Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that it is not lawful for a bishop to have property of his own. For our Lord said (Mt. 19:21): "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell all thou hast, and give to the poor . . . and come, follow Me"; whence it would seem to follow that voluntary poverty is requisite for perfection. Now bishops are in the state of perfection. Therefore it would seem unlawful for them to possess anything as their own.

Objection 2: Further, bishops take the place of the apostles in the Church, according to a gloss on Lk. 10:1. Now our Lord commanded the apostles to possess nothing of their own, according to Mt. 10:9, "Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses"; wherefore Peter said for himself and the other apostles (Mt. 19:27): "Behold we have left all things and have followed Thee." Therefore it would seem that bishops are bound to keep this command, and to possess nothing of their own.

Objection 3: Further, Jerome says (Ep. lii ad Nepotian.): "The Greek {kleros} denotes the Latin 'sors.' Hence clerics are so called either because they are of the Lord's estate, or because the Lord Himself is the estate, i.e. portion of clerics. Now he that possesses the Lord, can have nothing besides God; and if he have gold and silver, possessions, and chattels of all kinds, with such a portion the Lord does not vouchsafe to be his portion also." Therefore it would seem that not only bishops but even clerics should have nothing of their own.

On the contrary, It is stated (XII, qu. i, can. Episcopi de rebus): "Bishops, if they wish, may bequeath to their heirs their personal or acquired property, and whatever belongs to them personally."

I answer that, No one is bound to works of supererogation, unless he binds himself specially thereto by vow. Hence Augustine says (Ep. cxxvii ad Paulin. et Arment.): "Since you have taken the vow, you have already bound yourself, you can no longer do otherwise. Before you were bound by the vow, you were free to submit." Now it is evident that to live without possessing anything is a work of supererogation, for it is a matter not of precept but of counsel. Wherefore our Lord after saying to the young man: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments," said afterwards by way of addition: "If thou wilt be perfect go sell" all "that thou hast, and give to the poor" (Mt. 19:17,21). Bishops, however, do not bind themselves at their ordination to live without possessions of their own; nor indeed does the pastoral office, to which they bind themselves, make it necessary for them to live without anything of their own. Therefore bishops are not bound to live without possessions of their own.

Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (Question 184, Article 3, ad 1) the perfection of the Christian life does not essentially consist in voluntary poverty, but voluntary poverty conduces instrumentally to the perfection of life. Hence it does not follow that where there is greater poverty there is greater perfection; indeed the highest perfection is compatible with great wealth, since Abraham, to whom it was said (Gn. 17:1): "Walk before Me and be perfect," is stated to have been rich (Gn. 13:2).

Reply to Objection 2: This saying of our Lord can be understood in three ways. First, mystically, that we should possess neither gold nor silver means that the preacher should not rely chiefly on temporal wisdom and eloquence; thus Jerome expounds the passage.

Secondly, according to Augustine's explanation (De Consens. Ev. ii, 30), we are to understand that our Lord said this not in command but in permission. For he permitted them to go preaching without gold or silver or other means, since they were to receive the means of livelihood from those to whom they preached; wherefore He added: "For the workman is worthy of his meat." And yet if anyone were to use his own means in preaching the Gospel, this would be a work of supererogation, as Paul says in reference to himself (1 Cor. 9:12,15).

Thirdly, according to the exposition of Chrysostom , we are to understand that our Lord laid these commands on His disciples in reference to the mission on which they were sent to preach to the Jews, so that they might be encouraged to trust in His power, seeing that He provided for their wants without their having means of their own. But it does not follow from this that they, or their successors, were obliged to preach the Gospel without having means of their own: since we read of Paul (2 Cor. 11:8) that he "received wages" of other churches for preaching to the Corinthians, wherefore it is clear that he possessed something sent to him by others. And it seems foolish to say that so many holy bishops as Athanasius, Ambrose, and Augustine would have disobeyed these commandments if they believed themselves bound to observe them.

Reply to Objection 3: Every part is less than the whole. Accordingly a man has other portions together with God, if he becomes less intent on things pertaining to God by occupying himself with things of the world. Now neither bishops nor clerics ought thus to possess means of their own, that while busy with their own they neglect those that concern the worship of God.

Articulus 6

Argumentum 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod episcopo non liceat aliquid proprium possidere.

Dominus enim dicit, Matth. XIX, si vis perfectus esse, vade et vende omnia quae habes et da pauperibus, et veni, sequere me, ex quo videtur quod voluntaria paupertas ad perfectionem requiratur. Sed episcopi assumuntur ad statum perfectionis.

Ergo videtur quod non liceat eis proprium possidere.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, episcopi in ecclesia tenent locum apostolorum, ut dicit Glossa, Luc. X.

Sed apostolis dominus praecepit ut nihil proprium possiderent, secundum illud Matth. X, nolite possidere aurum neque argentum, neque pecuniam in zonis vestris.

Unde et Petrus, pro se et pro aliis apostolis, dicit, ecce, nos reliquimus omnia et secuti sumus te, Matth. XIX.

Ergo videtur quod episcopi teneantur ad huius mandati observantiam, ut nihil proprium possideant.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, Hieronymus dicit, ad Nepotianum, cleros Graece, Latine sors appellatur. Propterea clerici dicuntur, quia de sorte domini sunt, vel quia ipse dominus sors, idest pars, clericorum est. Qui autem dominum possidet, nihil extra deum habere potest. Si autem aurum, si argentum, si possessiones, si variam supellectilem habet, cum istis partibus non dignatur dominus fieri pars eius.

Ergo videtur quod non solum episcopi, sed etiam clerici debeant proprio carere.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur XII, qu. I, episcopus de rebus propriis vel acquisitis, vel quidquid de proprio habet, heredibus suis derelinquat.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod ad ea quae sunt supererogationis nullus tenetur, nisi se specialiter ad illud voto adstringat.

Unde Augustinus dicit, in epistola ad Paulinam et armentarium, quia iam vovisti, iam te obstrinxisti, aliud tibi facere non licet.

Priusquam esses voti reus, liberum fuit quod esses inferior.

Manifestum est autem quod vivere absque proprio supererogationis est, non enim cadit sub praecepto, sed sub consilio. Unde cum, Matth. XIX, dixisset dominus adolescenti, si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata, postea superaddendo subdidit, si vis perfectus esse, vade et vende omnia quae habes et da pauperibus.

Non autem episcopi in sua ordinatione ad hoc se obligant ut absque proprio vivant, nec etiam vivere absque proprio ex necessitate requiritur ad pastorale officium, ad quod se obligant. Et ideo non tenentur episcopi ad hoc quod sine proprio vivant.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut supra habitum est, perfectio christianae vitae non consistit essentialiter in voluntaria paupertate, sed voluntaria paupertas instrumentaliter operatur ad perfectionem vitae. Unde non oportet quod ubi est maior paupertas, ibi sit maior perfectio. Quinimmo potest esse summa perfectio cum magna opulentia, nam Abraham, cui dictum est, Gen. XVII, ambula coram me et esto perfectus, legitur dives fuisse.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod verba illa domini tripliciter possunt intelligi. Uno modo, mystice, ut non possideamus aurum neque argentum, idest, ut praedicatores non innitantur principaliter sapientiae et eloquentiae temporali; ut Hieronymus exponit. Alio modo, sicut Augustinus exponit, in libro de consensu Evangelist., ut intelligatur hoc dominum non praecipiendo, sed magis permittendo dixisse. Permisit enim eis ut absque auro et argento et aliis sumptibus ad praedicandum irent, accepturi sumptus vitae ab his quibus praedicabant.

Unde subdit, dignus est enim operarius cibo suo.

Ita tamen quod, si aliquis propriis sumptibus uteretur in praedicatione evangelii, ad supererogationem pertineret, sicut Paulus de seipso dicit, I ad Cor. IX. Tertio modo, secundum quod chrysostomus exponit, ut intelligatur illa dominum discipulis praecepisse quantum ad illam missionem qua mittebantur ad praedicandum Iudaeis, ut per hoc exercerentur ad confidendum de virtute ipsius, qui eis absque sumptibus provideret. Ex quo tamen non obligabantur ipsi, vel successores eorum, ut absque propriis sumptibus evangelium praedicarent.

Nam et de Paulo legitur, II ad Cor. XI, quod ab aliis ecclesiis stipendium accipiebat ad praedicandum Corinthiis, et sic patet quod aliquid possidebat ab aliis sibi missum. Stultum autem videtur dicere quod tot sancti pontifices, sicut Athanasius, Ambrosius, Augustinus, illa praecepta transgressi fuissent, si ad ea observanda se crederent obligari.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod omnis pars est minor toto. Ille ergo cum deo alias partes habet, cuius studium diminuitur circa ea quae sunt dei, dum intendit his quae sunt mundi. Sic autem non debent nec episcopi nec clerici proprium possidere, ut, dum curant propria, defectum faciant in his quae pertinent ad cultum divinum.