Against the Beguards and Fraticelli who said that to have
anything, even in common, would take away from Evangelical
poverty, and against others who denied that Christ and His
-Apostles had any goods in common, St. Thomas teaches that to
have goods in common is lawful, and in accordance with Evan-
gelical perfection. He shows also that in this we have the
example of Christ, who charged Judas with the care of the purse
or temporalities. He says that the reason riches are considered
an obstacle to perfection is because they require so much soiicicude
and attention which draws away the mind from divine ttiin>js,
and to renounce them is to remove this obstacle. He also reminds
us that perfection consists, not so much in poverty, as following
Christ according to St. Jerome, who says, on the words of Sc,
Matthew, Behold we have left all and followed thee ^ " that it docs
not suffice to leave all," St. Peter added, ** and we have followed
thee.'* Poverty is, as it were, the instrument of perfection, inas-
much as it removes the impediments in its way arising from
wordly cares and solicitude inseparable from riches, a superabun-
dance of goods or riches in common, either in movables or immov-
ables is an impediment to perfectioui though it does not altogether



130 Convent Life; or ^ The Duties of Sisters.
exclude it. But to have external goods in common, either in
movables or immovables or otherwise, inasmuch as such things-
are necessary and sufficent for the support of the Community
does not impede perfection but rather supports it. It is useful to
think of this, as it brings before the mind the end of Religious-
poverty, and may be measured by the particular ends of the
various Religious Orders.
