Question VI: Whether alms is owed in justice to one in extreme need

The FIRST opinion is that in such a case alms are given out of mercy alone. So Lorca 2. 2. sect. 3. disp. 39. membr. 4. num. 45; Sanchius in opusc. tomo 1. lib. 1. cap. 5. dub. 5. num. 61; Salo 2. 2. quaest. 62. art. 7. controv. 2; Bannes 2. 2. quaest. 32. art. 6; Maldonatus 2. 2. quaest. 32. art. 6. dub. 3; Azor tom. 2. lib. 12. cap. 9. quaesito 3; Turrianus tom. 1. in 2. 2. disp. 82. dub. 3; Soto de Iustitia lib. 4. quaest. 7. art. 1. ad 4. et lib. 5. quaest. 3. art. 4; Bellarmine lib. de eleemos. cap. 6; Louis of Saint Juan in Summa, quaest. de eleemos. art. 3. dub. 3. diff. 3; Coninck disp. 27. dub. 7. num. 104; Reginaldus tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 20. num. 264; Gordonus tom. 2. lib. 6. quaest. 14. cap. 3. §. 2; Molina Tom. 1. tract. 2. disp. 144; Vasquez opusc. de eleemos. cap. 1. num. 37; Suarez de Charitate, disp. 7. sect. 6; Villalobos in summa, tom. 1. tract. 22. diffic. 2. num. 9; Diana p. 5. tract. 8. resol. 2; Caspensis disp. 5. sect. 2.

The SECOND opinion is that in such a case it is a debt out of justice. So D. Bonaventure in 4. dist. 15. p. 2. dub. 5; D. Thomas quaest. 118. art. 4. ad 2; Cajetan ibi art. 3; Aragon 1. 2. quaest. 32. art. 5; Spino in spec. testament. gloss. 6. num. 8; Navarrus.

The same is the opinion of the Holy Fathers, whom I recited in quaest. 4, and they are cited in Gratian dist. 42.

I ASSERT, with this opinion, that alms are owed to one in extreme indigence out of justice.

It is proved, because all goods, common by the law of nature, were made private property with this condition, as I said in quaest. 4. Hence Hurtado reconciles the authors thus: one is held out of justice when the neighbor is in extreme need of money, clothing, and other goods, the division of which was made by the law of nations; not when the neighbor has need of our industry, for he never had a right to that.

The adversaries answer that this is not to be taken so strictly that, in extreme necessity, the rich owner loses ownership because of another's necessity; but only that he is bound out of mercy.

Yet it is not necessary that ownership be lost; but it suffices that, for the time of the necessity, the needy man be able to use them.

From these, other quaestiones are solved.

FIRST, Villalobos Tom. 1. tract. 22. difficult. 2. num. 10 infers, with Cajetan, Sarmiento, and Aragon, that one in extreme indigence can have recourse to a judge against the rich.

SECONDLY you have, that if the neighbor has need not only of the use, but of the thing itself, it is not enough to lend. So Villalobos Tract. 2. difficult. 2; Ariaga quaest. 118. art. 5; Bannes dub. 3; Granado 22. controv. 3. tract. 11. disp. 7; Valencia Tom. 3. disp. 3. quaest. 9. p. 4; Turrianus v. 2. Tom. 1. disp. 82. dub. 6; Suarez de Charitate, disp. 7. sect. 5; Becanus 2. 2. tom. 1. cap. 21; Lorca 2. 2. disp. 39. num. 54; Soto de Iustitia, lib. 4. quaest. 7. art. 1; Coninck disp. 27. dub. 9. num. 153; Reginaldus tom 1. lib. 4. cap. 20. num. 260; Diana loc. cit. resol. 5, against Tanner num. 20 and others collected by him. So also Foliensis lib. 3. cap. 10.

THIRDLY they gather that one is obliged, from goods necessary for one's state, to relieve one in extreme indigence. So Suarez de Charit. disp. 7. sect. 4; Turrianus 2. 2. disp. 82. dub. 4; Valencia disp. 3. quaest. 9. p. 4; Vasquez de eleemos. cap. 1. num. 10. et 25; Filliuccius tom. 2. tract. 28. cap. 3. num. 64; Gordonus tom. 2. lib. 6. quaest. 14. cap. 4. n. 7; Villalobos Tom. 1. tract. 22. diffic. 20, citing Bannes, Cajetan, and Sylvester against Foliensis loc. citat.

They DEDUCE, fourthly, Diana resol. 8; Peter Navarrus lib. 4. cap. 4. num. 24; Coninck disp. 27. dub. 10. num. 166; Palao tom. 1. tract. 6. disp. 2. p. 10; Hurtado 2. 2. disp. 159. sect. 3. §. 63, that he who stole before extreme necessity, and completed the theft in extreme necessity, is not held to restitution; and much less, if he stole in extreme necessity, is he afterwards held, even if he could restore — as Soto teaches de Iustitia, lib. 4. quaest. 7. art. 1; Aragon 2. 2. quaest. 31. art. 6; Sylvester; Angelus; Rosella; Tabiena — whom he cites and follows, and Azor does not dissent Tom. 2. lib. 12. cap. 8. quaestio 7, nor does Diana resol. 9.

From which I draw an argument ad hominem for our principal assertion: Therefore he is not held to restore, because the consumption of another's goods in extreme necessity is just — for indeed in that necessity it is licit to take goods from the rich, and this is done justly: Therefore alms are owed out of justice to one in extreme indigence.

Indeed, they deduce that if a creditor is in extreme necessity, and the debtor has father and mother also in extreme necessity, he is bound first to help father and mother, and indeed also sons and brothers. So Diana resol. 12; Sylvius 2. 2. quaest. 31. art. 3; Hurtado 2. 2. disp. 159. sect. 3. §. 69; Lessius lib. 2. cap. 16. dub. 1. num. 14; Toletus lib. 5. cap. 24; Castro Palao tom. 1. tract. 6. disp. 2. pag. 11.

Indeed, many say, in Diana resol. 23, that a poor man, even in a grave but not extreme necessity, may steal from the rich, when they themselves are bound to give alms. So Diana; Coninck disp. 27. dub. 10. num. 161; John Wiggers 2. 2. quaest. 32. art. 6. num. 33; Vasquez opusc. de eleemos. cap. 1. dub. 7. num. 60; Hurtado disp. 159. sect. 4. §. 92. iuncto §. 19; Angelus v. furtum, num. 37; Castro Palao tom. 1. tract. 6. disp. 2. p. 10; Andreas Duallius in 2. 2. D. Thom. tract. de charit. quaest. 8. art. 3. Nor do we say that owners of goods, in the extreme necessity of others, lose ownership of them — with which Caspensis num. 10 brandishes at us — but that in extreme necessity the needy man acquires the use, as far as the extreme necessity requires; and hence he does not acquire ownership simply, but only as regards that which the use carries with it in consumable goods.

CONCLUDE, finally, that Ecclesiastics are held more by this precept: both by reason of their state, and by reason of the goods of the Church, which are the patrimony of the poor. Hence, by the common opinion, they are held to expend in alms, or other pious works, whatever remains from the revenues of a benefice over and above their suitable sustentation. For so those goods were left by the testators; as Peter a Sancto Joseph Foliensis observes lib. 3. cap. 10. de Charit. I beseech that they engrave the holy decree of the Council of Trent sess. 25. cap. 1. de Reform. with golden characters in wax, to be infigged in the heart of cedar, and meditate on it assiduously and read it through with piety. There they will measure out a mediocrity; they will discern excesses, and moderate them. Read D. Bernard epistol. ad Fulc.