Commentaria in Summam contra Gentiles, Liber III

Secondly, he sets forth objections against the particular modes of poverty¹.

I. The first mode is that the possessions of individuals be sold, and that all live in common from the price. This seems to have been observed by the Apostles in Jerusalem, as is clear from Acts 4.

Against this it is argued: First, because those who pursue such poverty will remain without the sustenance of life.

Secondly, because it is not easy for many, even those having great possessions, to take up this life. — And also the price of the possessions would not suffice for a long time.

Thirdly, because it is possible, and easy, for a price of this kind to be lost through the fraud of administrators, or by theft or robbery.

Fourthly, because, since it happens that men change location, it will not be easy to provide from such a price for those who must perhaps be scattered through diverse places.

II. The second mode is that they have possessions in common, by which individuals are provided for, as in most monasteries.

Against this it is urged that it seems to hinder the end of voluntary poverty. First, because it is necessary for many to be solicitous about managing possessions. — Secondly, because common possession is customarily a cause of discord. But discord especially hinders the mind's leisure for divine things.

III. The third mode is that they live by the labors of their hands. The Apostle followed this mode and urged it upon others, in 2 Thess. 3.

Against this it is argued, first, because it seems vain that someone, having abandoned what is necessary for the sustenance of life, should labor to acquire it again.

Secondly, because this does not seem suitable to the purpose of those taking up voluntary poverty. For it seems to require greater solicitude for someone to seek a livelihood for himself by his own labor than for him to use the things he has, especially if he has moderate wealth.

Thirdly, because the Lord, under the likeness of the birds and the lilies of the field, seems to forbid manual labor to the Apostles.

Fourthly, because this mode seems insufficient. First, because there are many who cannot pass their life through manual labor by any craft; and thus peasants and craftsmen would be in a better condition to attain the perfection of life than the wise and the wealthy; and it also happens that some who take up voluntary poverty become ill, or are otherwise hindered from manual work. — Secondly, because, since not a little time of labor suffices to seek the necessities of life, those who pursue voluntary poverty of this kind would consume the greater part of their life in manual labor, and thus they would be hindered from other spiritual exercises; and consequently voluntary poverty would hinder the perfection of life more than dispose toward it.

If it should be said that manual labor is necessary to remove idleness: — this does not suffice. First, because idleness would be better removed through occupations in the moral virtues, which riches serve instrumentally. — Secondly, because it would be vain to give a counsel concerning poverty for the sake of avoiding idleness, unless it were given to the end that men might be at leisure for nobler exercises than those that belong to the common life of men.

If it should also be said that such labor is necessary to tame concupiscences: — this is beside the point, because we are asking whether it is necessary that the voluntarily poor seek their livelihood by the labor of their hands. — And furthermore, it is possible for the concupiscences of the flesh to be tamed in many other ways; and the wealthy could also use manual labor for this end.

IV. The fourth mode is that they live from those things that are brought in by others. The Lord seems to have observed this mode with His disciples, as is clear from Luke 8.

Against this it is argued, first, because it does not seem reasonable that someone should abandon his own goods and live from another's.

Secondly, because it seems unfitting that someone should receive from another and repay him nothing. For it could be sustained that those should live in this mode who serve others in some office, for instance by ministering at the altar, preaching, and doing similar things, as is shown in Matt. 10 and 1 Cor. 9; but that others, who minister to the people in no office, should receive the necessities of life from them seems unfitting.

Thirdly. That mode of living is harmful to others who cannot suffice for themselves on account of poverty and illness, because they ought to be sustained from those things that are given to those who choose voluntary poverty. Therefore, etc. — The consequence is proved from the Apostle, 1 Tim. 5.

Fourthly. That mode of living hinders the perfection of virtue. For it hinders the freedom of the mind, which is especially required for virtue, because, when this is removed, men easily share in the sins of others, either by consenting, or by smoothing them over through flattery², or by dissembling. Therefore, etc.

Fifthly. It depends on the will of the giver that he give from his own goods. Therefore, by this mode sufficient provision is not made for the voluntarily poor.

Sixthly. This mode renders the voluntarily poor contemptible. For it is necessary that they explain their needs to others, and ask for necessities. But men consider themselves superior to those who have need to be sustained by them; and most give with difficulty. But this is unfitting, because those who take up the perfection of life ought to be held in reverence. Therefore, etc.

Seventhly. Begging has the appearance of evil, since many beg for the sake of gain. Therefore it is to be avoided. — The consequence is clear from the Apostle, Rom. 12³, and from the authority of Aristotle.

Eighthly. This mode has the greatest amount of solicitude. For it seems to be of greater solicitude to acquire the goods of others than to use one's own. Therefore, etc.

If someone, moreover, should praise begging on account of humility: — he seems to speak unreasonably. For humility is not praised according as the height of virtue is despised, in respect of which we ought to be magnanimous, and it is derogated from. But by begging it is derogated from: both because it is more virtuous to give than to receive, and because it has the appearance of filthy lucre⁴. Therefore, etc.

V. The last mode is that of some who say that those pursuing the perfection of life should have no solicitude, but that they ought to expect the sustenance of life from God alone, which seems to be said in Matt. 6.

But against this it is argued, first, because human solicitude is ordered to the end of eating. But it is foolish to will the end and to omit the things that are ordered to the end.

Secondly. Solicitude is not to be avoided except because it hinders the contemplation of eternal things. But a man, bearing mortal flesh, cannot live without doing many things. Therefore neither is solicitude for the things necessary for life to be omitted on account of the hindrance of contemplation.

Thirdly. For a like reason a man could say that he does not want to walk, or to open his mouth to eat, and similar things, but to expect that God should act. But this is to tempt God. Therefore, etc.