directed to the lodging of pilgrims, another to
visiting or ransoming captives. Secondly, there may be various
religious orders according to the diversity of practices; thus in one
religious order the body is chastised by abstinence in food, in another
by the practice of manual labor, scantiness of clothes, or the like.
Since, however, the end imports most in every matter, [*Arist. , Topic.
vi 8] religious orders differ more especially according to their
various ends than according to their various practices.
Reply to Objection 1: The obligation to devote oneself wholly to God's
service is common to every religious order; hence religious do not
differ in this respect, as though in one religious order a person
retained some one thing of his own, and in another order some other
thing. But the difference is in respect of the different things wherein
one may serve God, and whereby a man may dispose himself to the service
of God.
Reply to Objection 2: The three essential vows of religion pertain to
the practice of religion as principles to which all other matters are
reduced, as stated above ([3815]Q[186], A[7]). But there are various
ways of disposing oneself to the observance of each of them. For
instance one disposes oneself to observe the vow of continence, by
solitude of place, by abstinence, by mutual fellowship, and by many
like means. Accordingly it is evident that the community of the
essential vows is compatible with diversity of religious life, both on
account of the different dispositions and on account of the different
ends, as explained above.
Reply to Objection 3: In matters relating to perfection, the bishop
stands in the position of agent, and the religious as passive, as
stated above ([3816]Q[184], A[7]). Now the agent, even in natural
things, the higher it is, is so much the more one, whereas the things
that are passive are various. Hence with reason the episcopal state is
one, while religious orders are many.
Reply to Objection 4: Confusion is opposed to distinction and order.
Accordingly the multitude of religious orders would lead to confusion,
if different religious orders were directed to the same end and in the
same way, without necessity or utility. Wherefore to prevent this
happening it has been wholesomely forbidden to establish a new
religious order without the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a religious order should be established for the works of the active
life?
Objection 1: It would seem that no religious order should be
established for the works of the active life. For every religious order
belongs to the state of perfection, as stated above ([3817]Q[184],
A[5];[3818] Q[186], A[1]). Now the perfection of the religious state
consists in the contemplation of divine things. For Dionysius says
(Eccl. Hier. vi) that they are "called servants of God by reason of
their rendering pure service and subjection to God, and on account of
the indivisible and singular life which unites them by holy
reflections," i. e. contemplations, "on invisible things, to the Godlike
unity and the perfection beloved of God. " Therefore seemingly no
religious order should be established for the works of the active life.
Objection 2: Further, seemingly the same judgment applies to canons
regular as to monks, according to Extra, De Postul. , cap. Ex parte; and
De Statu Monach. , cap. Quod Dei timorem: for it is stated that "they
are not considered to be separated from the fellowship of monks": and
the same would seem to apply to all other religious. Now the monastic
rule was established for the purpose of the contemplative life;
wherefore Jerome says (Ep. lviii ad Paulin. ): "If you wish to be what
you are called, a monk," i. e. a solitary, "what business have you in a
city? " The same is found stated in Extra, De Renuntiatione, cap. Nisi
cum pridem; and De Regular. , cap. Licet quibusdam. Therefore it would
seem that every religious order is directed to the contemplative life,
and none to the active life.
Objection 3: Further, the active life is concerned with the present
world. Now all religious are said to renounce the world; wherefore
Gregory says (Hom. xx in Ezech. ): "He who renounces this world, and
does all the good he can, is like one who has gone out of Egypt and
offers sacrifice in the wilderness. " Therefore it would seem that no
religious order can be directed to the active life.
On the contrary, It is written (James 1:27): "Religion clean and
undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless
and widows in their tribulation. " Now this belongs to the active life.
Therefore religious life can be fittingly directed to the active life.
I answer that, As stated above [3819](A[1]), the religious state is
directed to the perfection of charity, which extends to the love of God
and of our neighbor. Now the contemplative life which seeks to devote
itself to God alone belongs directly to the love of God, while the
active life, which ministers to our neighbor's needs, belongs directly
to the love of one's neighbor.
work or labor, not so much for the necessities of life, as for the
welfare of the soul, lest it be led astray by wicked thoughts. " But in
so far as manual labor is directed to almsgiving, it does not come
under the necessity of precept, save perchance in some particular case,
when a man is under an obligation to give alms, 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 the Apostle is of natural law:
wherefore a gloss on 2 Thess. 3:6, "That you withdraw yourselves from
every brother walking disorderly," says, "otherwise than the natural
order requires," and he is speaking of those who abstained from manual
labor. Hence nature has provided man 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 the natural law,
is binding on both religious and seculars alike. Yet not everyone sins
that works not with his hands, because those precepts of the natural
law which regard the good of the many are not binding on each
individual, but it suffices that one person 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 the Apostle (1 Cor. 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: This gloss is taken from Augustine's De operibus
Monachorum, cap. 21, where he speaks against certain monks who declared
it to be unlawful for the servants of God to work with their hands, on
account of our Lord's saying (Mat. 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
of God 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 the Apostle
expresses himself, by saying: "That you withdraw yourselves from every
brother walking disorderly. " For he calls all Christians brothers,
since at that time religious orders were not as yet founded. Secondly,
because religious have no other obligations 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: A man may devote himself in two ways to all the
spiritual works mentioned by Augustine in the passage quoted: in one
way with a view to the common good, in another with a view to his
private advantage. Accordingly those who devote themselves publicly to
the aforesaid spiritual 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 the faithful, and it is of these that Augustine is
speaking. For when he says: "They can sing hymns to God 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 private prayers.
Likewise what he says of reading and prayer is to be referred to the
private prayer and reading which even lay people do at times, and not
to those who perform public prayers 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 a gloss on 1 Cor. 2:4, "Speech is
addressed privately, preaching to many. "
Reply to Objection 4: Those who despise all for God'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 the gloss quoted is to be understood.
Reply to Objection 5: That the apostles worked with their hands was
sometimes a matter of necessity, sometimes a work of supererogation. It
was of necessity when they failed to receive a livelihood from others.
Hence a gloss on 1 Cor. 4:12, "We labor, working with our own hands,"
adds, "because no man giveth to us. " It was supererogation, as appears
from 1 Cor. 9:12, where the Apostle says that he did not use the power
he had of living by the Gospel. The Apostle had recourse to this
supererogation for three motives. First, in order to deprive the false
apostles of the pretext for preaching, for they preached merely for a
temporal advantage; hence he says (2 Cor. 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
Cor. 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 Thess.
3:8,9): "We worked night and day . . . that we might give ourselves a
pattern unto you, to imitate us. " However, the Apostle did not do this
in places like Athens where he had facilities for preaching daily, as
Augustine observes (De oper. Monach. xviii). Yet religious are not for
this reason bound to imitate the Apostle in this matter, since they are
not bound to all works of supererogation: wherefore neither did the
other apostles work with their hands.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful for religious to live on alms?
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 [*Cf. Cf. 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 Mat. 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,
among the supposititious works of St. Ambrose] 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
Rom. 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 ([3808]Q[186], A[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 (Mat. 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful for religious to beg?
Objection 1: It would seem unlawful for religious to beg. For Augustine
says (De oper. Monach. xxviii): "The most cunning foe has scattered on
all sides a great number of hypocrites wearing the monastic habit, 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 pretended holiness. " Therefore it would seem that the life
of mendicant religious is to be condemned.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (1 Thess. 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
any man's": and a gloss 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 a gloss [*St. Augustine, (De oper. Monach. iii)]
on 2 Thess. 3:10, "If any man will not work," etc. says: "He wishes the
servants of God 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 by law and contrary to
justice, is unbecoming to religious. Now begging is forbidden in the
divine law; for it is written (Dt. 15:4): "There shall be no poor nor
beggar among you," and (Ps. 36:25): "I have not seen the just forsaken,
nor his seed seeking bread. " Moreover an able-bodied mendicant is
punished by civil law, according to the law (XI, xxvi, de Valid.
Mendicant. ). Therefore it is unfitting for religious to beg.
Objection 4: Further, "Shame is about that which is disgraceful," as
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 15). Now Ambrose says (De Offic. i,
30) that "to be ashamed to beg is a sign of good birth.
" Therefore it
is disgraceful to beg: and consequently this is unbecoming to
religious.
Objection 5: Further, according to our Lord's command it is especially
becoming to preachers of the Gospel to live on alms, as stated above
[3809](A[4]). Yet it is not becoming that they should beg, since a
gloss on 2 Tim. 2:6, "The husbandman, that laboreth," etc. says: "The
Apostle 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 of Christ.
Now Christ was a mendicant, according to Ps. 39:18, "But I am a beggar
and poor"; where a gloss 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 poor man is one who has not enough for himself. " Again
it is written (Ps. 69:6): "I am needy and poor"; where a gloss says:
"'Needy,' that is a suppliant; 'and poor,' that is, not having enough
for myself, because I have no worldly wealth. " And Jerome says in a
letter [*Reference unknown]: "Beware lest whereas thy Lord," i. e.
Christ, "begged, thou amass other people's wealth. " 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 all men those would seem
most abased who are not only poor, but are so needy that they have to
receive their meat from others. In this way some deserve praise for
begging out of humility, just as they abase themselves in other ways,
as being the most efficacious remedy against pride 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 to pride 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 of humility; for thus
one is able to heal the disease of pride and human glory. " Hence Jerome
praises Fabiola (Ep. lxxvii ad ocean. ) for that she desired "to receive
alms, having poured forth all her wealth for Christ's sake. " The
Blessed Alexis acted in like manner, for, having renounced all his
possessions for Christ's sake he rejoiced in receiving alms 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
by necessity to ask for alms. Hence it is enjoined to some people as a
penance for grievous sins to go on a pilgrimage begging. Since,
however, humility like the other virtues 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 of
covetousness 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 have
wealth or meat without working for it, and such like mendicancy is
unlawful; secondly, by a motive of necessity or usefulness. The motive
is one of necessity 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 the alms of the
faithful. Thus alms are besought for the building of a bridge, or
church, or for any other work whatever that is conducive to the common
good: thus scholars may seek alms that they may devote themselves to
the study of wisdom. In 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 of covetousness.
Reply to Objection 2: The first gloss speaks of begging from motives of
covetousness, as appears from the words of the Apostle; while the
second gloss 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 the divine law does not forbid
anyone to beg, but it forbids the rich to be so stingy that some are
compelled by necessity to beg. The civil law imposes a penalty on
able-bodied mendicants who beg from motives neither of utility nor of
necessity.
Reply to Objection 4: Disgrace is twofold; one arises from lack of
honesty [*Cf. [3810] Q[145], A[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 to sin, but it may pertain
to humility, 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 free gift and not as a right this will be a mark of
greater humility.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful for religious to wear coarser clothes than others?
Objection 1: It would seem unlawful for religious to wear coarser
clothes than others. For according to the Apostle (1 Thess. 5:22) we
ought to "refrain from all appearance of evil. " Now coarseness of
clothes has an appearance of evil; for our Lord said (Mat. 7:15):
"Beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep":
and a gloss on Apoc. 6:8, "Behold a pale horse," says: "The devil
finding that he cannot succeed, neither by outward afflictions nor by
manifest heresies, sends in advance false brethren, who under the guise
of religion assume the characteristics of the black and red horses by
corrupting the faith. " 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 graver sin 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 of joy; for our Lord said (Mat. 6:16): "When
you fast, be not, as the hypocrites, 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 of
God's service. " Therefore seemingly religious ought not to wear coarse
clothes.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb. 11:37): "They wandered about in
sheep-skins in goat-skins," and a gloss adds---"as Elias and others. "
Moreover it is said in the Decretal XXI, qu. iv, can. Omnis jactantia:
"If any persons be found to deride those who wear coarse and religious
apparel they must be reproved. For in the early times all those who
were consecrated to God went about in common and coarse apparel. "
I answer that, As Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12), "in all
external things, it is not the use but the intention of the user that
is at fault. " In order to judge of this it is necessary to observe that
coarse and homely apparel may be considered in two ways. First, as
being a sign of a man's disposition or condition, because according to
Ecclus. 19:27, "the attire . . . of the man" shows "what he is. " In
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 and joy they wear finer
clothes. Hence penitents make use of coarse apparel, for example, the
king (Jonah 3:6) who "was clothed with sack-cloth," and Achab (3 Kings
21:27) who "put hair-cloth upon his flesh. " Sometimes, however, it is a
sign of the contempt of riches and worldly ostentation. Wherefore
Jerome says (Ep. cxxv ad Rustico Monach. ): "Let your somber attire
indicate your purity of mind, your coarse robe prove your contempt of
the world, yet so that your mind be not inflated withal, lest your
speech belie your habit. " In both these ways it is becoming for
religious to wear coarse attire, since religion is a state of penance
and of contempt of worldly glory.
But that a person wish to signify this to others arises from three
motives. First, in order to humble himself: for just as a man's mind is
uplifted by fine clothes, so is it humbled by lowly apparel. Hence
speaking of Achab who "put hair-cloth on his flesh," the Lord said to
Elias: "Hast thou not seen Achab humbled before Me? " (3 Kings 21:29).
Secondly, in order to set an example to others; wherefore a gloss on
Mat. 3:4, "(John) had his garments of camel's hair," says: "He who
preaches penance is clothed in the habit of penance. " Thirdly, on
account of vainglory; thus Augustine says (cf. OBJ[3]) that "even the
weeds of mourning may be a subject of ostentation. "
Accordingly in the first two ways it is praiseworthy to wear humble
apparel, but in the third way it is sinful.
Secondly, coarse and homely attire may be considered as the result of
covetousness or negligence, and thus also it is sinful.
Reply to Objection 1: Coarseness of attire has not of itself the
appearance of evil, indeed it has more the appearance of good, namely
of the contempt of worldly glory. Hence it is that wicked persons hide
their wickedness under coarse clothing. Hence Augustine 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 of human glory.
Reply to Objection 3: According to our Lord's teaching men should do no
deeds of holiness for the sake of show: and this is especially the case
when one does something strange. Hence Chrysostom [*Hom. xiii in Matth.
in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says:
"While praying 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. Hence Augustine says (De
Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12) that "in the practice of the Christian
religion when a man draws attention to himself by unwonted squalor and
shabbiness, since he acts thus voluntarily and not of necessity, we can
gather from his other deeds 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 coarse habit as a sign of their profession whereby they profess
contempt of the world.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF RELIGIOUS LIFE (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We must now consider the different kinds of religious life, and under
this head there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether there are different kinds of religious life or only one?
(2) Whether a religious order can be established for the works of the
active life?
(3) Whether a religious order can be directed to soldiering?
(4) Whether a religious order can be established for preaching and the
exercise of like works?
(5) Whether a religious order can be established for the study of
science?
(6) Whether a religious order that is directed to the contemplative
life is more excellent than one that is directed to the active life?
(7) Whether religious perfection is diminished by possessing something
in common?
(8) Whether the religious life of solitaries is to be preferred to the
religious life of those who live in community?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there is only one religious order?
Objection 1: It would seem that there is but one religious order. For
there can be no diversity in that which is possessed wholly and
perfectly; wherefore there can be only one sovereign good, as stated in
the [3811]FP, Q[6] , AA[2],3,4. Now as Gregory says (Hom. xx in
Ezech. ), "when a man vows to Almighty God all that he has, all his
life, all his knowledge, it is a holocaust," without which there is no
religious life. Therefore it would seem that there are not many
religious orders but only one.
Objection 2: Further, things which agree in essentials differ only
accidentally. Now there is no religious order without the three
essential vows of religion, as stated above ([3812]Q[186], AA[6],7).
Therefore it would seem that religious orders differ not specifically,
but only accidentally.
Objection 3: Further, the state of perfection is competent both to
religious and to bishops, as stated above ([3813]Q[185], AA[5],7). Now
the episcopate is not diversified specifically, but is one wherever it
may be; wherefore Jerome says (Ep. cxlvi ad Evan. ): "Wherever a bishop
is, whether at Rome, or Gubbio, or Constantinople, or Reggio, he has
the same excellence, the same priesthood. " Therefore in like manner
there is but one religious order.
Objection 4: Further, anything that may lead to confusion should be
removed from the Church. Now it would seem that a diversity of
religious orders might confuse the Christian people, as stated in the
Decretal de Statu Monach. et Canon. Reg. [*Cap. Ne Nimia, de Relig.
Dom. ]. Therefore seemingly there ought not to be different religious
orders.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 44:10) that it pertains to the
adornment of the queen that she is "surrounded with variety. "
I answer that, As stated above (Q[186], A, 7;[3814] Q[187], A[2]), the
religious state is a training school wherein one aims by practice at
the perfection of charity. Now there are various works of charity to
which a man may devote himself; and there are also various kinds of
exercise. Wherefore religious orders may be differentiated in two ways.
First, according to the different things to which they may be directed:
thus one may be directed to the lodging of pilgrims, another to
visiting or ransoming captives. Secondly, there may be various
religious orders according to the diversity of practices; thus in one
religious order the body is chastised by abstinence in food, in another
by the practice of manual labor, scantiness of clothes, or the like.
Since, however, the end imports most in every matter, [*Arist. , Topic.
vi 8] religious orders differ more especially according to their
various ends than according to their various practices.
Reply to Objection 1: The obligation to devote oneself wholly to God's
service is common to every religious order; hence religious do not
differ in this respect, as though in one religious order a person
retained some one thing of his own, and in another order some other
thing. But the difference is in respect of the different things wherein
one may serve God, and whereby a man may dispose himself to the service
of God.
Reply to Objection 2: The three essential vows of religion pertain to
the practice of religion as principles to which all other matters are
reduced, as stated above ([3815]Q[186], A[7]). But there are various
ways of disposing oneself to the observance of each of them. For
instance one disposes oneself to observe the vow of continence, by
solitude of place, by abstinence, by mutual fellowship, and by many
like means. Accordingly it is evident that the community of the
essential vows is compatible with diversity of religious life, both on
account of the different dispositions and on account of the different
ends, as explained above.
Reply to Objection 3: In matters relating to perfection, the bishop
stands in the position of agent, and the religious as passive, as
stated above ([3816]Q[184], A[7]). Now the agent, even in natural
things, the higher it is, is so much the more one, whereas the things
that are passive are various. Hence with reason the episcopal state is
one, while religious orders are many.
Reply to Objection 4: Confusion is opposed to distinction and order.
Accordingly the multitude of religious orders would lead to confusion,
if different religious orders were directed to the same end and in the
same way, without necessity or utility. Wherefore to prevent this
happening it has been wholesomely forbidden to establish a new
religious order without the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a religious order should be established for the works of the active
life?
Objection 1: It would seem that no religious order should be
established for the works of the active life. For every religious order
belongs to the state of perfection, as stated above ([3817]Q[184],
A[5];[3818] Q[186], A[1]). Now the perfection of the religious state
consists in the contemplation of divine things. For Dionysius says
(Eccl. Hier. vi) that they are "called servants of God by reason of
their rendering pure service and subjection to God, and on account of
the indivisible and singular life which unites them by holy
reflections," i. e. contemplations, "on invisible things, to the Godlike
unity and the perfection beloved of God. " Therefore seemingly no
religious order should be established for the works of the active life.
Objection 2: Further, seemingly the same judgment applies to canons
regular as to monks, according to Extra, De Postul. , cap. Ex parte; and
De Statu Monach. , cap. Quod Dei timorem: for it is stated that "they
are not considered to be separated from the fellowship of monks": and
the same would seem to apply to all other religious. Now the monastic
rule was established for the purpose of the contemplative life;
wherefore Jerome says (Ep. lviii ad Paulin. ): "If you wish to be what
you are called, a monk," i. e. a solitary, "what business have you in a
city? " The same is found stated in Extra, De Renuntiatione, cap. Nisi
cum pridem; and De Regular. , cap. Licet quibusdam. Therefore it would
seem that every religious order is directed to the contemplative life,
and none to the active life.
Objection 3: Further, the active life is concerned with the present
world. Now all religious are said to renounce the world; wherefore
Gregory says (Hom. xx in Ezech. ): "He who renounces this world, and
does all the good he can, is like one who has gone out of Egypt and
offers sacrifice in the wilderness. " Therefore it would seem that no
religious order can be directed to the active life.
On the contrary, It is written (James 1:27): "Religion clean and
undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless
and widows in their tribulation. " Now this belongs to the active life.
Therefore religious life can be fittingly directed to the active life.
I answer that, As stated above [3819](A[1]), the religious state is
directed to the perfection of charity, which extends to the love of God
and of our neighbor. Now the contemplative life which seeks to devote
itself to God alone belongs directly to the love of God, while the
active life, which ministers to our neighbor's needs, belongs directly
to the love of one's neighbor.
