Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 27: On Secular Goods
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Clericis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book I), On the Clergy (On the Members of the Church, Book I). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
As to the third point, on secular goods: Thomas Waldensis (Book IV of the Doctrinal of the Faith, article 3, chapter 42) teaches that clerics ought either to give out their own goods to the poor or to put them in common, and proves it by several sayings of the Fathers, who do not permit clerics to have any goods of their own, such as are patrimonial, but only common goods, namely ecclesiastical. Origen (homily 16 on Genesis, expounding chapter 47, on the priests of Pharaoh); Jerome (in the letter to Nepotian, on the life of clerics), where he says that a cleric who has a part in the earth will not be the part of the Lord, nor the Lord his part. Similar and harder things Blessed Bernard has (in the declamation on that of Matthew 19, “Behold, we have left all things”): “A cleric who has a part in the earth will not have a part in heaven.”
Nevertheless it is certain that clerics are not obligated, on account of the clerical state, to give up their patrimony. It is proved, first, by Scripture; for (1 Timothy 3) the Apostle bids a bishop be chosen hospitable, one who rules his own house well and has his children subject. But all these presuppose one’s own riches. Besides, Philemon had a servant and was rich, as appears from the epistle to Philemon, and yet was a bishop, as Jerome and Anselm teach on that epistle; for Jerome calls him an Evangelist, but Anselm expressly a bishop. Besides, Eusebius (Book III of the history, chapter 19) writes of the kinsmen of the Lord that they had certain possessions, though small, from paternal inheritance, and yet were leaders of the Church, that is, bishops. Likewise canon 40 of the Apostles says thus: “Let the goods of a bishop be manifest, if however he has any of his own, and manifest those of the Lord, that a bishop dying may have power over his own to leave them as he will and to whom he will.” Likewise has the Council of Agde (canon 48), and Martin of Braga (canon 15 of his decrees), and the First Council of Seville (canon 1). Besides, Ambrose (in letter 33 to Marcellina) says that when he was asked to hand over one church to the Arians, he offered his own patrimony, but would not hand over the patrimony of Christ. Blessed Augustine (sermon 1 On the Morals of Clerics) says that those clerics who had professed the common life, if they afterward fall back from their purpose and wish to have their own, sin gravely on account of the violation of the vow; where he indicates that other clerics, who did not vow the common life, can have their own. Blessed Prosper (Book II On the Contemplative Life, chapter 12) says that a cleric can without any sin live from his own patrimony.
To the passage of Origen, Jerome, and Bernard it can be answered that they speak of those clerics who give their effort to increasing their wealth, and, not content with necessary things, retain even superfluous ones. For those are properly said to have or seek possession in the earth who, not content with food and clothing, always burn with the cupidity of having. Certainly Jerome, when he says a cleric ought to possess nothing in the earth, adds: “that he may be able to say with the Prophet, the Lord is my part, and that he may be a true Levite.” But the Prophet David, who says, “the Lord is my part,” was a most rich king; and likewise the true Levites were rich in external wealth, but not in affection.
But it can be doubted whether one who has patrimonial goods can at the same time have ecclesiastical goods. For Saint Prosper (Book II On the Contemplative Life, chapters 9, 10, 11, and 12) teaches that a cleric cannot without most grave sin live from ecclesiastical goods if he has his own goods from which he is sufficiently fed, and proves it by this reasoning: ecclesiastical goods are not given to clerics as a reward of labor, but only that they may be sustained and have the necessaries of life, because the reward of labor is eternal life, and it would be simony to give spiritual things for temporal. And it is confirmed from canon 41 of the Apostles, where it is said that a bishop should receive from the goods of the Church for his sustenance, if however he needs it; and the same is found in the Council of Antioch (chapter 25). Wherefore he who lives from his patrimony and does not need sustenance cannot receive the fruits of ecclesiastical goods. But the contrary teaches the Gloss, and John of Torquemada (on the canon Clericos, cause 1, question 2), and the reason is that (Matthew 10) it is said, “The laborer is worthy of his hire,” and (1 Corinthians 9), “Who serveth as a soldier at his own charges ever?” Therefore a cleric laboring for the Church can receive food and spare his own things. Add that the practice is and was for this second opinion; for Blessed Prosper (in the place noted) says that his opinion seemed harsh to very many, and therefore harsh because it was new. And so even then very many clerics kept their patrimony and nonetheless wished to have a portion of the tithes.
Of these opinions the first is safer, though the second is perhaps truer — unless they be reconciled in this way, that we say Saint Prosper speaks of those who have plainly sufficient sustenance from patrimony or benefice; for then the other is superfluous, and accordingly owed to the poor; but the other authors speak of those who have altogether sufficient sustenance neither from patrimony nor from benefice; for these can retain both, provided they receive from both nothing beyond a decent sustenance, according to the condition of their own state. For that what is truly superfluous ought to be given to the poor, the theologians commonly teach. See what we wrote in the following volume, chapter 7, On Matrimony.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXVII.
De bonis saecularibus.
Quantum ad tertium de saecularibus bonis,
Thornas Waldensis lib. IV doct. fidei art. 3,
cap. 42. docet, Clericos debere bona propria
vel erogare pauperibus, vel in commune po¬
nere , et probat aliquot sententiis Patrum,
qui non permittunt Clericis, ut habeant ulla
bona propria, qualia sunt patrimonialia, sed
solum bona communia, nimirum Ecclesias¬
tica. Origenes hom. 16. in Genes, exponens
cap. XLVII de sacerdotibus Pharaonis. Hie¬
ronymus in epist. ad Nepotianum de vita #
Clericorum, ubi dicit Clericum, qui habet
partem in terra, non futurum partem Domi¬
ni, nec Dominum partem ejus. Similia et
duriora habet B. Bernardus in declamatio¬
ne super illud Matth. XIX. Ecce nos relequi-
mus omnia : « Clericus , inquit, qui habet
partem in terra, non habebit partem in cce-
lo. »
Verumtamen certum est, non obligari Cle¬
ricos propter Clericatum ad dimittendum
patrimonium. Probatur primo Scriptura :
Nam I. Timoth. III. jubet Apostolus eligi
Episcopum hospitalem , et qui domui suce bene
praesit, et filios subditos habeat { 2). At hsec
omnia prsesupponunt divitias proprias. Prae¬
terea Philemon habuit servum, et dives erat
ut apparet ex epistola ad Philemonem , et
tamen Episcopus erat, ut Hieronymus et An-
selinus docent in eam epistolam; Hierony¬
mus enim vocat eum Evangelistam, Ansel-
mus vero nominatim Episcopum.
Praeterea Eusebius lib. III histor. cap. 19.
scribit de consanguineis Domini , quod ha¬
buerint possessiones quasdam, licet modicas,
ex paterna hsereditate, et tamen fuerint Ec¬
clesiae Duces, id est, Episcopi. Item can. 40.
Apostolorum sic ait : « Sint manifestae res
Episcopi, si tamen habet proprias, et mani¬
festae Dominicae, utpotestatem habet de pro¬
priis moriens Episcopus , sicut voluerit , et
quibus voluerit derelinquere. » Item habet
Concilium Agathense canon. 48. et Marti-
nus Bracarensis , can. 15. suorum decreto¬
rum, et Hispalense Concilium I. can. 1 .
Praeterea Ambrosius in epist. 33. ad Mar-
cellinam, dicit se , cum rogaretur ut Eccle¬
siam unam Arianis traderet, obtulisse patri¬
monium suum , patrimonium autem Christi
se tradere noluisse. B. Augustinus serm. 1.
de moribus Clericorum , dicit eos Clericos,
qui professi fuerant vitam communem , si
postea resiliant a proposito , et propria ha¬
bere velint, graviter peccare propter voti
violationem : Ubi indicat alios Clericos, qui
non voverunt vitam communem posse ha¬
bere propria. B. Prosper lib. II de Vita
Contemplativa cap. 12. dicit sine ullo pecca¬
to posse Clericum vivere ex proprio patri¬
monio.
Ad locum Origenis, Hieronymi et Bernar-
di responderi potest , loqui eos de illis Cle¬
ricis, qui dant operam augendis opibus , et
non contenti rebus necessariis, etiam super¬
flua retinent. Illi enim proprie dicuntur ha¬
bere, vel quaerere possessionem in terra, qui
non contenti victu , et vestitu, semper fla¬
grant habendi cupiditate. Certe Hieronymus
cum dicit Clericum non debere quidquam in
terra possidere, addit : « Ut possit, inquit,
cum Propheta dicere : pars mea Dominus, et
ut sit verus Levita. » At Propheta David,qui
ait : Pars mea Dominus, Rex ditissimus erat,
et similiter veri Levitae divites erant exter¬
nis opibus, sed non affectu.
Posse autem dubitari, an qui bona patri¬
monialia habet, possit simul bona Ecclesias¬
tica habere? Nam S. Prosper lib. II de Vita
Contemplat, cap. 9, 10, 11 et 12, docet non
posse Clericum sine gravissimo peccato vi¬
vere ex bonis Ecclesiasticis si habeat bona
propria, unde sufficienter alatur , et probat
hac ratione : Bona Ecclesiastica non dantur
Clericis in prsemium laboris , sed solum, ut
sustententur, et necessaria ad vitam habeant,
quia prsemium laboris est vita seterna, et si-
monia esset dare spiritualia pro temporali¬
bus. Et confirmatur ex, cap. 41. Apostolorum
(1) Luc. XIV, 26. — (2) I. Tim. III, 2 et 4.
486
LIBER I.
ubi dicitur , ut Episcopus accipiat ex bonis
Ecclesiae pro sua sustentatione si tamen indi¬
get : Et idem reperitur inConcilio Antioche¬
no cap. 25. quare qui ex patrimonio vivit,
nec eget sustentatione, non potest percipere
fructus bonorum Ecclesiasticorum. At con¬
trarium docet Glossa, et Joannes de Turre-
cremata in can. Clericos , 1 . q. 2. et ratio
est, quia Mattii. X. dicitur : Dignus est ope¬
rarius mercede sua, et I. Corinth. IX : Quis
militat suis stipendiis unquam? (i) Ergo potest
Clericus laborans pro Ecclesia percipere
alimenta, et parcere suis propriis rebus. Ad¬
de, quod praxis est, et fuit pro hac opinione
secunda, nam B. Prosper loco notato dicit
sententiam suam visam esse duram permul¬
tis, et ideo duram, quia nova esset. Itaque
etiam tunc plurimi Clerici patrimonium suum
servabant , et nihilominus portionem deci¬
marum habere volebant.
Ex his opinionibus prima est tutior , etsi
secunda fortasse est verior, nisi hoc modo
concilientur, ut dicamus S. Prosperum loqui
de illis , qui plane sufficientem habent sus¬
tentationem ex patrimonio , aut beneficio,
tunc enim alterum est superfluum, et proin¬
de pauperibus debitum. Alios vero auctores
loqui de illis, qui neque ex patrimonio, ne¬
que ex beneficio sufficientem omnino sus¬
tentationem habent; hi enim utrumque re¬
tinere possunt, modo ex utroque nihil acci¬
piant ultra sustentationem decentem , juxta
conditionem proprii status. Quod enim vere
superfluum est, dandum esse pauperibus,
Theologi communiter docent. Vide quae
scripsimus in sequenti tom. cap. 7, de
Matrimonio.