No More Learning

Consequently the transgression of these three involves a mortal sin,
while the transgression of the others does not involve a mortal sin,
except either by reason of contempt of the rule (since this is directly
contrary to the profession whereby a man vows to live according to the
rule), or by reason of a precept, whether given orally by a superior,
or expressed in the rule, since this would be to act contrary to the
vow of obedience.

Reply to Objection 1: He who professes a rule does not vow to observe
all the things contained in the rule, but he vows the regular life
which consists essentially in the three aforesaid things. Hence in
certain religious orders precaution is taken to profess, not the rule,
but to live according to the rule, i. e. to tend to form one's conduct
in accordance with the rule as a kind of model; and this is set aside
by contempt. Yet greater precaution is observed in some religious
orders by professing obedience according to the rule, so that only that
which is contrary to a precept of the rule is contrary to the
profession, while the transgression or omission of other things binds
only under pain of venial sin, because, as stated above (A[7], ad 2),
such things are dispositions to the chief vows. And venial sin is a
disposition to mortal, as stated above ([3804]FS, Q[88], A[3]),
inasmuch as it hinders those things whereby a man is disposed to keep
the chief precepts of Christ's law, namely the precepts of charity.

There is also a religious order, that of the Friars Preachers, where
such like transgressions or omissions do not, by their very nature,
involve sin, either mortal or venial; but they bind one to suffer the
punishment affixed thereto, because it is in this way that they are
bound to observe such things. Nevertheless they may sin venially or
mortally through neglect, concupiscence, or contempt.

Reply to Objection 2: Not all the contents of the law are set forth by
way of precept; for some are expressed under the form of ordinance or
statute binding under pain of a fixed punishment. Accordingly, just as
in the civil law the transgression of a legal statute does not always
render a man deserving of bodily death, so neither in the law of the
Church does every ordinance or statute bind under mortal sin; and the
same applies to the statutes of the rule.

Reply to Objection 3: An action or transgression proceeds from contempt
when a man's will refuses to submit to the ordinance of the law or
rule, and from this he proceeds to act against the law or rule. on the
other hand, he does not sin from contempt, but from some other cause,
when he is led to do something against the ordinance of the law or rule
through some particular cause such as concupiscence or anger, even
though he often repeat the same kind of sin through the same or some
other cause. Thus Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xxix) that "not all
sins are committed through proud contempt. " Nevertheless the frequent
repetition of a sin leads dispositively to contempt, according to the
words of Prov. 18:3, "The wicked man, when he is come into the depth of
sins, contemneth. "
__________________________________________________________________

Whether a religious sins more grievously than a secular by the same kind of
sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that a religious does not sin more
grievously than a secular by the same kind of sin. For it is written (2
Paralip 30:18,19): "The Lord Who is good will show mercy to all them
who with their whole heart seek the Lord the God of their fathers, and
will not impute it to them that they are not sanctified. " Now religious
apparently follow the Lord the God of their fathers with their whole
heart rather than seculars, who partly give themselves and their
possessions to God and reserve part for themselves, as Gregory says
(Hom. xx in Ezech. ). Therefore it would seem that it is less imputed to
them if they fall short somewhat of their sanctification.

Objection 2: Further, God is less angered at a man's sins if he does
some good deeds, according to 2 Paralip 19:2,3, "Thou helpest the
ungodly, and thou art joined in friendship with them that hate the
Lord, and therefore thou didst deserve indeed the wrath of the Lord:
but good works are found in thee. " Now religious do more good works
than seculars. Therefore if they commit any sins, God is less angry
with them.

Objection 3: Further, this present life is not carried through without
sin, according to James 3:2, "In many things we all offend. " Therefore
if the sins of religious were more grievous than those of seculars it
would follow that religious are worse off than seculars: and
consequently it would not be a wholesome counsel to enter religion.

On the contrary, The greater the evil the more it would seem to be
deplored. But seemingly the sins of those who are in the state of
holiness and perfection are the most deplorable, for it is written
(Jer. 23:9): "My heart is broken within me," and afterwards (Jer.
23:11): "For the prophet and the priest are defiled; and in My house I
have found their wickedness. " Therefore religious and others who are in
the state of perfection, other things being equal, sin more grievously.

I answer that, A sin committed by a religious may be in three ways more
grievous than a like sin committed by a secular. First, if it be
against his religious vow; for instance if he be guilty of fornication
or theft, because by fornication he acts against the vow of continence,
and by theft against the vow of poverty; and not merely against a
precept of the divine law. Secondly, if he sin out of contempt, because
thereby he would seem to be the more ungrateful for the divine favors
which have raised him to the state of perfection. Thus the Apostle says
(Heb. 10:29) that the believer "deserveth worse punishments" who
through contempt tramples under foot the Son of God. Hence the Lord
complains (Jer. 11:15): "What is the meaning that My beloved hath
wrought much wickedness in My house? " Thirdly, the sin of a religious
may be greater on account of scandal, because many take note of his
manner of life: wherefore it is written (Jer. 23:14): "I have seen the
likeness of adulterers, and the way of lying in the Prophets of
Jerusalem; and they strengthened the hands of the wicked, that no man
should return from his evil doings. "

On the other hand, if a religious, not out of contempt, but out of
weakness or ignorance, commit a sin that is not against the vow of his
profession, without giving scandal (for instance if he commit it in
secret) he sins less grievously in the same kind of sin than a secular,
because his sin if slight is absorbed as it were by his many good
works, and if it be mortal, he more easily recovers from it. First,
because he has a right intention towards God, and though it be
intercepted for the moment, it is easily restored to its former object.
Hence Origen commenting on Ps. 36:24, "When he shall fall he shall not
be bruised," says (Hom. iv in Ps. 36): "The wicked man, if he sin,
repents not, and fails to make amends for his sin. But the just man
knows how to make amends and recover himself; even as he who had said:
'I know not the man,' shortly afterwards when the Lord had looked on
him, knew to shed most bitter tears, and he who from the roof had seen
a woman and desired her knew to say: 'I have sinned and done evil
before Thee. '" Secondly, he is assisted by his fellow-religious to rise
again, according to Eccles. 4:10, "If one fall he shall be supported by
the other: woe to him that is alone, for when he falleth he hath none
to lift him up. "

Reply to Objection 1: The words quoted refer to things done through
weakness or ignorance, but not to those that are done out of contempt.

Reply to Objection 2: Josaphat also, to whom these words were
addressed, sinned not out of contempt, but out of a certain weakness of
human affection.

Reply to Objection 3: The just sin not easily out of contempt; but
sometimes they fall into a sin through ignorance or weakness from which
they easily arise. If, however, they go so far as to sin out of
contempt, they become most wicked and incorrigible, according to the
word of Jer. 2:20: "Thou hast broken My yoke, thou hast burst My bands,
and thou hast said: 'I will not serve. ' For on every high hill and
under every green tree thou didst prostitute thyself. " Hence Augustine
says (Ep. lxxviii ad Pleb. Hippon. ): "From the time I began to serve
God, even as I scarcely found better men than those who made progress
in monasteries, so have I not found worse than those who in the
monastery have fallen. "
__________________________________________________________________

OF THOSE THINGS THAT ARE COMPETENT TO RELIGIOUS (SIX ARTICLES)

We must now consider the things that are competent to religious; and
under this head there are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether it is lawful for them to teach, preach, and do like things?

(2) Whether it is lawful for them to meddle in secular business?

(3) Whether they are bound to manual labor?

(4) Whether it is lawful for them to live on alms?

(5) Whether it is lawful for them to quest?

(6) Whether it is lawful for them to wear coarser clothes than other
persons?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether it is lawful for religious to teach, preach, and the like?

Objection 1: It would seem unlawful for religious to teach, preach, and
the like. For it is said (VII, qu. i, can. Hoc nequaquam) in an
ordinance of a synod of Constantinople [*Pseudosynod held by Photius in
the year 879]: "The monastic life is one of subjection and
discipleship, not of teaching, authority, or pastoral care. " And Jerome
says (ad Ripar. et Desider. [*Contra Vigilant. xvi]): "A monk's duty is
not to teach but to lament. " Again Pope Leo [*Leo I, Ep. cxx ad
Theodoret. , 6, cf. XVI, qu. i, can. Adjicimus]: says "Let none dare to
preach save the priests of the Lord, be he monk or layman, and no
matter what knowledge he may boast of having. " Now it is not lawful to
exceed the bounds of one's office or transgress the ordinance of the
Church. Therefore seemingly it is unlawful for religious to teach,
preach, and the like.

Objection 2: Further, in an ordinance of the Council of Nicea (cf. XVI,
qu. i, can. Placuit) it is laid down as follows: "It is our absolute
and peremptory command addressed to all that monks shall not hear
confessions except of one another, as is right, that they shall not
bury the dead except those dwelling with them in the monastery, or if
by chance a brother happen to die while on a visit. " But just as the
above belong to the duty of clerics, so also do preaching and teaching.
Therefore since "the business of a monk differs from that of a cleric,"
as Jerome says (Ep. xiv ad Heliod. ), it would seem unlawful for
religious to preach, teach, and the like.

Objection 3: Further, Gregory says (Regist. v, Ep. 1): "No man can
fulfil ecclesiastical duties, and keep consistently to the monastic
rule": and this is quoted XVI, qu. i, can. Nemo potest. Now monks are
bound to keep consistently to the monastic rule. Therefore it would
seem that they cannot fulfil ecclesiastical duties, whereof teaching
and preaching are a part. Therefore seemingly it is unlawful for them
to preach, teach, and do similar things.

On the contrary, Gregory is quoted (XVI, qu. i, can. Ex auctoritate) as
saying: "By authority of this decree framed in virtue of our apostolic
power and the duty of our office, be it lawful to monk priests who are
configured to the apostles, to preach, baptize, give communion, pray
for sinners, impose penance, and absolve from sin. "

I answer that, A thing is declared to be unlawful to a person in two
ways. First, because there is something in him contrary to that which
is declared unlawful to him: thus to no man is it lawful to sin,
because each man has in himself reason and an obligation to God's law,
to which things sin is contrary. And in this way it is said to be
unlawful for a person to preach, teach, or do like things, because
there is in him something incompatible with these things, either by
reason of a precept---thus those who are irregular by ordinance of the
Church may not be raised to the sacred orders---or by reason of sin,
according to Ps. 49:16, "But to the sinner God hath said: Why dost thou
declare My justice? "

In this way it is not unlawful for religious to preach, teach, and do
like things, both because they are bound neither by vow nor by precept
of their rule to abstain from these things, and because they are not
rendered less apt for these things by any sin committed, but on the
contrary they are the more apt through having taken upon themselves the
practice of holiness. For it is foolish to say that a man is rendered
less fit for spiritual duties through advancing himself in holiness;
and consequently it is foolish to declare that the religious state is
an obstacle to the fulfilment of such like duties. This error is
rejected by Pope Boniface [*Boniface IV] for the reasons given above.
His words which are quoted (XVI, qu. i, can. Sunt. nonnulli) are these:
"There are some who without any dogmatic proof, and with extreme
daring, inspired with a zeal rather of bitterness than of love, assert
that monks though they be dead to the world and live to God, are
unworthy of the power of the priestly office, and that they cannot
confer penance, nor christen, nor absolve in virtue of the power
divinely bestowed on them in the priestly office. But they are
altogether wrong. " He proves this first because it is not contrary to
the rule; thus he continues: "For neither did the Blessed Benedict the
saintly teacher of monks forbid this in any way," nor is it forbidden
in other rules. Secondly, he refutes the above error from the
usefulness of the monks, when he adds at the end of the same chapter:
"The more perfect a man is, the more effective is he in these, namely
in spiritual works. "

Secondly, a thing is said to be unlawful for a man, not on account of
there being in him something contrary thereto, but because he lacks
that which enables him to do it: thus it is unlawful for a deacon to
say mass, because he is not in priestly orders; and it is unlawful for
a priest to deliver judgment because he lacks the episcopal authority.
Here, however, a distinction must be made. Because those things which
are a matter of an order, cannot be deputed to one who has not the
order, whereas matters of jurisdiction can be deputed to those who have
not ordinary jurisdiction: thus the delivery of a judgment is deputed
by the bishop to a simple priest. In this sense it is said to be
unlawful for monks and other religious to preach, teach, and so forth,
because the religious state does not give them the power to do these
things. They can, however, do them if they receive orders, or ordinary
jurisdiction, or if matters of jurisdiction be delegated to them.

Reply to Objection 1: It results from the words quoted that the fact of
their being monks does not give monks the power to do these things, yet
it does not involve in them anything contrary to the performance of
these acts.

Reply to Objection 2: Again, this ordinance of the Council of Nicea
forbids monks to claim the power of exercising those acts on the ground
of their being monks, but it does not forbid those acts being delegated
to them.

Reply to Objection 3: These two things are incompatible, namely, the
ordinary cure of ecclesiastical duties, and the observance of the
monastic rule in a monastery. But this does not prevent monks and other
religious from being sometimes occupied with ecclesiastical duties
through being deputed thereto by superiors having ordinary cure;
especially members of religious orders that are especially instituted
for that purpose, as we shall say further on ([3805]Q[188], A[4]).
__________________________________________________________________

Whether it is lawful for religious to occupy themselves with secular
business?

Objection 1: It would seem unlawful for religious to occupy themselves
with secular business. For in the decree quoted above [3806](A[1]) of
Pope Boniface it is said that the "Blessed Benedict bade them to be
altogether free from secular business; and this is most explicitly
prescribed by the apostolic doctrine and the teaching of all the
Fathers, not only to religious, but also to all the canonical clergy,"
according to 2 Tim. 2:4, "No man being a soldier to God, entangleth
himself with secular business. " Now it is the duty of all religious to
be soldiers of God. Therefore it is unlawful for them to occupy
themselves with secular business.

Objection 2: Further, the Apostle says (1 Thess. 4:11): "That you use
your endeavor to be quiet, and that you do your own business," which a
gloss explains thus---"by refraining from other people's affairs, so as
to be the better able to attend to the amendment of your own life. " Now
religious devote themselves in a special way to the amendment of their
life. Therefore they should not occupy themselves with secular
business.

Objection 3: Further, Jerome, commenting on Mat. 11:8, "Behold they
that are clothed in soft garments are in the houses of kings," says:
"Hence we gather that an austere life and severe preaching should avoid
the palaces of kings and the mansions of the voluptuous. " But the needs
of secular business induce men to frequent the palaces of kings.
Therefore it is unlawful for religious to occupy themselves with
secular business.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom. 16:1): "I commend to you Phoebe
our Sister," and further on (Rom. 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.