Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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 (Mt. 7:15): "Beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep": and a gloss on Apoc. 6:8, "Behold a pale horse," says: "The devil finding that he cannot succeed, neither by outward afflictions nor by manifest heresies, sends in advance false brethren, who under the guise of religion assume the characteristics of the black and red horses by corrupting the faith." Therefore it would seem that religious should not wear coarse clothes.

Objection 2: Further, Jerome says (Ep. lii ad Nepotian.): "Avoid somber," i.e. black, "equally with glittering apparel. Fine and coarse clothes are equally to be shunned, for the one exhales pleasure, the other vainglory." Therefore, since vainglory is a graver sin than the use of pleasure, it would seem that religious who should aim at what is more perfect ought to avoid coarse rather than fine clothes.

Objection 3: Further, religious should aim especially at doing works of penance. Now in works of penance we should use, not outward signs of sorrow, but rather signs of joy; for our Lord said (Mt. 6:16): "When you fast, be not, as the hypocrites, sad," and afterwards He added: "But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head and wash thy face." Augustine commenting on these words (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12): "In this chapter we must observe that not only the glare and pomp of outward things, but even the weeds of mourning may be a subject of ostentation, all the more dangerous as being a decoy under the guise of God's service." Therefore seemingly religious ought not to wear coarse clothes.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb. 11:37): "They wandered about in sheep-skins in goat-skins," and a gloss adds---"as Elias and others." Moreover it is said in the Decretal XXI, qu. iv, can. Omnis jactantia: "If any persons be found to deride those who wear coarse and religious apparel they must be reproved. For in the early times all those who were consecrated to God went about in common and coarse apparel."

I answer that, As Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12), "in all external things, it is not the use but the intention of the user that is at fault." In order to judge of this it is necessary to observe that coarse and homely apparel may be considered in two ways. First, as being a sign of a man's disposition or condition, because according to Ecclus. 19:27, "the attire . . . of the man" shows "what he is." In this way coarseness of attire is sometimes a sign of sorrow: wherefore those who are beset with sorrow are wont to wear coarser clothes, just as on the other hand in times of festivity and joy they wear finer clothes. Hence penitents make use of coarse apparel, for example, the king (Jonas 3:6) who "was clothed with sack-cloth," and Achab (3 Kgs. 21:27) who "put hair-cloth upon his flesh." Sometimes, however, it is a sign of the contempt of riches and worldly ostentation. Wherefore Jerome says (Ep. cxxv ad Rustico Monach.): "Let your somber attire indicate your purity of mind, your coarse robe prove your contempt of the world, yet so that your mind be not inflated withal, lest your speech belie your habit." In both these ways it is becoming for religious to wear coarse attire, since religion is a state of penance and of contempt of worldly glory.

But that a person wish to signify this to others arises from three motives. First, in order to humble himself: for just as a man's mind is uplifted by fine clothes, so is it humbled by lowly apparel. Hence speaking of Achab who "put hair-cloth on his flesh," the Lord said to Elias: "Hast thou not seen Achab humbled before Me?" (3 Kgs. 21:29). Secondly, in order to set an example to others; wherefore a gloss on Mt. 3:4, "(John) had his garments of camel's hair," says: "He who preaches penance is clothed in the habit of penance." Thirdly, on account of vainglory; thus Augustine says (cf. Objection 3) that "even the weeds of mourning may be a subject of ostentation."

Accordingly in the first two ways it is praiseworthy to wear humble apparel, but in the third way it is sinful.

Secondly, coarse and homely attire may be considered as the result of covetousness or negligence, and thus also it is sinful.

Reply to Objection 1: Coarseness of attire has not of itself the appearance of evil, indeed it has more the appearance of good, namely of the contempt of worldly glory. Hence it is that wicked persons hide their wickedness under coarse clothing. Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 24) that "the sheep should not dislike their clothing for the reason that the wolves sometimes hide themselves under it."

Reply to Objection 2: Jerome is speaking there of the coarse attire that is worn on account of human glory.

Reply to Objection 3: According to our Lord's teaching men should do no deeds of holiness for the sake of show: and this is especially the case when one does something strange. Hence Chrysostom says: "While praying a man should do nothing strange, so as to draw the gaze of others, either by shouting or striking his breast, or casting up his hands," because the very strangeness draws people's attention to him. Yet blame does not attach to all strange behavior that draws people's attention, for it may be done well or ill. Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12) that "in the practice of the Christian religion when a man draws attention to himself by unwonted squalor and shabbiness, since he acts thus voluntarily and not of necessity, we can gather from his other deeds whether his behavior is motivated by contempt of excessive dress or by affectation." Religious, however, would especially seem not to act thus from affectation, since they wear a coarse habit as a sign of their profession whereby they profess contempt of the world.

Articulus 6

Argumentum 1

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.

Argumentum 2

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.

Argumentum 3

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.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod, Heb. XI, apostolus dicit, circuierunt in melotis, in pellibus caprinis, Glossa, ut elias et alii.

Et in decretis, XXI, qu. IV, dicitur, si inventi fuerint deridentes eos qui vilibus et religiosis vestibus amicti sunt, corrigantur. Priscis enim temporibus omnis sacratus vir cum mediocri ac vili veste conversabatur.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in III de doct. Christ., in omnibus exterioribus rebus non usus rerum, sed libido utentis in culpa est ad quam discernendam, attendendum est quod habitus vilis vel incultus dupliciter potest considerari. Uno modo, prout est signum quoddam dispositionis vel status humani, quia, ut dicitur Eccli. XIX, amictus hominis annuntiat de eo, et secundum hoc, vilitas habitus est quandoque signum tristitiae.

Unde et homines in tristitia existentes solent vilioribus vestibus uti, sicut e contrario in tempore solemnitatis et gaudii utuntur cultioribus vestimentis. Unde et poenitentes vilibus vestibus induuntur, ut patet ionae III, de rege, qui indutus est sacco; et III Reg. XXI, de Achab, qui operuit cilicio carnem suam.

Quandoque vero est signum contemptus divitiarum et mundani fastus unde Hieronymus dicit, ad rusticum monachum, sordes vestium candidae mentis indicia sunt, vilis tunica contemptum saeculi probat. Ita dumtaxat ne animus tumeat, ne habitus sermoque dissentiant.

Et secundum utrumque horum, competit religiosis vilitas vestium, quia religio est status poenitentiae et contemptus mundanae gloriae. Sed quod aliquis velit hoc aliis significare, contingit propter tria. Uno modo, ad sui humiliationem, sicut enim ex splendore vestium animus hominis elevatur, ita ex humilitate vestium humiliatur. Unde de Achab, qui carnem suam cilicio induit, dixit dominus ad eliam, nonne vidisti Achab humiliatum coram me, ut habetur III Reg. XXI.

Alio modo, propter exemplum aliorum.

Unde super illud Matth. III, habebat vestimentum de pilis camelorum etc., dicit Glossa, qui poenitentiam praedicat, habitum poenitentiae praetendit.

Tertio modo, propter inanem gloriam, sicut Augustinus dicit quod in ipsis sordibus luctuosis potest esse iactantia.

Duobus ergo primis modis, laudabile est abiectis vestibus uti, tertio vero modo, est vitiosum. Alio autem modo potest considerari habitus vilis et incultus secundum quod procedit ex avaritia vel ex negligentia. Et sic etiam ad vitium pertinet.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod vilitas vestium de se non habet speciem mali, immo potius speciem boni, scilicet contemptus mundanae gloriae. Et inde est quod mali sub vilitate vestium suam malitiam occultant.

Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de serm. Dom. In monte, quod non ideo debent oves odisse vestimentum suum, quod plerumque illo se occultant lupi.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod Hieronymus ibi loquitur de vestibus vilibus quae deferuntur propter humanam gloriam.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, secundum doctrinam domini, in operibus sanctitatis nihil homines facere debent propter apparentiam. Quod praecipue contingit quando aliquis aliquid novum facit.

Unde chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., orans nihil novum faciat quod aspiciant homines, vel clamando, vel pectus percutiendo, vel manus expandendo, quia scilicet ex ipsa novitate homines reddunt intentos ad considerandum. Nec tamen omnis novitas intentos faciens homines ad considerandum, reprehensibilis est.

Potest enim et bene et male fieri.

Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de serm. Dom. In monte, quod qui in professione christianitatis inusitato squalore ac sordibus intentos in se oculos hominum facit, cum id voluntate faciat, non necessitate patiatur, ceteris eius operibus potest cognosci utrum hoc contemptu superflui cultus, an ambitione aliqua faciat.

Maxime autem videntur hoc non ex ambitione facere religiosi, qui habitum vilem deferunt quasi signum suae professionis, qua contemptum mundi profitentur.