Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum religiosis liceat de eleemosynis vivere Whether it is lawful for religious to live on alms? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod religiosis non liceat de eleemosynis vivere. Apostolus enim, I ad Tim. V, praecipit ut viduae quae possunt aliunde sustentari, non vivant de eleemosynis Ecclesiae, ut Ecclesia sufficiat illis quae vere viduae sunt. Et Hieronymus dicit, ad Damasum Papam, quod qui bonis parentum et opibus sustentari possunt, si quod pauperum est accipiunt, sacrilegium profecto committunt, et per abusionem talium iudicium sibi manducant et bibunt. Sed religiosi possunt de labore manuum sustentari, si sint validi. Ergo videtur quod peccent eleemosynas pauperum comedendo. 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 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. Praeterea, vivere de sumptibus fidelium est merces deputata praedicantibus Evangelium pro suo labore vel opere, secundum illud Matth. X, dignus est operarius cibo suo. Sed praedicare Evangelium non pertinet ad religiosos, sed maxime ad praelatos, qui sunt pastores et doctores. Ergo religiosi non possunt licite vivere de eleemosynis fidelium. Obj. 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 Matt. 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. Praeterea, religiosi sunt in statu perfectionis. Sed perfectius est dare eleemosynas quam accipere, dicitur enim Act. XX, beatius est magis dare quam accipere. Ergo non debent de eleemosynis vivere, sed magis ex operibus manuum suarum eleemosynas dare. Obj. 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. Praeterea, ad religiosos pertinet impedimenta virtutis et occasiones peccati vitare. Sed acceptio eleemosynarum praebet occasionem peccati, et impedit virtutis actum. Unde super illud II ad Thess. ult., ut nosmetipsos formam daremus vobis etc., dicit Glossa, qui frequenter ad alienam mensam comedit otio deditus, aduletur necesse est pascenti se. Dicitur etiam Exod. XXIII, ne accipias munera, quae excaecant prudentes et mutant verba iustorum. Et Prov. XXII dicitur, qui accipit mutuum, servus est faenerantis, quod est religioni contrarium, unde super illud II ad Thess. III, ut nosmetipsos formam daremus etc., dicit Glossa, religio nostra ad libertatem homines advocat. Ergo videtur quod religiosi non debeant de eleemosynis vivere. Obj. 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 (Exod 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. Praeterea, religiosi praecipue tenentur imitari apostolorum perfectionem, unde apostolus dicit, ad Philipp. III, quicumque perfecti sumus, hoc sentiamus. Sed apostolus nolebat vivere de sumptibus fidelium, ut occasionem auferret pseudoapostolis, sicut ipse dicit, II ad Cor. XI, et ne scandalum poneretur infirmis, ut patet I ad Cor. IX. Ergo videtur quod propter easdem causas religiosi debeant abstinere ne de eleemosynis vivant. Unde et Augustinus dicit, in libro de operibus Monach., amputetis occasionem turpium nundinarum, quibus existimatio vestra laeditur et infirmis offendiculum ponitur, et ostendite hominibus non vos in otio facilem victum, sed per angustam et arctam viam regnum Dei quaerere. Obj. 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. Sed contra est quod, sicut Gregorius dicit, in libro Dialog., beatus Benedictus tribus annis, in specu permanens, de his quae a Romano monacho ministrabantur, refectus est, postquam domum parentesque reliquerat. Et tamen, validus corpore existens, non legitur de labore manuum victum quaesivisse. Ergo religiosi licite possunt de eleemosynis vivere. 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. Respondeo dicendum quod unicuique licet vivere de eo quod suum est vel sibi debitum. Fit autem aliquid alicuius ex liberalitate donantis. Et ideo religiosi et clerici quorum monasteriis vel Ecclesiis, ex munificentia principum vel quorumcumque fidelium sunt facultates collatae ex quibus sustententur, possunt de eis vivere licite, absque hoc quod manibus laborent. Et tamen certum est eos de eleemosynis vivere. Unde et similiter, si aliqua mobilia religiosis a fidelibus conferantur, possunt de eis licite vivere, stultum est enim dicere quod aliquis in eleemosynam possit accipere magnas possessiones, non autem panem vel parvam pecuniam. Sed quia huiusmodi beneficia religiosis videntur esse collata ad hoc quod liberius religiosis actibus insistere possint, quorum cupiunt se fore participes qui temporalia subministrant, redderetur eis usus praedictorum donorum illicitus si ab actibus religiosis desisterent, quia sic, quantum est de se, defraudarent intentionem eorum qui talia beneficia contulerunt. 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. Debitum autem est aliquid alicui dupliciter. Uno modo, propter necessitatem, quae facit omnia communia, ut Ambrosius dicit. Et ideo, si religiosi necessitatem patiantur, licite possunt de eleemosynis vivere. Quae quidem necessitas potest esse, primo quidem, propter corporis infirmitatem, ex qua contingit quod non possint sibi labore manuum victum quaerere. Secundo, si illud quod ex opere manuali conquirunt, eis ad victum non sufficiat. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de operibus Monach., quod bona opera fidelium subsidio supplendorum necessariorum deesse non debent illis servis Dei qui manibus operantur, ut horae quibus ad expediendum animum ita vacatur ut illa corporalia opera geri non possint, non opprimant egestate. Tertio, propter pristinam conversationem eorum qui non consueverunt manibus laborare. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de operibus Monach., quod si habebant aliquid in saeculo quo facile sine opificio sustentarent istam vitam, quod, conversi ad Deum, indigentibus dispertiti sunt; et credenda est eorum infirmitas, et ferenda. Solent enim tales, languidius educati, laborem operum corporalium sustinere non posse. A thing is due to a person in two ways. First, on account of necessity, which makes all things common, as 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. Second, 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. Third, 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. Alio modo efficitur aliquid alicui debitum ex eo quod ipse exhibet, sive sit aliquid temporale sive spirituale, secundum illud I ad Cor. IX, si nos vobis spiritualia seminavimus, non magnum est si carnalia vestra metamus. Et secundum hoc, quadrupliciter possunt religiosi de eleemosynis vivere quasi sibi debitis. Primo, si praedicent auctoritate praelatorum. Secundo, si sint ministri altaris. Quia, ut dicitur I ad Cor. IX, qui altari deserviunt, cum altari participantur, ita et dominus ordinavit his qui Evangelium denuntiant, de Evangelio vivere. Et Augustinus dicit, in libro de operibus Monach., si Evangelistae sunt, fateor, habent (potestatem vivendi de sumptibus fidelium), si ministri altaris, dispensatores sacramentorum, bene sibi istam non arrogant, sed plane vindicant potestatem. Et hoc ideo, quia sacramentum altaris, ubicumque agatur, commune est toti populo fidelium. Tertio, si insistant studio sacrae Scripturae ad communem utilitatem totius Ecclesiae. Unde Hieronymus dicit, contra Vigilantium, haec in Iudaea usque hodie perseverat consuetudo, non solum apud nos sed etiam apud Hebraeos, ut qui in lege domini meditantur die ac nocte, et patrem non habent in terra nisi solum Deum, totius orbis foveantur ministeriis. Quarto, si bona temporalia quae habebant monasterio largiuntur, possunt de eleemosynis monasterio factis vivere. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de operibus Monach., quod his qui, relicta vel distributa sive ampla sive qualicumque opulentia, inter pauperes Christi pia et salubri humilitate numerari volunt, vicem sustentandae vitae eorum res ipsa communis et fraterna caritas debet. Qui laudabiliter agunt si manibus operentur. Quod si nolint, quis audeat eos cogere? Nec est attendendum, ut ibidem subditur, in quibus monasteriis vel in quo loco indigentibus fratribus quisquis hoc quod habebat impenderit, omnium enim Christianorum una respublica est. 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. Second, 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. Third, 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, and have no other share on earth but God alone, to be supported by the subscriptions of the synagogues and of the whole world. Fourth, 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. Si vero aliqui sint religiosi qui absque necessitate et utilitate quam afferant, velint otiosi de eleemosynis quae dantur pauperibus vivere, hoc est eis illicitum. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de operibus Monach., plerumque ad professionem servitutis Dei ex conditione servili aliqui veniunt, et ex vita rusticana, et ex opificum exercitatione et plebeio labore, de quibus non apparet utrum ex proposito servitutis Dei venerint, an, vitam inopem et laboriosam fugientes, vacui pasci atque vestiri velint, et insuper honorari a quibus contemni conterique consueverunt. Tales ergo se, quominus operentur, de infirmitate corporis excusare non possunt, praeteritae quippe vitae consuetudine convincuntur. Et postea subdit, si nolunt operari, nec manducent. Neque propterea ad pietatem divites humiliantur, ut pauperes ad superbiam extollantur, nullo enim modo decet ut in ea vita ubi senatores fiunt laboriosi, fiant opifices otiosi; et quo veniunt, relictis deliciis suis, qui fuerunt praediorum domini, ibi sint rustici delicati. 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod auctoritates illae sunt intelligendae tempore necessitatis, quando scilicet non posset aliter pauperibus subveniri. Tunc enim tenerentur non solum ab eleemosynis accipiendis desistere, sed etiam sua, si qua haberent, largiri ad pauperum sustentationem. Reply Obj. 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod praelatis competit praedicatio ex officio, religiosis autem potest competere ex commissione. Et ita, cum laborent in agro dominico, possunt exinde vivere, secundum illud II ad Tim. II, laborantem agricolam oportet primum de fructibus percipere; ubi dicit Glossa, scilicet praedicatorem, qui in agro Ecclesiae ligone verbi Dei excolit corda auditorum. Possunt etiam de eleemosynis vivere qui praedicatoribus ministrant. Unde super illud Rom. XV, si spiritualium eorum participes facti sunt gentiles, debent et in carnalibus ministrare eis, dicit Glossa, scilicet Iudaeis, qui miserunt praedicatores ab Hierosolymis. Et tamen sunt etiam aliae causae ex quibus alicui debetur ut de sumptibus fidelium vivat, ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod, ceteris paribus, dare est perfectius quam accipere. Et tamen dare vel relinquere omnia sua pro Christo, et modica accipere ad sustentationem vitae, melius est quam dare particulariter aliqua pauperibus, ut ex supra dictis patet. Reply Obj. 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 (Q. 186, A. 3, ad 6). Ad quartum dicendum quod accipere munera ad divitias augmentandas, vel accipere victum ab alio sibi non debitum absque utilitate et necessitate, praestat occasionem peccati. Quod non habet locum in religiosis, ut ex supra dictis patet. Reply Obj. 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. Ad quintum dicendum quod, quando apparet manifesta necessitas et utilitas propter quam aliqui religiosi de eleemosynis vivunt absque opere manuali, non scandalizantur ex hoc infirmi, sed malitiosi, more Pharisaeorum, quorum scandalum contemnendum dominus docet, Matth. XV. Sed si non esset evidens necessitas et utilitas, posset exinde generari scandalum infirmis, quod esset vitandum. Idem tamen scandalum imminere potest de his qui facultatibus communibus otiosi utuntur. Reply Obj. 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 (Matt 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. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum religiosis liceat mendicare Whether it is lawful for religious to beg? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod religiosis non liceat mendicare. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de operibus Monach., tam multos hypocritas sub habitu monachorum usquequaque dispersit callidissimus hostis, circueuntes provincias, et postea subdit, omnes petunt, omnes exigunt aut sumptus lucrosae egestatis, aut simulatae pretium sanctitatis. Ergo videtur quod vita religiosorum mendicantium sit reprobanda. 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. Praeterea, I ad Thess. IV dicitur, operemini manibus vestris, sicut praecepimus vobis, ut honeste ambuletis ad eos qui foris sunt, et nullius aliquid desideretis, ubi Glossa dicit, ideo opus est agendum, et non otiandum, quia honestum est, et quasi lux, ad infideles, et non desiderabitis rem alterius, nedum rogetis vel tollatis aliquid. Et II ad Thess. III, super illud, si quis non vult operari etc., dicit, vult servos Dei corporaliter operari unde vivant, ut non compellantur egestate necessaria petere. Sed hoc est mendicare. Ergo videtur quod illicitum sit, praetermisso opere manuali, mendicare. Obj. 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 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. Praeterea, illud quod est in lege prohibitum et iustitiae contrarium, non competit religiosis. Sed mendicare est prohibitum in lege divina, dicitur enim Deut. XV, omnino indigens et mendicus non erit inter vos; et in Psalmo, non vidi iustum derelictum, nec semen eius quaerens panem. Sed secundum iura civilia punitur validus mendicans, ut habetur codice, de validis mendicantibus. Ergo non competit religiosis mendicare. Obj. 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 (Deut 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. Praeterea, verecundia est de turpi, ut Damascenus dicit. Sed Ambrosius dicit, in libro de Offic., quod verecundia petendi ingenuos prodit natales. Ergo mendicare est turpe. Non ergo religiosis competit. Obj. 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. Praeterea, maxime de eleemosynis vivere competit praedicantibus Evangelium, secundum domini statutum, ut supra dictum est. Eis tamen non competit mendicare, quia super illud II ad Tim. II, laborantem agricolam etc., dicit Glossa, vult apostolus quod Evangelista intelligat quod necessaria sumere ab eis in quibus laborat, non est mendicitas, sed potestas. Ergo videtur quod religiosis non competat mendicare. Obj. 5: Further, according to our Lord’s command it is especially becoming to preachers of the Gospel to live on alms, as stated above (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. Sed contra est quod religiosis competit vivere ad imitationem Christi. Sed Christus mendicavit, secundum illud Psalmi, ego autem mendicus sum et pauper; ubi dicit Glossa, hoc dicit Christus de se ex forma servi; et infra, mendicus est qui ab alio petit, et pauper est qui sibi non sufficit. Et in alio Psalmo, ego egenus et pauper sum, ubi dicit Glossa, ego sum egenus, idest petens; et pauper, idest insufficiens mihi, quia mundanas copias non habeo. Et Hieronymus dicit, in quadam epistola, cave ne, domino tuo mendicante, scilicet Christo, alienas divitias congeras. Ergo conveniens est religiosis mendicare. 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: Beware lest whereas thy Lord, i.e., Christ, begged, thou amass other people’s wealth. Therefore it becomes religious to beg. Respondeo dicendum quod circa mendicitatem duo possunt considerari. Unum quidem ex parte actus ipsius mendicationis, quae habet quandam abiectionem sibi coniunctam, illi enim videntur abiectissimi inter homines esse qui non solum sunt pauperes, sed in tantum sunt egentes quod necesse habent ab aliis victum acquirere. Et secundum hoc, causa humilitatis aliqui laudabiliter mendicant, sicut et alia assumunt quae ad abiectionem quandam pertinent, quasi efficacissimam medicinam contra superbiam, quam vel in seipsis, vel etiam in aliis per exemplum exstinguere volunt. Sicut enim infirmitas quae est ex superexcessu caloris, efficacissime sanatur per ea quae in frigiditate excedunt; ita etiam pronitas ad superbiam efficacissime curatur per ea quae multum abiecta videntur. Et ideo dicitur in decretis, de Poenit., dist. II, cap. si quis semel, exercitia humilitatis sunt, si quis se vilioribus officiis subdat, et ministeriis indignioribus tradat, ita namque arrogantiae et humanae gloriae vitium curari poterit. Unde Hieronymus, in epistola ad Oceanum, commendat Fabiolam de hoc quod optabat ut, suis divitiis pariter effusis pro Christo, stipes acciperet. Quod etiam beatus Alexius perfecit, qui, omnibus suis propter Christum dimissis, gaudebat se etiam a servis suis eleemosynas accepisse. Et de beato Arsenio legitur, in vitis patrum, quod gratias egit de hoc quod, necessitate cogente, oportuit eum eleemosynam petere. Unde et in poenitentiam pro gravibus culpis iniungitur aliquibus ut peregrinentur mendicantes. Sed quia humilitas, sicut et ceterae virtutes, absque discretione esse non debet, ita oportet discrete mendicitatem ad humiliationem assumere, ut ex hoc homo notam cupiditatis non incurrat, vel cuiuscumque alterius indecentis. Alio modo potest considerari mendicitas ex parte eius quod quis mendicando acquirit. Et sic ad mendicandum potest homo ex duobus induci. Uno modo, ex cupiditate habendi divitias vel victum otiosum. Et talis mendicitas est illicita. Alio modo, ex necessitate vel utilitate. Ex necessitate quidem, sicut cum aliquis non potest aliunde habere unde vivat, nisi mendicet. Ex utilitate autem, sicut cum aliquis intendit ad aliquid utile perficiendum quod sine eleemosynis fidelium facere non potest, sicut petuntur eleemosynae pro constructione pontis vel Ecclesiae, vel quibuscumque aliis operibus quae vergunt in utilitatem communem; sicut scholares, ut possint vacare studio sapientiae. Et hoc modo mendicitas est licita, sicut saecularibus, ita et religiosis. 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 Poenitentia): 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. Second, 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; second, 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus ibi loquitur expresse de his qui ex cupiditate mendicant. Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking there explicitly of those who beg from motives of covetousness. Ad secundum dicendum quod prima Glossa loquitur de petitione quae fit ex cupiditate, ut patet ex verbis apostoli. Secunda autem Glossa loquitur de illis qui absque omni utilitate quam faciant, necessaria petunt ut otiosi vivant. Non autem otiose vivit qui qualitercumque utiliter vivit. Reply Obj. 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod ex illo praecepto legis divinae non prohibetur alicui mendicare, sed prohibetur divitibus ne tam tenaces sint ut propter hoc aliqui egestate mendicare cogantur. Lex autem civilis imponit poenam validis mendicantibus qui non propter utilitatem vel necessitatem mendicant. Reply Obj. 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. Ad quartum dicendum quod duplex est turpitudo, una inhonestatis; alia exterioris defectus, sicut turpe est homini esse infirmum vel pauperem. Et talem turpitudinem habet mendicitas. Unde non pertinet ad culpam, sed ad humilitatem pertinere potest, ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 4: Disgrace is twofold; one arises from lack of honesty, 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. Ad quintum dicendum quod praedicantibus ex debito debetur victus ab his quibus praedicant. Si tamen non quasi sibi debitum, sed quasi gratis dandum mendicando petere velint, ad maiorem utilitatem pertinet. Reply Obj. 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. Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum liceat religiosis vilioribus vestibus uti quam ceteris Whether it is lawful for religious to wear coarser clothes than others? Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non liceat religiosis vilioribus vestibus uti quam ceteris. Quia secundum apostolum, I ad Thess. ult., ab omni specie mala abstinere debemus. Sed vilitas vestium habet speciem mali. Dicit enim dominus, Matth. VII, attendite a falsis prophetis, qui veniunt ad vos in vestimentis ovium. Et super illud Apoc. VI, ecce equus pallidus etc., dicit Glossa, videns Diabolus nec per apertas tribulationes nec per apertas haereses se posse proficere, praemittit falsos fratres, qui sub habitu religionis obtinent naturam nigri et rufi equi, pervertendo fidem. Ergo videtur quod religiosi non debeant vilibus vestibus uti. 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 (Matt 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. Praeterea, Hieronymus dicit, ad Nepotianum, vestes pullas, idest nigras, aeque vita ut candidas. Ornatus et sordes pari modo fugiendi sunt, quia alterum delicias, alterum gloriam redolet. Ergo videtur quod, cum inanis gloria sit gravius peccatum quam deliciarum usus, quod religiosi, qui debent ad perfectiora tendere, magis debent vitare vestes viles quam pretiosas. Obj. 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. Praeterea, religiosi maxime intendere debent operibus poenitentiae. Sed in operibus poenitentiae non est utendum exterioribus signis tristitiae, sed magis signis laetitiae, dicit enim dominus, Matth. VI, cum ieiunatis, nolite fieri, sicut hypocritae, tristes; et postea subdit, tu autem cum ieiunas, unge caput tuum et faciem tuam lava. Quod exponens Augustinus, in libro de Serm. Dom. in monte, dicit, in hoc capitulo maxime animadvertendum est non in solo rerum corporearum nitore atque pompa, sed etiam in ipsis sordibus luctuosis esse posse iactantiam, et eo periculosiorem, quo sub nomine servitutis Dei decipit. Ergo videtur quod religiosi non debeant vilioribus vestibus indui. Obj. 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 (Matt 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.