Chapter VII — On the time at which the precept of almsgiving presses. Various questions are resolved

I. In time of need the precept of almsgiving presses. The Theologians distinguish three degrees of necessity: extreme, grave, and common. Extreme necessity is when a poor man is in proximate or probable danger of his life; the last extremity of want is not to be awaited, because then perhaps the needy man will not receive the help. To extreme necessity belongs the danger of perpetual imprisonment, of mutilation, and of incurable disease. Grave need is when a grave harm threatens a man in his honor, his life, his state, or his household affairs. Common need is that by which those poor are pressed who beg alms from door to door. To the threefold necessity three kinds of goods are set over against each other. Some goods are necessary for sustaining our own life and the life of those whose care rests upon us. Others regard our state and condition, inasmuch as without such goods a man cannot sustain the grade of his own condition, nobility, and dignity. These goods are of two kinds. Some are so necessary that without them a man would fall away from his state; others pertain to what is becoming and seemly. The last goods, finally, are superfluous either to life, or to state, or to both at once.

II. Question I. Are the rich bound to succor one laboring under extreme necessity not only out of their superfluities, but even out of what is necessary to their state? Answer. That those laboring under extreme necessity are to be succored by force of the precept out of what is superfluous to their state, all affirm. The common opinion is also true, that with some detriment to one's own state the necessity of the poor man must be relieved.

III. It is not required that a Nobleman become a plebeian in order to succor the poor. For never is so great an abundance of riches required for relieving the extreme need of a poor man — which is not so frequent — that the Rich and Noble must become poor. Some diminution of state is nevertheless necessary. When extreme want presses, the rich are bound to restrict the multitude of their servants and horses, the splendor of their pomps, the delicacies of their banquets, and the other expenses which they are accustomed to lay out upon the seemliness and adornment of their own grade. There is need of Christian prudence. A grave detriment of state scarcely ever occurs in order that the poor may be relieved from extreme misery.

IV. Question II. Are the Rich bound to redeem captives held among the Turks and other Infidels? Answer. A precise rule can scarcely be designated. Captivity of its own nature does not bring extreme necessity with it. Yet it is a grave evil, to the removing of which the Rich are bound more or less. If to the captivity there be joined a grave accidental evil, such as the danger of losing life or faith; if the captive be useful to the Commonwealth: then a graver obligation lies upon the rich. The circumstances must be regarded, and Christian charity consulted.

V. Out of what is necessary for their own life, the rich are not bound to succor the poor laboring under extreme want: because in equal necessity the order of charity demands that each one prefer himself to a stranger. What if a man pressed by extreme need be greatly useful to the Commonwealth? On this matter Cicero disputes at length; but rarely does it happen that a man in extreme need is reckoned so useful to the Commonwealth that an innocent life ought to be immolated for his preservation.

VI. Question III. Does a rich man who lends money to one laboring under extreme want satisfy the precept of almsgiving? Answer. The denying opinion is common and true, because the precept of almsgiving is distinct from the precept of lending; and in extreme necessity all things are common by the law of nature. If, however, one who is pressed by extreme necessity in this place had goods elsewhere, then he would not be absolutely poor, and therefore the precept would be fulfilled if he were freed from such misery by a loan. If one absolutely poor be pressed by extreme want, and the rich refuse to bring help, then he can take away another's goods, that he may provide for himself and escape extreme want.

VII. Question IV. Is it licit for the rich to retain what is superfluous to their present state, that they may rise to higher things? Answer. That this difficult and entangled question may be resolved, a few things must be premised. There are found rich men who have superfluities; otherwise the precept would be fruitless: That which remaineth, give alms: Luke 11. The changing of states is also licit. For this is the order of divine providence, that those who are rich in this generation should in the next fall into poverty. Not, therefore, are the rich always rich, nor the poor always poor, nor craftsmen always craftsmen, nor merchants always merchants, nor nobles always nobles; but by a perpetual vicissitude and change neither rich, nor poor, nor craftsmen, and so forth, will ever be wanting. Wherefore it is licit, due moderation being preserved, to seek a higher state.

VIII. This must now be discussed: how the rich ought both to distribute their superfluities to the poor, and at the same time can licitly seek a higher state. The accumulation of money from the mere lust and ambition of occupying a higher grade is illicit, and most full of malice. The very seeking of grades also — with no limit set beforehand, and no consideration had of one's own virtue — is illicit, and a spring of crimes. That this ascent, then, may be honorable and licit, it must have an honorable end. I comprehend the matter in few words. If the rich omit almsgiving and liberality toward the poor, that they may accumulate and ascend to a higher state, they sin against the precept of almsgiving. But those rich men whose bowels are vehemently moved over the calamity of the poor bring them succor; who study to relieve and remove not only extreme and grave misery, but common misery also; who in the gathering of riches set themselves a measure and keep a rule, and study to cultivate justice and the other virtues — these are wont licitly to ascend to higher things, because on account of their cultivation of the virtues and their liberality in almsgiving they receive a hundredfold from the Lord in this world, and eternal life in the other.

IX. Rightly did the Church condemn the following thesis, which certain men taught: Scarcely in secular persons will you find, even in Kings, anything superfluous to their state. This doctrine is antievangelical, because if scarcely anything superfluous is found in the rich, then scarcely does the precept of almsgiving imposed by Christ have any place, and it ends in smoke. I distinguish three kinds of rich men. Some there are who squander ample patrimonies upon luxury, pomps, and vain expenses, without remembering the poor. These most gravely violate the precept of almsgiving. Others are noble rich men, who gather treasures not for the sake of ascending to a higher state, but from the ardor of avarice alone, almsgiving being neglected. Third, finally, are those of lower condition, who possess many superfluous riches, but heap up everything for tomorrow, that they may ascend to a higher state. The rich both of the second and of the third class are like the rich man of the Gospel, who said, Luke 12: I will destroy my barns and build greater, and into them will I gather all things that are grown to me: and I will say to my soul: Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thy rest, eat, drink, make good cheer. Christ answered: Thou fool, this night do they require thy soul of thee. And whose shall those things be which thou hast provided?

X. It is my pleasure to transcribe here the most eloquent and most sharp reproof of St. Basil the Great against those rich men, from his homily on this text: O most foolish words! O singular madness! For if thou hadst had the soul of a swine, what else couldst thou have announced to it? Art thou so brutish, so ignorant of the goods of the soul, that thou entertainest it with fleshly banquets, and destinest for the soul whatever the recesses of the belly receive? ... Hear the appellation worthy of thee, which no man, but the Lord himself, has given thee: Thou fool, this night do they require thy soul of thee. The mockery of thy folly surpasses the eternal punishment. For what counsel does he silently enter upon, who is a little after to be snatched from life and led to punishment? I will destroy my barns and build greater. To him I should surely say: Thou dost well: for the barns of iniquity are beyond doubt worthy to be torn down. Overturn, wretch, with thine own hands what thou hast evilly built. Dissolve the barns from which no one ever obtained solace. Root out from the foundations the guardian of avarice; tear down the roof, overturn the walls, show to the sun the grain that has contracted rot and must. Bring forth the riches long bound up; lead forth into public triumph the dwellings of mammon wrapped in darkness. I will destroy my barns and build greater. But when thou shalt have filled these too with grain, what, I ask, wilt thou further devise? Wilt thou again destroy, and again build? What is more foolish than to wear oneself out with labors never to be ended, and with the utmost zeal to build, and with no less care to demolish the same? Thou hast, if thou wilt, storehouses: the bellies of the poor. Lay up for thyself treasures in heaven ... Thou hast fixed for thyself long spaces of life. See lest that time, which is wont to hasten on with a certain and appointed term, perchance seize upon thee. And assuredly to promise oneself life in this fashion, over-confidently, is a sign not of goodness, but of malice.

XI. Many other things the holy Father heaps up against such rich men; then, a little below, he reports the speech of the rich man in these words: Thou wilt say: Whom do I injure, if I keep and preserve what is mine? Hear the answer of Basil: What things are thine, tell me? Whence didst thou bring these in, when thou camest to pass through this present life? For thou dost just as if someone in a theater, having got before the others in seizing a place for viewing, should shut the rest out from entering, adjudging to his own single use what is set forth for the common use of all. Such also are the rich. For having obtained things common by being first, they make them their own by occupying them. For if each one took to himself only so much as would serve the solace of his own necessity, and gave what was over to the needy, there would surely be no one rich, and likewise no one poor. Didst thou not come forth naked from thy mother's womb, and naked wilt thou return again to the earth? Whence are these present goods of thine? If thou sayest, by chance, thou art impious, not acknowledging him who created thee, nor rendering thanks to him who gave. But if thou confessest that thou hast them from God, tell me for what cause thou hast obtained them. For God is not unjust, who has divided among us unequally the things that pertain to living. Why art thou rich, and he poor? Assuredly for no other cause than that thou mayest receive the reward of benignity and of faithful administration; but that he may be honored with the greatest prizes of patience. But thou, having embraced all things with the arms of an insatiable avarice, and depriving so many men of them, thinkest thou that thou injurest no one? Who, I ask, is the avaricious man? He who is not content with what ought to suffice. And who is the embezzler? He who transfers to himself alone the things that belong to each. Art thou then not avaricious, art thou not an embezzler, when thou makest thine own the things which thou hast received to dispense and distribute? Shall he who has torn away a garment be named a despoiler, while he who has not covered the naked, though he could, be worthy of the appellation of some other name?

XII. Question V. In common necessity, are the poor to be succored out of superfluities? Answer. That I may in few words tear away the lax opinions of certain men, I transcribe the doctrine of St. Thomas. He teaches, on the fourth book, distinction 15, question 2, article 1, question 4: To give alms out of superfluity falls under precept; likewise to give alms to one who is in extreme necessity. This doctrine he sets forth, II-II, question 118, article 4, ad 2, where, explaining the opinion of Basil, he says: Basil speaks in that case in which someone is bound out of a legal debt to lay out his goods upon the poor, either because of the danger of necessity, or also because of the superfluity of what he has. Likewise, question 87, article 1, ad 4: But the third tithes, which they had to eat with the poor, are increased in the new law, by this, that the Lord commands not only the tenth part, but even all superfluities, to be given to the poor, according to that of Luke 11: That which remaineth, give alms. Finally, Quodlibet 8, question 16 [recite 6], article 12: For supposing that someone has of superfluity, in respect of the individual and in respect of the person, which he is bound to lay out upon the poor: either he sees in the poor man asking evident signs of extreme necessity, or he does not. If he sees them, it is certain that he is bound to give, and sins by not giving. For in this case Ambrose speaks: Feed him that is dying of hunger; if thou hast not fed him, thou hast killed him. But if they do not appear, then he is not bound to give to the poor man asking: because although he is bound to give his superfluity to the poor, yet not to give to all, nor to give to this one; but he is bound to distribute according as shall seem to him opportune; nor is he bound to inquire, because it would be too burdensome that he should inquire about all the poor.

XIII. The Angelic Doctor establishes two principles from which the precept of almsgiving proceeds. The one is extreme or grave necessity. The other is the superfluity of goods, both to nature and to state. The precept therefore presses both by reason of superfluity, and by reason of extreme, or grave and urgent, necessity. When extreme or grave necessity occurs, then alms must be given to this determinate needy poor man. When the rich do not meet with poor men pressed by such necessity, then they must distribute what is superfluous to nature and to state upon pious uses, according as shall seem good to them in the Lord.

XIV. Hence the Angelic Doctor infers that the rich are bound to lay out what is superfluous both to nature and to state upon the poor pressed by common necessity. I have adduced several reasons in Tome 2 on the Decalogue, dissertation 6, chapter 13. Let it now suffice to point out that the division of goods, which at first were common, was brought in by the law of nations. To what end? Was it to the detriment of the Commonwealth, to its disturbance, and to the confusion of human society? Far from it. Now what confusion, what perversion of right order it would be, if the division of goods were taken away from the company of the poor, and granted to the rich, that they might indulge avarice, or pomps, allurements, and vices! The law of nations, that is, the consent of the human race in the division of goods, was most equitable, and had for its sole end the advantage and tranquillity of men. But if needy men had to struggle continually with hunger and thirst, and the rich to abound in superfluities and squander their superfluities at pleasure, by what reason could such a division be purged of the stain of injustice?

XV. Fr. Diana objects, with many other Probabilists, that hence it follows that all the rich and their Confessors are damned. I answer that those rich are damned, unless they come to their senses, who do not fulfill the precept of almsgiving; and those Confessors who absolve rich men unworthy and violators of the natural and divine law. Many paradoxes full of laxity Fr. Diana teaches, with certain others, which I have routed in the place cited, chapter XI. But let all who champion the doctrine of Diana hear the answer which Cardinal Cajetan furnishes, treatise 2 on almsgiving, chapter 6: But if thou objectest to me that the confessions of the rich could not be heard, and that Confessors would incur damnation, hear the Lord Jesus Christ saying in the Gospel to the rich: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of heaven. And to Confessors: If the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit. Most frequently the patrons of a softer Ethics obtrude as an absurdity what Christ Jesus most severely threatens. Christ exclaims: How hardly shall they that have money enter into the Kingdom of God! And does Fr. Diana, with the rest, object this divine oracle as an absurdity? The rich and their Confessors would easily be damned, say these new Doctors, if they had to distribute to the poor what is superfluous to nature and to state. But in very deed Christ asserts that the rich are easily damned. Therefore by force of evident reasoning the opinion of those Casuists is false.

XVI. Not only out of superfluities, but even out of what is necessary to the becomingness and seemliness of their state, are the rich bound to succor the poor oppressed by grave necessity, as the more common opinion — and to me the true one — teaches. Read Tome 2 on the Decalogue, dissertation 6, chapter 12.

XVII. Question VI. Is it licit for a poor man placed in grave necessity to steal the things necessary for him? Answer. The affirming opinion Vasquez, Lugo, Castropalao, Diana, and others taught, whom Cardenas cites, and whom he followed — but afterwards he himself retracted this opinion, dissertation 23, chapter 1, article 3, number 34; and deservedly, because the Venerable Innocent XI condemned it: It is permitted to steal not only in extreme necessity, but also in grave necessity. Not a few benign Casuists now favor the rapacity of the poor more than is just, now indulge too laxly the avarice of the rich.