Section 6: The Duty of Giving Alms

1. In speaking of alms in this Section we mean corporal almsdeeds. St. Thomas enumerates seven of these, namely: (1) to feed the hungry, (2) to give drink to the thirsty, (3) to clothe the naked, (4) to harbor the homeless, (5) to visit the sick, (6) to ransom the captive, and (7) to bury the dead. This division is based upon the various needs of men.¹

¹ St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 32, art. 2: “There are set down seven corporal works of mercy, namely: to feed the hungry, to give drink to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to harbor the stranger, to visit the sick, to ransom the captive, and to bury the dead, which are contained in this verse: I visit, I give drink, I feed, I ransom, I cover, I gather in, I bury.”—Cfr. Franz, Drei deutsche Minoritenprediger, p. 30: “I gather in, I give drink, I feed, I ransom, I cover, I visit, I bury.”

That almsgiving is of precept the Angelic Doctor proves as follows: “As love of our neighbor is a matter of precept, whatever is a necessary condition to the love of our neighbor is a matter of precept also. Now the love of our neighbor requires that not only should we be our neighbor’s well-wishers, but also his well-doers, according to 1 John III, 18: ‘Let us not love in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth.’ Now in order to be a person’s well-wisher and well-doer, we ought to succor his needs, and this is done by almsgiving. Therefore almsgiving is a matter of precept.”²

² St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 32, art. 5: “Since love of one’s neighbor is under precept, all those things without which love of one’s neighbor is not preserved must fall under precept. But it pertains to love of one’s neighbor that we not only wish good to our neighbor, but also do good (1 John iii, 18). Now, in order that we wish and do good to someone, it is required that we come to his aid in his necessity, which is done through the giving of alms; and therefore the giving of alms is under precept.”

Holy Scripture not only recommends almsgiving as “an acceptable sacrifice pleasing to God,”³ as a “religion clean and undefiled,”⁴ but emphatically stresses the duty of the rich to succor the poor.⁵ St. Paul traces this obligation to the teaching of Christ,⁶ who declared that all men will be judged according to the way in which they have performed the corporal works of mercy and that neglect of these works will entail eternal damnation.⁷

³ Phil. IV, 18; Heb. XIII, 16.

⁴ Jas. I, 27.

⁵ 2 Cor. VIII, 14 sq.; 1 Tim. VI, 17–19.

⁶ 2 Cor. IX, 13; cfr. Jas. II, 13; 1 Tim. V, 10; Tob. I, 20 sq.; IV, 17; XII, 12; 2 Kings II, 5.

⁷ Matt. XXV, 34–46.

To succor the needy is a duty of justice which man owes to God because He is the Father of all men and the proprietor of all temporal goods, whereas man is merely His steward. It is furthermore a duty of charity, because all men are brothers and children of God.⁸ “If you give to a poor man,” says St. Ambrose, “you do not share with him what belongs to you, but return to him what is his. For you have usurped what was given for the common use of all.”⁹ And St. Gregory the Great: “When we minister some necessary things to the needy, we do not give them what is ours, but we give them back what is theirs, thus complying with an obligation of justice rather than performing a work of mercy.”¹⁰

⁸ Mal. II, 10; John XV, 12; 1 John III, 17 sq.

⁹ De Nabuthe Iezrael, c. 12, n. 53: “You do not give to the poor from what is yours, but return to him what is his. For what was given for the common use of all you alone usurp. The earth belongs to all, not to the rich; but those who do not use their own are fewer than those who do. Therefore you return a debt; you do not bestow what is not owed.” (Migne, P. L., XIV, 747).

¹⁰ S. Greg. M., De Cura Past., c. 21: “When we minister any necessary things to the needy, we return to them what is theirs, not bestow what is ours; we discharge a debt of justice rather than perform works of mercy.” (P. L., LXXVII, 87).

The enumeration of seven temporal works of mercy given above goes farther back than the Middle Ages. It occurs in the writings of Lactantius¹¹ and St. Augustine,¹² though the latter omits visiting the sick.

¹¹ Epitome Div. Inst., c. 60 (65): “If anyone lacks food, let us impart it; if anyone naked comes upon us, let us clothe him; if anyone suffers injury from one more powerful, let us rescue him. Let our home be open either to strangers or to those in need of shelter. Let our defense not fail orphans, nor our protection widows. To ransom captives from the enemy is a great work of mercy, as is likewise to visit and refresh the sick [and] the poor. If needy persons or strangers die, let us not suffer them to lie unburied. These are the works, these the duties of mercy; if anyone performs them, he will offer a true and acceptable sacrifice to God.” (Corpus Script. Eccles. Lat., XIX, 746).

¹² De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, l. I, c. 27, n. 53 (Migne, P. L., XXXII, 1333).

a) Whoever has an abundance of material possessions (bona superflua statui), that is, more than he requires to live according to his station in life and to support those who depend upon him, is strictly bound to give alms according to his means.¹³ The exact amount which each one is obliged to give cannot be determined with mathematical accuracy. We may say, broadly, that every Christian is bound to administer his temporal possessions in such a way that his abundant wealth be employed for the benefit of his needy fellowmen, and actual want thus reduced to a minimum.¹⁴ If any man is in extreme necessity, i. e., in danger of perishing for want of the necessaries of life, every one who can is bound to give him food, drink, and shelter. This duty binds not only the well-to-do, but likewise the poor, even though its fulfilment may entail actual privation.¹⁵ The things required for one’s own immediate necessities, however, need not be given up to succor others.¹⁶

¹³ 2 Cor. VIII, 3, 14; IX, 8, 11; cfr. Acts XI, 29.—St. Augustine, Enarrat. in Ps., 147, n. 12: “We have many superfluous things if we keep only what is necessary, for if we seek empty things, nothing suffices. Brethren, seek what suffices for the work of God, not what suffices for your desire. Your desire is not the work of God. Your form, your body, your soul—this whole is the work of God. Seek the things that suffice, and you will see how few they are (Mk 12, 42). . . . Seek how much [God] has given you, and from it take what suffices; the remaining things that lie superfluous are necessary to others. The superfluous things of the rich are the necessary things of the poor. The property of others is possessed when superfluous things are possessed.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVII, 1922).

¹⁴ 2 Cor. VIII, 14.—Prop. damn. sub Innocentio XI, n. 12: “You will scarcely find among secular persons, even among kings, anything superfluous to their state. And thus scarcely anyone is bound to almsgiving when he is bound to give from what is superfluous to his state.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1162).

¹⁵ St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 32, art. 5 and 7.—V. supra, p. 164, note 3.

¹⁶ 2 Cor. VIII, 13.—Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, n. 206: “In grave or extreme necessity, enough must be given here and now to relieve this necessity, unless there are others who are willing to come to their aid. No one, however, is bound to expend a large sum of money to free a poor person from danger of death or to procure costly remedies for him.”

He who refuses or neglects to give alms according to his means, when appealed to by persons in dire need, commits a grievous sin. The duty of almsgiving binds particularly the clergy, because their income is derived from the possessions of the Church, which, ideally, belong to the poor.¹⁷

¹⁷ 1 Tim. III, 2; Tit. I, 8 (φιλόξενος, hospitalis). Cfr. St. Jerome, Epist., 52 (al. 2), n. 6: “It is the glory of a bishop to provide [with resources] for the need of the poor. It is the disgrace of all priests to devote themselves to their own riches.” (Migne, P. L., XXII, 533).

The question how large a percentage of one’s income should be devoted to alms, is decided by most theologians thus: We are not obliged to give to the poor more than the fiftieth portion, or two per cent., of what we have left over after defraying the requirements of life according to our particular station in life. Göpfert justly observes that, in view of the constantly increasing inequality of fortunes and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, under the capitalistic system, the traditional two per cent. can hardly be regarded as sufficient to-day.¹⁸ Moreover, as Linsenmann has pointed out, such mathematical calculations are unsatisfactory because the notion of superfluum, i. e., that portion of a man’s income which he does not need to support himself and his dependents according to his station in life, is extremely variable and therefore difficult to determine.¹⁹ “The amount of alms which each must give out of his superfluous means for the benefit of the poor,” says Schindler, “cannot be determined by any rigid formula. Attempts to fix the measure of assistance a man owes to the poor either by the total amount of his income or that which he has left over after defraying his living expenses, are unsatisfactory because they disregard the object of almsgiving, which is to help make the sufferings of the poor bearable. The poor we shall always have with us, but their number and the extent of their needs differ accord- ing to time and place. The larger their number and the greater their necessities, the greater will be the assistance required on the part of the wealthy. Hence it is impossible to lay down any more specific rule than: ‘The greater the need, the more alms we must give.’ Note that one is bound to give liberally only in case of extreme bodily necessity. In all other cases moderate almsgiving is sufficient. To oblige men to give liberally whenever and as often as they are appealed to by the poor, would be too onerous and impossible. For the same reason an individual, no matter how wealthy, is not bound to give to all the poor whom he has an opportunity to succor, but may, with due regard to the dictates of charity, help those whom he chooses, or contribute his share to public or private agencies that make it their business to alleviate want.”²⁰

¹⁸ Göpfert, Moraltheol., Vol. II, 7th ed., p. 40.—On the principle of “station in life” Fr. Ross says (Christian Ethics, pp. 212 sq.): “According to Noldin (II, p. 104), one is not obliged to lose one’s station in life in order to prolong the life of another. At first sight, this seems like a heartless doctrine. Why should not a rich banker whose station in life demands an expenditure of $10,000 a year, be obliged to help a poor laborer, even though the assistance does reduce him to the way of living of prosperous but small merchants? An analysis of the situation will show us why. If he would be obliged to, then logically those in a class below would be similarly bound, and the lowest class of self-respecting and self-supporting workmen would be so bound. This would mean, really, that no one had a right (in the face of a neighbor’s need) to more than what was necessary for his own life. But if that were so, there could be no progress among the working classes, their standard of living would always remain at the minimum. For only the recognition that, when a class has for a reasonable length of time actually attained a standard, that class has a right to this standard, makes us fix a minimum wage for an American laborer as greater than for a Chinese coolie. As far as bare existence goes, the American could probably get along on rice and fish if obliged to do so, but no minimum wage commission would ever say he had a right only to rice and fish. Yet we must admit that this principle can be abused. Extremely fashionable women, for instance, will think it necessary to spend $25,000 a year on dress in order to maintain their station. It is hard to fix a limit logically, yet limit there should be. I do not know of any better way of fixing it than by an application of the principle of social utility. As long as it is socially useful that there should be a station in life requiring a certain expenditure, so long is it justified. Thus a physician whose profession necessitates an office, a conveyance, a certain outlay for books, instruments, and so on; or a gentleman of leisure whose culture adds an invaluable element to a community, though at the same time it represents a certain outlay in money; these should feel no qualms of conscience because they do not give up this expenditure and with it their position in society in order to feed the hungry. In our nation, at least, the need of such sacrifices on their part indicates a social maladjustment for which they are not responsible, and which would not be remedied by these heroic methods. Mere social butterflies, however, have no justification, and they should be ruthlessly reduced—or elevated.”

¹⁹ F. X. Linsenmann, Moraltheologie, p. 485.

²⁰ Schindler, Lehrbuch der Moraltheol., Vol. II, 2 (1910), p. 449; cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. II, n. 32 (ed. Gaudé, I, 328); Homo Apost., tr. IV, n. 19; Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, n. 206.

b) Society, more particularly the State organized in conformity with the principles of the Christian religion, is in duty bound to make reasonable provision for the poor and needy of every class, the helpless sick, orphans, the mentally defective, the insane, etc., and has the right to impose taxes for public charity. Well-organized co-operation between Church and State would have these important advantages: (1) The means appropriated for charitable purposes could be more efficiently distributed and employed to better purpose; (2) It would be possible to exercise upon the poor and needy a wholesome moral influence by segregating the notoriously unworthy from the worthy and giving the slothful work instead of alms, thereby preventing idleness and vagabondage.

However, since the worthy poor often hide their needs, even a well-organized system of public charity must be supplemented by private charity, and each individual citizen is bound, with due regard to the public charity administered by Church and State, to participate in “ministering unto the saints,” as St. Paul puts it, by succoring the needy to the best of his ability. We must always remember that charity is not cabined within the limits of strict justice. Add to this the consideration that, in view of the existing class hatred between rich and poor, and in view also of the immense envy, indignation, wrath, and dissatisfaction that have accumulated among the so-called “disinherited,” it is, so to speak, a duty of self-preservation for the wealthy to pacify the needy by kindness and generosity, so that they do not join the radical proletariat.

2. Right reason demands that we give alms only from that which legitimately belongs to us. Hence a wife may, with her husband’s consent, give alms from their common property, and she should do so if the husband does not give in accordance with his means; but she may not give away anything that belongs exclusively to her husband.²¹ “A wife,” says St. Thomas, “who has other property besides her dowry which is for the support of the burdens of marriage, whether that property be gained by her own industry or by any other lawful means, can give alms out of that property without asking her husband’s permission; yet such alms should be moderate, lest through giving too much, she impoverish her husband. Otherwise she ought not to give alms without the express or presumed consent of her husband, except in cases of necessity. . . . For though the wife be her husband’s equal in the marriage act, yet in matters of housekeeping the head of the woman is the man, as the Apostle says.”²²

²¹ Cfr. Tob. IV, 7.—St. Augustine, Epist., 262 (al. 199), n. 7: “A married woman is not permitted to say: I do what I wish with what is mine, since she herself is not her own, but belongs to her head (Eph. 5, 23), that is, to her husband.” (Migne, P. L., XXXIII, 1080).

²² St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 2a 2ae, q. 32, art. 8, ad 2: “If a wife has other property besides her dowry that is directed to sustaining the burdens of marriage, whether from her own earnings or from any other lawful source, she may give alms even without having asked her husband’s consent, but moderate alms, lest by their excess her husband be impoverished. Otherwise she ought not to give alms without her husband’s express or presumed consent, except in a case of necessity. For although a woman is equal to a man in the marriage act, nevertheless in matters pertaining to the ordering of the household, the man is the head of the woman.”—Cfr. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, n. 207.—On State philanthropy see Ross, Christian Ethics, pp. 216 sqq.

Servants may not give away the property of their masters, nor religious the property of the institute to which they belong, without the consent of their superiors. Guardians or administrators of property belonging to others may give alms out of that property, but only to the extent to which the owner himself would or should do so.

With regard to the manner of giving alms note the following points:

a) Almsgiving, like every other act of charity, must be inspired by a pure motive, i. e., love of God and of one’s fellowmen,²³ not by ambition, vanity, or love of ostentation, nor yet by purely natural sympathy or commiseration, and least of all by the sole desire to rid oneself of beggars and their importunities. Purity of motive does not, however, forbid publicity, for Christ Himself performed charitable works in public, and demanded of His disciples that they follow His example. What He condemned was Pharisaic ostentation, inspired by the desire of gaining applause and praise. The motive of the giver should be so pure that, if it were possible, the heart would remain ignorant of what the hand was doing. “When thou dost an almsdeed, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honored by men. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward; but when thou dost alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth, that thy alms may be in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee.”²⁴

²³ Matt. IX, 36; XIV, 14; XV, 32; XVIII, 27; Luke VI, 36; 1 Cor. XIII, 3; Jas. II, 13.

²⁴ Matt. VI, 2 sq.; V, 16; 2 Cor. IX, 11, 13; cfr. 1 Pet. IV, 11.—St. Ambrose, De Offic., l. I, c. 30, n. 147: “Nor is that liberality perfect if you give more for boasting’s sake than from mercy. Your disposition gives its name to your work; as it proceeds from you, so it is judged. You see what a moral judge you have. He considers how to receive your work; first he questions your mind. ‘Let your left hand not know,’ he says, ‘what your right hand does’ (Mt. 6, 3). He is not speaking about the body, but that even your kindred spirit, your brother may not know what you do, lest while you seek here the reward of boasting, there you lose the fruit of recompense. But liberality is perfect when one covers one’s work in silence and secretly relieves the needs of individuals: the mouth of the poor, and not one’s own lips, praises him.” (Migne, P. L., XVI, 66).

The social conditions of our day render it particularly advisable that we do not hide our good works under a bushel. Our opponents proudly parade figures, and we must meet their attacks with statistics showing the good we do, thus confuting the enemy and at the same time encouraging our own in their charitable work.

b) We must give alms voluntarily and gladly, not reluctantly and because we are commanded to do so. We must furthermore give them in a spirit of genuine charity and not so as to make the poor ashamed of themselves or hurt their feelings. No act of mercy is pleasing to God and worthy of His blessing unless it is performed for His sake, freely, lovingly, and gladly, for it is the good will of the giver and not the size of the gift that merits celestial reward. A gift exacted by force is not an alms, but a tax or tribute.²⁵

²⁵ Ecclus. XVIII, 15–18; 2 Cor. VIII, 2, 8, 11 sq.; IX, 7; cfr. Mark XII, 42 sqq.—St. Augustine, De Offic., l. I, c. 30, n. 143: “It is not enough to will well, but one must also do well; nor again is it enough to do well unless it proceeds from a good source, that is, a good will: For God loves a cheerful giver (2 Cor. ix, 7). For if you act unwillingly, what reward is yours?” (Migne, P. L., XVI, 65).

The only thing by which the free will of man can be influenced without the loss of liberty, is good example. Our Lord Jesus Christ became poor for our sake, in order that we might become rich. By giv- ing alms to the poor we honor Him who commanded us to be charitable for His sake.²⁶

²⁶ Matt. X, 42; XXV, 40; 2 Cor. VIII, 8 sq.; cfr. Ps. XL, 2.

c) Private as well as public almsgiving should be guided by a prudent economy, so that it may accomplish its object as effectively as possible. This is but another way of saying that alms should not be given haphazard, but with due regard to the needs of the poor and the fitness of the gifts distributed.²⁷

²⁷ St. Ambrose, De Offic., l. I, c. 30, n. 144: “It is noble to will well and to give with this intention, that you benefit, not harm. For if you think you should give to a luxurious man for the outpouring of luxury, or to an adulterer as the price of adultery, this is not beneficence, where there is no benevolence. For that is to harm another, not benefit him, if you give to one who conspires against the fatherland, who desires at your expense to gather ruined men to attack the Church. This liberality is not commendable if you aid one who prosecutes a grave lawsuit against a widow and orphans or tries by some force to wrest away their possession.” (P. L., XVI, 65).—Ibid., n. 149: “Disposition makes a contribution rich or poor and puts a price upon things. Moreover, God does not wish resources to be poured out all at once, but administered.” (P. L., XVI, 67).—St. Jerome, Epist., 58 (al. 13), n. 7: “What you possess is no longer yours, but an administration has been entrusted to you. Remember Ananias and Sapphira. They timidly kept their own goods; consider lest you imprudently pour out the substance of Christ, that is, lest by immoderate judgment you give the property of the poor to those who are not poor.” (P. L., XXII, 584).—Seneca, De Benefic., l. II, c. 16: “Let proportion be observed with regard to persons and ranks; and since virtue everywhere has a measure, that which exceeds sins just as much as that which falls short.”

The first rule is to give promptly, when the needy person can still be benefitted, for “he gives twice who gives quickly.”

The second rule is to give to the poor according to their actual wants,—much to him who needs much, little to him who needs but little,—food, clothing, or money according to what is most ur- gently required, and always with a view to relieve the spiritual wants of the poor together with their material necessities.²⁸ Quite often the most effective method of relief consists in procuring work for the unemployed, either directly or through public or private bureaus or agencies.

²⁸ Prov. III, 28; Ecclus. IV, 3; Jas. II, 13 sqq.—St. Ambrose, De Offic., l. I, c. 30, n. 149: “God indeed is no respecter of persons, because He knows all things. But we owe mercy to all; yet because many seek it by fraud and feign distress, therefore, where the cause is manifest, the person is known, and time presses, mercy ought to pour itself out more abundantly.” (Migne, P. L., XVI, 66).—Ibid., l., n. 158: “Age and debility must also be considered in giving, sometimes also modesty, which reveals noble birth, so that you give more to the aged, who can no longer seek sustenance for themselves by labor. Likewise bodily debility is to be helped, and that more promptly. Then if anyone has fallen from riches into want, and especially if he has lost what he had not by his own fault, but by robberies or proscription or calumnies.” (Migne, P. L., XVI, 69).

Christian charity, be it further noted, comprises all men without exception, as God has mercy on all and “maketh his sun to rise upon the good and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.”²⁹ Yet it is not only licit, but advisable, to observe some sort of order in giving alms. Those who are most in need have the first claim upon our charity, and among them parents, children, relatives, friends, and those “who are of the household of the faith should be given preference.”³⁰ We may also make a distinction between those who are in need without their own fault, and those who suffer the penalty of sloth or negligence, so that the latter may be reminded of their guilt and thus benefitted, not only materially, but also spiritually and morally.³¹

²⁹ Matt. V, 45.

³⁰ Gal. VI, 10.

³¹ Gal. VI, 1–10; 2 Thess. III, 10–12.—St. Ambrose, De Offic., l. I, c. 30, n. 148: “Perfect liberality is commended by faith, cause, place, and time, so that you work first among the household of the faith. It is a grave fault if, with your knowledge, a believer is in need; if you know that he is without resources, endures hunger and suffers distress, especially one who is ashamed to be in need; if he has fallen into a case involving the captivity of his family or calumny, and you do not help; if a just man is in prison and tormented by punishments and tortures because of some debt (for although mercy is owed to all, yet more to the just); if in the time of his affliction he obtains nothing from you; if at a time of danger, when he is being dragged to death, your money counts for more with you than the life of the dying man.”—Id., ibid., n. 150: “This liberality also is to be approved: that you do not disregard those close to you by kinship if you know them to be in need. For it is better that you yourself assist your own, who are ashamed to ask sustenance from others or to request aid from anyone for their need; not, however, so that they may wish to become richer by what you can bestow upon the needy, for the cause, not favor, takes precedence. Nor indeed have you dedicated yourself to the Lord for this reason, that you may make your own relatives rich, but that you may acquire everlasting life for yourself by the fruit of good work and redeem your sins by the price of mercy. Do they think they ask little? They seek your price, they strive to take away the fruit of your life, and they think they act justly. And he complains that you have not made him rich, although he wishes to defraud you of the reward of eternal life.” (Migne, P. L., XVI, 66, 67).—Ibid., l. II, c. 16, n. 76: “It is clear that liberality ought to have a measure, lest largess become useless. Sobriety must be maintained, especially by priests, so that they dispense not for display but for justice. Nowhere is there greater greed in petitioning. The able-bodied come, those who have no reason save wandering come, and they wish to drain the resources of the poor, exhaust the fund, and, not content with little, seek greater things, catching the support of a request by the attractiveness of clothing and bidding up increases of gain by pretending noble birth. If anyone readily gives credence to these, he quickly exhausts the resources destined to benefit the nourishment of the poor. Let there be a measure of giving, so that they do not go away empty and yet the livelihood of the poor is not transferred into the spoils of frauds. Therefore let the measure be such that humanity is neither abandoned nor necessity left destitute.”—Ibid., n. 77: “Many pretend debts. Let there be an examination of the truth. They lament that they have been stripped by robberies: let either the injury establish credibility or knowledge of the person, so that they may be helped more readily. Support must be given to those banished from the Church if they lack the means of nourishment. Thus one who observes measure is miserly toward no one but generous toward all. For we ought to offer not only our ears to hear the voices of petitioners, but also our eyes to consider needs. Debility cries louder to a good benefactor than the voice of a poor person. Yet it cannot be that the importunity of those who cry aloud does not extort more; but there should not always be room for shamelessness [imprudence?]. He who does not see you must be seen; he who is ashamed to be seen must be sought out. Let him who is shut in prison also come before you; let him who is afflicted by sickness sound within your mind, though he cannot reach your ears.” (P. L., XVI, 123).

It is never permitted to give alms in such a way as to encourage idleness and beggary, for sloth is the beginning of all vice, and to support the vicious would be to foment crime and work injury to those really in need.³² Give to the innocent before you give to the guilty, but do not forget that the misery a man brings upon himself through his own fault is also a misfortune.³³

³² St. Basil, Hom. in Ps., I, XIV, n. 6 (Migne, P. G., XXIX, 264).

³³ Cfr. St. Ambrose, De Offic., l. I, c. 30, n. 159: “But perhaps someone may say: A blind man sits in one place and is passed by, while an able-bodied young man frequently receives. And it is true, because he steals in through importunity. That is not a matter of judgment but of weariness. For the Lord too says in the Gospel (Lk. xi, 8), concerning one who had already closed his door, that if anyone should knock at his door too insistently, he rises and gives to him because of his importunity.” (Migne, P. L., XVI, 69).—Cfr. Weber, Armenwesen und Armenfürsorge, pp. 49 sqq.

That charity is often abused is undeniable; but this deplorable fact does not and cannot change the rule that wherever there is real need, we should hasten to give relief, regardless of whether the needy are suffering with or without their own fault. The frequently heard complaint that the poor are unworthy of assistance and ungrateful, quite often has its origin in a wrong method of almsgiving.³⁴ “If you wish those to whom you show favors to be thankful,” says Seneca, “you must not only give, but love.”³⁵ In our day charity has become a sport. Concerts, balls, bazaars, dances and theatrical entertainments are arranged for the ostensible purpose of helping the poor, but mainly for the sake of amusement. This sort of charity, as Ratzinger points out, does not reconcile the poor to their dour lot, but, on the contrary, embitters their minds and thus exercises a ruinous effect, instead of building up.³⁶ Christian charity is a sacred thing and should sanctify those on whose behalf it is exercised.³⁷

³⁴ Seneca, De Benefic., l. I, c. 1: “Nor is it surprising that among very many and very great vices none is more frequent than an ungrateful mind. I see that this happens from several causes. . . . We find many ungrateful people; we make more.”—Ibid., l. II, c. 17: “We generally make people ungrateful, and encourage them to be so.” (Opera Omnia, I, ed. I. Lipsius, Amsterdam, 1672, pp. 585, 586, 633.)

³⁵ Seneca, op. cit., l. II, c. 11: “If you wish to have those whom you oblige grateful, you must not only give, but love. Above all, as I have said, let us spare their ears: admonition causes weariness, reproach causes hatred. Nothing is so much to be avoided in giving a benefit as pride. What need is there of arrogance in one’s countenance? What need of swelling words? The thing itself exalts you. Empty boasting must be removed let the deeds speak while we are silent. A benefit given proudly is not only thankless but hateful.” (Ibid., 626).

³⁶ Ratzinger, Die Volkswirtschaft, 2nd ed., pp. 477 sq.

³⁷ Cfr. 2 Cor. IX, 5; Jas. I, 27.

Entertainments and amusements held for charitable purposes, however, may serve a good end and, therefore, should not be unreservedly condemned as anti-social, much less as immoral. Amusements are not per se sinful, but may be ennobled by a good motive and the spirit of sacrifice. By arranging such entertainments for charitable purposes (provided they contain nothing objectionable on other grounds,) the rich show that they have a heart for the poor,³⁸ though it would be a mistake to think that they can acquit themselves of their duty towards the poor solely by attending “charity balls” and similar affairs.

³⁸ Cfr. Gal. II, 1.

It has been asserted³⁹ that the early Church encouraged, nay demanded, indiscriminate and uncritical almsgiving. This is not so. The Didache says: “Let thine alms sweat in thine hands until thou knowest to whom thou art giving,”⁴⁰ and this saying is quoted approvingly by St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great, Cassiodorius, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Abélard, Cardinal Hugh a S.

³⁹ Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, Vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 130; E. Grimm, Die Ethik Jesu, Hamburg 1903, p. 104.

⁴⁰ Doctr. XII Apost., c. 1, 6: “Let your alms sweat into your hands until you know to whom you give.” (F. X. Funk, Patr. Apost., I, 2nd ed., 6, 7).

Chiara, and other theologians.⁴¹ Not a few ecclesiastical writers expressly warn the faithful against indiscriminate and thoughtless almsgiving and admonish them to exercise prudence and pay due attention to the necessity and worthiness of those whom they succor, and to the circumstances of each case. St. Basil, for example, says that it requires considerable experience to distinguish between greedy and worthy beggars, and that while a good Christian should lend a ready ear to requests for assistance, he should, on the other hand, prudently investigate whether those who ask for help really need it.⁴² St. Ambrose lays down definite rules for almsgiving, paying due consideration to age, capacity for work, position, guilt or innocence on the part of applicants.⁴³ St. Jerome seems to favor indiscriminate giving,⁴⁴ yet he expressly warns against foolish extravagance and praises St. Paula for prudently measuring her gifts and distributing her alms according to actual needs.⁴⁵

⁴¹ See the quotations in Funk, Patr. Apost., Vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 6.—Cfr. Foerstl, Das Almosen, pp. 39 sqq.; F. Schaub, Die kath. Charitas und ihre Gegner, M. Gladbach 1909, pp. 142 sqq.

⁴² Epist., 150, n. 3: “For he said that discernment between the person truly in need and the one asking out of greed requires experience. And he who gives to the afflicted gives to the Lord and will receive the reward from Him; but he who provides for everyone who goes about begging has thrown his gift to every dog—burdensomely because of shamelessness, not pitiably because of need.” (Migne, P. G. XXXII, 605); Homil. in Ps., 14, n. 6: “He wishes you, because of love, to be open in simplicity toward those who ask, but again by reason to distinguish the need of each of those who approach.” (P. G., XXIX, 263 sq.).

⁴³ V. supra, p. 185, n. 27; p. 186, notes 28 and 31.

⁴⁴ In Eccle., c. 11: “He exhorts to almsgiving, because one must give to everyone who asks and do good without discrimination.” (Migne, P. L., XXIII, 1101).

⁴⁵ Epist., 58 (al. 13), n. 7 (v. supra, p. 184, note 27); Epist., 108 (al. 27), n. 16: “Most matrons are accustomed to bestow gifts upon their trumpeters and, having poured out largess upon a few, to withdraw their hand from the rest: that fault was altogether absent from her [St. Paula]. For she divided her money among individuals according as it was necessary for each, not for luxury, but for necessity. No poor person returned from her empty-handed. She achieved this not by the magnitude of her riches, but by prudence in dispensing.” (Migne, P. L., XXII, 892).

The first clearly developed theory of public poor relief was developed by the famous Spanish humanist and pedagogue Juan Luis Vives (+ 1540), author of a famous treatise, “De Subventione Pauperum,” in which “he proscribes mendicancy, expels poor strangers from the city, obliges the natives to work, recommends apprenticeship for those who have no trade, advocates asylums for the insane, schools for foundlings from the age of six, and provides for the administration of all this by voluntary gifts, the sale of the products of the labor of the poor, the revenues of the hospitals, and taxes on rich ecclesiastical communities. Ypres put these ideas into practice. . . . Other cities followed this example.”⁴⁶

⁴⁶ Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XV, pp. 492 sq.

3. BLESSINGS AND FRUITS OF ALMSGIVING.—Regarding the matter from the purely economic point of view, it might be expected that almsgiving would diminish a man’s wealth, nay, if indulged in on too large a scale, would even make him poor. But this is not the case. “Almsgiving never yet made a man poor,” says an ancient proverb.⁴⁷ Holy Scripture in many passages both of the Old and the New Testament teaches that almsgiving brings down blessings upon the giver.⁴⁸ The true Catholic does not fear or or worry, for he knows from Divine Revelation that God rewards every act of mercy and kindness, and that almsgiving brings not only mediate but also immediate blessings. The poor pray for their benefactors.⁴⁹ Almsgiving, moreover, belongs to the good works par excellence and is an opus satisfactorium et meritorium, by which a man can make satisfaction to God for his sins,⁵⁰ and through which he can obtain remission of temporal penalties, innumerable graces, and, finally, a merciful judgment and eternal salvation.⁵¹ Nor does it make any difference how large or how small the alms are, for God rewards the cup of cold water given in His name, the mite of the poor widow, nay, even the good will that remains inoperative for lack of means. Thus even the poor can give alms if they but have a good will.⁵² “If thou have much, give abun- dantly; if thou have little, take care even so to bestow willingly a little.”⁵³ Since, therefore, it is good and meritorious to give alms out of one’s superfluous wealth,⁵⁴ it is still more meritorious to give away all one’s possessions and become absolutely poor for Christ’s sake, that is, to practice the voluntary poverty recommended in the Gospel.⁵⁵

⁴⁷ C. F. O’Leary, Proverbs and Proverbial Phrases, St. Louis 1907, p. 45.

⁴⁸ Ps. XL, 2; Prov. XI, 24; XIX, 17; Eccles. XI, 1; Matt. V, 7; Luke VI, 35; Acts XX, 35.—St. Cyprian, De Opere et Eleemosyn., c. 9: “But you fear and are afraid that, if you begin to perform many works, when your patrimony has been exhausted by abundant working you may perhaps be reduced to want. In this matter be fearless; be secure. That from which expenditure is made for the uses of Christ, from which a heavenly work is celebrated, cannot be exhausted.” (Corp. Script. Eccl. Lat., III, Vienna 1868, P. 1, p. 380).—Ibid., c. 10: “You fear lest perhaps your patrimony fail if you begin —to work generously from it, and you do not know, wretched man, that while you fear lest your household property fail, life itself and salvation fail; and while you attend to the possibility that anything of your property might be diminished, you do not consider that you yourself are diminished, being a lover of mammon more than of your soul; and while you fear lest you lose your patrimony for your own sake, you yourself perish for the sake of your patrimony.” (C. S. E. L., III, 381).—Ibid., c. 11: “You fear lest perhaps your patrimony fail if you begin to work generously from it? For when has it happened that resources could fail a just man? Elias is fed in solitude by ministering ravens, and for Daniel, shut by the king’s command in the lions’ pit [as prey], a meal divinely appears; and do you fear lest nourishment be lacking to one who works and merits the Lord? . . . God feeds birds and daily nourishment is furnished to sparrows (Mt. vi, 26), and those who have no perception of a divine thing lack neither drink nor food: do you think that anything will be lacking to a Christian, to a servant of God, to one devoted to good works, to one dear to his Lord? Unless you think that one who feeds Christ is not himself fed by Christ, or that earthly things will be lacking to those to whom heavenly and divine things are given?” (C. S. E. L., III, 282).—Lactantius, Divin. Instit., l. VI, c. 12: “He who is rich before God can never be poor.” (P. L., XIX, 531).—St. Ambrose, De Offic., l. I, c. 30, n. 151: “No one ought to be ashamed if he becomes poor from having been rich while he gives to a poor person, because Christ became poor when He was rich, that by His poverty He might make all rich.” (Migne, P. L., XVI, 67).—St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps., XLVIII, s. 1, n. 12: “Do not fear: children place things in a treasury and are secure; you place something in the hand of Christ and are afraid? Be prudent and provide for yourself hereafter in heaven.” (P. L., XXXVI, 552).

⁴⁹ Ecclus. XXIX, 15; 2 Cor. IX, 6–14.—St. Cyprian, De Opere et Eleemosyn., c. 9: “When thanksgiving is directed to God for our alms and works through the prayer of the poor, the wealth of the one who works is increased by God’s recompense.” (C. S. E. L., III, 1, 380 sq.).

⁵⁰ Dan. IV, 24; Tob. IV, 11; XII, 8 sq.; Ecclus. III, 33.—Lactantius, Divin. Instit., c. 13: “Whenever you are asked, believe that you are being tested by God as to whether you are worthy to be heard. Examine your conscience and, as much as you can, heal its wounds. Yet do not suppose that because sins are removed by largess, license to sin is given to you. For they are abolished if you give generously to God because you have sinned; but if you sin in reliance upon giving generously, they are not abolished.” (Migne, P. L., VI, 684 B).—St. Augustine, Enchir., c. 75: “Certainly those who live most wickedly and do not care to correct such a life and habits, and who do not cease to give frequent alms amid their very crimes and outrages, flatter themselves in vain for that reason.”—Ibid., c. 76: “He who wishes to give alms in an orderly manner ought to begin with himself and give it first to himself. For almsgiving is a work of mercy, and it has most truly been said: Have mercy on your soul by pleasing God (Eccli. XXX, 24). For this reason we are reborn, that we may please God, to whom that which we contracted by being born is deservedly displeasing. This is the first alms that we gave ourselves, because we sought ourselves in our misery through the mercy of the merciful God, confessing His just judgment by which we were made miserable.”—Ibid., c. 77: “Therefore let those not deceive themselves who think that through alms, however abundant, from their produce or from any money, they buy for themselves impunity to remain in the enormity of crimes and the wickedness of outrages. For they not only do these things, but love them so that they always desire to continue in them, if only they can do so with impunity. But he who loves iniquity hates his own soul (Ps. X, 6), and he who hates his own soul is not merciful to it, but cruel; for by loving it according to the world he hates it according to God. If, therefore, he wished to give it alms through which all things would be clean for it (Lk. XI, 41), he would hate it according to the world and love it according to God.” (P. L., XL, 267 sqq.). On Luke XI, 41 see P. Schanz, Lukas-Evangelium, p. 333.—Th. Sommerlad, Wirtschaftslehre, pp. 8 sq.

⁵¹ Matt. XXV, 34–46; Luke VI, 38; XII, 33; XVI, 9; Heb. XIII, 16; Matt. V, 7; Jas. II, 13; cfr. Ps. CXI, 5.

⁵² Matt. X, 42; Mark XII, 42 sqq.; Luke XXI, 1–4.—St. Augustine, Enarrat. in Ps., 103, s. 1, n. 19: “Despise no suppliant, and do not despise the one to whom you cannot give what he asks; if you can give, give; if you cannot, show yourself affable. God crowns the inward will where He finds no means. Let no one say: I have nothing. Charity is not paid out from a purse.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVII, 1351).—Ibid., 36, s. 2, n. 13: “Behold want, behold riches. That man receives and will not repay; this man has mercy and lends: abundance belongs to him. What if he is poor? Even so he is rich—Only direct devout eyes to his riches. For you see an empty money-box; you do not see a conscience full of God. He has no means outwardly, but he has charity inwardly. How much he pays out from charity, and it is not exhausted. For if he has outward means, charity itself gives, but from what he has; if, however, he finds nothing outwardly to give, he gives goodwill, offers counsel if he can, offers help if he can; finally, if he can help neither by counsel nor assistance, he helps at least by his desire or prays for the afflicted person, and perhaps he himself is heard more than the one who holds out bread. He whose breast is full of charity always has something from which to give. It is charity itself that is also called good will. God requires no more from you than what He has given you within. For good will cannot be idle. For if you do not have a good will, though you have a coin to spare, you do not hold it out to the poor; the poor themselves furnish one another from good will; they are not unfruitful among themselves.” (P. L., XXXVI, 371).—IDEM, Enarr. in Ps., 125 n. 11: “Sow as much as you can. But you have little—whence will you do so? You have the will? Just as what you have would be nothing if good will were not present, so, because you have nothing, do not be sad if you have good will. For what do you sow? Mercy. And what will you reap? Peace. Did the angels say: Peace on earth to rich men? But ‘peace on earth to men of good will’ (Lk. ii, 14). In Zacchaeus there was great will, in Zacchaeus great charity (Lk. xix, 6–9). . . . Great will; he gave much, he sowed much. Therefore did that widow who put in two mites (Lk. xxi, 1–4) sow little? Rather, as much as Zacchaeus. For she bore fewer means, but had an equal will. She put in two mites from as great a will as that from which Zacchaeus gave half his patrimony. If you attend to what they gave, you find different things; if you attend to that from which they gave, you find equal things: she gave whatever she had, and he gave what he had.” (P. L., XXXVII, 1664).

⁵³ Tob. IV, 9.

⁵⁴ St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 31.—IDEM, Homo Apost., tr. IV, n. 19: “In our neighbor’s grave necessity we are bound to aid him from goods superfluous to our station, but in extreme necessity even from goods superfluous to life; indeed, in extreme necessity we may assist a poor person even from another’s goods, when we lack our own.”

⁵⁵ Matt. XIX, 21 sqq.—On the evangelical counsels see Vol. I of this Handbook, pp. 236 sqq.—On organised charity and professional charity workers see Ross, Christian Ethics, pp. 215 sqq.

READINGS.—St. Cyprian, De Opere et Eleemosynis (Corpus Script. Eccles. Lat., Vol. III, 1, 373 sqq.).—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 30–32 (Rickaby, Aquinas Ethicus, I, 381 sqq.).—St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. II, n. 31–33 (ed. Gaudé, I, 326 sqq.).—F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 483 sqq.—W. Roscher and Ch. J. Klumker, System der Armenpflege und Armenpolitik, 3rd ed., Stuttgart 1906.—J. G. Uhlhorn, Die christliche Liebestätigkeit, 3 vols., Stuttgart 1882 sqq., Vol. I, 2nd ed., 1895.—IDEM, Die kirchliche Armenpflege, Göttingen 1892, pp. 10 sqq.—G. Ratzinger, Geschichte der kirchlichen Armenpflege, 2nd ed., Freiburg i. B., 1884.—F. Schaub, Die Eigentumslehre nach Thomas von Aquin, pp. 382 sqq.—J. Lachaud, La Civilisation ou les Bienfaits de l’Eglise, Paris 1890.—L. Lallemand, Histoire de la Charité, 4 vols., Paris 1902 sqq.—J. N., Foerstl, Das Almosen, Paderborn 1909.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 104 sqq.—H. Parkinson, A Primer of Social Science, pp. 231 sqq.—Leo XIII, Encyclical “Rerum Novarum” (The Pope and the People, pp. 192 sq.)