Jesus was therefore not a foe to rich men as such, but to that antisocial, abnormal regard for wealth and its procurements, which leads to the creation of class distinctions and impedes the full and free development of our common humanity along the lines of brotherly love and cooeperation.  A Christian may consistently be a rich man, provided he uses his wealth in furthering the true interests of society, and realizes, as respects his own person, that “a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.”  The error of monasticism consists in making poverty a virtue and an essential condition of the highest holiness.  It is true that some callings preclude the prospect of fortune.  The average clergyman cannot hope to amass wealth.  The resident of a social settlement may possess capacities that would win success in business, but he must forego financial prospects if he expects to live and labor among the poor.  In so far as the monks deliberately turned their backs on the material rewards of human endeavors that they might be free to devote themselves to the service of humanity, their vow of poverty was creditable and reasonable.  But they erred when they exalted poverty as of itself commending them in a peculiar degree to the mercy of God.

2.  The Vow of Celibacy.  “The moral merit of celibacy,” says Allen, “was harder to make out of the Scripture, doubtless, since family life is both at the foundation of civil society and the source of all the common virtues.”  The monks held that Christ and Paul both taught and practiced celibacy.  In the early and middle ages celibacy was looked upon by all churchmen as in itself a virtue.  The prevailing modern idea is that marriage is a holy institution, in no sense inferior in sacredness to any ecclesiastical order of life.  He who antagonizes it plays into the hands of the foes to social purity and individual virtue.

The ideas of Jerome, Ambrose, and all the early Fathers, respecting marriage, are still held by many ecclesiastics.  One of them, in defending the celibacy of existing religious orders, says:  “Celibacy is enjoined on these religious orders as a means to greater sanctification, greater usefulness, greater absorption in things spiritual, and to facilitate readier withdrawal from things earthly.”  He gives two reasons for the celibacy of the priesthood, which are all the more interesting because they substantially represent the opinions held by the Christian monks in all ages:  First, “That the service of the priest to God may be undivided and unrestrained.”  In support of this, he quotes I. Cor., 7:  32, 33, which reads:  “But I would have you free from cares.  He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord:  but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife.”  And secondly, “Celibacy,” according to Trent, “is more blessed than marriage.”  He also quotes the words of Christ that there are “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.”  He then adds:  “It is desirable that those called to the ministry of the altar espouse a life of continence because holier and more angelic.”