Poverty: a Means to Perfection
“Poverty: a Means to Perfection”
in Initiation à saint Thomas d’ Aquin, chapter 5
“Le Défenseur de la vie Religieuse Mendiante”
and a reflection on
the “Poverty” of the Franciscan Rule (1223), chapter 2
Chiu Bit-Shing Abraham, ofm
(1994)
Introduction
The year 1993 marked the 800th anniversary of the birth of Clare of Assisi. Since poverty has an important place in the Rule of Clare, this occasion again made us reflect on the importance of spiritual and practical poverty.
The poverty of Clare and her sisters was based on the “poverty privilege” which Pope Innocent III granted to Clare in 1246.[1] It is also beyond doubt that the poverty of the Claretians was inspired by the “poverello,” Francis of Assisi. As a matter of fact, the practical “poverty ideal” of Francis was a challenge to the Church in the medieval age.
Francis died in 1226, the year when another saint was born, Thomas Aquinas (1225/6-1274). Thomas Aquinas, otherwise known as the Angelic Doctor, shared with Francis and Clare in the evangelical movement of the thirteenth century that the idea of poverty is a means to perfection.[2] However, is it correct to consider that poverty only a means? It is interesting for us to see in the following research.
In the first part of this paper, we shall look at the idea of Thomas on poverty as explained in chapter five of Initiation à saint Thomas d’Aquin. The second part will deal with what Francis writes in the second chapter of the Franciscan Rule (1223) about poverty. In the third part, we will go through a possible connection between the idea of poverty as expressed by the two saints. It is worth noting that in their treatment of poverty, Thomas’ writings and the Franciscan Rule have the same biblical quotation from Matt 19:21. Finally, it is the conclusion.
I. “Poverty: a means to Perfection,” in Initiation à saint Thomas d’Aquin,
chapter 5
In this chapter, the author introduces Thomas’ Contra impugnantes Dei cultum et religionem to see his emphasis on poverty as a means to perfection. It was the time when Thomas was admitted into the college of masters.[3] The problem was brought up by William of Saint-Amour. Together with his followers, he complained that the ministry of the religious who pretended to dedicate themselves to study and teaching but who lived not from their work but from mendicancy was not legitimate.[4]
William also proposed that all the religious be sent back to their monasteries, which they should never leave, so that they could work with their hands.[5] However, William apparently has understood neither that the mendicant religious are not monks, nor at what point the order of preachers is specified by study and preaching.[6]
In this conflict between William and the mendicant orders, Thomas did not wait for long to engage but he took position immediately.[7] It seems that he has already begun the drafting of Contra impugnantes Dei cultum et religionem from the date of the drafting of William’s Tractatus de periculis nouissimorum temporum since March 15th or at the beginning of April 1256.
In Contra impugnantes Dei cultum et religionem, Thomas began by defining what is a religio (religious order) and in what its final perfection consists. He then explained the words of his adversaries which seemed to be directed against the religious (“quia erorm tota intentio contra religiosos esse videtur”). Indeed, Thomas said that the religious orders have their right to belong to professional bodies.[8] The mandicant orders were prevented from working manually, and Thomas claimed for them the right to the most absolute poverty. Notably is that the possibility of living from alms in order not to entangle in the affairs of financial administration or others.[9]
Furthermore, Thomas said that the root of religious life is its faith. Faith is the first link which attaches humankind to God, together with hope and charity. With the result that all works of charity become the matter of “service” rendered to God in religious life. What unifies faith, hope, and charity is that the New Testament calls spiritual sacrifice: offer of self, body, and spirit by the vows of chastity and obedience.[10] Thomas also said that the means (poverty) were more or less adapted to the realization of this end. That is to say, he made use of the way (poverty) to perfection.[11]
After Gerald of Abbeville had questioned the poverty of Franciscans,[12] Thomas, since the spring of 1269, gave responses to the polemic in which he emphasized that the two master lines of his position over poverty is an instrumentum perfectionis and over the difference between perfection and the state of perfection.
As a result, Thomas directed a new opuscule “against the erroneous and pernicious (pestiferam) doctrine of those who turn humankind from entering religion.”[13] It is not in poverty itself that Thomas placed perfection. He explained this very clearly in De perfectione, “if one examines attentively the words of the Lord, it is not in the abandonment even of riches that he places perfection. It only shows a way that leads there, as well as it proves his manner of speaking when he says, if you want to be perfect, go, sell all that you possess, give it to the poor and follow me (cf. Matt 19:21). This is to say that perfection consists in following Christ (in sequela Christi consistat perfectio) and that the renouncement of riches helps walk in this way.”[14]
Therefore, this thesis on the poverty as an instrumentum perfectionis ends in the definitive formula of the Summa, “Perfection does not consist essentially in poverty, but in the following of Christ …. Poverty is like a means or an exercise which allows one to reach perfection.”[15]
Consequently, Thomas tried to explain how poverty can be a means to perfection, “a religious order shall be all the more perfect according as it practices poverty most adapted to the end it pursues.”[16] One defines that it is not the seculars that are alluded to here, but the Franciscans.
To sum up, William did not understand that the reality of the mendicant orders is not the life of the monks who keep themselves in the monasteries. Gerald questioned the Franciscans that the perfection of poverty could not be diminished by the possession of temporal goods and its administration. Thomas engaged himself with the polemic by writing De Perfectione to emphasize that poverty is ht means to perfection, and is not itself the end (cf. Matt 19:21).
II. “Poverty” in the Franciscan Rule (1223) chapter two
What is the historical background of the origin of the Order of Friars Minor (O. F. M.)?
When Francis and Cardinal Ugolino met at Florence, the latter expressed some ideas about potential value of the Franciscans to the Church. He looked at the Franciscans as people who were prepared to risk everything in order to preach the Gospel and show an example of Christian obedience and perfection. Moreover, in view of increasing heresies, the Church was badly in need of new inspiration and lacked the persons who could perform self-sacrifice.[17]
At the same time, Francis and the friars prepared themselves to give up all that they had and to live as poor people for Christ’s sake.[18] In his desire to observe completely the Gospel maxims on poverty,[19] Francis was prepared to run the brothers into discomfort and even into danger. The friars’ poverty consisted essentially in the renunciation of all reserves of material goods whether they were public or private. This was in metaphor of Christ who renounced material goods in order to place himself in the hands of providence. Thus, poverty means the renunciation of goods rather than the renunciation of rights.[20]
After certain years of having lived for the evangelical movement, Francis was urged to write the rule of the Order. The “Second Rule” (Regula Bullata) of the Order was approved by Honorius III on November 29, 1223 in his bull Solet Annuere.[21] The Rule of 1223 shows a follower of Francis how to be a brother of Christ in poverty.[22]
As we have mentioned in the introductory part of this paper, Thomas’ writings and the Franciscan Rule have the same quotation from Matt 19:21, we now turn our sight to chapter two of the Rule in order to see the similarity of the idea of poverty by Thomas and Francis.
In chapter two of the Rule, Francis wrote, “ … dicant illis verbum sancti Evangelii (Matt 19:21), quod vadant et vendant omnia sua et ea studeant pauperibus erogare.” That is what Francis always insisted that only those who were truly “without property” (expropriate) could be received into the brotherhood.[23] Thus, the basic qualification of being a Franciscan is to be a poor person.
Francis set a basic line of being a Franciscan because he saw that property was a means to “more property”. “ … Et caveant fratres et eorum ministri, ne solliciti sint de rebus suis temporalibus, ut libere faciant derebus suis, quidquid dominus inspiraverit eis.” Here it is an admonition against greed. In the candidates’ renunciation of their possessions, the will of God ought to be sought unhindered by the egoism of men.[24]
Francis protected poverty the basic attitude of life, he did not pursue in an unconscious way but voluntary. “ … Si tamen consilium requiratur, licentiam habeant ministri mittendi eos ad aliquos Deum timentes, quorum consilio bona sua pauperibus erogentur.” It seeks to keep God’s activity free from human interference, but also aims at protecting Franciscan poverty. Note especially the phrase, “Deum timentes,” i.e., persons who give their advice with a respectful regard for God.[25]
Francis saw poverty the blessing of God. “ … Et qui necessitate coguntur possint portare calceamenta. Et fratres omnes vestimentis vilibus induantur et possint ea repeciare de saccis et aliis peciis cum benedictione Dei.” If God can give his blessing and approbation, then the clothing of the professed may e less austere than is actually set forth in the Gospel paradigm.[26]
To Francis, the life of poverty is the basic attitude of following Christ because Christ lives in poverty. The ownership of material goods results in avarice which comes from egoism, and egoism is an opposition to God.
III. Reflection of Poverty of the Franciscan Rule (1223) chapter two according to Initiation à saint Thomas d’Aquin, chapter five
The giving up of private advantages, as Augustine defines and G. Madec points out, is a way to be concerned with the common good.[27] Avarice, in the general sense, makes everyone desire something more thanneeded, as Madec says, “L’avarice, au sens général, fait que chacun désire quelque chose plus qu’il ne faut, par recherche de supériorité et pour l’amour d’un bien propre …”[28]
Thus, if avarice makes a person get more than what he needs, injustice is being practiced to other people. In order to build up the common good, a person has to give up a certain level of private good. As Madec again says, “ … on est passé à l’amour du bien commun, en ne cherchant plus son intéret personnel, mais celui de Jésus-Christ …”[29] As a matter of fact, the poverty of life is based on the life of Jesus Christ (cf. Matt 16:24, 25; Luke 14:25, 26) because the whole life of Jesus is in poverty (Matt 8:20, Luke 9:58). Thus, Thomas’ understanding of poverty as a means to perfection goes hand in hand with the ideal of Francis.
Both of them quoted the same verse from the Gospel of Matthew which admonishes people to give up private good in order to follow Jesus and become perfect. The followings are the subdivision of Matt 19:21:
21a
b
c
d
e []
f
g
It is a conditional clause by using in v. 21b which serves as the main clause of this verse. According to the meaning of this verse, “perfection” is the end and the giving up of private good is the means. Noteworthy is the context of this verse in the dialogue between the rich young man and Jesus, in this context, the evangelist insists that prosperity is a burden to perfection.
To sum up, both Thomas and Francis understand that poverty is a means of perfection. It is not an end of itself. Together with the analysis of Matt 19:21, there is no doubt that in the opinion of these two saints, giving up private property is a means towards the end – perfection.
Conclusion
Reformists come out to “rebuild” the Church by new inspirations. Some of them emphasize poverty as the end of perfection. Others misunderstand the way in which the mendicant orders are living. William of Saint-Amour asks the friars of mendicant orders to go back to monasteries and earn their own living by working with their hands. Gerald of Abbeville considers that possessing and administering temporal goods are not obstacles to perfection.
Thomas puts faith as the fullness of religious life because faith together with hope and love, brings humankind to God. The unification of these in the New Testament is the offer of self as Jesus says in Matt 19:21. Thus, poverty is the means to perfection.
Francis is one of the men who offer new inspirations to the Church. In his intention, poverty is the life of following Christ as well as Christ himself lives in poverty. The quotation of Matt 19:21 in chapter two of the Rule of 1223, is to admonish the friars to give up private good in order that they can have perfection as Jesus says.
Therefore, the theological research of Thomas and the practical experience of poverty of Francis are focusing on the same direction. In the opinions of both, poverty, thus, is a means to perfection.