CHAPTER XIV

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE PERFECTION OF RELIGIOUS WHOSE POSSESSIONS ARE NOT IN COMMON

WE must now examine how the adversaries of the religious life seek to withhold men from embracing it, by decrying the perfection of this state, and especially the perfection of those religious whose possessions are not in common. In order to uphold their opinion they quote the following words from Prosper in his book, De vita contemplativa (XII. quaest. I.), "It behoves us to possess the goods of the Church, and, for the love of poverty, to spurn our own possessions. The property of the Church is not private, but common. Therefore, anyone who has relinquished, or sold, his own belongings, despises private property; but, when he is set over a Church, he becomes the administrator of all the possessions of that Church. St. Paulinus, as is well known, sold his large property and gave the effects to the poor; but, when he became Bishop, far from despising the possessions of his Church, he administered them with the utmost fidelity. This fact is sufficient evidence that we ought to relinquish our private belongings, on account of the imperfection attaching to them, but that it is quite possible (without any detriment to poverty), to possess ecclesiastical property, which is common." Hence, our adversaries draw the conclusion that it is imperfect not to hold common property.

             They maintain their opinion by quoting the example of several Saints. Thus, St. Gregory, with his own money, built one monastery within the walls of Rome, and six in Sicily. St. Benedict, that perfect guide of religious, accepted large donations for his monastery; and many other men, who have been zealous for evangelical perfection, have acted in like manner. These great men, who were zealous seekers after evangelical perfection, would, certainly, not have pursued such a course, had the possession of goods in common, been, in any degree, inconsistent with Apostolic and Evangelical perfection. Our opponents draw from this argument, the further conclusion, that, those who possess nothing, are not, therefore, the most perfect; and they add, that the Apostles, whom Our Lord commanded to possess nothing and to take nothing with them on their way, did, nevertheless, hold certain possessions in time of necessity. Hence, commenting on the words of St. Luke, "But now, he that hath a purse let him take it, and likewise a scrip," the Gloss says that, "now, when the hour of death was at hand, and the whole nation were in pursuit of the Shepherd and the flock, Christ gave a rule befitting the occasion, allowing them to take what was necessary for the support of life." Now, the Apostles were no less perfect in time of persecution, than at other seasons. Therefore, the possession of goods in common, did not lessen their perfection.

             It is also argued that Christ Himself instituted the order of His disciples, whose successors, bishops, to wit, and clerics, have property. Religious orders, on the other hand, whose members live in poverty without possessions, were formed by men. Now what Christ has instituted must be most perfect. Therefore, it is more perfect to hold goods in common, than to live without property. Our opponents, likewise, (incredible though it may appear), contend that the perfection taught by Christ, has been in abeyance from the Apostolic times until now; and that it is in our days, that certain orders have begun to live without possessing anything in common. The conclusion drawn from this proposition, is, that the absence of common property does not pertain to Evangelical perfection.

             Another argument, brought forward by the enemies of the religious life, is, that those who after the time of the Apostles, held no goods in common, lived, as did the Fathers of the desert, by the work of their hands. Therefore, they say, those who neither possess common property, nor live by their manual labour, do not practise Evangelical perfection. They likewise hold, that the counsel of renouncing wealth, was given as a means whereby to free our minds from worldly care, as we learn from St. Luke xii. 22, "Be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat," and from St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians (vii. 32), "But I would have you to be without solicitude." Now, they who have not sufficient property to provide them with the necessities of life, are more disturbed by anxiety, than those who hold certain possessions in common. Therefore, the absence of common property is an obstacle to Evangelical perfection. It is further maintained, that religious who possess nothing, are compelled to busy themselves in the affairs of those who supply their necessities, and that this solicitude about temporal matters militates against Evangelical perfection. Therefore, they who possess nothing, are beset by impediments in the way of perfection. Finally, the adversaries of religious poverty say, that it is impossible for anyone to possess nothing in common; for all must have food and clothing, which they could not obtain if they had no property. These are the arguments brought against the perfection of those who own no common property.