Medyo common na sa ating malaman na ang pari ay mayroong Vow of Chastity dahil nga bawal sila mag-asawa, at Vow of Obedience dahil kailangan nilang sumunod sa nakakataas. Hindi natin palaging naririnig ang Vow of Poverty dahil karamihan sa nakikita nating mga pari ay mga diocesan or noon tinatawag na Secular. Ang mayroon lang nitong vows ay mga religious clerics kagaya ng Franciscans, Jesuits, Dominicans or Order of the Preachers, Cannosians, Somascans, Benedictines, SVD, Saletians at marami pang iba.
The solemn vow of poverty by common law has the following special characteristics: it extends to all property and rights; it renders one incapable of possessing property, and therefore of transferring it; it makes all gifts or legacies which a religious receives, as well as the fruits of his own work, the property of the monastery; and in case property is inherited, the monastery succeeds in place of the professed religious, in accordance with the maxim: Quicquid monachus acquirit monasterio acquirit. Some orders are incapable of inheriting on such occasions, e.g., the Friars Minor Observantines, the Capuchins, and the Society of Jesus. The inheritance then passes to those who would succeed under the civil law in default of the professed religious. Sometimes before solemn vows are made by a religious, his monastery gives up its right of inheritance by arrangement with the family, and sometimes the religious is allowed to dispose of his share in anticipation. (As to these arrangements and their effect, see Vermeersch, "De relig. instit. et pers.", II, 4th ed., supp. VI, 70 sqq.) As long as monasteries were independent, the monastery which inherited in place of the professed monk was the house to which he was bound by his vow of stability; but in more recent orders, the religious often changes his house, and sometimes his province, and has therefore no vow of stability, except as to the entire order; in such cases, the monastery according to the common usage is the whole order, unless some arrangement is made for partition among provinces or houses. (SeeSanchez, "In decalogum", VII, xxxii sqq.; De Lugo,"De institia et iure", d. iii, nn. 226 sqq.) We have already said that the religious of Belgium preserve their capacity to acquire property and dispose of it: their acts therefore are valid, but they will only be licit if done with the approval of their superior. It will be the duty of the latter to see that the rigour of observance and especially the common life do not suffer by this concession, which is, indeed in other respects most important for their own civil security.
The vow of poverty may generally be defined as the promise made to God of a certain constant renunciation of temporal goods, in order to follow Christ. The object of the vow of poverty is anything visible, material, appreciable at a money value. Reputation, personal services, and the application of the mass, do not fall under this vows; relics are included only on account of the reliquary which contains them, and (at least in practice) manuscripts, as such, remain the property of the religious. The vow of poverty entirely forbids the independent use, and sometimes the acquisition or possession of such property as falls within its scope. A person who has made this vow gives up the right to acquire, possess, use, or dispose of property except in accordance with the will of his superior. Nevertheless certain acts of abdication are sometimes left to the discretion of the religious himself, such as the arrangements for the administration and application of income which professed religious under simple vows are required to make; and the drawing up of a will, by which the religious makes a disposition of his property to take effect after his death, may be permitted without any restriction. This license with regard to wills is of great antiquity. The simple fact of refusing to accept, for example, a personal legacy, may be contrary to charity, but cannot be an offence against the vow of poverty. The vow of poverty does not debar a religious from administering an ecclesiastical benefice which is conferred upon him, accepting sums of money to distribute for pious works, or assuming the administration of property for the benefit of another person (when this is consistent with his religious state), nor does it in any way forbid the fulfilment of obligations of justice, whether they are the result of a voluntary promise — for the religious may properly engage to offer a Mass or render any personal service — or arise from a fault, since he is bound in justice to repair any wrong done to the reputation of another person.
So, ngayon, sa maniwala kayo o hindi, yan ay sinumpaan ni Obispo Bastes na gagawin? Di ba wala siya karapatang magkaroon ng pag-aari o ano pa man? Para sa ano ang investment na gasolinahan sa Bulusan? Alam kaya ito ng mga superiors niya sa SVD? Di ba malinaw na negosyo ang tinatayo sa patio ng Bulusan at direktang paglabag sa sarili nyang pagkatao? The Bishops of Sorsogon have done enough in destroying the church property in Sorsogon City particulary in the Cathedral. Patawarin na man po sana ang Bulusan? Bakit ba sa dinami-dami ng lugar, Bulusan pa ang pinili? Dahil ba wala pang gasolinahan sa Bulusan at ma-monopolize ang negosyo? Maawa naman sila sa amin at sa sarili nilang sinumpaang tungkulin para naman manatili ang respeto sa kanila na paunti-unti nang nawawala.
Sa mga nakakabasa, kayo na lang po ang humusga.
Almost 5 years ako sa Somascan, 4 years Pampanga at almost 1 year sa Tagaytay. Ang supposed intensive philo 1 and philo 2 namin ay ie-enroll namin sa SVD-Tagaytay, talagang tagubilin na bawal ang private investment sa vow of poverty. Maaari lang humawak ng pera pag yan ay galing sa donation. Kung magkakaroon man ng bagay na pwedeng nag-open ng maaaring pag-angkatan ng pera for the purpose of the mission or constructing the church or parsonages yan ay ang pag-open ng school, farm para sa pagkain ng mga clergies at pangbigay sa mga mahihirap for the mission, catholic stores, handicrafts, souvenirs etc., kagaya ng Rogationist Fathers sa Tagaytay, at hindi talaga pwede ang gasolinahan. Sabihin pa na nirerentahan lang ang lugar, yan ay kung sa kadahilanan na kailangang kailangan na ng parokya ang pera dahil nanganagnib magutom dito ang pari na nakatira. Kailan kaya nagutom ang pari sa Bulusan? Wala akong naaalala. Pag Corpus Christi, sandamakmak ang offerings sa kumbento, pag All Souls/Saints Day pagkadami daming nagpapamisa at nagpapa-intension. Tumitiba, ika nga. Ibahin mo pa diyan na minsan may naghahatid ng pagkain sa pari mula sa kapitbahay. Hay buhay.