Abstract
The figure of the saint who refuses money is a powerful, pan-religious archetype. From Buddhist bhikkhus to Christian Franciscans and Hindu sannyasis, the renunciation of currency and private property has long been held up as a mark of spiritual authenticity. However, a critical academic analysis reveals that this rejection is neither inherently virtuous nor unproblematic. Drawing on the classical sociology of Max Weber and Émile Durkheim, the moral theology of Augustine and Aquinas, the liberation theology of Gustavo Gutiérrez, the gendered critique of Ivan Illich, and the historical controversies of the Franciscan order, this article develops a synthetic critical framework. It argues that the rejection of money, far from being a simple ethical act, is a dense symbolic gesture that generates both profound benefits and significant dangers. The article concludes that while the saint who says “no” offers a necessary prophetic critique, the more demanding and ultimately more critical path for our age of global finance capital may be the disciplined, transparent, and accountable handling of money with radical detachment.
Introduction
Across the world’s religious traditions, the saint who spurns money is an iconic and compelling figure. Whether the Buddhist bhikkhu with his single bowl, the Christian mendicant with rope and sandals, or the Hindu sannyasi who renounces all property, the image of the holy person who refuses currency resonates with a deep, cross-cultural intuition: that true spiritual authenticity lies beyond the crude calculations of the market. This archetype, as one scholar notes, from the fourth century onwards promoted a form of “ascetic renunciation of the owning of property” as a mark of holiness. Yet, as the early Franciscan controversies illustrated, the line between holy poverty and privileged irresponsibility has always been contested. This article does not seek to adjudicate the “true meaning” of any particular saint’s poverty. Instead, it uses the tools of sociology, theology, philosophy, and gender studies to ask a more critical question: to what extent does the saint’s rejection of money represent a genuine virtue—a prophetic critique of materialism—and to what extent does it function as a form of evasion, a privileged escape from the messy, compromised, and necessary work of economic stewardship?
The question is not merely historical. In an age of global finance capital, widening inequality, and ecological crisis, the relationship between spirituality and economy is more contested than ever. The saint who rejects money continues to function as a powerful living parable, but also as a potentially problematic model. This article will argue that no simple “should” or “should not” survives scrutiny. The ethical value of voluntary poverty is not an intrinsic quality of poverty itself, but a function of its context, its motivations, and its unacknowledged consequences. The saint’s “no” is a necessary critique, but the saint who learns to say “yes” with accountability, transparency, and justice may be the more prophetic figure for our time.
Theoretical Framework: Money, Meaning, and Modernity
To critically analyze the saint’s rejection of money, we must first understand what money symbolizes within the broader currents of modern economic life. This requires a brief excursus into the sociology of Max Weber and, secondarily, the work of Émile Durkheim.
2.1 Max Weber and the Spirit of Capitalist Asceticism
The German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) remains the indispensable starting point for any serious discussion of religion and economy. In his seminal work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905), Weber famously argued that a specific form of religious asceticism—what he called “inner-worldly asceticism”—provided the psychological and ethical engine for modern capitalism. Weber observed that the capitalist spirit was characterized by a paradoxical combination: an intense, disciplined drive to accumulate wealth, coupled with a strict renunciation of the consumption of that wealth for hedonistic purposes. This “ascetic restraint on consumption,” Weber argued, facilitated the accumulation of capital, driving the economic dynamism of the modern West.
Weber’s analysis is crucial for understanding the saint’s rejection of money because it identifies two different economies of asceticism. In the Protestant ethic, asceticism is worldly and productive; it works hard, saves, and reinvests. In the traditional saintly model, asceticism is other-worldly and renunciatory; it rejects economic calculation entirely. The saint’s refusal of money can thus be interpreted, through a Weberian lens, as a radical critique of instrumental reason (what Weber called Zweckrational—means-end rationality). In a world where everything, including human relationships, is increasingly reduced to a price tag, the saint’s gesture of refusal carves out a sacred space beyond the market. This act creates a form of “spiritual capital”—a symbolic currency of authenticity and moral authority that stands in opposition to mere economic capital.
2.2 Émile Durkheim and the Collective Re-Presentation of Poverty
If Weber provides a framework for understanding the saint’s individual psychology, Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) offers a lens for understanding its social function. In his last major work, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912), Durkheim argued that religion is fundamentally a social phenomenon. Religious beliefs and practices, he contended, are collective representations of society itself, serving to unify communities, reinforce norms, and create a sense of the sacred.
From a Durkheimian perspective, the saint’s poverty is not merely an individual choice; it is a socially meaningful symbol. It derives its power from collective belief and ritual. The act of giving alms to a holy beggar, for example, is not an economic transaction but a sacred exchange that reaffirms the moral order of the community. The saint’s renunciation serves crucial social functions: it validates the values of generosity and detachment, provides a mechanism for the redistribution of surplus wealth, and offers the wealthy a ritual means to assuage guilt and purchase spiritual reassurance. However, Durkheim’s framework also points to a potential critique: by sacralizing poverty, religion can also “help convince the poor to accept their lot in life,” potentially mystifying and reinforcing rather than challenging social inequality. The saint’s poverty, in this view, can become an opiate for the wealthy as well as for the poor, a symbolic performance that stabilizes the very structure of inequality it ostensibly rejects.
3. The Good Side: Arguments for Rejecting Money as Virtue
Having established this theoretical groundwork, we can now examine the substantive arguments for the saint’s rejection of money as a genuine virtue.
3.1 Authenticity of Spiritual Capital (Weberian Perspective)
The first major argument sees the saint’s renunciation as a means of accumulating spiritual capital in opposition to economic capital. By refusing money, the saint performs a “prophetic critique” of materialism, demonstrating that ultimate meaning and value lie beyond market exchange. This act is not simply a personal choice but a public indictment of a world increasingly governed by instrumental rationality. In the Weberian schema, the saint’s “no” to money is a “no” to the iron cage of modern economic life, a gesture that keeps alive the possibility of meaning beyond calculation. This is particularly powerful when it “delegitimizes unjust economic structures and inspires communal generosity” among those who witness it. The saint becomes a living parable, a challenge to the dominant logic of a consumer society.
3.2 Freedom from Idolatry (Theological Argument)
The classical Christian theological tradition, as articulated by figures like Augustine of Hippo (354–430) and Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), offers a second powerful argument. For these thinkers, the problem is not money per se, but the human tendency to turn money into an idolon—an absolute good that is worshipped in place of God. Augustine, in his City of God, argues that true richness is not a matter of currency but of spiritual orientation: “we properly call God Himself rich; not, however, in money, but in omnipotence. Therefore they who have abundance of money are called rich, but inwardly needy if they are greedy”. The vice of avaritia (covetousness or greed) is the inordinate desire for the useful good (money as a means) as an end in itself.
Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae, further refines this understanding. He notes that while covetousness is a special sin, it consists in an “immoderate love of having possessions” where money, which is but a means to an end, is pursued to the point of injustice or the neglect of higher goods. He clarifies that money is not evil in itself; it is “things that are means to an end” and “must derive their goodness from the end.” The primary question is not possession but the end to which possessions are applied.
The saint’s radical “no” to money, therefore, can be understood as an “ascetic technology”—a spiritual discipline designed to uproot the insidious temptation of avarice. By severing ties with currency, the saint claims a radical freedom for unconditional gift-giving, mercy, and a childlike dependence on providence (or community). This act models a pre-capitalist logic of pure reciprocity and gratuitousness, standing as a direct challenge to the neoliberal ideology of self-interested, calculative rationality.
3.3 The Buddhist Path: Renunciation as Liberation from Tanha
Buddhism offers one of the most explicit and detailed frameworks for the renunciation of money. The Vinaya Pitaka, the Buddhist monastic code, contains two primary rules governing money. The 18th rule of the Nissaggiya Pācittiya (Forfeiture with Confession) states: “If a monk takes, gets someone else to take, or consents to gold and silver being deposited for him, he commits an offence entailing relinquishment and confession”. The 19th rule further clarifies: “Whatever monk should engage in various transactions in which gold and silver is used, there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture”. The Buddha explicitly included the acceptance of gold and money among the “four stains because of which monks and priests glow not, shine not, blaze not,” alongside drinking alcohol and indulging in sexual intercourse.
The rationale is deeply embedded in Buddhist soteriology. The core of the Buddha’s teaching is the renunciation of tanha (craving or thirst), which is identified as the root cause of dukkha (suffering). Money, as the purest expression of instrumental desire, is seen as a particularly potent fuel for tanha. The bhikkhu’s refusal to handle currency is an ascetic technology, a means of severing the chain of craving at its most vulnerable point. This prohibition is not merely negative; it is designed to cultivate a state of radical dependence on the lay community (dana), fostering humility, gratitude, and mindfulness. The bhikkhu is explicitly forbidden from telling a layperson to receive and keep money on his behalf (e.g., maintaining a personal bank account), closing a key loophole. Furthermore, the prohibition extends to buying and selling, as this is seen as lay behavior inappropriate for a renunciant. As one modern Vinaya scholar notes, these rules are understood to cover “whatever is used in business,” making them applicable to any medium of exchange, not merely gold and silver.
This framework has generated a complex “gift economy.” The bhikkhu provides spiritual guidance and the opportunity for merit-making; the layperson provides material support. This exchange, when functioning correctly, sustains the monastic community while preventing the accumulation of personal wealth. However, as we shall see, this ideal is fraught with practical tensions.
3.4 The Hindu Sannyasi: Renunciation as the Fourth Ashrama
The Hindu tradition institutionalizes renunciation within the system of the four ashramas (stages of life). Sannyasa is the fourth and final stage, intended for the late years of life, after one has fulfilled one’s duties as a student (brahmacharya), householder (grihastha), and forest-dweller (vanaprastha). The Sannyasa Upanishads elaborate the rules of this state, which includes the formal renunciation of all possessions, leaving behind social ties, and taking up a life of wandering, begging, and meditation. The Dharmashastra texts specify that an ascetic must renounce “immovable and movable property, seeds, metal objects, poison, and weapons”.
The theological basis for this renunciation is the pursuit of moksha (liberation) from the cycle of rebirth. The Bhagavad Gita does not condemn wealth per se but critiques the demoniac mentality that is “filled with the pride and intoxication of wealth”. The text teaches karma phalasanga—detachment from the fruits of one’s actions—rather than a blanket rejection of action itself. This is a crucial distinction: the householder is expected to earn, spend, and give justly, while the sannyasi models the state of ultimate detachment. As one sage explained, “real wealth cannot be lost; only what cannot be lost do you truly own”.
The sannyasin’s rejection of money is thus a preparation for death, a symbolic funeral for the worldly self, and a dissolution of all obligations. As the Manusmriti states, “The sannyasin must move alone, and keep on moving for the good of the world, always thinking of and being established in Brahman, having no expectations or desires, even for food”. The householder, in turn, is duty-bound to support the sannyasin, completing a cycle of mutual obligation.
4. The Bad Side: Arguments Against and Critical Deconstructions
Having explored the powerful arguments for renunciation, we must now turn to the critical deconstructions. If the saint’s poverty can be a virtue, it can also be a privileged form of evasion, with significant ethical and social costs.
4.1 The Problem of Dependency and Patronage (Sociological Critique)
The most fundamental sociological critique is simple: the saint who rejects money rarely rejects resources. A living human being, even the most ascetic, must be fed, clothed, and sheltered. Someone, somewhere, must provide these things. The “holy beggar” does not generate subsistence from thin air; they depend on a network of patrons, donors, and supporters.
This creates an unacknowledged patronage system. As one medieval analysis of mendicancy notes, “a man cannot but shrink from offending one by whose patronage he lives”. The saint’s radical critique of wealth is thus often subsidized by the very wealthy they ostensibly condemn. The wealthy merchant who donates a small fortune to a holy beggar is not merely performing an act of charity; they are purchasing spiritual reassurance—a cheap way to atone for usury, exploitation, or the mere guilt of possessing wealth in a world of poverty. The saint’s purity and detachment are, in this sense, dependent on the compromised, worldly labor of others. The powerful critique of the economic system is, paradoxically, parasitic upon the system it critiques. The saint’s “no” to money allows the wealthy to say “yes” to their own continued accumulation, with a clear conscience, because they have “supported the holy man.” This dynamic risks turning the saint into a tool of the rich, a spiritual decoration that leaves the structures of injustice intact.
This critique applies acutely to both the Buddhist bhikkhu and the Hindu sannyasin, whose institutions historically depended on royal and mercantile patronage. The very act of depending on others for material support can compromise the renunciant’s prophetic voice.
4.2 Privileged Irresponsibility (Feminist and Materialist Critique)
A second, related critique emerges from feminist and materialist perspectives. The path of vowed poverty, critics argue, has historically been a male luxury, a form of privileged irresponsibility that depends on the hidden, devalued, and feminized labor of others.
The philosopher and social critic Ivan Illich (1926–2002), in his book Gender (1982), provides a powerful framework for understanding this. Illich argues that in the transition from a gender-based to an economic-based society, a vast realm of “shadow work”—unpaid labor that is necessary for survival but not counted as economic production—was created. This shadow work, Illich contends, is disproportionately performed by women. It includes the vast bulk of domestic labor: cooking, cleaning, childcare, eldercare—the mundane, messy, embodied tasks that cannot be performed without handling resources but are systematically devalued and rendered invisible.
From this perspective, the male saint who rejects money is able to do so precisely because there is a woman (or a network of women) quietly managing the actual, material economy that makes his renunciation possible. While the saint engages in the glamorous, visible work of prayer and preaching, women are left cleaning the latrines, cooking the meager meals, and tending to the sick. The saint’s vow of poverty does not abolish the need for these tasks; it only ensures that they are performed by a subordinate class, often without recognition or compensation. The saint’s “no” to money, in this reading, is not a sign of liberation from the world but a sign of privileged alienation from its material basis, an escape hatch from the unglamorous, essential work of economic care.
4.3 Escapism and Dualism (Philosophical Critique)
A third major critique concerns the philosophical and theological implications of a radical rejection of money. This line of argument suggests that a blanket “no” to money risks collapsing into a form of Gnostic or Manichaean dualism—the ancient heresy that posits an absolute opposition between spirit (good) and matter (evil).
The Gnostic movements of late antiquity, as the church historian Philip Schaff summarized, were characterized by a radical dualism that “falsely ascribes evil to matter.” This led, logically, to “two opposite tendencies: a gloomy asceticism, and a frivolous antinomianism”. Asceticism became a means of escaping the contaminating influence of the material world, rather than a discipline for engaging it more justly.
This dualism is theologically suspect within the Abrahamic traditions, which affirm the essential goodness of creation. It is also politically dangerous. A saint who simply says “no” to money, property, and economic systems does not thereby contribute to designing fair wages, democratic budgets, or accessible credit. As some Protestant ethicists, such as Paul Tillich, have argued, responsible engagement with money—earning, spending, and giving justly—may be a higher and more difficult virtue than pure renunciation. To reject money altogether is to refuse the difficult ethical task of managing it with justice, accountability, and love. The saint’s “no” can thus become a form of quietism, a withdrawal from the structural dimensions of sin into a merely personal purity. A saint who simply refuses to engage with the economy does not help build a more just economy; they merely step outside of it, leaving its fundamental structures unchallenged.
This critique also applies to Buddhism, if the prohibition on money becomes a mechanical rule that fosters a subtle pride in “pure” renunciation, rather than a genuine tool for uprooting craving. The Bhagavad Gita’s teaching on detachment from the fruits of action, rather than from action itself, offers a potential corrective: the householder’s responsible engagement may be as spiritually valid as the renunciant’s flight.
4.4 Symbolic Power and Institutional Hypocrisy (Durkheimian Critique)
Finally, a Durkheimian reading points to the inevitable institutionalization and hypocrisy that follow the charismatic saint. The saint’s poverty is a powerful symbol, but symbols, once established, generate their own economy. If the saint becomes famous, that very fame generates an informal economy of relics, donations, and pilgrimage. The “holy beggar” is still a beggar, but their begging now draws an audience of thousands, supported by a complex infrastructure of travel, hospitality, and commerce.
The classic historical case is the Franciscan “poverty controversy.” St. Francis of Assisi (1181–1226) had embraced an absolute, radical poverty, modeled on the life of Christ. His early followers, the “Spiritual Franciscans,” insisted on the absolute renunciation of all property, both individually and collectively. However, as the order grew into a massive international institution, the practical impossibility of this ideal became evident. A large organization with thousands of members, churches, and libraries simply cannot function without managing property and money. This led to a bitter, half-century-long conflict between the “Spirituals,” who demanded an impossible absolute purity, and the “Conventuals,” who argued for a more moderate, practical accommodation. The conflict was so intense that it was eventually decided by papal decree. In 1323, Pope John XXII issued the bull Cum inter nonnullos, condemning the Spiritual position and effectively ending the dream of an institutionally propertyless Franciscan order.
This controversy reveals a profound irony: the saint who says “no” to money often ends up saying “yes” to power, status, or control over followers—resources that money merely symbolizes. The institution built around the saint’s poverty inevitably requires a management of resources that looks very much like a covert economy. The saint’s radical rejection of money, when scaled to an institution, becomes a source of bitter internal conflict and, from a cynical perspective, a deep structural hypocrisy.
5. Living the Rejection in Contemporary Society: A Critical Analysis
The question of whether one can live a life of radical poverty in a hyper-capitalist, digitally mediated 21st-century society is not merely academic. It forces a confrontation between ancient ideals and modern realities.
5.1 The Practical Impossibility Thesis
The most direct argument is that the pure, pre-modern model of renunciation is no longer feasible. The 21st century is defined by an all-encompassing financialization of life. To exist is to be enmeshed in a network of transactions. One cannot legally obtain housing, healthcare, transportation, or even a mobile phone without some form of financial identity. A bank account is often a prerequisite for employment, tax filing, and receiving government services. A credit history is increasingly a condition for renting an apartment or securing a loan for education. To categorically “reject money” in this context would be to place oneself outside the legal and social infrastructure of modernity, making one effectively a non-person.
Even for those living in intentional religious communities, the challenge is immense. Ashrams, monasteries, and convents still need to pay for utilities, property taxes, insurance, and building maintenance. They may need to purchase vehicles, computers, and medical supplies. While individual monks may not handle money, the institution as a whole must engage with the financial system. As the Buddhist scholar edited volume Monks, Money, and Morality argues, “rather than being peripheral, economic exchanges are key to religious debate in Buddhist societies”. The ideal of pure renunciation must be negotiated within a reality of practical necessity.
5.2 The Neo-Sannyasin: Detachment Within Engagement
In response to these tensions, a new model has emerged, within both Buddhism and Hinduism: the neo-sannyasin or engaged renunciant. This figure does not flee the world but engages with it from a stance of radical inner detachment. M. K. Gandhi was the paradigmatic example. He argued that “the metaphysics of world renunciation in the practice of classical sannyasa is an escape into self-centeredness; renunciation is futile unless it manifests itself in selfless service and social reform”. For Gandhi, the true sannyasin for the modern age was not the forest-dweller but the political activist: “In this age, only political sannyasis can fulfil and adorn the ideal of sannyasa”. This reinterpretation transforms renunciation from a flight from the world into a disciplined engagement with it, a harnessing of its energies for spiritual and social transformation.
Similarly, within Buddhism, some contemporary monastics—like Ajahn Brahmavamso, whose interpretation of the Vinaya is noted for its strictness—insist on the letter of the rule. However, they still require access to vehicles for travel, medical care, and digital communication for teaching. This forces a creative, context-sensitive application of ancient rules. A monk cannot accept a cash donation, but a layperson can use a credit card to purchase a plane ticket for a monk. The rule’s spirit—to prevent craving, accumulation, and worldly entanglement—can be maintained even as its literal form is adapted.
5.3 The Twofold Path: Balancing Critique and Stewardship
A balanced, critical perspective suggests that the saint’s rejection of money remains valuable as a living critique of consumerism, reminding us that our ultimate worth is not defined by our net worth. However, as a universalizable ethical model, it is inadequate. A society where everyone refused money would be a society that collapsed within weeks. The virtue appropriate for most people in most circumstances is not renunciation but responsible stewardship—earning fairly, spending thoughtfully, saving prudently, and giving generously.
The most sophisticated contemporary position, then, is a twofold path. On the one hand, we need the symbolic witness of the monastic, the bhikkhu, the sannyasin, the Franciscan—the few who keep alive the memory of a world beyond the market. On the other hand, we need the vast majority to learn the difficult art of handling money with justice, transparency, and detachment. The saint who says “no” is a vital prophet; the saint who says “yes” with accountability is a practical guide.
6. Discussion and Synthesis
What, then, are we to conclude from this critical tour? The evidence suggests that the saint’s rejection of money is neither a pure virtue nor a simple evasion. It is a performative gesture, a piece of symbolic action whose ethical value is radically context-dependent.
The critical view developed here suggests that voluntary poverty is not a solution to the problems of economic injustice but a tool for raising a specific kind of question—a question that can be used for good or for ill. The key variables determining its ethical value appear to be:
1. Temporality: Is the vow of poverty a permanent, fixed state, or a temporary posture of solidarity?
2. Dependency: Is the saint transparent and accountable to the community that supports them, or do they depend on an unacknowledged patronage network?
3. Feminization: Who performs the invisible, material labor that makes the saint’s renunciation possible?
4. Structural Change: Does the saint’s witness lead to an engagement with, and transformation of, unjust economic structures, or does it serve as a substitute for such engagement?
5. Institutional Scale: Is the poverty an individual lifestyle or an institutional policy?
When voluntary poverty is temporary, accountable, and combined with a political commitment to structural change, it can function as a powerful interruption of capitalist norms. The witness of Dorothy Day (1897–1980) and the Catholic Worker Movement provides a compelling example. Day, a journalist and social activist who converted to Roman Catholicism, founded a movement committed to voluntary poverty, pacifism, and radical hospitality. Yet Day was deeply aware of the potential for hypocrisy and dependency. She famously refused to accept interest payments on a house owned by the Catholic Worker, writing that “We do not believe in the profit system, and so we cannot take profit or interest on our money”. At the same time, she acknowledged that “we are all caught up in this same money economy… there is no simple solution”. Day’s poverty was not a pure escape; it was a disciplined, ambivalent, and accountable engagement with the economy she criticized. She did not ask everyone to live as she did, and she called on priests and economists to work on the moral and ethical problem of the economy.
Similarly, the Trappist monk and writer Thomas Merton (1915–1968) offered a nuanced view. Merton, a lifelong practitioner of vowed monastic poverty, recognized that the contemplative’s poverty, while real, is not the same as the desperate, involuntary poverty of the poor. The contemplative, he noted, needs to be “properly fed, clothed and housed,” but also needs “to share something of the hardships of the poor”. For Merton, the virtue of poverty was not in ascetic suffering for its own sake, but in its power to strip away the false self and create a “point of nothingness” where one could encounter God. Yet Merton also developed a profound critique of the military-industrial complex and the spiritual vacuity of consumer society. His “no” to money was a “no” to a certain kind of modern idolatry, but it was also a “yes” to a disciplined, artistic, and critical intellectual life that engaged the world.
A more sophisticated position—exemplified by figures like Day and Merton—is therefore not “no” to money but “no” to money’s usurpation of the soul. The most demanding path is not the radical refusal of money, but the difficult, counter-cultural work of handling money with radical detachment, accountability, and transparency. The saint who learns to handle money justly, to count it honestly, to distribute it transparently, and to use it as a tool for liberation rather than domination—this saint may embody a more prophetic critique for the age of global finance capital than the one who simply turns away.
7. Conclusion
This article has sought to provide a critical, balanced, and academically rigorous analysis of the saint’s rejection of money. Drawing on the classical sociology of Weber and Durkheim, the moral theology of Augustine and Aquinas, the political theology of Gutiérrez, the gendered critique of Illich, and the historical lessons of the Franciscan controversy—and now integrating the detailed textual foundations of Buddhist and Hindu renunciation—it has argued that the ethical assessment of voluntary poverty cannot be a simple binary of virtue versus evasion.
The saint who says “no” to money performs a vital cultural function. They keep alive a memory of a world not entirely reduced to a market, they model a form of radical trust in a providential order beyond calculation, and they challenge the wealthy to confront the idolatry of their own possessions. This “no” is a prophetic and necessary gesture in a world drowning in commodification.
However, the critical view also exposes profound dangers. The saint’s rejection of money can become a form of privileged escapism, a dependency on unacknowledged patronage, a disguise for a deep Gnostic dualism, a vehicle for the feminization of invisible labor, and a source of bitter institutional hypocrisy. The saint who says “no” is not immune to the temptations of power, status, and control; they have merely swapped one set of temptations for another.
The most demanding synthesis is therefore not a choice between renunciation and engagement, but an integration of the two. The saint for our time may not be the one who rejects money outright, but the one who, like Dorothy Day, learns to handle it with a sense of profound moral ambivalence. This is a saint who knows that “there is no simple solution… It is a moral and an ethical problem”. It is the saint who can touch money without worshipping it, use it without being possessed by it, count it without being reduced to it, and give it away not as a gesture of spiritual superiority but as a practical tool for building communities of justice. This is a far more difficult, less glamorous, and ultimately more prophetic path than a mere “no.” The most critical question for the contemporary saint is not whether they have money, but what they are willing to let money do to their soul, and to the world.
References
1. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Benziger Bros., 1947.
2. Augustine of Hippo. The City of God. In Philip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 2. Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.
3. Brahmavamso, Ajahn. “Vinaya : 'Monks and Money'.” Theravada Buddhist Council of Malaysia, 2015.
4. Brumann, Christoph, Saskia Abrahms-Kavunenko, and Beata Świtek, eds. Monks, Money, and Morality: The Balancing Act of Contemporary Buddhism. Bloomsbury Academic, 2021.
5. Burr, David. Olivi and Franciscan Poverty: The Origins of the Usus Pauper Controversy. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989.
6. Day, Dorothy. The Duty of Delight: The Diaries of Dorothy Day. Edited by Robert Ellsberg. Marquette University Press, 2008. Cited in Acton Institute commentary.
7. Dumont, Louis. “World Renunciation in Indian Religions.” 1959.
8. Durkheim, Émile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Translated by Karen E. Fields. Free Press, 1995 (originally published 1912).
9. Ghurye, G. S. Indian Sadhus. Popular Prakashan, 1964.
10. Gutiérrez, Gustavo. A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation. 15th Anniversary Edition. Orbis Books, 1988.
11. Gutiérrez, Gustavo. Essential Writings. Edited by James B. Nickoloff. Orbis Books, 1996.
12. Illich, Ivan. Gender. Pantheon Books, 1982.
13. Little, Lester K. Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy in Medieval Europe. Cornell University Press, 1978.
14. Merton, Thomas. New Seeds of Contemplation. New Directions, 1961.
15. Olivelle, Patrick, trans. Saṃnyāsa Upaniṣads: Hindu Scriptures on Asceticism and Renunciation. Oxford University Press, 1992.
16. Olivelle, Patrick. Ascetics and Brahmins: Studies in Ideologies and Institutions. Anthem Press, 2011.
17. Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity. Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.
18. Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958.
19. Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. University of California Press, 1978.
20. Wolf, Kenneth Baxter. The Poverty of Riches: St. Francis of Assisi Reconsidered. Oxford University Press, 2003.
21. Bhikkhu Vibhanga - Nissaggiya Pācittiya 18: The Training Rule on Money. Translated by Brahmali Bhikkhu.
