Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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.

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 Mt. 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 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. 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."

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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 Rm. 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.

Reply to Objection 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 (Question 186, Article 3, ad 6).

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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 (Mt. 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 4

Argumentum 1

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.

Argumentum 2

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.

Argumentum 3

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.

Argumentum 4

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.

Argumentum 5

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.

Sed Contra

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.

Corpus

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. 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.

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.

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.

Ad 1

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.

Ad 2

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.

Ad 3

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.

Ad 4

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,

Ad 5

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.