Various questions on almsgiving briefly solved

You will ask 1° whether one satisfies the precept of almsgiving by lending money, lending goods, or selling on credit to a poor man.

Before the answer, note that someone can be doubly poor: simply and secundum quid. I call poor simply he who neither in act, here or elsewhere, has goods, nor is in proximate potency to have them; poor secundum quid, who, although he does not have here goods by which he can now be helped, nevertheless has them elsewhere, or is in proximate potency to have them, whether through skill and industry, or through an expected inheritance.

I answer. 1°. The precept of almsgiving is not satisfied by relieving him who is simply poor by lending money, lending goods, or selling on credit.

It is proved. 1° Because it is certain that alms is of precept. Now to lend money, lend goods, sell on credit, is not to give alms; for alms is given gratis, nor do those who ask a loan, a loan of goods, or buy on credit, said to be asking alms. Therefore. 2° It would be inhuman and ridiculous to give to a poor man who has nothing, neither in fact nor in hope, under the condition of restoring later. Therefore.

I answer. 2°. The precept of almsgiving is satisfied by relieving the poor man secundum quid by lending money, lending goods, or selling on credit; because the poor man secundum quid is not truly poor, and his present necessity is removed by lending money, lending goods, or selling on credit. Understand this of greater alms, not of small ones; for it is unusual, and would be inhuman, to bind beggars to repayment.

[You will ask 2° how much the rich are held to disburse to the poor.

Answer. They are not held to expend all their superfluity thus; but neither does it suffice to disburse so moderate a part, relative to the amount of their substance, that, if other rich men used the same frugality, relief would be lacking to the poor. But commonly it is judged that the rich satisfy this obligation by giving to the poor placed in common need a fiftieth part of their revenues; which proportion can be diminished when riches greatly exceed¹⁸⁶. Except beneficed clerics, who are held to distribute all their superfluous goods to the poor or to pious works and places, as will be seen in its place. ¹⁸⁶ St. Lig., lib. III, n. 32.

You will ask 3° from what goods alms ought or can be given.

Answer. 1° From one's own, of which one has free administration^{187 187} Ibid., n. 33.

I say, « from one's own, » because it is not licit out of goods subject to restitution; nor licit for those burdened with debt, to the damage of creditors; nor licit for sons out of the goods of parents, nor servants out of the goods of heirs, unless pardon be duly granted them. I say, « of which one has free administration. » Whence a wife ought not bestow extraordinary alms without the consent of her husband, except from her own goods, namely those whose dominion and full administration she herself enjoys and whose fruits she receives. Yet she can make ordinary and common alms from domestic goods, according to the custom of wives of her condition; and this even while the husband forbids it, since he does not reasonably oppose it, and custom grants this right to wives.

Answer. 2° From the goods of another, if either the poor man be in extreme necessity, and alms cannot be given him from his own; or the owner consents, or is reasonably presumed to consent. Hence it is licit for sons to bestow small alms, and for servants bread and the like¹⁸⁸. ¹⁸⁸ Ibid., 2°.

Likewise tutors can give from the goods committed to them those modest alms which they would owe to give, since they hold the person of the pupils¹⁸⁹] ¹⁸⁹ Ibid., 3°

You will ask 4° whether alms can be made from things illicitly acquired.

Answer. If the acquisition itself is illicit and unjust, as in theft and rapine, it is not licit; because those things are subject to restitution, unless perhaps the poor man were in extreme necessity, who could not otherwise be relieved.

But if the acquisition itself is not illicit, yet that from which one acquires is illicit, as when a woman acquires through prostitution, it is licit; because, although she practices prostitution disgracefully, nevertheless in what she receives she does not act unjustly. You have this matter disputed at length in the treatise on Contracts, dissertation I, article 8.

You will ask 5° who can give alms.

Answer. Speaking per se, he and only he can give alms who has free administration of his own goods¹⁹⁰. For this see dissertation II on Contracts, article 2, § 2, where we discuss who can donate, and resolve many questions concerning minors, sons of families, wives, and religious, which pertain to the present question. Compare also dissertation II on Justice, article 3. ¹⁹⁰ Ibid., a. 8, o.

You will ask 6° whether clerics are more strictly bound than laymen to alms.

Answer. Affirmatively, especially from ecclesiastical goods superfluous to suitable support. For this see more in dissertation III on Justice, article 3, conclusion 2.

You will ask 7° whether a feigned poor man sins by begging and receiving alms, and whether he is bound to restore them.

Answer. Affirmatively; because givers are not judged to give except to a poor man, and under that tacit condition that he be poor. Whence this donation is null, and the reception theft, according to the Roman Catechism, part III, on the 7th precept of the Decalogue, n. 17, 5°: « Theft, he says, moreover, they seem also to commit who make promises with simulated words, or extort money by deceitful begging; whose sin is the graver because they heap falsehood upon theft. » Therefore they must restore to true poor men, because donors are judged to have renounced the dominion of these alms in favor of the poor.

Some except small and ordinary alms; because, they say, these are presumed to be given absolutely. But that presumption does not seem to us sufficiently founded. Yet if someone were truly poor, but feigned himself poorer, that he might obtain an alms more easily or larger, he does not seem bound to restitution; because it is common opinion that the poor ordinarily exaggerate their poverty, and donors presuppose it.

[You will ask 8° whether one appointed to the distribution of alms can retain a part for himself, if he be truly poor.

Answer. Affirmatively, since he is not in a worse condition than the other poor¹⁹¹. Except, however, unless designated poor persons be given the alms, to the exclusion of any others. ¹⁹¹ Hic q. 32, a. 9, ad 3.

You will ask 9° whether magistrates can hinder foreign poor from begging in their places.

Answer. That they cannot hinder all altogether; because there are many poor who are forced to go into exile from their native places, whether by sentence of a judge, or because they have enemies there or have suffered disgrace, or because cities and villages have been devastated either by incursion of enemies or by fire; and these must still live. Whence then shall they live, if repelled by all? Hence it is clear that magistrates who absolutely and indiscriminately forbid the poor to beg in their territories impede the lawful use of charity and injure the right of the poor.

You will ask 10° whether alms should be given voluntarily to poor men who, if they wished, would not be in need.

Answer. Alms ought to be given to those who are voluntarily poor on account of Christ and from love of virtue, whether in religion or outside it, as were St. Benedict Joseph Labre; because they abase themselves into this state for a just cause and from divine vocation, and in them is found the object of mercy. See the Angelic Doctor, below q. 187, a. 3, 4 and 5, and the Opuscule Against Those Who Attack Religion. But alms is not to be given to those who are poor from laziness, love of idleness, and greed for gain: partly because it is not licit for them to beg, partly because charity exercised thus toward them would nourish their idleness and greed. Yet one ought not inquire too curiously about the condition of beggars, lest perhaps true poor men be defrauded of aid necessary to them. For there are many who do not dare declare themselves poor out of shame; but less is the inconvenience of giving to one not in need, than of denying one in need.]