8

_______________________________________________________________________
_

SILENCE, THE ATMOSPHERE OF

CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE

• The Treasure of Silence

• Silence in the Rule of St. Clare

• The Parlor

• Towards a Right Adaptation

112
CHAPTER V, 1-17
1
Let the sisters keep silence from the hour of
Compline until Terce, except those who are serving
outside the monastery. 2Let them also continually keep
silence in the church, the dormitory, and the refectory,
only while they are eating. 3They may speak discreetly at
all times, however, in the infirmary for the recreation and
service of the sick. 4Nevertheless, they can communicate
always and everywhere, briefly and in a low tone of voice,
whatever is necessary.
5
The sisters may not speak in the parlor or at the
grille without the permission of the abbess or her vicar.
6
Let those who have permission not dare to speak in the
parlor unless they are in the presence and hearing of two
sisters. 7Let them not presume to go to the grille,
moreover, 8 unless there are at least three sisters present
[who have been] appointed by the abbess or her vicar
from the eight discreets who were elected by all the sisters
for the council of the abbess. 9Let the abbess and her
vicar be themselves bound to observe this form of
speaking. 10[Let the sisters speak] very rarely at the grille
and, by all means, never at the door.
11
Let a curtain be hung inside the grille which may
not be removed except when the Word of God is preached
or when a sister is speaking with someone. 12Let the grille
have a wooden door which is well provided with two
distinct iron locks, bolts, and bars, so that it can be
locked, especially at night, by two keys, one of which the
abbess should keep and the other the sacristan. 13Let it
always be locked except when the Divine Office is being
celebrated and for the reasons given above. 14Under no
circumstances whatever may a sister speak to anyone at
the grille before sunrise or after sunset. 15Let there
113
always be a curtain on the inside of the parlor, which may
not be removed.
16
No one may speak in the parlor during the Lent
of Saint Martin and the Greater Lent, 17except to a priest
for Confession or for some other manifest necessity,
which is left to the prudence of the abbess or her vicar.

The Treasure of Silence

The gift of speech is precious. Through it we make our

brothers sharers of our whole inner world: ideas, feelings,
objectives, visions. God has sent to the world His Word
“made man”, and the word of every man may be an
instrument of salvation. On the other hand, however, who
can fathom the capability of that “tiny member”, the
tongue? “Nobody can tame the tongue… We use it to bless
the Lord and Father, but we also use it to curse people who
are made in God’s image.” (James 3, 5-9)
The gift of silence is precious. The saying of
Pythagoras is well known: “If what you are going to say is
not better than silence, shut up.” There is a passive silence
that is folding over and over oneself. But there is also an
active silence wherein a man finds out for himself, deepens
into the whys and wherefores of things and events, opens
up to the reality of God, the one who pries into the depths
of our being and manifests himself at the innermost, a
closed door(Mt 6, 6). It is in silence that man gives shape
to the word or message he tries to convey to others.
“Nobody speaks more safely than the one who loves
silence.”1 Jesus prepared the announcement of the Good
News by the silence at Nazareth, and during his public life
he often resorted to fecund silence at deserted places and
the stillness of the night, and in silence communed with the

114
Father. Mary’s presence appears in the Gospel as a silent
reflection: “She treasured all these things and pondered
them in her heart.” (Lk 2, 14).
To live only for God “in solitude and silence” is one of
the traits assigned by Vatican II to contemplative life (PC,
7). The atmosphere of silence is not only called for by
personal quietness, but also and mainly by charity that
brings us to respect in our brothers and sisters the stillness
they came to look for at the conventual retreat, to give
themselves up to prayer, study, work and reflection.
In today’s world, human activity cannot do without
noise and hurry. For that reason, the advantage of
conventual peace in a rhythm of silence and tranquility is
all the more to be esteemed.

Silence in the Rule of St. Clare

Monastic tradition had long since given grand

importance to silence. With the Carthusians and
Cistercians silence had come to be looked upon as a value
by itself. It could be said, that for them, the tongue was
only properly used when connected with divine praises; for
the community with the brothers, cut down to the
minimum, they had to resort to conventional signs.
St. Francis did not want at his fraternity the cult to
silence for silence sake. He longed for it and exacted it
from his brothers as a requisite for the spirit of prayer and
of fraternal intimacy, though it should never be an
impediment to joyful and spontaneous communion. The
first Rule stated: “Let them strive to keep silence whenever
God may give them the grace.” We can see that, by the
context, the motive was no other than charity. From among
the brothers the Saint was well aware that not all possessed

115
the “grace” of silence at the same degree. There were
among them taciturn, like brothers Bernard and Silvester;
affable like brother Masseus; talkative like brother Juniper.
In the Rule for Hermitages, Francis wrote: “Let them strive
to maintain silence after praying Compline and may end
their silence after Terce.” He did not accept fiery
taciturnity in the bosom of the fraternity. To the one who
took to the eccentricity of talking through signs, he
described as a hypocrite without vocation. (2 Cel, 28).
The Rule given by Hugolinus to the Poor Recluses,
noted for its accented rigorism, imposed on them
“continuous silence”. “Let continuous silence be kept by
all at all times, so that it is not allowed either for one to talk
to another or for another to talk to her without permission,
except for those on whom some teaching office or duty has
been enjoined which cannot be fittingly discharged in
silence.” (Hug R, 6). This norm was equally binding for
the sound and the sick.
The Rule of Innocent IV maintained in total strictness
“continuous silence”, adding serious monition to the abbess
who ought to very “eagerly attend to where, when and how
permission to speak is given to the sisters”. At this Rule,
the Cistercian influence is quite apparent at the detail of
“religious and modest signs” the sisters are to make use of,
with the exception of the sick and those taking care of them
at the infirmary.
This discipline of perpetual silence had strongly
influenced the features of the San Damiano community –
let us not forget that the first Visitator of the Poor Ladies
was a Cistercian – to the point that Celano wrote circa 1228
at the first life of St. Francis: “They have so attained the
unique grace of ….silence that they scarcely need to exert
any effort … to restrain their tongues; some of them are so
used to silence that, bound to talk, they can hardly manage
to fittingly shape up the words.” (1Cel, 20).

116
 When, at last, Clare was able to give her daughters a
form of life of Franciscan inspiration, she omitted
mentioning that “continuous silence” inspired as it was on a
different concept of community life, and she limited it only
to the times and places where it had a reason for being.
Charity demands that the repose and recollection be
respected at the times most appropriate for prayer; thereby
the norm already extant among the Friars Minor is here
prescribed: strict silence from the Hour of Compline,
destined to sanctify night rest, up to the Hour of Terce,
after which the daily household chores get started. There
are certain places wherein the atmosphere of silence must
be honored at all times: the church, the bedroom (the one
at San Damiano was continuous) and the dining room. The
Rule notes that silence at the dining room is to be kept by
the sisters only while they eat. It has indeed been a
common monastic practice to eat either in silence or
listening to a lector.
There is nevertheless a place where the discipline of
silence must totally give way to the greatest goodness of
charity: it is in the infirmary. There “they may speak
discreetly at all times, however, in the infirmary for the
recreation and service of the sick.”
This does not mean that silence has no reason for being
outside these times and places. St. Clare supposes that the
atmosphere breathed during the whole day is one of peace
and recollection. Still she knows that oral communication
is needed to personal and collective harmony:
“Nevertheless, they can communicate always and
everywhere , briefly and in a low tone of voice, whatever is
necessary.” And it does not say that to do so, they should
have the mother’s permission, as the two previous Rules
required. It is the sisters themselves who should judge
about the need of an atmosphere of silence conducive to
safeguarding the treasure it contains.

117
 Clare set the example. Her first biographer records
that she was “sparing in her words” and lover of silence (L
Cl, 36). In the Process of Canonization, the sisters declared
that “her speech was always about matters of God and did
not want to talk about worldly things nor the sisters
mentioning them.” (proc., I,9; III, 3; VI, 10; X,5).
Urban IV’s Rule would again “impose “continuous
silence” and again mentions the “signs” at the communing
of the sisters, but introduced the “community Recreation”
on certain days. St. Clare’s Rule does not mention it
expressly, but from the recollections of the sisters at the
Process, we can infer that there were at San Damiano
certain times of fraternal relaxation when they could speak
“about our Lord Jesus Christ, the festivity of the day, the
examples of the saints and about other good and upright
things”. (Rule of Urban IV, IX, 19).
The Constitutions emphasize the importance of silence
as condition sine qua non of contemplative life, be it to
perceive the Lord’s presence at the depths of the soul and
keep our love attentively listening to His voice, as well as
for the right harmony of the sister’s toil and repose. It
belongs to the conventual chapter to determine the times
and places of major silence in consonance with the Rule. A
time of daily recreation is prescribed as a means of
promoting fraternal understanding and as necessary to ease
the tension within the day employed at prayer and work. It
pertains to the abbess to appoint the place and the time of
recreation after having heard the conventual chapter.
Some free days are likewise foreseen to restore energies
and health. (Gen CC, art. 81-82, 100; Cap CC, 94-96, 142.).

118
 The Parlor

With regards to communication with the outside world,

St. Clare’s Rule maintains in almost all its strictness, the
discipline drawn up by the Rules of Hugolinus and
Innocent IV which had the character of general canonical
discipline. Beside’s the Superior’s permission, the
presence of two other sisters is required when going to the
parlor; and of at least three assigned by the abbess herself
among the counselors if the place to talk with outsiders is
the “grille”.
The “grille” the Rule speaks of is the one connecting
the sisters choir with the church. There will be on its inside
a curtain to be drawn back at the preaching of God’s Word
and when it is necessary to talk with someone. The “grille”
with a wooden door provided is to remain firmly shut
except at the time of liturgical celebrations( mass, Divine
Office, preaching), and of communicating with a person.
The Rule makes no reference to grilles when speaking
of the parlor but of just a set curtain. The Saint mitigates
here the rigor imposed by the earlier Rule of Innocent IV,
that said: “At the parlor, let there be an iron sheet bored
with holes and set with iron nails in such a way that it may
never be opened, and on the inside, a black woolen cloth
hindering them from seeing and being seen.” Urban IV’s
Rule, posterior to Clare’s, would regain the imposition of
the “grating” or perforated iron sheet will be strongly set
with iron nails long enough as to protrude outwards.” (ch.
16).
On the other hand, it keeps in all its rigidity the
disposition of the previous Rule on the “listeners”, without
insisting on their duty of “hearing whatever is said to the
sister or whatever she tells the visitor” as stressed at
Hugolinus’ Rule.

119
 The suppression of visits to the parlor during St.
Martin’s Lent and the Greater Lent, unless for the sake of
confession or other manifest occurrence left to the abbess’
prudence - is an originality of St. Clare’s Rule. It is indeed
a very reasonable waiver at penitential times and fitting of
course to persons who profess withdrawal and retirement
on account of their contemplative life. It is this will of
wavering that Clare would have wished to set at the base of
these external precautions rather than causing the sisters to
breath a climate of protection and distrust.

Towards a Right Adaptation

We have emphasized the details on which St. Clare

departed from the discipline imposed on the poor ladies by
previous Rules, and those she accepted, though ever with
that fine sense of serene humanism so truly hers. How
would the Saint apply nowadays her Rule’s spirit?
Allow me one historical consideration on the detail of
“the listeners”. In the thirteenth century and the following
centuries, not only a nun but no decent woman would take
the liberty to talk alone with a stranger. A father would not
allow her daughter to leave home unless she was well
accompanied and watched. A husband on traveling would
leave his wife at rigid confinement and under protection.
The honor of the husband and the repute of the family were
coming in at stake. A woman treated all through her life as
a minor had to endure the effects of a series of moral and
social worries which she was to accept as natural.
On the other hand, one must not forget that at many
monasteries and in the course of time at the Poor Ladies
too, there abounded nuns without a trace of vocation,
cloistered for life by family interests or other motives little

120
evangelical. They did not and could not love that
unavoidable separation. For want of a sincere will of
seclusion, they had to resort to other various means of
protection and to a well set up system of vigilance.
Today, fortunately, all that has changed. Women have
shown their capacity to answer for themselves, better
perhaps than men. It is no wonder to anyone seeing a
young lady going to work, or to the university, or traveling
abroad for a long trip, alone. A husband, however, jealous
does not leave his wife at home under lock and key. If we
are witnessing nowadays on the part of women a peculiar
demand of affirming their own autonomy by setting
themselves up in life with full responsibility, we are not to
ascribe it, unfortunately tardy, to the Christian principle of
equality of both sexes. (Gal 3, 28).
To a young one who breathes this climate and who
does not come to get herself cloistered in a convent unless
she is moved by an impulse or renunciation, how can we
burden with a return to worries and attitudes of times gone
by, causing her to breathe an atmosphere of distrust and
restraint unjustifiable with the Gospel? So we must not
wonder why the “visible and invisible” listening is
disappearing as one of the “obsolete practices” that should
be left behind by expressed will of Vatican II (PC, 16).
Today, however, exactly as on the thirteenth century, a
daughter of St. Clare should esteem and enhance the
welfare of silence and retirement, never forgetting that
among her renunciations, the withdrawal from her own
family is not the least. There is no more efficacious
safeguard of this treasure than the joyful commitment of
the entire community pledged to maintain it.
Farther on we will speak of the theme of cloister. Let
us see now how communication with the outside world has
been actualized in the Constitutions. The proper place for
this is up to now the “parlor”. The whole of the previous
scrupulous legislation had in mind to prevent possible
121
abuses and has been reduced today to the simple
prescription of the Church legislation at “Venite Seorsum”:
“physical and effective separation according to the Order’s
tradition and circumstances of the place.
Contacts with relative and other acquaintances ought to
be coherent with the option of retirement and spiritual
freedom and faithfulness to the preferential love to Christ.
For that very reason, each sister should limit the number of
her visits at the parlor, as well as at epistolary
correspondence and phone calls to relatives and friends in
consonance with that Gospel criterion and also by the sign
of obedience. Be it at the parlor or at any other manner of
external communion, let the sisters endeavor, after St.
Clare’s exhortation, to ever diffuse the perfume of their
good repute by their behavior. At a point so delicate as that
of correspondence by writing or by speech, the
Constitutions invite to knowing how to reconcile respect to
the person, charity and discretion with the requirements of
recollection and poverty. (Gen CC, art. 51, 125 -128; Cap
CC, 108-109).

Footnote to Chapter 8:

1. Imitation of Christ 1, I, 20, 2.

122
 9
_______________________________________________________________________
_

FOLLOWING THE LIFE AND

POVERTY OF JESUS CHRIST

• The Three Main Chapters of the Rule

• The “Privilege” of Highest Poverty

• “Not to receive nor have possession or

property”

• Most High Poverty in the Constitutions

123
Chapter VI, 1-15
1
After the Most High Heavenly Father saw fit by
His grace to enlighten my heart to do penance according
to the example and teaching of our most blessed Father
Francis, shortly after his own conversion, 2I together with
my sisters, willingly promised him obedience..
3
When the Blessed Father saw we had no fear of
poverty, hard work, trial, shame or contempt of the world,
but, instead, regarded such things as great delights,
moved by compassion 4he wrote a form of life for us as
follows: “Because by divine inspiration you have made
yourselves daughters and servants of the Most High King,
the heavenly Father, and have taken the Holy Spirit as
your spouse, choosing to live according to the perfection
of the holy Gospel, 5I resolve and promise for myself and
for my brothers to always have that same loving care and
solicitude for you as [I have] for them.”
6
As long as he lived he diligently fulfilled this and
wished that it always be fulfilled by his brothers.
7
Shortly before his death he once more wrote his
last will for us that we – or those, as well, who would
come after us – would never turn aside from the holy
poverty we had embraced. 8He said: “I, little brother
Francis, wish to follow the life and poverty of our most
high Lord Jesus Christ and His holy Mother and to
persevere in this until the end; 9and I ask and counsel
you, my ladies, to live always in this most holy life and
poverty. 10And keep most careful watch that you never
depart from this by reason of the teaching or advice of
anyone.”
11
Just as I, together with my sisters, have ever been
solicitous to safeguard the holy poverty which we have
promised the Lord God and blessed Francis, 12so too, the
abbesses who shall succeed me in office and all the sisters
are bound to observe it inviolably to the end: 13that is to
124
say, by not receiving or having possession or ownership
either of themselves or through an intermediary, or even
anything that might reasonably be called property,
14
except as much land as necessity requires for the
integrity and proper seclusion of the monastery, 15and this
land may not be cultivated except as a garden for the
needs of the sisters.

The Three Main Chapters of the Rule

The three chapters that refer to the ideal of poverty

make up the very heart of St. Clare’s Rule. It encompasses
a life of total detachment, earthly insecurity without
possessions or fixed income to follow the poor and humble
Christ more closely, a desire for minority that seeks its
means of livelihood in the daily labor of the sisters and
dependence upon men’s good will; finally, a renouncement
that becomes an inner disappropriation and bears fruit in
the unlimited self-giving of fraternal charity: that is the
context of chapters six, seven and eight, and should be read
as a unity.
The saintly Mother has poured in them the greatness of
her adhesion to Christ and fidelity to Francis’ teaching
through inflamed and vigorous expressions. Throughout
her life she was engaged in defending this ideal and would
bequeath to her daughters as the most esteemed treasure.
These chapters constitute the most original and
personal portion of the Rule. Even its language turns alive,
she speaks in the first person, employs too the “we” as if
desirous to make all her sisters partakers of what is to her a
most sacred commitment.
She starts off by recalling, by repeating whatever she
had written in her Testament, the origin of her vocation of

125
poverty, a grace that came to her through the example and
teachings of Francis. “On hearing St. Francis had chosen
the way of poverty” – recalls Joannes de Ventura at the
Canonization Process – “she proposed in her heart to do the
same thing.”(Proc., 20, 6) To follow the Poor Christ,
Francis left behind the easy abundance at the home of
Pietro Bernardone, the merchant; Clare had abandoned the
palace of the most noble Favarone clan where ”great sums
were spent”. (Proc., XX, 3), had her personal patrimony
sold and its proceeds be distributed among the poor.
The commitment of poverty – by the Saint’s logic
springs from the voluntary promise of “obedience” done by
her to Francis together with her sisters. The San Damiano
group, under the spiritual guidance of the Poverello, had
devoted themselves from the beginning with fervor, on
trustful abandonment. to that faith adventure. And Francis
witnessed joyfully such an eloquent fulfillment of the truth
of the Gospel. It was just after that first experience when
he dictated for them the “form of life”, so simple indeed.
Clare reminisces so in this terms: “When the blessed
Father saw we had no fear of poverty, hard work, trial,
shame, or contempt of the world, but instead, regarded
such things as great delights, moved by compassion, he
wrote the “form of life” for us.”
This kind of experience they had started was very hard,
not only for want of comforts but, because it meant the
breaking off from all conventionalism. They were to
confront the misunderstanding and contempt of the high
society of Assisi. It would take them long to appreciate the
gesture of those young ones, most of them from good rank,
at undertaking a humanly speaking absurd lifestyle. Clare
saw herself bound to inspire her sisters on whenever the
effects of so hard a life were felt and downheartedness
begun to appear. “Bear it courteously …. Bear the burdens
of poverty patiently…., the weight of humility humbly.
The patience of those whose vision springs from a
126
consideration of the Divinity produces the delights of
paradise for the patient one and will purchase the riches of
an eternal reward.”1
The “form of life” given by Francis could be summed
up, as Clare interpreted it, in the commitment of never
departing from holy poverty. Clare reproduces furthermore
the text of the Saint’s “last will”, his spiritual testament for
the Poor Ladies: inviolable fidelity to the life and poverty
of our Most High Lord Jesus Christ and his most holy
Mother. By this fidelity, Clare and her sisters would ever
to be on guard against anyone who might try to deviate
them: “And keep careful watch that you never depart from
this by reason of the teaching or advice of anyone”. And in
her Testament, after giving the same recommendation, she
adds: “We would in no way turn away from it, as the Son
of God never wished to abandon his holy poverty while He
lived in the world. And our most blessed father Francis,
having imitated his footprints, never departed either in
example or in teaching from this holy poverty.” (T, 34-36).
Poverty is one instruction of struggle even for the other
communities that follow the example of San Damiano. The
following of Christ is the central theme of her letters to St.
Agnes of Prague. At the second line, after the original
greeting, ”Greetings and perseverance in a life of the
highest poverty”, Clare entreats her spiritual daughter to
fight for the privilege of poverty over there at Prague with
the same firmness that she herself is doing in Assisi:
“If anyone would tell you something else or suggest
something that would hinder your perfection or
seem contrary to your divine vocation, even though
you must respect him, do not follow his counsel.
But as a poor virgin, embrace the Poor Christ.
Look upon Him who became contemptible for you,
and follow Him, making yourself contemptible in
this world for Him.” (2 L Ag, 17-19).

127
 That is what she practiced literally: humble and
respectful resistance, succeeding at conjugating unwavering
love to poverty with submission to the hierarchical Church.
Those were not at all easy attitudes that assuredly tortured
and purified the Saint’s spirit.

The “Privilege of Most High Poverty

The distinct trait of the Franciscan fraternity, in regards

to poverty, is that the stress is not laid on personal
renunciation but mainly on the group’s. The suppression of
individual ownership does not find a humane compensation
on the benefits of common life. The commitment of a life
in poverty is inspired by the lack of security Christ chose
for himself and his immediate co-workers: it’s liberation
for the kingdom.
St. Clare wished to give flesh to this ideal at the female
community of San Damiano with the sense of adventure
and heroism it means to a group of recluse women. It was
usual at that time that each monastery would procure their
letters of privilege. These are certain exemptions like the
state of enjoying the support of feudal lords or the
intrusions of some bishops, taking advantage of the
occasion of the passing of the Supreme Pontiff. Clare
wished too for the little San Damiano to have its
“privilege”.
Bound to accept, by virtue of the Fourth Lateran
Council decision, the Benedictine Rule, which presupposes
each monastery be well endowed with fixed income and
possessions, she hurried up to obtain from Pope Innocent
III “for greater security” as she says in her Testament (42)
the guarantee of being able to maintain with perfect fidelity
the embraced poverty without fixed means of livelihood.

128
 The author of Clare’s Legenda reports:
The Pope himself with great joy wrote with his
own hand the first draft of the privilege that was
sought after, so that an unusual favor might smile
upon an unusual request.” (LCl, 14).

Rightly this document of singular importance in the

history and spirituality of St. Clare’s Order is being
published next to her Rule and Testament. Innocent III
seems to have drawn its first draft as if taking dictation
from Clare: so sharply the motivations match her ideas.
He praises therein that “you propose not to have any
possessions whatsoever, clinging in all things to the
footprints of Him who became for us the Way, the Truth
and the Life”. (Privilege of Poverty, 3). The penury of
things does not frighten them, since they entrust
themselves to the heavenly Father who feeds even the birds
in the sky and clothes the lilies in the fields (Mt 6, 26-30).
It ends up by validating the privilege with the solemn usual
formula of similar papal grants:
“Therefore, we confirm with our apostolic
authority, as you requested, your proposal of
most high poverty, granting you by the authority
of [these] present that no one can compel you to
receive possessions.”(Privilege of Poverty, 7)

There follows a very significant clause that

disappeared later from the text: “And if any woman does
not wish to, or cannot observe a proposal of this sort, let
her not have a dwelling place among you, but let her be
transferred to another place.”2
In 1218, Honorius III took under the protection of the
Holy See all the monasteries that, following the example of
San Damiano‘s were also adopting the same kind of life,
“without possessing anything under heaven but their houses
and churches”, as long as they kept themselves without
129
possessions or fixed income.3 Cardinal Hugolinus, pioneer
of that movement, did not even mention in his “form of
life” that radical poverty. Maybe he was able too soon to
ascertain that not all “Damianite” communities were equal
to the task of facing the wants inherent to such a lack of
security, and as Pope by the name of Gregory IX, he begun
to offer possessions and fixed income to some of the
monasteries and to San Damiano itself. Clare refused point
blank. We know it from the Process of Canonization:
“The Lord Pope Gregory of happy memory wanted to give
her many things and buy possessions for the monastery.
But she would never consent.” (Proc., I, 13; II, 22; III, 14).
On the occasion of St. Francis’ canonization, the Pope
paid a visit to her beloved San Damiano community. This
was the blessed moment for Clare to obtain from him by
entreaty the confirmation of the “privilege”. The
biographer recounts how the final dialogue went by.
Gregory IX insisted on Clare to bend herself and receive
possessions and fixed income and was unable to understand
such a locked and bolted resistance.
“If you fear for your vow”, he told her at last, “we
absolve your from it.”
“Holy Father” – she said, “I will never in any way wish
to be absolved from the following of Christ.” (L Cl, 14).
And the Pope had to give in before the firmness of
Francis’ faithful disciple; the confirmation of the privilege
was signed at Perugia on September 17, 1228. It did not
take a long time before some other monasteries began
asking for it: Monteluce of Pergia got it on June 16, 1229,
and a little bit later Monticelli at Florence, by the express
request of St. Agnes, the sister of Clare who had been sent
to govern that community. St. Agnes of Prague got the
same grace on April 15, 1238 for the monastery founded by
her, though the text was a bit altered.
In her Testament, Clare recalls the determination she
exerted on having this right to total poverty confirmed, by
130
means of privileges gotten from different Pontiffs, “so that
we may never depart from it”. For that very reason she
bequeaths to her sister the very same heritage she got from
Father St. Francis. This would be her final
recommendation before her death: “After calling together
all her sisters, she entrusted the Privilege of Poverty to
them.” (Proc., III, 32).

“Not to receive nor have possessions or

property”

As Clare gave that last recommendation to her sisters,

she was eagerly expecting the approval of her Rule.
Finally this arrived on time for her to die kissing it joyfully,
since the “privilege” was finally included therein. What
prompted Clare to seek papal approval for a Rule made to
her heart’s content was precisely the new danger
threatening the faithfulness to poverty through the
promulgation of Innocent IV’s Rule on 1247. There we
read: “You may be permitted to receive, to have in
common and to freely retain income and possessions. A
procurator – one who is prudent as well as loyal – may be
assigned in every monastery of the Order to deal with
these possessions in a becoming way.” (Innocent IV’s Rule,
11).
The sacred commitment entered into before God and
Saint Francis and to be inviolably kept by the abbesses to
come and by the sisters, consists on “not receiving or
having possessions or ownership of themselves or through
an intermediary, or even anything that might reasonably be
called property.” (R, VI, 12-13)
What did St. Clare exactly mean by the clause? Some
wanted to read it as a mere renouncement to “juridical

131
property”. That would have been the solution the first
Order had earlier found to interpret officially the collective
poverty imposed by St. Francis’ Rule: the Order as such is
incapable of possessing, but, as in reality, it does possess.
These possessions belong either to the benefactor, if they
keep ownership, or to the Holy See. In fact, the Friars
Minor had obtained in 1247 from Innocent IV an apostolic
brief declaring the goods of the Order property of the Holy
See while the brothers would just enjoy their simple use.
The conscience of those in charge of the Order rested thus
at peace, but such a juridical pretense seemed to most of the
brothers a subterfuge in order to evade the demands of real
poverty.
On the side of the jurists of the Roman curia, there
were attempt too to offer a similar solution to the Poor
Ladies. St. Clare however was not interested just on a
poverty consisting only on the renouncement of the “right
of property”, but on the reality of a life poor and uncertain
where the sisters would experience everyday the freedom
of those who have nothing to lose and their dependence on
God and men.
Those “possession or properties” are to be understood
in the sense of the “privilege” and of the Testament.(Prin.,
42) We are to see her expressed intention to avoid juridical
subterfuges at that explanation. …”that is to say, by not
receiving or having possessions or ownership either of
themselves or through an intermediary” (R, VI, 12). There
is no document whatsoever declaring goods of the Poor
Clares as property of the Holy See.
On the contrary, that “as much land as necessity
requires for the integrity and proper seclusion of the
monastery “(R, VI, 14) is truly property of the community
as well as the building itself. Even on this property the
Saint sees the danger of making out of it a means of
economic security: “This land may not be cultivated
except as a garden for the needs of the sisters.” (Cl’s R, VI,
132
15). The primary role of this adjoining land appears more
clearly at her Testament. The necessary isolation for the
life of retirement and solitude chosen by the sisters and of
course the suitable growth of the spirit, but never
trespassing the limits set by poverty and without lucrative
considerations: “…that they do not acquire or receive
more land about the place than extreme necessity requires
for a vegetable garden. But if for the integrity and privacy
of the monastery, it becomes necessary to have more land
beyond the limits of the garden, no more should be
acquired than extreme necessity demands. This land
should not be cultivated or planted, but remain always
untouched and undeveloped.” (T, 53-55).
This prohibition clashes today with the concept that we
have today on the social use of goods, and rightly so. At
the Middle Ages, things were not considered this way.
Still, a subsequent reflection made Clare to suppress that
clause when stating her Rule.
What she absolutely wants to bar is new sources of
subsistence being created on the basis of possessions
acquired by the monastery. Consistent with this norm, if
she were to receive a land through last will, she had it
immediately sold without giving in to the temptation to
round off the patrimony and live out of its income, as it was
usual at the monasteries of the day. That is how a piece of
real estate was sold in 1238 to the Cathedral chapter with
the consent of all the sisters.4

Most High Poverty in the Constitutions

Gospel radicality, specifically the liberating efficacy of

total poverty, as Francis and Clare understands it, has not
lost any freshness at all, but acquires new value of

133
availability for the kingdom and a prophetic testimony
before a society of consumerism and comfort in opposition
to the position of that large sector of mankind that stays in
destitution. What is the option that corresponds to us,
children of Francis, and specially so the “poor sisters” as
heirs of St. Clare’s firmness at defending her “privilege”?
Let us see how the Constitution actualize this
fundamental Gospel commitment of “observing the poverty
and humility of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Before anything
else, it determines with precision the Gospel and
Franciscan foundation, i.e., the option of God’s Son, “who
became poor for us in this world and lived and died like a
poor.” It emphasizes the trait of the “external and internal
disappropriation” that Franciscan poverty affords by
freeing the religious’ heart not only from the attachment to
earthly property but even more so from all selfish and
affective “appropriation”. The binomial “poverty-
humility”, i.e. “minority” inseparable.
It is not enough being juridically poor, i.e. using things
on a full dependence from the abbess, but the total
detachment must be lived positively, as truly poor in deed
and spirit. The personal disappropriation being the fruit of
“common life” by which whatsoever the sister receives,
whatever security is handed over to be invested on the
whole community’s benefit, each receiving from it
whatever she may need.
Franciscan poverty does not only condition the life of
each sister personally, but the community as such is as well
obliged to live up real poverty and give witness to the
same. Therefore it is not permitted to receive real estate,
perpetual bequests nor fixed income. These prohibitions do
not concern those professing Urban IV’s Rule. But it is not
opposite to the Rule to receive subsidies and pensions of
social security, like any poor, when the need so requires or
social laws grant them.

134
 The normal means of livelihood and subsistence will
be labor, and when the fruit of labor and the rest of
revenues is not enough, the sisters, within the limits of
necessity, may have recourse to the Lord’s table, i.e. the
benefactors. As true poor, they must feel solidarity with
the rest of the poor who daily experience the anxieties of
poverty and the humiliation of their social condition.
The Constitutions add, as is natural, some concrete
norms on the use and administration of goods, taking into
account the limits and exigencies of poverty, austerity and
simplicity that should stand out in buildings, furniture,
utensils, instruments of work, etc. The communities ought
to be open to the needs of the Church and of the world even
though experiencing their own wants, and are to be even
ready to share their own resources with other communities
of the Order that might be in need(Gen CC, art. 32-39, 144-
159; Cap CC, 116-131).

Footnotes to Chapter 9:

1. The Notification of the Death of St. Clare, 21-22.

2. J.F. Godet, “Les Escrits”, pp. 196-199.
3. I. Omaecheverria, “Escritos”, pp. 209-216.
4. I. Omaecheverria, “Escritos”, p. 54 ff.

135
 10
_______________________________________________________________________
_

POVERTY AND LABOR

• The “Grace” of Working

• Honest Work and Common Benefit

• The Alms, A Subsidiary Means

• Sharing in the Fruit of Labor

136
CHAPTER VII, 1-5
1
Let the sisters to whom the Lord has given the
grace of working work faithfully and devotedly after the
Hour of Terce at work that pertains to a virtuous life and
the common good. 2They must do this in such a way that,
while they banish idleness, the enemy of the soul, they do
not extinguish the spirit of holy prayer and devotion to
which all other things of our earthly existence must
contribute.
3
At the Chapter, in the presence of all, the abbess
or her vicar is bound to assign the work of her hands
that each one should perform. 4Let the same be done if
alms have been sent by someone for the needs of the
sisters, so that a prayer may be offered for them in
common. 5Let all such things be distributed for the
common good by the abbess or her vicar with the advice
of the discreets.

The “Grace” of Working

To practice voluntary poverty by eluding the general

law of working would be to distort essentially the
evangelical concept of work. According to Vatican II,
“human work” … proceeds from the human person who as
it were puts a personal seal on the things of nature and
reduces them to her or his will. By their work people
ordinarily provide for themselves and their family,
associate with others as their brothers and sisters, and serve
them. They can exercise genuine charity and be partners in

137
the work of bringing God’s creation to perfection.
Moreover, we believe by faith that through the offering of
work to God, humanity associates with the redemptive
work of Jesus Christ, whose labor with his hands at
Nazareth greatly added to the dignity of work.” (GS, 67).
Jesus joined poverty and labor not only in the shop at
Nazareth during his hidden life but during his public life as
well when renouncing together with his disciples a fixed
means of subsistence. It was the work then for the
proclamation of the kingdom: journeys, curing the sick …
all that exhausting fatigue that the evangelists mention
more than once. For this work, Jesus did not look for a
direct remuneration though teaching that also at apostolic
task, “the laborer is worth his reward”. It was
advantageous to the kingdom itself that the spokesmen of
the Gospel would “give free of charge what they
themselves received free of charge”. The remuneration
would have to come out of the gratitude from those who
had received the benefit, and out of their generosity held up
that economic fund, ever meager, whose trustee was the
Iscariot. Out of that purse emerges what is for the purchase
of whatever was necessary and also to help the poor (Jn 13,
29).
At his first Rule, St. Francis presents labor as the
normal means of subsistence and the manner of practicing
poverty – minority, by serving mankind, and of practicing
fraternal friendship with the lepers. St. Francis refers
especially to manual labor belittled at that time, without
excluding though other activities. All of them should fill
up the general condition: “not to quench the spirit of holy
prayer and devotion to which all other things of our earthly
existence must serve”. Work should not be looked upon as
a hindrance but rather as a means of communing with God.
St. Clare who almost literally reproduced St. Francis’
decreed Rule, insists on the requisite of a work done
“faithfully and devotedly”. To work “faithfully” is an
138
expression of biblical reminiscence (Jn 5, 15) a text quoted
too by Vatican II to point out the awareness of
responsibility and precision every chore is to be done with
when considered as a calling.
To this same value of calling refer both St. Francis and
St. Clare with the expression “grace of working”. Human
faculties, personal preparation, ability and spirit of
initiative are as many of God’s gifts, which no one should
selfishly “appropriate”, but should be returned back to God
by setting them all to the brethren’s service. The “grace of
working” may be different in each sister since God’s gifts
are different too. What really matters is that each one
develop to the maximum and turn into useful service his
own resources of nature and grace. Nothing is more
beautiful in a religious community than the helping of one
another by all its members through a right distribution of
activities, attending both to personal qualities and to
“common benefit”.
That is the way to work “faithfully”. But it is also
necessary to accompany work with prayer. Each specific
activity has its own time. While we are given to prayer, our
whole attention is directed towards God, leaving aside any
other occupation; while at work, our attention is focused on
the perfection of our work. But work, no matter how
intense it might be, does not draw us away from God; it is
just working with Him. The art of turning work into
prayer, as we read Brother Rufinus used to do, depends on
the degree of intimacy with God each one enjoys, i.e. on
the advancement of ones prayer life. To work “devotedly”
is working under God’s gaze. Diligently, lovingly, joyfully,
in delicate harmony with the sisters and in the spirit of
service.

139
 Honest Work and of Common Benefit

St. Clare points out the time on which work is to start

at the contemplative fraternity: “after the Hour of Terce”.
There was then at San Damiano a style of horarium for
monastic work and distribution of activities. The Rule does
not go down into other details. It only points out that the
work the sisters carry out ought to be “honest and of
common benefit”.
St. Francis speaks also at his first Rule and Testament
about this condition of “honesty”, not in the sense the
expression was given to , as if there were some work
worthier than others, but on some activities not suitable to
persons committed to exemplary lives and spirit of service..
In the case of a contemplative community it would be less
suitable to that “honest work” that would be an obstacle to
devoting oneself to prayer and withdrawal from the world.
Or the kind that would turn the convent into a factory
materializing the day’s timetable and the appraising of
persons by their productivity. The time schedule and the
rhythm of work must be subservient to the wellness of the
spirit and the serene equilibrium of fraternal rapport of each
sister.
Work of “common benefit”: this expression is distinct
to St. Clare’s Rule and deserves being taken into account.
When a contemplative community lives on fixed
income, without the need of remunerated work, and more
so when the difference between “choir sisters” and “sisters
of obedience” assigns to the latter the common domestic
chores, there exists the danger of wasting time on
occupations of scarce or none beneficial; or even worse of
falling into “idleness, the enemy of the soul”. From of old,
the great worry at monastic communities was what St.

140
Bonaventure terms ”monstrous state between
contemplative and active life”1 A slovenly and too
exhausting work is bad, but idleness is even worse.
St. Clare follows here a precise logic. She had
resolutely rejected all possessions and anything that
seemingly have something to do with fixed income.
Neither was she ready to solve economic security through
the contributions of the candidates, as we saw. As a
consequence, labor was not only a means to ward off
idleness but the sine qua non means of livelihood in a
community that, as such, was and wanted ever to be
willingly poor. Thus the formula poverty-work remained
firmly assured.
Jacques of Vitry, who observed closely the kind of life
of the Brothers and Sisters Minors, wrote in 1216 regarding
the latter: “They live near the cities in various hospices.
They accept nothing, but live from the work of their
hands”.2 Clare set the example of assiduity at work. “She
never wanted to be idle at any time; even during the time of
her illness, she made herself rise up in bed and spin.”(Proc.,
VI, 14; I, 11).
The works fitting for women had at that time a very
narrow field. Outside fancy work, spinning, knitting,
embroidery, needlework, hardly any other could be thought
about, at least within the cloister. Besides this remunerated
labor, the Rule foresees farming the small piece of land
next to the monastery, but exclusively the purpose is to
have the necessary vegetables for the community.
Things have changed a lot today. On one hand, labor
typically for women is no longer sufficiently paid on
account of industrialization and advanced means of
production. On the other hand, the presence of women at
multiple posts of labor in modern society has opened up
many new possibilities for cloistered sisters. The vast
majority of communities are finding activities more or less
productive, enough at least for the limited needs of a life in
141
poverty. The importance that recent papal documents give
to the useful work of sisters as means of livelihood and
testimony to the Christian world is well known.3
From this point of view it can be said that it is much
easier today than at Clare’s time living without fixed
income and entrusting to labor the material subsistence.
At last it has been proven that work of common good,
done as a family, with the generous cooperation of all the
sisters, without selfish individualism and unjustified
absences, is an excellent means of fraternal understanding.

The Alms, a Subsidiary Means

Jesus had taught his disciples to depend on the loving

providence of God that never abandons those who forsake
everything for his kingdom. St. Francis termed that
providence as “God’s table” ever set for the poor. “When
we are not paid for our work – he said in his Testament –
let us have recourse to the Lord’s table, begging alms from
door to door.” The Saint establishes always the same
norm: first of all, work; if work is not enough, alms. But
in no way must alms substitute work. Begging as a means
for living at the cost of others, is certainly anti-social and
anti-Gospel. It is only when one is unable to work or
totally gives himself to men’s service at activities not
directly remunerative – as for example, time devoted to
prayer or divine praises – that he has the right to solicit the
charity of others.
That was exactly the meaning of that clause at the
eighth chapter of the Rule” “let them confidently send for
alms”. To go out to beg for alms was the responsibility of
the extern sisters and also, as proved by several historical
testimonies, of the Friars Minor in charge of the spiritual

142
and material assistance of the Poor Ladies (Proc., I, 15; III,
13).
In general, nowadays it is no longer a matter of
“sending “ for alms. There are other ways of having
recourse at the Lord’s table, i.e. of soliciting the
benefactor’s good will. But the principle still stands: only
when work does not render enough and on condition of a
real need. To do otherwise – St. Francis teaches - is
tantamount to becoming a “thief of alms” and depriving the
poor of what actually belongs to them.(l Per, 111).
Moreover, unfit means or those not consistent with
Christian sincerity that could hurt the good name of
religious contemplatives are to be avoided.

Sharing in the Fruit of Labor

Poverty joined to work must serve to strengthen

fraternal life. For that reason, St. Clare wishes that manual
work done by the sisters be distributed at the community
gathering “in the presence of all”, by the abbess or her
vicaress. It refers no doubt to the garments and other
articles for the use of the sisters.4 The only title a sister can
adduce to benefit from the fruit of common work is need,
and this is not the same for all. That is the criterion that, as
we saw, the Rule establishes at the second chapter
regarding clothes. It coincides with that of St. Francis’
Rule: “Let each one with confidence manifest his need.”
The same has to be done – St. Clare adds – “if alms
have been sent by someone for the needs of the sisters”.
And, as if she could foresee the abuses of favoritism and
whims that may damage fraternal equality, the Saint insists:
“Let all such things be distributed for the ‘common good’

143
by the abbess or her vicaress with the advice of the
discreets.”
This is another example of the importance the Saint
was giving to that essential of fraternal life, namely,
community openness together with the sense of
responsibility on the part of all the sisters, something that
cannot be achieved without a fine sensitivity to the
requirements of justice on the part of the superior: “in the
presence of all”.
Apart from this, the “little plant of St. Francis” did
nothing but to abide by that sort of lyrical last will the
seraphic Father had left the Poor Ladies on those very days
when he wrote too the Canticle of Brother Sun. He
composed for them “some few words with song”, thereby
exhorting them among other things, to provide with
discretion their bodily needs through the alms God might
give them.5
The Constitutions consider work as inherent to human
condition, as a means to balance spiritual life by avoiding
idleness, and as a “grace” that the sister must not render
useless. It is inseparable from the life of professed poverty
and humility; it is the ordinary and more honorable means
of providing for the common needs, and it is an expression
of fraternal service. Even if alms willingly offered and the
aid of persons were enough, the useful work is to be sought
after.
Work done in common is to be usually preferred; the
sisters are to work with fidelity and devotion at God’s eyes,
carrying out with care and neatness the orders entrusted to
them and avoiding the dispersal of energy at activities of
personal interest not consistent with poverty and obedience.
Regarding the acceptance of work, care should be held that
they be compatible with contemplative life and with the
sisters’ capabilities. Those that overload too much the
working day or that engross the faculties or require an
excessive preoccupation and attention of mind should be
144
rejected. Work that is related with the spreading of religion
or the promotion of divine worship or those that help the
destitute are to be preferred.
Regarding the distribution of domestic chores, the
personal natural aptitudes and the preparation of each sister
are to be considered, providing for a convenient technical
improvement, always under the sign of obedience. There
may be one in charge, under the abbess supervision, of
regulating and coordinating manual work.
There is also a special recommendation on the “value
of time” of whose usage each sister will have to give an
account to the Lord, since it is an opportunity granted us to
“let all our actions be for the good of everybody, and
especially of those who belong to the household of the
faith”. (Gal 6, 10) Gen Cc art. 109-115; Cap CC, 132-136.

Footnotes to Chapter 10:

1. “Epist. Off. I; Opera omnia”, VIII, 469).

2. I. Omaecheverria, “Escritos”, p.36.
3. Pius XII: Constit. “Sponsa Christi”, Nov. 21, 1950; PC, 14.
4. The original Latin text is usually interpreted as if talking about
the distribution of the work each one of the sisters is to carry
out by charge of the abbess; such a meaning though does not
seem to agree with the grammatical construction, specially if
we take into account what follows about the distribution of
alms received, preceded by an “idem fiat”, “let the same be
done”.
5. (Where is footnote # 5?)

145