No More Learning

16:2), "that you assist her in
whatsoever business she shall have need of you. "

I answer that, As stated above ([3807]Q[186], AA[1],7, ad 1), the
religious state is directed to the attainment of the perfection of
charity, consisting principally in the love of God and secondarily in
the love of our neighbor. Consequently that which religious intend
chiefly and for its own sake is to give themselves to God. Yet if their
neighbor be in need, they should attend to his affairs out of charity,
according to Gal. 6:2, "Bear ye one another's burthens: and so you
shall fulfil the law of Christ," since through serving their neighbor
for God's sake, they are obedient to the divine love. Hence 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," which means, according to a gloss, to assist the helpless
in their time of need.

We must conclude therefore that it is unlawful for either monks or
clerics to carry on secular business from motives of avarice; but from
motives of charity, 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): "The holy synod decrees that henceforth
no cleric shall buy property or occupy himself with secular business,
save with a view to the care of the fatherless, orphans, or widows, or
when the bishop of the city commands him to take charge of the business
connected with the Church. " And the same applies to religious as to
clerics, 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 of
charity.

Reply to Objection 2: To occupy oneself with secular business on
account of another's need is not officiousness but charity.

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 (4 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
as John the Baptist rebuked Herod, as related in Mat. 14:4.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether religious are bound to manual labor?

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 Thess. 4:11, "Work
with your own hands as we commanded you"; wherefore Augustine 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 the Apostle, not merely to be borne
with as being weaker than others, but even to preach as though they
were holier than others. " Therefore it would seem that religious are
bound to manual labor.

Objection 2: Further, a gloss [*St. Augustine, (De oper. Monach. xxi)]
on 2 Thess. 3:10, "If any man will not work, neither let him eat,"
says: "Some say that this command of the Apostle refers to spiritual
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 of charity"; and again:
"He wishes God's servants to make a living by working with their
bodies. " Now religious especially are called servants of God, because
they give themselves entirely to the service of God, as Dionysius
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
fain know how they would occupy themselves, who are unwilling to work
with their body. We occupy our time, say they, with prayers, psalms,
reading, and the word of God. " Yet these things are no excuse, and he
proves this, as regards each in particular. For in the first place, as
to prayer, he says: "One prayer of the obedient man is sooner granted
than ten thousand prayers 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 to God. " Thirdly, with regard to
reading, he goes on to say: "Those who say they are occupied in
reading, do they not find there what the Apostle 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 like spiritual works to
which they devote themselves.

Objection 4: Further, a gloss on Lk. 12:33, "Sell what you possess,"
says: "Not only give your clothes to the poor, 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 give alms. " Now it belongs
properly to religious to renounce all they have. Therefore it would
seem likewise to belong to them to live and give alms through the labor
of their hands.

Objection 5: Further, religious especially would seem to be bound to
imitate the life of the apostles, since they profess the state of
perfection. Now the apostles worked with their own hands, according to
1 Cor. 4:12: "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 from 2 Thess. 3:6,
"Withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly," etc. (for
by brother he signifies every Christian, according to 1 Cor. 7:12, "If
any brother have a wife that believeth not"). Now it is written in the
same passage (2 Thess. 3:10): "If any man 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 first man (Gn.
3:19): "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread," and it is
written (Ps. 127:2): "For thou shalt eat the labors of thy hands. "
Secondly, it is directed to the removal of idleness whence arise many
evils; hence it is written (Ecclus. 33:28,29): "Send" thy slave "to
work, that he be not idle, for idleness hath taught much evil. "
Thirdly, it is directed to the curbing of concupiscence, inasmuch as it
is a means of afflicting the body; hence it is written (2 Cor. 6:5,6):
"In labors, in watchings, in fastings, in chastity. " Fourthly, it is
directed to almsgiving, wherefore it is written (Eph. 4:28): "He that
stole, let him now steal no more; but rather let him labor, working
with his hands the thing which is good, 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 a necessity of
precept in so far as it is necessary for that end: since that which is
directed to an end derives its necessity from that end, being, in
effect, so far necessary 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 his condition may be. This is signified by the
words of the Apostle: "If any man will not work, neither let him eat,"
as though to say: "The necessity of manual labor is the necessity 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 the Apostle
prescribed manual labor merely as a remedy for the sin of those who
gained their livelihood by unlawful means. For the Apostle ordered
manual labor first of all in order to avoid theft, as appears from Eph.
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 Thess. 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 Thess. 3:10-12): "When
we were with you, this we declared to you: that if any man 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 a gloss 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. " Hence
Jerome states (Super epist. ad Galat. [*Preface to Bk. ii of
Commentary]) that the Apostle 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
those human occupations whereby man 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 a necessity 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 the Holy Scriptures and by the divine praises.
Hence a gloss on Ps. 118:82, "My eyes have failed for Thy word," says:
"He is not idle who meditates only on God's word; nor is he who works
abroad any better than he who devotes himself to the study of knowing
the truth. " 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. Thus Jerome 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 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.