Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/377

 POVERTY

327

POVERTY

common law on the subject of this simple vow. (See Vermeersch, " De religiosia institutia etc.", II, 4th ed., nn. 61 sqq., pp. 178 sqq.) This vow permits the reli- gious to retain the ownership of property possessed at the time of his entrance into religion, to acquire property by inheritance, and to receive gifts and per- sonal legacies. The administration and usufruct and the use of this property must before the taking of the vow pass either to the order (if it is able and willing to approve of the arrangement), or into other hands, at the choice of the religious. Such an arrangement is irrevocable as long as the religious remains under the conditions of the vow, and ceases should he leave the order; he seems authorized also to make or com- plete the resignation which he may have omitted to make or complete previously. Except so far as he ia affected by the decree of the Council of Trent, which forbids novices to make any renunciation which would interfere with their liberty to leave their order, the religious who is bound by this simple vow may, with the permission of his superior, dispose of his property by a donation inter vivos, and apparently has full liberty to make a will. But the Decree "Perpensis" of 3 May, 1902, which extends to nuns the simple profession of orders of men, without mentioning a will, declares simply that women are not permitted to make final disposition of their property except during the two months immediately preceding their Bolemn profession.

(b) The final simple vow. — With the exception of the Society of Jesus, in which the simple vow of formed coadjutors entails the same personal obliga- tions and the same disabiUty as the solemn vow, the final simple vow is known only in religious congrega- tions, and the practice differs in different congrega- tions (cf. Lucidi, "De visitatione SS. Uminum", II, V, sec. 8, nn. 319 sqq.), and very often resembles that of the vow preparatory to the solemn vow; but accord- ing to the Regulations {Norrnce) of 28 June, 1901, the transfer of property by donations inter vivos cannot be licitly made before the perpetual vows; after these vows, the complete renunciation requires the per- mission of the Holy See, which reserves to itself also the right to authorize the execution or modification of a will after profession. Any arrangements made before profession for the administration of property and the application of the revenues may be subse- quently modified with the consent of the superior. In diocesan institutes, there is no question of the capacity of the religious; but the bishops generally reserve to themselves the right of approving the more important acts of administration.

The Pecidium. — Certain goods, for example sums of money, independent of the common stock, and made over to the religious to be used without restriction for their private wants, form what is called the pecidium. Only that which is irrevocably put out of the power of the superior is contrary to the vow of poverty; but all pecidium is an injury to that common hfe, which since the earliest times was considered so important by the founders of religious communities. The Holy See constantly uses its efforts to abolish it, and to establish that perfect common life which provides that there shall be in the convent one common treasury for the personal needs of all.

Possession in Common. — The vow of poverty does not necessarily or as a general rule exclude the capacity to possess in common, that is to say, to have a common stock of property at the common disposal of the possessors, provided that they do not dispose of it in any manner contrary to the accepted rules and cus- toms. It is a great mistake to argue from the vow of poverty that it is just to deny to religious this real common possession.

Sources. — I. Historical. — Butler. The Lausiac Hintorij of Pal- hldiu-i (Cambridge, 1899), a critical discussion together with notes on early EKyptian monachism; CARRiiiRE, De iuntitia el iurc (Louvain, 1845}, 195 sqq.; De Buck, De soUemnilate voforum,

pr(Bcipue pauperlatis religiosce epislola (Brussels, 1862); Ladeuze, Etude sur le cenobitisme Pakhdmien pendant le IV' siecte et la premiere moiti^ du V' (Louvain, 1898) ; MartI:ne, Comment, in reg. S. P. Benedicti; ScHrwiETZ, Das oriental. M6nchtum (Mainz, 1904) ; Thomassinus, Vetus et nova eccles. discip., I iii.

II. Doctrinal. — Bastien, DirectoiTe canonique d Vusage des con' gregations d v(bux simples (Maredsous, 1911) ; Battandier, Guide canonique pour les constitutions des sours d vasux simples (Paris, 1908); Boxiix, Tract, de jure regularium (.Paris, 1858) ; De Lugo, De iustitia et iure, d. iii, s. 4 sqq. ; Moccheggiani, Jurisprudentia ecclesiastica ad usum et commoditatem utrius^ue cleri, I (Quaracchi, 1904) ; Passerini, De hominum statibus, I, inQ. clxsxvi, art. 7, pp. 519 sqq.; Peluzarius, Manuale regularium.tr. IV, c. ii; tr.VI, cc, ix andxiv; Piat, Pra:lecliones iuris regularis, 1 (Tournai, 1898), 239-69; Sanchez, In Decalogum, 1. VII, especially cc. xviii- nd; SuAHEZ, De religione, tr. VII, 1. VIII; St. Thomas, II-II, Q. clxxxiv, a. 3; Q. clxxxv, a. 6, ad l""; Q. clxxxvi, aa. 3 and 7; Q. clxxxviii, a. 7, c. ; Vermeersch, De religiosis institutis et personis, I (Bruges, 1907), nn. 237 sqq.; II (4th ed., 1910), suppl. vi.

A. Vermeersch.

Poverty and Pauperism. — In a legal and technical sense, pauperism denotes the condition of persons who are supported at public expense, whether within or outside of almshouses. More commonly the term is applied to all persons whose existence is dependent for any considerable period upon charitable assist- ance, whether this assistance be public or private. Not infrequently it denotes an extreme degree of poverty among a large group of persons. Thus, we speak of the pauperism of the most abject classes in the large cities. Poverty is even less definite, and more relative. In Catholic doctrinal and ascetical treatises and usage, it indicates merely renunciation of the right of private property; as in speaking of the vow of poverty, or the poverty of the poor in spirit recommended in the Sermon on the Mount. Apart from this restricted and technical signification, poverty means in general a condition of insufficient subsistence, but different persons have different con- ceptions of sufficiency. At one extreme poverty in- cludes paupers, while its upper limit, at least in common language, varies with the plane of living which is assumed to be normal. As used by econo- mists and social students, it denotes a lack of some of the requisites of physical efficiency; that is, normal health and working capacity. Like pauperism, it implies a more or less prolonged condition; for to be without sufficient food or clothing for a few days is not necessarily to be in poverty. Unlike pauperism, poverty does not always suppose the receipt of charitable assistance. Aa the definition just given sets up a purely material and utilitarian standard, namely, productive efficiency, we shall in this article substitute one that is more consonant with human dignity, yet which is substantially equivalent in content to the economic conception. — Poverty, then, denotes that more or less prolonged condition in which a person is without some of those goods essen- tial to normal health and strength, an elementary degree of comfort, and right moral life.

One question which at once suggests itself is: whether the amount of poverty and pauperism exist- ing to-day is greater or less than that of former times. No general answer can be given that will not be mis- leading. Even the partial and particular estimates that are sometimes made are neither certain nor illuminating. Economic historians like Rogers and Gibbins declare that during the best period of the Middle Ages — say, from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century, inclusive — there was no such grinding and hopeless poverty, no such chronic semi-starvation in any class, as exists to-day among large classes in the great cities (cf. "Six Centuries of Work and Wages", and "Industry in England"). Probably this is true as regards the poorest of the poor at these two periods. In the Middle Ages there was no class resembling our proletariat, which has no security, no definite place, no certain claim upon any organiza- tion or institution in the socio-economic organism. Whether the whole number of persons in poverty in the earlier period waa relatively larger or smaller