The obligation of almsgiving

89. Notion. Alms strictly so called is defined: a bodily work which from commiseration is exhibited to one in need in order to relieve his want; most strictly: a thing which is bestowed upon a poor man from commiseration in order to relieve his want.

Therefore three things are essentially required to constitute alms in the strictest sense: a. that something be given or donated, that is, that the ownership of the thing offered be transferred to the poor man; b. that it be given to one in need; c. that it be given from compassion in order to relieve his want.

90. On the precept of alms. 1. From the divine precept, both natural and positive, and indeed one grave of itself, we are bound to give alms.

The first is clear both from the general principle of charity of doing to another what we would want done to us (were we placed in the same condition), and from the nature of private dominion. For although man has a true right over his goods, nevertheless this right, as secondary, is connected with the obligation of contributing from his goods to those who by their own labor cannot obtain for themselves the necessities of life.¹ The second is clear from many testimonies of Scripture: I command you that you open your hand to your needy and poor brother who dwells with you in the land.² Break your bread for the hungry, and bring the needy and wandering into your house; when you see the naked, cover him, and do not despise your own flesh.³ He who has the substance of this world and sees his brother have necessity and shuts his bowels from him, how does the charity of God remain in him?⁴ The third is clear from this, that Christ announces that on the day of judgment eternal damnation is to be inflicted upon the impious because of the sole defect of alms: Depart from Me, cursed ones, into eternal fire ... for I was hungry and you did not give Me to eat, I was thirsty and you did not give Me drink.⁵

2. In order that this precept of alms oblige, two things are required: on the part of the neighbor, necessity; on the part of the giver, possibility or superfluous goods.

a. Necessity according to degree we divided above (n. 75); but according to origin necessity is distinguished as involuntary both in itself and in its cause, and this is misfortune; voluntary both in itself and in its cause, and this is virtue; involuntary in itself and voluntary in its cause, for example, in weariness of labor, and this is vice. But one in need must be succored not only from misfortune, but also from virtue: for he suffers true necessity, and that from an excellent cause.

b. It must be declared in how many ways goods are called necessary and superfluous.

a. Goods necessary for life are those without which one's own life and that of one's dependents cannot be preserved, so that if these were taken away, someone would cast himself or his dependents into extreme necessity. Therefore goods necessary for life are also those which are required for feeding and educating children, or for sustaining a maidservant who is necessary to the family. Therefore goods superfluous for life are goods without which someone can sustain himself and his dependents.

b. Goods necessary to the state itself are those without which the state of life cannot be preserved, so that if they were taken away, someone would fall from his state.

c. Goods necessary to the decency of state are those without which someone cannot live suitably to his condition, so that if they were taken away, he could not preserve his state decently. Therefore those goods also are called necessary to the decency of state which are required for the honorable support of himself and of his household servants, for the suitable education and dowry of children, for suitable donations, for honorable customary banquets, for receiving guests, etc.

¹ Cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 32, a. 5 and ad 2.

² Deut. 15:11.

³ Isa. 58:7.

⁴ 1 John 3:17. Cf. Matt. 25:34-45; 1 Tim. 6:17-18.

⁵ Matt. 25:41-42.

91. More accurate determination of the precept. 1. The neighbor constituted in extreme necessity must be succored from goods necessary to the decency of state: for a neighbor constituted in such great necessity must be aided even with great inconvenience.

a. Although alms must be given to the neighbor in extreme necessity from goods necessary only to the decency of state, nevertheless the obligation of giving even from goods necessary to preserve the state itself cannot be demonstrated, so that one would be bound to fall from his proper state: for no one is bound to preserve his own life with the loss of his state, or through extraordinary means.

b. We are not bound to take care that a sick person, who would soon die in his own country, be sent into the more healthful air of a distant region. A physician is not bound to perform an extraordinary surgical operation for preserving the life of a poor man. No one is bound to spend a large sum of money to redeem the neighbor from danger of death or of harsh and perpetual captivity.

c. In extreme necessity only so much must be given to the neighbor as is required to relieve his necessity here and now, unless it is an extraordinary matter; and indeed, if he is absolutely poor, it must be given to him gratuitously; but if he needs only the use of the thing, it is sufficient to lend it.

2. The neighbor constituted in grave necessity must be succored from goods simply superfluous: for ordered charity demands that we succor the neighbor in grave necessity if we easily can. Nevertheless this precept does not oblige the rich to give to all who come, but to some; nor to provide for their want entirely, but in part: for ordinarily they can presume that there are others who also are willing to aid.

Therefore physicians, advocates, etc., are bound to spend their work on the poor gratuitously, if these are found in grave necessity and cannot be helped by others. In time of famine the rich are bound to succor the poor suffering hunger, insofar as they can do so without grave inconvenience.

3. Those constituted in common necessity must be succored here and there from goods simply superfluous. There is no obligation of succoring some determinate poor person, nor generally all the poor; but there is an obligation of sometimes aiding, according to one's means, some indeterminate persons among the poor constituted in common necessity: for if individual persons give something, the common necessity is sufficiently relieved.

How great an alms is to be distributed by the rich in common necessity cannot be accurately determined. According to the mind of St. Alphonsus (n. 32), the rich who distribute a fiftieth part (two percent) of their incomes which are truly superfluous satisfy the precept of alms. Although this determination of several authors seems to lack a solid foundation, so that the rich who have goods simply superfluous are bound to more abundant alms where a greater want of the poor exists, nevertheless from it this is gathered, that the rich who spend some goods on superfluous uses or set them aside for increasing riches are not to be accused of sin.

92. Gravity of the obligation. The neighbor constituted in extreme or grave necessity must be succored under grave obligation; but a grave obligation of giving alms to a neighbor constituted in common necessity cannot be demonstrated.

a. No one denies the grave obligation of succoring a neighbor suffering extreme necessity: for if the precept of alms is grave of itself, certainly in the extreme necessity of the neighbor it obliges under grave obligation.

b. The gravity of this obligation depends especially upon the necessity of the neighbor; hence in the grave necessity of the neighbor a grave obligation of succoring urges.

a. With regard to the neighbor constituted in grave necessity, a grave obligation seems to be established with St. Alphonsus (n. 31) and most others: for from Sacred Scripture many are excluded from the kingdom of heaven because of the sole defect of alms; but if the grave obligation were restricted to the rare case of extreme necessity, many could not be excluded. Moreover, for the holy Fathers the obligation of giving alms is grave, as their testimonies everywhere among authors attest; but it is incredible that those texts are to be understood only of extreme necessity. Finally, authors agree in establishing a grave obligation of averting from the neighbor, if it can conveniently be done, a grave evil, for example, of extinguishing a fire set to a house, of restraining grave defamation; therefore also in this matter a grave obligation must be established.

b. If some rich man who possesses superfluous goods has the intention of never giving alms except in extreme necessity, of itself this intention is gravely sinful; nevertheless in particular cases a rich man of this kind who sends the poor away without alms will not easily sin gravely, both because of the difficulty of judging concerning the superfluity of goods and concerning the necessity of the poor, and because of the presumption that others are willing to succor, and because perhaps he assists the needy in another way, for example, by providing them an occasion of earning something by labor, and finally because he can fear grave inconvenience for himself from giving.

c. Authors dispute whether the obligation of giving alms in the common necessity of neighbors is grave or light; nevertheless, since the opinion affirming a grave obligation is not certain, but only probable, it cannot be established.

Those who, with St. Antoninus¹ and St. Thomas,² deny a grave obligation, argue thus: the obligation of succoring is as great as the necessity and want of the poor man; therefore, since the necessity is not grave, neither can the obligation of aiding be grave.

Yet there are those who establish a twofold title of grave obligation, not only the necessity of the neighbor, but also superfluous goods, so that the superfluous goods themselves induce a grave obligation of giving alms in common necessity. But since the grave obligation arising from this head is not evident, it is not to be established.³

¹ Summa theologica, p. 2, tit. 1, c. 24, § 5.

² Summa, II-II, q. 32, a. 5.

³ Cf. Laymann, bk. 2, tr. 3, c. 6, n. 4 ff.

93. On the care to be expended upon the poor (Armenpflege). 1. In the present order of things the distinction between rich and poor, as having arisen from the natural diversity of the powers of soul and body and from the different care of Christian virtue, will never be eliminated: For the poor you have always with you.¹ To soften this distinction and to reconcile the poor with the rich, the precept of alms contributes very much, and the care of the poor through works of mercy which has its origin from it, provided it is exercised fittingly. In order that alms may attain this end, first it must be bestowed spontaneously, not by compulsion, and then in such a way that spiritual misery is cared for while bodily misery is warded off. For since poverty often arises from vices, alms together with want ought also to remedy moral defects. But if someone is in need without fault, alms bestowed should render the poor man content with his lot.

2. The poor are called those who neither have the means of sustaining life themselves nor can obtain them for themselves by their own labor.

Those who by their own fault have come into a state of poverty are not to be excluded from the number of the poor, provided they cannot obtain for themselves the necessities of life; but those are not counted poor to whom the necessities of life are lacking because of their idleness and weariness of labor; concerning these are the words of the Apostle: If anyone does not wish to work, neither let him eat.²

3. The care of the poor is committed in the first place to private men and to the Church.

a. The common good indeed demands the support of the poor, but public power ought not to take care of everything which is necessary or useful for the common good, if in the community there are others to whom the care of that thing has been committed, and who therefore can provide better and more efficaciously for the necessary good.

b. For the precept of love of neighbor (He commanded each one concerning his neighbor) especially demands this, that we succor the needy, which Christ the Lord effectively commended by teaching that what someone has done to "the least" he has done to Him. The Church teaches by word and example the precepts of Christ and imbues the faithful with that spirit of charity and humility by which works of mercy are exhibited to the poor.

4. Since the circumstances of the time are such that neither private persons nor the Church can provide sufficiently for the poor, public power also ought to take their care upon itself and to assist the provisions for the poor made by both private persons and the Church.

5. Therefore care of the poor is either private or public; public care is either ecclesiastical or civil. In the present order of things the care of the poor pertains to the duties of the state; nevertheless private and ecclesiastical care will never be able to cease at any time. For civil care of the poor by itself alone cannot sufficiently meet the necessities of the poor, but necessarily needs the help both of private care and especially of ecclesiastical care. For this reason it belongs to the state to assist the Church in relieving the poor, but in no way can it arrogate the whole care of the poor to itself. Civil care of the poor, as it is ordinarily exercised, labors under several defects which prevent it from fully attaining its end. And indeed:

a. The offerings of individuals are not spontaneous but compelled. Hence it happens that for the rich they have the character of a tax, while the poor consider them owed to themselves by right. Hence in the rich Christian mercy toward the poor is lacking, and in the poor the spirit of gratitude toward their benefactors.

b. In distributing alms: a. temporal want is almost exclusively regarded, but moral defects are less cared for; b. Christian charity and mercy are neglected, whence it happens that the poor do not cease to envy the rich and to bear their lot with difficulty.

6. Since public power, both in communities (Gemeinden) and in the state (Staat), takes the means of aiding the poor from taxes which are paid by citizens either for the common good universally or specifically for the poor, the question has arisen whether those paying the tax (of the poor) satisfy their obligation of giving alms. a. These taxes have the character of true alms: for the civil law by which they are imposed is considered to oblige the rich civilly to fulfill the obligation toward the poor which rests upon them from the law of nature. b. By the payment of this tax the obligation of giving alms is certainly diminished, because the necessity of the poor who are helped from those taxes is diminished; nevertheless the obligation does not entirely cease, just as the necessity of the poor is not extinguished by the help received from taxes. Therefore private men are bound to aid those whom they know to be in extreme or grave necessity.³

One feigning himself poor does not become owner of the alms: for the giving of alms is essentially a donation whose motive cause is the want of the recipient; therefore when made to a fictitious poor man it is a donation whose motive cause is lacking, and therefore an invalid donation. Wherefore the recipient is bound to restore it to the owner, or to the poor according to the reasonably presumed will of the owner.

Nevertheless alms which are of minimal value need not necessarily be restored to those who gave them, according to the presumed will of the givers: for it is rightly supposed that the primary motive of the donation in alms of this kind was not so much the want of the poor man as love of God and neighbor.

¹ John 12:8.

² 2 Thess. 3:10.

³ Cf. Kirchenlexikon, 2nd ed., "Armenpflege"; Krieg, Wissenschaft der Seelenleitung, Freiburg: Herder, 1904, § 321: "Die kirchliche Armenpflege"; Ratzinger, Geschichte der christlichen Armenpflege, 2nd ed., Freiburg: Herder, 1884; Ehrle, Beitrage zur Geschichte und Reform der Armenpflege, Freiburg: Herder, 1881; Forstl, Das Almosen, Paderborn: Schoningh, 1909.

ALMSGIVING is here taken in a wide sense for any of the corporal works of mercy by which our neighbour’s necessity is relieved. Inasmuch as the law of charity binds us to help all who are in need as far as we can, almsgiving is obligatory by the law of nature. The obligation is frequently inculcated in Holy Scripture: ‘‘ Defraud not the poor of alms,’’ we read in Ecclesiasticus.¹1 Our Lord in severe terms enjoined on his followers the exercise of the works of mercy.²

¹ Ecclus. iv 1.

² Matt. xxv 41.

In order to measure as precisely as possible the gravity of the obligation of almsgiving, we must consider the necessity in which our neighbour is placed and our ability to help him. We are only bound to help those who are in real need; we should be fostering idleness and hypocrisy, and squandering on unworthy objects what is sorely needed by others, if we distributed our alms to the unneedy.

Theologians commonly distinguish three degrees of necessity, as we saw in a former chapter. Extreme necessity is the condition of one who from want is in danger of death or some equally serious evil, and who can do nothing to help himself. If in similar circumstances he can, though with difficulty, do something to help himself, he is said to be in grave necessity. Beggars and the indigent poor generally are in common necessity. These distinctions cannot be applied with mathematical accuracy; they are necessarily somewhat loose and vague, but they represent real differences which, broadly speaking, are capable of being appreciated without much difficulty, With regard to the ability of him who is called upon to relieve the needy, theologians distinguish between what is necessary to support the lives of a man and his family, what is necessary to support one’s position, and what remains over and above and is superfluous.

The Duty of Giving Alms.—(a) The natural law requires that we do to others as we would be done by, and there is no one who does not wish that help be rendered him if he falls into need. Moreover, the common welfare requires that the rich assist the poor, for otherwise there will be discontent and disorder. Hence, even unbelievers are not exempt from the obligation of almsgiving. (b) The divine law, in both Old and New Testaments, commands almsgiving: “Give alms out of thy substance, and turn not away thy face from any poor person” (Tob., iv. 7); “Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, for I was hungry, and you gave Me not to eat” (Matt., xxv. 41-42); “Let us love, not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth” (I John, iii. 18). Tobias, Dorcas, Cornelius, and Zacheus are praised for their charitable gifts.

Almsgiving, being an affirmative commandment, does not oblige for every moment of time, but only when right reason calls for it on account of the state of the giver or of the receiver.

(a) The state of the giver requires him to give alms only when he has a superfluity of goods, for no one is bound to deprive himself of what is necessary for his own use (see 1164, 1169). John the Baptist said to the people: “He that hath two coats, let him give to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do in like manner” (Luke, iii. 11). “That which remaineth,” says our Lord, “give as alms” (Luke, xi. 41).

(b) The state of the receiver gives him a claim on charity, when he is in necessity and unable to help himself. Temporal goods, according to the will of God, are for the benefit of the whole human race; and, while the ownership of particular goods belongs to the rightful possessor, he should not withhold the use of them from those who are in need, when he has more than he needs for his own use. Neither is it necessary that one be asked for an alms; one is obliged to give it when one knows that one’s neighbor is in want, though unable or ashamed to beg for help.

It is not a precept, therefore, but only a counsel, that one give alms in other cases. (a) Thus, when one is in equal need oneself and has no superfluous goods, one may give to another; (b) when one’s neighbor is not in need, or is able to help himself, one may still give to him out of charity, if he is deserving (see 1169).

Superfluities are those goods that remain over and above what are necessary for life, or the maintenance of one’s state of life justly acquired and socially useful.

(a) Necessaries of life are the goods one must have to provide food, clothing and home for oneself and one’s family. Among necessaries of life we may include what one has to set aside for old age, sickness, increase of family, and the future sustenance of dependents who will need it (II Cor., xii. 14). But they should not be extended to include imaginary cases, or all the possible cases of personal need that may arise in the future; otherwise, one is guilty of that exaggerated solicitude for the morrow which our Lord forbids (Matt, vi. 34).

(b) Necessaries of state are the goods a person must have to keep up his position and that of his family according to the standard of living of his class. This includes provision for the education and advancement of one’s children, for hospitality, adornment of home, and the care and improvement of one’s business; but it does not include provision for excessive pleasures or luxuries, or improbable future opportunities of bettering one’s condition; otherwise, even the wealthiest person might say that all his money was tied up and that he had no superfluous goods.

What is necessary for the decency of particular stations in life? (a) This does not consist in any fixed amount, for, even when considerable additions to or subtractions from a person’s wealth have been made, he may retain and support the same social rank. (b) It consists, therefore, in the amount sufficient for him to maintain, according to the opinion of prudent men, what is becoming in one of his class. Thus, one’s position may require that one do much entertaining or keep up an expensive household, or it may require only that one live moderately.

The giving in alms of goods for which the giver himself has need is governed by the following rules:

(a) Necessaries of life should be given away to another, as a matter of precept, if the common good is bound up with the life of that other, but not with one’s own life; they may be given away to another, as a matter of counsel, when the common good does not require it, but the higher good of virtue invites one to sacrifice one’s life for one’s neighbor (probable opinion). Examples: One should give away one’s last loaf to save the life of a leader on whom the salvation of his people depends. One may make the same sacrifice, if one is single and without dependents, and another is married and has a dependent family. But one may not give away what is necessary for the life of one’s family (I Tim., v. 8).

(b) Necessaries of state, at least in part (see 1251), should be given away to another, as a matter of precept, if the public good or the life of a private individual are at stake, or if that which is given in alms can be easily recovered and will now prevent a very grave calamity; they may be given away, as a matter of counsel, if the higher good of virtue invites one to embrace voluntary poverty: “If thou wouldst be perfect, go sell all that thou hast and give to the poor” (Matt., xix. 21). Examples: One should offer one’s fortunes in support of one’s government, if in some crisis the nation cannot otherwise be saved. One may give up riches and become poor in order to follow Christ in the religious life.

Superfluities of one’s state are the goods from which the precept of almsgiving requires that assistance ordinarily be given. But the mere fact that one has a superfluity does not oblige one to give alms. As in every virtuous act, so also in almsgiving there must be not only an object according to reason, but also circumstances according to reason. Hence, one who has a superfluity is bound to give alms only when the proper conditions of time, place, person, etc., are present. (a) As regards time, a person is not obliged to devote to almsgiving the time that is needed for other duties. (b) As to persons, a person is not obliged to give alms, if there is no needy person known to him.

A true precept of alms is given. - Proof 1. Ecclus. 4:1: Defraud not the poor man of alms; Matt. 25:41, 42: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire... for I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 2. Because charity commands loving neighbor, and therefore bringing help to him in necessity. Struggl, q. 4, n. 40; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 32, a. 5; E. M. 397.

No one is bound to give alms from goods necessary to himself for life, unless the necessity were of such a person upon whom the safety of the republic depended. Goods necessary for life are called those without which someone, and those whose care he has, cannot be or live. Therefore goods necessary for life are also those which are necessary for feeding and educating children, for supporting a maidservant who watches over infants or attends the sick. - Proof 1. from the common opinion of theologians. "That without which," says S. Thomas, "someone cannot be or live, either himself, or those whose care he has, ought not to be spent in alms," 4, D. 15, q. 2, a. 4, q. 1. - 2. Because the right order of charity demands this. Struggl, q. 4, nn. 41, 42; Suarez, d. 7, s. 4, n. 6; Valentia, t. 3, d. 3, q. 9, p. 4; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 32, a. 6.

Alms is to be made only from one's own goods, and those of which one has free administration. - For charity must keep justice uninjured. Nevertheless it can be done from the goods of another when neighbor is in extreme or quasi-extreme necessity, and cannot be helped from elsewhere. Then all things are common. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 32, a. 7; L. 33.

Does the precept of alms oblige under grave sin? - R. Affirmatively, in extreme or quasi-extreme necessity. Thus all. For then certainly a grave precept of charity urges. But in grave necessity, some probably and commonly affirm it, because since in Scripture men are frequently condemned for neglected works of mercy, these are not to be restricted to extreme and rare necessity. But others deny it, and this opinion seems to many at least extrinsically not improbable. Indeed S. Th. 2. 2. q. 32, aa. 5, 6, in which he treats expressly of the precept of alms, requires on the part of the giver superfluity according to his proper condition and state, and on the part of the recipient extreme necessity. "Since one person cannot help all those having necessity, not every necessity obliges to precept, but that alone without which he who suffers necessity cannot be sustained.... Thus therefore to give alms from the superfluous is in precept, and to give alms to him who is in extreme necessity." These things in a. 5 c. And ibid. ad 3 the Holy Doctor repeats the same: "It must be said that there is some time in which one sins mortally if he omits to give alms: on the part indeed of the recipient, when an evident and urgent necessity appears... but on the part of the giver, when he has superfluous things according to the present state."

But in common necessity, others also probably and commonly affirm it, as is gathered from the sentence which Christ is about to pronounce on the last day through those words: I was hungry, thirsty, etc. For Christ would not allege hardness toward the poor as a reason for condemning the wicked unless this vice were common and frequent among men, which it would not be if there were no obligation from superfluous things to spend alms on the poor who occur. Confirmation from 1 Tim. 6:17, 18: Command the rich of this world... to give easily, to communicate..., where those words, command and easily, seem to indicate a precept even outside grave necessity. And Luke 11:41: That which remains, give alms. But others hold either that there is no obligation, or that the obligation at least is not grave, but only light; nor is this opinion without all probability. For the obligation of alms does not arise from the sole superfluity of goods, on the part of the giver, but also simultaneously from necessity on the part of the recipient, which in poor persons commonly occurring is very small: their condition is sufficiently tolerable for them. Struggl, q. 4, nn. 43, 45-47; Suarez, d. 7, s. 3, nn. 7, 10; L. 31, 32; S. Th. Quodl. 8, a. 12; 2. 2. q. 32, a. 5; q. 71, a. 1; E. M. 407.

The general precept of alms from what is superfluous to life and state, according as it shall have seemed opportune to each one, can be confirmed by the natural order of things itself. For "those things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or divine right. But according to the natural order, instituted from divine Providence, lower things are ordered to this, that from them human necessity may be helped. And therefore by the division and appropriation of things proceeding from human right, it is not impeded that human necessity must be helped from things of this sort. And therefore the things which some have superabundantly are owed by natural right for the support of the poor.... But because there are many suffering necessity, and all cannot be helped from the same thing, the dispensation of one's own things is committed to the judgment of each one, so that from them he may help those suffering necessity." S. Th. 2. 2. q. 66, a. 7 c.; Quodl. 8, a. 12; L. 32.

From the superfluous. The obligation of giving alms is not had from superfluity if necessity is lacking, nor evidently from necessity if superfluity is lacking; but from the superfluity of the giver and at the same time from the necessity of the recipient. For on the part of the giver "first it is necessary that each one provide for himself and for those whose care is incumbent upon him, and afterward from the residue help the necessities of others.... But on the part of the recipient it is required that he have necessity, otherwise THERE WOULD BE NO REASON why alms should be given to him." S. Th. 2. 2. q. 32, a. 5. Whence it is evidently clear that the obligation of giving the whole superfluity precisely by reason of the superfluity itself is not present. 1 John 3:17.

From the superfluous. Those rich persons who do not retain their goods idle, but spend them in completing pious or profane works, whether for private or public utility, which consequently also supply necessary support and even profit to many workers, already from those things which they have superabundantly help the necessity of others, and much better, as is clear, than if they distributed them once among the poor.

Resolves: If someone rich and abundant, without any reasonable cause, were to repel all poor persons from himself, he is truly in a bad state. Nevertheless absolution is not easily to be denied to anyone, however rich, who repels all the poor without alms, both because of the disagreement of authors concerning this obligation, and because of the difficulty of judging concerning the superfluity of goods and the necessity of the poor, and because of the presumption that others wish to help, and also because in the present payment of taxes someone also concurs in relieving the poor, for whom public hospices are appointed, and other works of public beneficence are exercised for them. Laym., n. 5; Struggl, q. 4, nn. 44, 50, 51; Diana, t. 4, tr. 7, rr. 8, 42; L. 32; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 71, a. 1.

What has been said about alms must likewise be said about all other works of mercy. Hence physicians, advocates, etc., are bound, generally and speaking per se, to devote labor to the poor gratis, because they are in true necessity and cannot be helped by others. If some evil is imminent to neighbor which can be averted without grave inconvenience, it must be averted, e.g., by removing the cause of damage, for instance fire from buildings, by denouncing the author of damage to be inflicted, by opportunely forewarning him to whom damage is imminent.

227. • I say: There is truly a precept of bestowing alms upon the needy. This is clear 1º from the natural law, namely from the general law of Charity, by which we are obliged to love the neighbor, and consequently to bring help to him in necessity. Recall above concerning Charity, n. 221. - It is clear 2º from Sacred Scripture. For thus Eccli. 4.1: Do not defraud the poor man of alms; and Matt. 25.42: Depart from me, accursed, into eternal fire... for I was hungry and you did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and you did not give me drink.

Rules ¹. - In extreme necessity, the neighbor must be succored even from goods necessary to one's state ²; for thus the right order of Charity requires, since the life of the neighbor ought to prevail over our good, far inferior.

¹ St. Thomas hands down the general rule (2. 2. q. 32. art. 5.), that something be considered on the part of the giver, and something on the part of the recipient of alms. On the part of the giver (he says) it must be considered that what is to be spent on alms be superfluous to him.... But on the part of the recipient it is required that he have necessity; otherwise there would be no reason why alms should be given to him.

² Things necessary to one's state or becomingness are to be distinguished from those things which are necessary to life. Thus St. Thomas (4. Dist. 15. q. 2. art. 4. q. 1.): Something is called necessary to us in two ways. In one way, that without which someone cannot be or live. In another way something is called necessary to us which we need for living honorably or decently according to our state, for example, in the manner of nobles.

And this distinction has place both with regard to oneself and with regard to those whose care is incumbent upon someone. Thus St. Thom. (l. c.): But in each of the said ways something can be necessary to someone in two ways, either by reason of himself..., or by reason of those whose care he ought to bear. Therefore some are beside the point when they refer to the necessity of mere becomingness those things which are necessary for feeding and educating children; indeed also the support of a maidservant who either guards infants or watches over the sick would wrongly be referred to mere becomingness.

Now since superfluous is said of what is not necessary, therefore superfluous also is said in two ways: in one way, what is superfluous to one's state, namely that by the removal of which nothing is lost to the becomingness of one's state; in another way, what is not necessary to life, although it seems necessary to the becomingness of one's state. And from this superfluous there presses the obligation of succoring the neighbor in extreme necessity, but not from things necessary to life. For as St. Thomas has (l. c.): That without which someone, either he himself or those whose care he has, cannot be or live, ought not to be spent in alms.

II. In grave necessity, according to some, on account of the same reason, the neighbor must be succored from goods in some way necessary to one's state, or with moderate detriment to one's state. But according to others, probably, he must be succored only from goods which are superfluous to one's state or becomingness ³.

³ In reality there was scarcely any disagreement about this among the doctors. For they were proposing the question whether in grave necessity alms were to be bestowed with detriment to one's own state. Now 1º some, such as, for example, Valentia (Tom. 3. Disp. 9. punct. 4.) and Bannez (In 2. 2. q. 32. art. 6. dub. 4.), therefore affirmed, because they were discoursing about a necessity of this kind which in reality could be aided without the loss of one's own state. For as they reasoned, since the becomingness of one's own state according to St. Thomas (4. Dist. 15. q. 2. art. 4. q. 1.) admits latitude, so that by many things added a man does not exceed the condition of his state, and by many things also removed the condition of his state is decently preserved; for this reason alms bring either no detriment or hardly any appreciable detriment (as Laymann says, lib. 2. Tr. 3. Cap. 6. n. 4.) to one's own state. Others, on the contrary, therefore denied, because they were speaking about that necessity for driving away which it would have been necessary to lose or certainly diminish one's own state; but they rightly contended that no one is bound to the loss of his own state. 2º Those who affirmed were discoursing about a necessity so grave that it approached extreme, or was to be equated with it; but those denying understood grave necessity insofar as it is broadly distinguished from extreme. Wherefore by the best right Viva (at Prop. XII from those condemned by Innocent XI, n. VIII.) according to this diverse acceptance of grave necessity calls each opinion both the more common and to be followed. Yet Viva's doctrine as to some part must be rightly understood.

For another head of controversy occurs here, concerning which you have the Doctors' opinions in reality especially discrepant: namely, whether the reason of grave necessity which otherwise does not tend toward extreme necessity induces an obligation, and indeed a grave one, of succoring a needy person certainly determined from superfluous things.

St. Alphonsus embraces the affirmative opinion (Lib. 2. n. 31.), and adds that it is clearly inferred from Prop. XII among those condemned by Innocent XI: Scarcely among secular persons will you find, even among kings, what is superfluous to one's state. And so scarcely anyone is bound to alms, when he is bound only from what is superfluous to one's state. But a proposition of this kind is too vague for that conclusion to be able to be inferred from it; and from whatever side it is considered, it plainly permits also the opposite opinion, which obliges one who has things superfluous to his state or becomingness indeed to distribute alms even outside the occasion of extreme or quasi-extreme necessity, yet does not impose the burden of succoring this or that particular person suffering necessity even grave. Whence Duarte rightly (Brev. Exposit. Propp. damnatt. V. Eleemosyna n. 222.) denies that this latter opinion is wounded in any way by the force of that condemnation.

Moreover if you inquire about the weight of authority, many say that the first opinion is commonly handed down by the Doctors. But if you yourself consult those Doctors, here and there you will find examples of necessity proposed which exhibit quasi-extreme necessity.

But if you inspect the force of the reasons, it must not be denied that each opinion is pressed by rather strong difficulties, so that at length it is lawful to conclude that this question is very obscure and most intricate. Concerning this matter, go to Vasquez (Opusc. De Eleemosyna Cap. 1. Dub. III.), who certainly ought to seem less suspect for this reason, that, inclining into the stricter doctrine, he does not hesitate to defend a grave obligation of alms in grave necessity of the neighbor even from things necessary to one's state, although the Jansenian treachery of Montaltius or Pascal did not hesitate to traduce him as the author of the aforesaid condemned thesis.

Therefore from these things you will infer that in this question that canon is finally to be summoned, that a certain obligation in so obscure and controverted a matter (see Sanchez, Consil. Lib. 1. Cap. 5. Dub. 5. n. 39. 40.) can by no means be urged, all the more because St. Thomas also stands for the opposite opinion, as is plain also from the following Note, and Vasquez himself too (l. c. Dub. IV.), although against himself, is finally forced to confess.

III. In common necessity, although there is no obligation of giving alms to this or that person in particular, nevertheless, from the common opinion of the Doctors, he could not be excused from sin who, having goods even superfluous to his state, would never be willing to give any alms ⁴.

⁴ This is established against the opinion which in common necessity admits no obligation of giving even from things superfluous to one's state or becomingness; which opinion Bannez (In 2. 2. q. 32. art. 6. dub. 2.) attributes to Alensis, Gabriel, St. Antoninus, Turrecremata, and other Summists, and on account of their authority (ibid. Concl. 3.) calls it not improbable; but Peter Ledesma (Summ. Part. 2. Tr. 4. Cap. 3. Concl. 13.) calls it absolutely probable.

But what A. has here concerning common necessity, the same can be concluded concerning grave necessity with St. Thomas (Quodlib. 8. art. 12.): Supposing (he says) that someone has from the superfluous..., which he is bound to bestow upon the poor, either he sees in the poor person asking evident signs of extreme necessity, or not. If he sees them, it is certain that he is bound to give, and sins by not giving: for Ambrose speaks in this case: Feed the one dying from hunger; if you have not fed him, you have 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 the superfluous to the poor, nevertheless he is not bound to give to all, nor to give to this one, but he is bound to distribute according as it shall seem opportune to himself. In these words it is plain that the obligation of giving alms on the part of the poor person is asserted only then, if his necessity appears extreme. But the superfluous from which the obligation of bestowing some alms generally is here drawn, must be understood of what is superfluous even to the becomingness of one's state, as St. Thomas clearly hands down both often elsewhere and in this place (In 4. Dist. 15. q. 2. art. 1. q. 2. ad 4.): The time to which the precept about making alms obliges is taken on the part of the recipient and on the part of the giver. But on the part of the recipient, because probable signs appear of extreme necessity to come, unless aid is given to him... But on the part of the giver, when a man has many things which he does not need either for the sustenance of his life and of his own, or for the decent preservation of his state, although the poor of extreme necessity do not appear.

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.)

589. Principle 1. Both from natural law and from positive divine law there exists a true precept of distributing alms to the poor.

1. The natural law itself commands that alms be distributed sometimes. For a) effective charity toward neighbor is commanded by natural law. But sometimes this effective charity would clearly be violated unless alms were given to a poor man in need. Therefore the natural law itself commands that alms be given.

b) The necessity of almsgiving follows from the condition of private dominion. For although private dominion is licit, indeed necessary for the good of the whole of human society, nevertheless on the other hand any man, by the very fact that life is given to him by the Creator, also has a right to the necessary sustenance of life, which indeed he ought to procure for himself by his labors; but if this is impossible, he has the right that he be sustained from the goods of others, and accordingly in extreme necessity he can licitly take for himself those things which are necessary, lest he lose life. Hence a rich man is bound from his goods to assist a neighbor existing in necessity; and this is to give alms. To the point St. Thomas writes:⁵⁰ "Temporal goods, which are conferred upon man by God, are indeed his as to ownership, but as to use they ought to be not only his, but also those of others, who can be sustained from them from that which is superfluous to him. Hence Basil says: 'If you confess that these things [namely, temporal goods] have come to you from God, is God unjust, distributing things unequally to us? Why do you abound, but that man begs, unless that you may obtain the merits of good stewardship, but he may be adorned with the prizes of patience? It is the bread of the hungry which you hold; the tunic of the naked which you preserve in your closet; the shoe of the unshod which grows moldy in your possession; the silver of the needy which you possess buried. Wherefore you injure as many as you are able to give to.'" But if St. Basil and the other Holy Fathers seem to say that it is against justice if someone refuses to give alms, this is not to be understood as though the rich, transgressing the precept of giving alms, violated commutative justice and accordingly were bound to restitution; but the Holy Fathers intend only to say that such greedy persons sin gravely against the just divine precepts concerning the administration of goods and violate general justice, which obliges one to procure the common good. Therefore the obligation of giving alms is properly an obligation of charity and of general justice, but not of commutative justice.⁵¹ Hence the poor man to whom alms are unduly denied by a rich man cannot in the least secretly compensate himself. If, however, he is in extreme necessity, he can take for himself the things which are necessary, as has been said, nor can the rich man licitly impede this taking.

c) The necessity of giving alms also follows from peace to be preserved in human society. For if the rich refused suitable alms, the poor would make rebellion and disturb the peace of society.

2. Positive divine law inculcates the precept of giving alms both in the Old and in the New Testament. "I (God) command you that you open your hand to your needy and poor brother, who dwells with you in the land."⁵² "Son, do not defraud the poor man of alms and do not turn away your eyes from the poor man."⁵³ "Depart from Me, accursed ones, into eternal fire; for I was hungry, and you did not give Me to eat; I was thirsty, and you did not give Me drink."⁵⁴

⁵⁰ S. theol. l. c. a. 5 ad 2.

⁵¹ Leo XIII indeed says (Encycl. "Rerum novarum," May 15, 1891), speaking of the obligation of giving alms: "These offices are not of justice, except in extreme things, but of Christian charity." But the Supreme Pontiff seems to take the word justice not for commutative justice, from the violation of which arises the obligation of restitution, but for general or legal justice. In this sense already the Angelic Doctor (S. theol. 2, 2, q. 118, a. 4 ad 2) explained the words of St. Basil, saying: "Basil is speaking of that case in which someone is bound from a legal debt to distribute his goods to the poor, either on account of the danger of necessity or also on account of the superfluity of the things possessed." But St. Thomas himself always calls almsgiving an act of charity and never an act of justice.

⁵² Deut. 15, 11.

⁵³ Eccli. 4, 1; cf. also Tob. 4, 7; Is. 58, 7.

⁵⁴ Matth. 25, 41; cf. also 1 Jo. 3, 17; 1 Tim. 6, 17 sqq.

590. Principle 2. In a particular case the obligation of giving alms is to be measured from a twofold head: a) from the necessity of neighbor; b) from the proper ability of the giver.

Thus all theologians after St. Thomas, who says: "On the part of the giver, it must be considered that that which is to be expended in alms be superfluous to him.... But on the part of the recipient, it is required that he have necessity; otherwise there would not be a reason why alms should be given to him."⁵⁵ But the intrinsic reason of this principle is the order of charity to be observed. For well-ordered love begins from oneself. Therefore I am not bound to help a neighbor living in bodily necessity with great inconvenience to myself. - Those things are to be recalled which were said above, n. 579, concerning threefold necessity (extreme, grave, light). Moreover it is to be noted that goods of a threefold kind are distinguished:

1. Goods necessary for life, by which a man needs to be able to sustain his own life and that of his own, so that if they were taken away he would fall into grave or extreme necessity. Goods of this kind are revenues necessary for supporting himself and his own family entrusted to him.

2. Goods necessary for status, without which a man can indeed pass his life, but would have to descend from his legitimately obtained status. To goods of this kind belong, e.g., those things which a noble or rich man needs in order to lead life as other sensible men of the same condition and status living in the same region do. To goods necessary for status also belong certain moderate savings, by which provision is made for chance cases of infirmity, misfortune, etc., and indeed even a moderate augmentation of status. Hence parents are admonished to treasure up for their children.⁵⁶

3. Goods simply superfluous are those which are necessary neither for the sustenance of life nor for the decency of status. Thus, e.g., if the revenues of some man much exceed ordinary expenses, there are goods simply superfluous. Yet, as the Angelic Doctor⁵⁷ rightly notes, the decency of status does not consist in something indivisible: because by many things added a man does not exceed the condition of his status; and by many things also subtracted the condition of his status is decently preserved. Hence in practice one must stand by the judgment of a prudent and sincere man. With these things set down, the following practical rules are worthy of being known:

⁵⁵ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 32, a. 5.

⁵⁶ Cf. 2 Cor. 12, 14.

⁵⁷ 4, dist. 15, q. 2, a. 4, sol. 1.

594. Rule 4. In the common necessity of neighbors there is indeed a) a grave obligation of sometimes giving alms from goods superfluous to status; but b) there is not an obligation of giving alms to this or that particular poor man.

The second part is admitted by all in our time, but concerning the first part it is astonishing how sharply authors have disputed and dispute, although perhaps their disagreements are verbal rather than real. St. Alphonsus⁶⁹ calls the proposed opinion the more common one, to which he himself adheres. St. Thomas (concerning whose mind, however, there is dispute) says simply: "Thus therefore to give alms from what is superfluous is in precept."⁷⁰ He does not indeed expressly say that this precept is grave, but since in the extreme necessity of neighbor the precept of almsgiving obliges under grave sin, equally under grave sin the precept of giving alms from superfluous goods obliges, as is clear from IV dist. 15, q. 2, a. 1, sol. 4. In Sacred Scripture it is said: "What remains over, give as alms: and behold, all things are clean to you."⁷¹ These words indeed are usually understood: alms are to be given from superfluous things; and if this has been done, you are clean from the vice of avarice. - But the intrinsic reason is that the rich are not absolute masters of temporal goods, but only as it were stewards or administrators, who ought to dispose of their goods according to the will of God. Moreover God has ordained that the rich ought to distribute to the poor from their superfluous goods. Hence He also condemns to hell those who have defrauded the poor of alms. "Depart from Me, accursed ones, into eternal fire, which has been prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you did not give Me to eat; I was thirsty, and you did not give Me drink.... Amen I say to you: as long as you did not do it to one of these least ones, neither did you do it to Me."⁷² - On the contrary He promises a great reward, namely eternal life,⁷³ to those who give alms to the poor, and ample blessings on this earth: "Blessed is he who understands concerning the needy and the poor: in the evil day the Lord will deliver him. May the Lord preserve him, and give him life, and make him blessed on the earth: and may He not hand him over to the soul of his enemies. May the Lord bring him help upon the bed of his pain: his whole bed You have turned in his infirmity."⁷⁴ - All these things seem sufficiently openly to show a grave precept of giving alms from superfluous goods even in the common necessity of the poor, since the grave and extreme necessity of neighbor is very rare, especially because of defect of food and drink.⁷⁵

Nevertheless in practice the confessor, although he ought earnestly to exhort the rich to give alms to the poor, ought not to deny absolution to that rich man who refuses to distribute alms; for a) the opinion denying a grave obligation of giving alms to the poor living in common necessity is at least extrinsically probable, since very many and grave authors hold it;⁷⁶ b) in present times the rich are compelled by civil laws to assist the poor in various public institutes erected for the sustenance of the poor; and thus all give some alms.

Rule 5. Beneficed clerics are bound (from ecclesiastical law) to distribute to the poor or for pious uses all superfluous things which remain after their suitable sustenance from benefice revenues.

Concerning this obligation, which, with all agreeing, is grave, the discussion will return below, II 37, in the treatise on justice, where the goods of clerics will be treated.

⁶⁹ Theol. mor. l. 2, n. 32.

⁷⁰ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 32, a. 5. Cf. Cajetan in h. loc.

⁷¹ Luc. 11, 41.

⁷² Matth. 25, 41-45.

⁷³ Cf. Matth. 25, 34.

⁷⁴ Ps. 40, 1-3.

⁷⁵ Thus also Leo XIII, Const. "Rerum novarum," May 15, 1891: "It is a duty, from that which remains over, to give graciously to the needy."

⁷⁶ Cf. Ballerini in notes to Gury (Comp. Theol. mor. I n. 228) for the benign opinion, and Concina (Theol. christ. in Decal. l. 1, diss. 6, c. 13) for the contrary opinion.

595. Quantity of almsgiving to be given.

The grave obligation of giving alms having been admitted, the question immediately arises: how great a sum of goods is to be distributed to the poor? The answer is:

1. In the extreme necessity of neighbor so much must be given as suffices to rescue him from this necessity, unless nevertheless there are others who are willing to assist him. But it has already been said above that no one is bound to distribute a great sum of money in order to free a poor man from the danger of death.

2. In common necessity several theologians with St. Alphonsus teach that the rich are bound to give a fiftieth part of the annual revenues which are beyond status, or 2%.⁷⁷ If, however, the revenues were very enormous, a smaller proportion would be required. Nothing certain can be answered in this question; hence the faithful are indeed to be admonished to give large alms, but a definite sum to be distributed under grave precept cannot be imposed on them.

⁷⁷ Homo Ap. tr. 4, n. 19.

597. Mode of giving alms. In order that the bestowal of alms be truly morally good, it is required that it be done not only to due persons according to due quantity, but also in a due manner. This manner indeed includes 1. the circumstances to be observed in every almsgiving; 2. the question whether alms are to be given rather through private persons than through public authority, whether ecclesiastical or civil.

1. The circumstances of almsgiving to be observed are expressed in these little verses:

Let it be just and prudent, swift, secret, and willing, Proceeding in order, helping all.

a) Almsgiving ought to be just, i.e. it cannot be given except by him who has true free dominion of the thing.

b) Alms should be given prudently, i.e. to those only who are truly needy; but not to those who from laziness do not wish to work. For "if anyone does not wish to work, neither let him eat."⁸⁰ Almsgiving imprudently given fosters vices.

c) Almsgiving should be swift according to that saying: "He gives twice who gives quickly; he gives nothing who delays gifts."

d) Almsgiving should be secret according to that saying: "When therefore you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, 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 you give alms, let not your left hand know what your right hand does."⁸¹

e) Almsgiving is to be given willingly according to the words of St. Paul: "Not from sadness or from necessity: for God loves a cheerful giver."⁸²

f) Almsgiving is to be given in right order, i.e. the order of charity (explained above) is to be observed.

g) Almsgiving should be a help to all, i.e. no one is to be excluded from our alms. Therefore we ought also to assist strangers, sinners, and unbelievers living in necessity. But in equal necessity the faithful, the pious, fellow citizens, and generally those more joined to us are to be helped before the rest. Indeed someone who is truly needy can make alms to himself if he is appointed distributor of alms.⁸³

2. Are alms to be given rather through private persons than through public authority (whether ecclesiastical or civil)?

The solution of this question depends chiefly on the end of almsgiving. This end indeed is in no way restricted to the material relief of the need under which the poor man labors, but also comprehends his spiritual good; equally it comprehends the social good and the spiritual good of the one bestowing alms. Since the condition of the times is such that neither private nor even ecclesiastical care of the poor is sufficiently able to alleviate all needs, the civil government also ought to help the poor. Yet this care of the poor instituted by civil government is exposed to grave dangers. For then it often happens a) that fictitious poor persons receive large alms, but the true and especially the bashful poor acquire nothing; b) that indeed material want is alleviated, but spiritual misery, i.e. the immoral life from which want has arisen, is not healed; c) that there arises a great schism between rich and poor; for the rich complain concerning the forced grave tax to be paid for the poor, while the poor demand goods too abundantly possessed by the rich. Since these things are so, effort must be made that the care of the poor be entrusted to ecclesiastical or pious persons, who strive not only to alleviate their material poverty, but also bring them to a morally good life. Already from its beginnings the Church always had solicitous care for the poor. Thus the Apostles themselves instituted seven deacons for the care of widows and the poor. Later deaconesses were instituted, and today innumerable congregations approved by the Church exercise works of every kind of mercy.

⁸⁰ 2 Thess. 3, 10.

⁸¹ Matth. 6, 2 sqq.

⁸² 2 Cor. 9, 7.

⁸³ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 32, a. 9 ad 3.

928. From natural and divine law there is given a precept of doing corporal alms, which is grave from its genus. - It is proved:

1. Christ, in Mt. XXV, 41, says: "Go, accursed ones, into eternal fire...: for I was hungry and you did not give me to eat"; but no one is damned on account of the omission of something which is not commanded, and indeed under grave obligation; therefore to give alms is in precept, and indeed a grave one.

2. Since dilection of neighbor is in precept, all those things are precepts without which this dilection is not had. But dilection of neighbor demands not only that we will good to him but also that we procure it for him; for this it is required that we assist his necessity through almsgiving. Therefore almsgiving is in precept. The minor is proved: The law of nature demands that we assist neighbor in necessity, just as we will that he should assist us in our necessity; whence I Jn. III, 18: "Let us not love in word and tongue, but in deed and truth" (Deut. XV, 11; Prov. XXV, 21; Is. LVIII, 7; Ezek. XVIII, 7; Lk. III, 9 sq.; I Tim. VI, 17 sq.; Jas. II, 15 sq.; I Jn. III, 17).

929. The precept of almsgiving arises from a twofold head: a) if there is present a moral faculty, or superfluity, on the part of the one giving; b) if there is present true necessity on the part of the one in need. For a fuller understanding of these things, in the order of charity, not only must the threefold temporal necessity be distinguished with respect to the one in need, concerning which it was said above, n. 905; but also the threefold genus of temporal goods with respect to him who is about to give alms:

The first genus is of goods which are necessary for sustaining the life of oneself and one's own, of whom one has care (parents, wife, children, etc.): food, clothing, and dwelling; and these are called necessary (absolutely) to nature or life.

The second genus is of goods which are necessary (conditionally) to one's state, namely, for preserving the decent state of oneself and one's own, regard being had not indeed to all things which can happen, but to those which can prudently be feared and expected. Whence theologians in this genus include those things which are required for feeding servants, or for the necessities probably occurring from the increase of a family, the dowries of children, illnesses, old age, wars, etc.; indeed, banquets and honorable gifts and moderate liberalities, according to one's state, but not those exaggerated by ostentation and pomp. "The terminus of the necessary of this kind," says St. Thomas, q. 32, a. 6, "is not constituted in an indivisible point, but, many things being added, it cannot be judged to be beyond such necessity; and, many things being subtracted, there still remains that whereby someone can conveniently pass his life according to his own state." Therefore this admits a latitude from things strictly necessary to one's state, without which the state is lost, up to becoming things without which one would not act so fittingly. Things necessary to one's state are superfluous to life.

The third genus is of goods which are superfluous to one's state.

930. Principles. From which goods alms must be given. - In this matter the following rules hold:1

A. In extreme necessity: 1. Alms are not to be given from things necessary to life, because our life and that of our own is to be preferred to the life of another, unless there were question of a person necessary to the commonwealth, because the common good is to be preferred to one's own.

2. There is a grave obligation of giving from things superfluous to life and from things necessary to one's state, even with great inconvenience, as much as is necessary for removing the necessity: the order of charity demands that we love the life of neighbor more than the decency of our own state, which is a far inferior good.2

3. Nevertheless no one is bound to do this with the greatest inconvenience, or to use extraordinary and choice means which men commonly are not accustomed to use, for example, with the greatest expenses for buying a very precious medicine, procuring an extraordinary surgical operation, sending to a distant region, redeeming from a proximate danger of death; because we are not bound to use those means for preserving our own life. Nor therefore is someone bound to fall from his state or to suffer great diminution in it, which otherwise is regarded as a most grave evil.

B. In grave necessity: There is a grave obligation of giving from things superfluous to one's state, insofar as is necessary for removing the necessity (prop. 12 condemned by Innocent XI), indeed even from things necessary to one's state, when this can be done without grave inconvenience; because the order of charity demands that with slight inconvenience we relieve the great inconvenience of neighbor; indeed with great inconvenience, if there is question of a great necessity of the commonwealth.

C. In common necessity: 1. There is an obligation, from things superfluous to one's state, of sometimes during life giving something (Eccli. XIV, 13) to some poor persons, because we ought to love the decency of the state of neighbor more than our superfluity.

2. Nevertheless there is not an obligation of giving to all, nor precisely to this one or that one, nor of removing the necessity totally, because all the rich are obliged; and if all give something from their superfluity, enough assistance is given to necessities.3

3. Nor is there an obligation of seeking out the poor, unless there is a wholly grave doubt concerning extreme necessity, or unless someone is bound to this from office, as a parish priest: for this would be a grave burden, and otherwise it pertains to him who suffers necessity to expose the necessity.

1. The fundamental principles are stated by St. Thomas; but they are enunciated quite generally, so that among more recent scholastics they are found more determinately applied.

2. Goods are primarily ordered to the necessity of men, whence the private right of dominion cannot impede this primary end. - In the case all are bound in solidum; whence 1. someone can indicate extreme necessity, and then others also are bound; 2. if one gives assistance, the others are exempted; otherwise all not giving sin; 3. but if others do not give, each one alone is bound.

3. In the case not all are bound in solidum.

931. The obligation of almsgiving is grave from its genus; whence certainly it obliges under mortal sin in grave matter, namely, in grave necessity, of which at least Scripture speaks (Mt. XXV), and a fortiori in extreme necessity. Indeed also probably in common necessity, both because the expressions of Scripture and of the Fathers, indiscriminately and without restriction, inculcate a grave obligation of assisting the poor, which they suppose is often violated, although grave necessity is rather rare; - and because, if they were not helped, some would fall into grave necessity, and otherwise the slight necessities of the poor, aggregated, constitute a grave evil for society, to which a remedy must be furnished.

But how much is to be given depends on various circumstances, for necessities are not always the same. In ordinary circumstances, according to St. Alphonsus, it suffices to give the fiftieth part, or 2%, of income, if that part is superfluous, and a proportionally smaller part if the income is enormous; although that estimation can be regarded as rather benign. Therefore he who would determine to give no alms in common necessity, or would be notably negligent in them, seems to sin mortally; but if he did not give a small quantity owed, he would sin only venially from lightness of matter.

But although someone has strictly satisfied the precept of almsgiving toward the poor, there nevertheless always remains to him the obligation of using the remaining superfluous goods well and usefully; which pertains to the virtues of liberality and magnificence, or even to legal justice in view of the common good.

It is to be noted 1° that the precept of almsgiving is affirmative, and therefore, although it always obliges, it does not oblige for always. Its obligation depends on two things and must be measured by the necessity of another and one's own means; namely, on the part of the giver, that he have superfluous goods, on the part of the receiver, that he suffer some necessity.

Whence

It is to be noted 2° that a threefold necessity is distinguished on the part of the recipient: extreme, grave, and common. Extreme is when the life of a neighbor evidently perishes unless he be succored: nor need the moment of death be awaited, in which alms would no longer profit. Grave necessity is when death does not indeed impend evidently, but is probably feared; or some notable evil less than death evidently impends, such as grave illness, amputation of a limb, hard and prolonged imprisonment, madness, grave defamation, loss of status, so that one is forced to live a miserable life unworthy of men of his condition. Common necessity is what common poor who beg from door to door suffer; who although they are in need and ask only for the necessities of life, because they nevertheless ask from many and receive, their necessity is not judged grave, but common.

It is to be noted 3° that on the part of the giver, the goods he has can be doubly necessary and superfluous to him: namely with respect to life and with respect to status¹⁷⁶ . Necessary for life are those things required of necessity to preserve his own life and that of those whose care devolves upon him, such as parents, wife, and children. For preserving life there is necessarily required food, clothing, and dwelling. The remaining goods beyond these are superfluous to life. Necessary to status are those without which one cannot live suitably according to his state and condition. Whence goods superfluous to status are those without which he can decently maintain his own state and that of his family. ¹⁷⁶ Ibid., a. 6, o.

It is to be noted 4° that this decency of status does not consist in something indivisible, but admits of latitude¹⁷⁷ . Yet nobles and potentates should beware lest, according to the abuse of the present age, they account the greatest luxury whatever as belonging to the reason and decency of their status. ¹⁷⁷ Ibid.

Likewise in judging the necessity of status, regard must be had not only to the present time but also to the future¹⁷⁸ ; for what now is not necessary can prudently be judged necessary later, as for a time of illness, old age, imminent war, for bringing up and dowering children, for decently augmenting one's status, provided however its hope be probable. ¹⁷⁸ Hic, a. 5, ad 3.

But caution is needed lest future necessities be feigned from ambition or avarice where there is no probability of them, as if you were to become blind, if your house were burned, etc. The words of the Author are to be noted singly¹⁷⁹ : « Nor ought one, he says, to consider all cases which can occur in the future; for this would be to think about tomorrow, which the Lord forbids, Matt., VI, 34. But the superfluous and the necessary ought to be judged according to those things which probably, in most cases, occur. » Otherwise all things would always be necessary, and nothing would ever be superfluous in the rich; which was condemned by Innocent XI in this proposition: « Scarcely will you find in seculars, even in kings, anything superfluous to status. And thus scarcely anyone is held to alms, when he is held only out of what is superfluous to status. » It is the 13th. Whence in these matters, both for present and future time, a fearful man should consult a prudent and learned director and stand by his judgment; for no surer rule than this can be laid down in this matter. These things noted, ¹⁷⁹ Ibid.

I say 1°: To give alms is of natural precept and positive divine precept¹⁸⁰ . ¹⁸⁰ Ibid., o.

That it is of natural precept is evident from this general principle of the law of nature: All things whatsoever you will that men do to you, do you also to them. Now no one is placed in true necessity who would not wish that relief be given him by one having means. Therefore. From which you will infer that not even infidels themselves are exempt from the obligation of giving alms.

As regards the positive divine precept, it is evident from the Scriptures. It is said Prov., XXI, 13: He that stoppeth his ear against the cry of the poor shall himself cry and shall not be heard. Ecclus., IV, 1: Defraud not the poor man of alms, and turn not away thy eyes from the poor. And ibid., XXIX, 12: By commandment take care of the poor man, and do not dismiss him empty because of his poverty. But especially Christ¹⁸¹ , Matt., XXV, 41 et 42: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire... For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat, etc. Now no one is condemned except for omission of an act prescribed to him. ¹⁸¹ Ibid. in arg. Sed contra.

It is proved by reason¹⁸² . Since love of neighbor is of precept, it is necessary that all those things fall under precept without which love of neighbor is not preserved. Now it pertains to love of neighbor that we not only will good to our neighbor but also work for him, according to that word, 1 John, III, 18: Let us not love in word nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth. But that we may will and work the good of another, it is required that we relieve his necessity; which is done through almsgiving. Therefore the giving of alms is of precept. ¹⁸² Ibid., o.

From this conclusion it follows that we are bound under mortal sin to give alms to one suffering extreme necessity out of goods superfluous both to nature and to status; because, since this precept binds in some case, none is more certain than where there is extreme necessity on the part of the recipient, and goods are superfluous to nature and status on the part of the giver. But whether it binds in other cases?

I say 2°: Of goods superfluous to nature, even though necessary to status, we are bound under mortal sin to give alms to one suffering extreme necessity. It is common.

It is proved. 1° from chapter III of Luke, 9-11, where Christ said to the crowds: Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be cut down and cast into the fire. And the crowds asked him, saying: What therefore shall we do? But he answering said to them: He that hath two coats, let him give to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do in like manner. From the prior words of this text it is clear that here a rigorous precept is treated of, and not merely counsel. From the latter it is clear that we are held to succor one in extreme want even out of things necessary to status, as the second coat ought to be judged. Thus Jerome interprets it, Epist. 150. To this point belongs that solemn saying of Ambrose: « Feed one dying of hunger. If thou hast not fed him, thou hast killed him. »

It is proved. 2° by reason. 1° According to the order of charity, we ought to love the life of our neighbor more than the decency of our status. Therefore. 2° One who is in extreme necessity can secretly take from another those things that are superfluous to the other as to life, even though necessary as to status; nor can anyone lawfully hinder him; because, as we said above from the Author, in extreme necessity all things are common. Therefore the other was bound to give them to him.

Yet from this conclusion do not infer that the rich man or nobleman is bound to cast himself down from his status, or to expend an immense sum of money, say thousands of gold pieces, though not altogether necessary to his status, for saving the life of one private person placed in extreme necessity: 1° Because, although human life in itself is more precious than another's status and whole estate, yet in order to the public good a great quantity of goods or moneys avails more than the life of one private person. 2° Because no one is held to preserve the life of his neighbor more keenly than his own. Now no one is held, for preserving his own life, to pour out riches in such a way that, made healthy or free again, he becomes miserable; for that is morally compared to death; nor is he even held to expend an immense sum of money for procuring himself the most exquisite medicines. Therefore much less is he held to these things for another. Hence charity prescribes succor through ordinary means, not extraordinary ones. Whence in these cases counsel of a prudent man is needed, who, attending to the circumstances, says how much one ought to diminish of his status and give out of his superfluity.

[It is to be observed that if a neighbor needs only the use of a thing, on account of a momentary necessity, it suffices to lend him the thing. Whence the obligation is fulfilled if you lend a garment to one stripped by enemies, or a horse to one wounded, until he has returned home. The reason is, because he is not absolutely poor during the time of the necessity, which ought soon to cease.¹⁸³] ¹⁸³ St. Lig., lib. II, n. 31, at the end. Cf. lib. III, n. 320, qu. 5.

I say 3°: In grave necessity of a neighbor we are bound under mortal sin to relieve him from some way out of things necessary to status. I express the conclusion thus, because the obligation in grave necessity is less than in extreme, and therefore less must be contributed out of things necessary to status. It is more common.

It is proved. 1° from that word, 1 John, III, 17: He that shall have the substance of this world, and shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from him, how doth the charity of God abide in him? It is not likely the Apostle speaks of extreme necessity alone, which is very rare. And he who has sufficiency for life and status is truly said to have the substance of this world. Therefore.

2° Charity requires that we relieve a neighbor suffering grave necessity, as if, e. g., he labors under grave illness, is sharply afflicted by cold, suffers grave peril of reputation or honor, whenever we can without grave inconvenience to ourselves. Therefore we are bound to relieve him out of some way from things necessary to status; for that is not a grave inconvenience, seeing that it can easily be repaired.

I say 4°: In common necessity everyone is bound at some time, according to place and time, to give alms out of what is superfluous to status.

Attend to the terms of the conclusion. It is said, « at some time, according to place and time; » because the rich man having superfluities is not held to give always and to every poor person coming his way, nor to this one determinately, but at some time, now to one, now to another, as prudence shall judge. It is said, « out of what is superfluous, » and not superfluous to status; because in common necessity he is not held straightway to give everything superfluous to status, but he can reserve it either for other pious uses, or for rationally augmenting his status, for acquiring other possessions, or even for greater necessity of the poor or the republic.

The conclusion so understood seems now common, especially after this proposition was condemned by Innocent XI: « Scarcely in seculars, etc., » as above, note 4°; so that he who never gave alms, or proposed never to give out of what is superfluous to status in common necessities, would not seem excusable from mortal sin.

Therefore the first conclusion is proved from the places of Scripture already cited and others, 1 John, III, 17: He that shall have the substance of this world, etc. I Tim., VI, 17 et 18: Charge the rich of this world... to give easily, to communicate. But they would not give easily who waited for grave or extreme necessity. Compare the other places in the first conclusion.

The second conclusion is proved by reason. 1° Everyone is held by charity to love his neighbor as himself. Now he does not love his neighbor as himself who loves his own superfluities more than what is necessary to his brother for relieving his necessity. Therefore. 2° Although single common necessities are not so grave a thing that to pass over this or that one is sin, nevertheless many occurring in any city produce a notable burden and grave misery, which the rich ought each in some part to relieve. Therefore, although it is not of precept to give alms to individuals, to this one or that one, yet it is of precept to give at some time, according to place and time. 3° If no rich man, having absolutely superfluous goods, were held to give alms in common necessity, soon common necessity would become grave, and grave extreme. Therefore.

[Many denied, with St. Antoninus, this obligation to be grave; because, since the common misery of the poor is light and tolerable, the fault does not seem grave if someone deny them aid. But the more common opinion is that expounded here, which St. Liguori embraced, for the same reasons¹⁸⁴. « If anyone rich and abundant for a long time denies all alms, with the intention of giving in a better and more suitable place and time, or to poorer persons, or of turning them into another pious use, he does not sin, since he has a just cause for denying¹⁸⁵ » Yet truly such a one would easily lie under the indirect obligation of relieving the common poor at least several times, namely lest this manner of acting, whose motive is not evident to all, yield occasion of scandal to many.] ¹⁸⁴ Lib. III, n. 32. ¹⁸⁵ Ibid.

IV. Question II. Is almsgiving commanded by natural and divine law? Answer. It is affirmed. The poor man and the rich are two contraries, but two things most necessary. If all abounded in the same riches, or all were in need, there would be no bond of necessity among them, no society: no one would need another's help, nor would one be subject to another; no one a servant, no one a master; the occasion of exercising charity and mercy would be wanting, and the patience of need and poverty would be absent. Wherefore it must be that some are rich and others poor, that all may live bound together by a strong and perpetual bond of love.

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.

I. Question I. Who can and ought to lay out alms? Answer. All who enjoy absolute dominion over their own goods. Wherefore slaves and bondservants, since they lack right over things, have nothing to lay out in alms; but it must be said otherwise if they possessed a peculium: they can also take away from those things which are given them determinately for their own sustenance, and distribute them among the poor. Minors, wards, and prodigals may make only small alms; guardians and curators ought to make those alms which their charges would be bound to lay out.

II. Question II. Can children under paternal power, and wives, give alms? Answer. Children under paternal power cannot give alms out of those goods whose dominion is in the hands of their parents; nor out of the goods called adventitious, whose usufruct is in the hands of their parents. But they can and ought to succor the poor out of their castrensian goods; likewise out of those goods which they receive from their parents for honorable recreation, and while they conduct their parents' business, they can make moderate alms, because their parents are presumed to consent. Nay, parents ought to hand over some money to their children to be distributed to the poor, that they may accustom themselves to fulfill the precept.

III. Wives cannot absolutely give alms out of their Husbands' goods. Yet where custom prevails, and with the consent of Christian husbands, wives can make fitting and moderate alms. Likewise, to avert some temporal or spiritual harm they can lay out alms, especially if their husbands be negligent in fulfilling the precept. Again, wives can and ought to succor one in extreme need, even against their husbands' will. But out of their own goods obtained by gift, inheritance, or another just title — which are called paraphernal — wives are bound to make fitting alms.

IV. Question III. Are Religious bound to give alms? Answer. If the discourse be of Religious as private persons, it is plain that they can lay out no alms, since they lack all dominion. When extreme necessity presses, they ought to succor the poor even against the will of their Prelates. In other events the license of the Prelate is necessary. But the monasteries of Religious are bound to almsgiving, when they abound in goods.

V. Question IV. To which poor are alms to be laid out? Answer. Some poor are necessarily poor, others voluntarily. Both are to be relieved. In an equal cause, those poor are rather to be relieved who shine with greater piety and sanctity. Poor persons who feign misery and need, that they may extort alms, sin, and are bound to restitution. Those who are truly poor, but counterfeit a greater misery than that by which they are pressed, sin, because lies, whether in words or in deeds, are always vicious; yet they are not bound to restitution, since they are in very deed poor. Wherefore Preachers gravely sin who exaggerate feigned necessities to their hearers, that they may extort more abundant alms. Alms collected under feigned poverty must be restored to the poor.

I assert that Almsgiving is commanded by Natural and Divine law.

IT IS PROVED by D. Thom. here, and D. Bonavent. in the Diaeta, tit. 10, cap. 5. That concerning which there will be the last judgment, and on account of which Christ will distribute eternal rewards and eternal punishments, is commanded; but in the judgment those who have given alms will be called to the fatherland; and those who have omitted it will be cast into hell, as is described Matt. 25. Therefore.

IT IS PROVED secondly by D. Thom. here, and D. Bonavent. on these words Luke 11: That which remains over, give as alms, and in 3. dist. 29, quaest. 6, because love of neighbor is commanded; therefore those things must fall under command without which love of neighbor is not preserved; but to love of neighbor it pertains that we not only wish good to our neighbor, but also work it, according to that, 1 John 3: let us not love in word, nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth. But for this, that we wish and work the good of someone, it is required that we come to the aid of his necessity, which is done through the bestowal of alms; and therefore their bestowal is commanded. But because commands are given concerning acts of virtues, it is necessary that in this way the gift of Almsgiving fall under command as it is of the necessity of virtue, as right reason requires; yet on the part of the giver, so as to give of his superfluities, according to that cited Luke 11 — his superfluity, I say, and that of others whose care rests upon him. On the part of the recipient also some necessity is required: hence Paul said 2 Cor. 8: For it is not that there may be relief for others, and tribulation for you, as the Seraphic Doctor notes on Luke 11, because if you, or yours, have necessity, you ought not bring tribulation upon yourselves so as to come to the aid of another, except in that person's extreme necessity, if yours be moderate. See D. Bonavent. in the places cited, and D. Thom. art. 6, Valencia p. 4. By the law of nature also the command stands in that Matt. 7: whatsoever you wish that men do to you, do you also to them.

See the Encomia of Almsgiving in D. Bonavent. there, and Book 2 of the Pharetra, cap. 39, which Valencia accepts disp. 3, quaest. 9, p. 1.

The Seraphic Doctor observes moreover in the places alleged, quaest. 2, that the burial of the dead is not enumerated in Matt. 25; nevertheless it is a work of mercy enumerated Tobias 4 and 12. Whence D. Ambrose, Book on Tobias, cap. 1: If the law commands to cover the naked while living, how much more ought we to cover the bodies of the dead. Nothing is more excellent than this, to vindicate from birds and beasts the sharer of our nature.

IT IS PROVED also by S. Bonavent. in the places alleged, and S. Thom. art. 2, ad 1, because great is the honor to the dead of burial; burial; and great is the punishment, to lie unburied; and not less than to expose one's nakedness while living. Which reason was made known by D. August. lib. de cura pro mortuis, cap. 7. Valencia disp. 3, quaest. 9, p. 2. Bannes article 2.

It is proved finally concerning the other alms, Prov. 21: he that stops his ear against the cry of the poor, he shall cry himself and shall not be heard, and 1 John 3: he that hath the substance of this world, and shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from him; how doth the charity of God abide in him? The same attest Cyprian serm. de eleemosyna, Ambrose lib. de Nabuthe, cap. 22. Basil on that saying of the rich man: I will destroy my barns. Nazianzen on the love of the poor. See Valencia puncto 4, where he observes that John says: and shall see; for if he is ignorant, he is excused, as the Doctors also commonly note.

Since however this command is affirmative, not obliging always, many questions arise as to the time in which it obliges.

I shall suppose, moreover, some certain ones. First, in extreme necessity this command of coming to the aid of the needy presses. But extreme necessity is understood not only of imminent death; but also of a grave imminent peril to life, as Valencia notes with Medina de eleemosyna, quaest. 3. Navar. in the Manual. cap. 24. In this indeed we must give alms even from things belonging to the decency of one's state, which do not stand in an indivisible, but admit breadth, as D. Thom. teaches art. 6, Sylvester under the word almsgiving, num. 2, and others with Tannero disp. 2, quaest. 5, dub. 2. That alms are to be given in extreme need to one in need of them for one's state, the Doctors teach: So D. Bonav. in the places cited, D. Thom. art. 5. Ioan. Medina tract. de eleemosyna, quaest. 3, where he says it is the common and certain opinion of the Doctors.

It is proved, because by the order of charity you are held more to the life of your neighbor than to your own means: whence runs that saying: Feed him dying of hunger; if you have not fed him, you have killed him, which saying they ascribe to S. Ambrose de offic. Gratian disp. 86, can. Pasce. And D. Thom. art. 5. For the rest see Valencia. Now I shall adduce some disputed questions.

( D. Thom. quaest. 32. art. 5.

I explained extreme necessity above. Grave is that which deprives one of the necessaries for his state. Ordinary, however, is that which the poor have in common.

The first opinion is negative, and is followed by Gerson p. 2. Alphab. 52. litt. E.; Alensis 4. p. quaest. 113. membr. 1.; Panormitanus in cap. si vero, extra de Iureiurando; Turrecremata in cap. sicut hi, dist. 47; Antoninus 1. p. tit. 1. cap. 24; Summa Rosella, and Pisana verbo Eleemosyna; Gabriel in 4. dist. 26. quaest. 1. Durandus 4. dist. 15. quaest. 6 leans that way; Ioan. Med. quaest. 5; and it seems to be that of D. Thomas art. 5. in fine corporis; Fernandez in suo Exam. Theol. p. 4. cap. 20. §. 2; Victorellus in the notes to Navarrus cap. 23. num 74; Turtianus 2. 2. disp. 82. dub. 2; Vasquez opusc. de eleem. cap. 1. dub. 3. num. 21; Malderus 2. 2. quaest. 27. art. 6. dub. 4; Peter Navarrus lib. 3. cap. 1. num. 358; Couarruvias lib. 3. var. cap. 14 — whom Diana cites and follows Tom. 1. tract. 15. resol. 32. et tom. 5. tract. 8. resol. 17, adding Hurtado disp. 159. sect. 4. §. 131. Nor is Granado absent Contr. 3. tract. 11. disp. 2. sect 4, saying that to withhold is only venial. Barlaeus inclines to it v. Eleem. num. 5. in praxi, and others.

The second opinion is that one is absolutely held. So D. Thom. hic, art. 7, where Cajetan, and Bannes, and the other Thomists; Paludanus 4. dist. 15. quaest. 3. art. 2; Richardus quaest. 2. art. 2; Abulensis in cap. 6. Matth. quaest. 34; Lyra in cap. 3. prima Ioan; Caesarius in eundem locum; Adrian in 4. de restit; Navarrus in manual. cap. 24; Valencia disp. 3. quaest. 9. p. 4, where he says it is already received in the schools; Becanus 2. 2. cap. 21; Bellarmine lib. de Eleemos. cap. 7; Beia in resolut. casuum, p. 2. casu in Sabb. die 19. Octob; and others, whom Tanner cites and follows disp. 2. quaest. 5. dub. 2. num. 12. It is also clearly the opinion of D. Bonaventure in the places to be alleged in the arguments.

Caspensis, walking in a certain middle way tract. 17. disp. 5. sect. 2, indeed denies such a precept universally. But he adds that one is at times held, in such a way that he who should have the purpose, even virtual, of not giving alms except in grave necessity, would sin mortally. He alleges Suarez disp. 7 sect. 3; Castro Palao: de Lorcam disp. 39. sect. 3. membr. 3; Tanner disp. 2. quaest. 5. dub. 2. num. 12; and others; but unwillingly he returns to our opinion; for he gives the reason why the rich are not universally held, because they prudently believe that the common necessities of the poor are to be driven off by others. A droll reason indeed. So therefore this good man is either never held in good faith, or always held; because they ought not believe this of other rich men; or if this is given universally as the rule, all will believe it of the others, and no one will be held to succor, nor will he succor.

I assert that the rich are held in common necessities to give alms from their superfluities.

It is proved first from D. Bonaventure ad 11. Lucae, at those words: Verumtamen, quod superest, date eleemosynam: et ecce omnia munda sunt vobis — Nevertheless, what remains, give alms: and behold, all things are clean to you. Now he explains this as being about alms owed to our own necessity, certainly necessary for penance, that we may be cleansed. Then about true alms from superfluities. And from the effects he shows its necessity. For the reasoning of Christ is: Et ecce omnia munda sunt vobis, that is, since you are full of iniquity, he teaches you to cleanse yourselves, as Valencia and Tanner also note.

For first, by alms the soul is cleansed; for it is disposed to grace, prima Timot. 4: Pietas ad omnia utilis est, promissionem habens vitae, quae nunc est, et futurae — Piety is useful for all things, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that to come. Eccles. 3: Eleemosyna enim Patris non erit in oblivione: et sicut in sereno glacies, solventur peccata tua — For the alms of the Father shall not be forgotten: and as ice in clear weather, your sins shall melt away.

Secondly, it frees from eternal punishment, Tobiae 4: Eleemosyna ab omni peccato, et a morte liberat, et non patietur, animam ire in tenebras — Alms frees from all sin, and from death, and shall not suffer the soul to go into darkness.

Thirdly, it defends from transitory punishment, Dan. 4: Peccata tua eleemosynis redime — Rede your sins with alms.

Fourthly, it mitigates the tinder of concupiscence, Ecclesiast. 3: Ignem ardentem extinguit aqua, et eleemosyna resistit peccatis — Water extinguishes a burning fire, and alms resists sins.

Fifthly, it gives victory over the enemy, Ecclesiastici 29: Conclude eleemosynam in corde pauperis, et haec pro te exorabit ab omni malo. Super Scutum potentis, et super Lanceam, adversus inimicum tuum pugnabit — Shut up alms in the heart of the poor man, and it shall pray for you against all evil. It shall fight for you as a shield of the mighty, and as a lance, against your enemy.

Sixthly, it preserves grace, Eccles. 17: Eleemosyna viri, quasi signaculum cum ipso, gratiam hominis quasi pupillam conservabit — The alms of a man, as a signet with him, shall preserve the grace of a man as the apple of the eye.

Seventhly, it gives confidence of arriving at glory, Tob. 4: Fiducia magna erit coram summo Deo eleemosyna facientibus eam — Great shall be the confidence before the most high God for those who give alms. And he adds, that these things are judged in the Judgment, Matth. 25: namely, that those who have given alms are called to life; and those who omitted them are cast into eternal fire.

That he speaks of common necessities is clear; for the inquiry is made universally about the works of mercy toward all the needy.

Moreover, he gives the conditions of these: The first is simplicity of heart, Matth. 6: Te autem faciente eleemosynam, nesciat sinistra tua, quid faciat dextera tua — But when you make alms, let not your left hand know what your right hand does. The second, discretion, Eccles. 12: Si benefeceris, scito cui benefeceris — If you have done well, know to whom you have done it. The third, compassion, Isa. 58: Cum effuderis esurienti animam tuam — When you shall pour out your soul to the hungry. And Iob. 30: Flebam quondam super eo, qui afflictus erat, et compatiebatur anima mea pauperi — I once wept for him that was afflicted, and my soul had compassion on the poor. The fourth, sweetness in speech, Eccles. 18: Nonne ardorem refrigerabit ros? Sic et verbum melius quam datum — Does not the dew refresh the heat? So also a word better than a gift. The fifth, cheerfulness in face, Eccles. 35: In omni dato hilarem fac vultum tuum — In every gift make a cheerful face. The sixth, due quantity, Tob. 4: Quomodo poteris; ita esto misericors. Si multum tibi fuerit, etc. — As you are able, so be merciful. If you have much, etc. — and he speaks of common necessities. The seventh, speed, Proverb. 3: Ne dicas amico tuo: vade, et revertere — Say not to your friend: Go, and come again,

He infers therefore D. Bonaventure from that text the argument of Christ: Since you Pharisees are full of uncleanness and iniquity, I teach you the necessary mode of cleansing yourselves, namely true penance, and alms from superfluities. For so you will make fruits worthy of penance.

Similar is the passage Lucae tertio, where John, questioned by the crowds about how they could make fruits worthy of penance — about which he had said: Omnis arbor, quae non facit fructum bonum, excidetur, et in ignem mittetur — Every tree that does not make good fruit shall be cut down and cast into the fire — answered: Qui habet duas tunicas, det non habenti, et qui escas habet, similiter faciat — He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise. The force of whose sentence D. Jerome rightly interprets, epist. ad Hedibiam, quaest. 1, as being that it is necessary to spend superfluities on the needy, as S. Doctor notes on that place of Luke. Therefore (says S. Doctor), since they had heard that it was necessary to make fruits worthy of penance, they ask; and he also brings forward Lucae 11, alleged above. But he admonishes most beautifully, with Bede and Gregory, homil. 20. in Evangelia, that a precept is given about dividing two coats, because one is superfluous; not about dividing one, if he does not have another; for so neither would be clothed — although that would be an eminent work, such as that of the most glorious Martin at the gate of Amiens, when he divided his cloak. Behold, S. Bonaventure plainly notes, with the Holy Fathers, that it is a precept. Therefore it is the same precept, Lucae 3. et 11. Quod superest, date — What remains, give. Where the particle superest does not signify what we call "for the rest," but what supplies or super-exists, as is had in the Greek, and Valencia observes, with the same Bede and D. Bonaventure, who reads: De eo, quod superest, or "from what super-exists," from the Greek idiom, of which S. Doctor was most skilled, as they know who read his works through. Moreover, here and in the places to be alleged, they observe that the precept is taken from mere superfluity.

It is proved thirdly from D. Bonaventure in Diaeta, tit. 2. ad finem, from that 1. Timot. cap. 6. Divitibus huius saeculi praecipe facile tribuere, communicare, thesaurizare sibi fundamentum bonum in futurum — Charge the rich of this world to give easily, to communicate, to lay up for themselves a good foundation for the future. But S. Doctor notes that this is a precept given to the rich, not with respect to poor men in grave need, but precisely insofar as those riches of the rich, since they are superfluous to them, are owed to the Lord as tribute, or as a debt out of justice. And as Princes take away even the capital from those who defraud them of tributes; so also the Lord, from those who deny alms and retain their superfluities, takes away not only grace, but also, and often, temporal goods. Which must be gravely admonished; and of this he interprets Matth. 25. Tollite ab eo talentum, et date ei, qui decem talenta habet — Take away the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents; for from the avaricious man temporal substance is to be taken and given to him who, pitying the poor, fulfills the commands of the Lord and trades those riches so that he may receive a hundredfold in this life, and then life eternal. Hence I shall infer the reason.

Then S. Doctor considers the motives with which one ought to be led to give alms generously. The first motive is that Christ declares alms made to himself, Matth. 25. Therefore he imposes on all who wish for the eternal kingdom that they make alms. Hence it is no great thing that rich men who wish for the kingdom from God buy it with a morsel of bread; and they ought to fear hearing: Ite maledicti — Go, you cursed — according to Proverb 21. Qui obturat aures suas ad clamorem pauperis, clamabit ipse, et non audietur — He who stops his ears at the cry of the poor shall himself cry, and shall not be heard. Therefore the first motive is: Quis postulet? — Who asks? — namely, God in the poor man. The second motive is: Quid petatur? — What is asked? — because God in the poor asks what is his own: Wherefore (says S. Doctor) David said, Psal. 29. Tua sunt Domine omnia, et quae de manu tua recepimus, dedimus tibi — All things are yours, O Lord, and what we have received from your hand we have given to you.

The third motive is: Ad quid petis Deus? — For what do you ask, God? — namely that he repay as at usury: Centuplum accipiet, et vitam aeternam possidebit — He shall receive a hundredfold, and shall possess life eternal. S. Doctor uses these arguments, mingled with so many ornaments of Scripture, most useful also for sermons.

It is proved thirdly from D. Bonaventure in 3. dist. 30. quaest. 5, from that Proverb. 25. Si esurierit inimicus tuus, ciba illum; et si sitierit, potum da illi — If your enemy hunger, feed him; and if he thirst, give him drink. And Exodi 23. Si occurreris bovi inimici tui, aut asino erranti, reduc ad eum. Si videris asinum odientis te iacere sub onere, non pertransibis, sed sublevabis cum eo — If you meet the ox of your enemy, or his ass going astray, bring it back to him. If you see the ass of him who hates you lying under its burden, you shall not pass by, but shall lift it up with him. This indeed is not a ceremonial law or judicial precept, but the Natural and Divine Law, on account of which, Matth. 25, all shall be examined in judgment.

It is proved fourthly from D. Bonaventure ad 18. Lucae with those words: Facilius est, camelum per foramen acus transire, quam divitem intrare in regnum caelorum — It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. But Christ said this to him who wished to give his riches in some part to the poor — against whom it is said, Eccles. 7. Noli esse pusillanimis in animo tuo: exorare, et facere eleemosynam ne despicias — Be not fainthearted in your mind: to pray, and to make alms, do not despise — as S. Doctor observes with Theophylactus.

Therefore clinging men are not saved, he says, because, as it is said prima Timot. 6. Incidunt in laqueum Diaboli, et desideria, quae mergunt homines — They fall into the snare of the Devil, and into desires which drown men. Where note that this is not said of the rich who are unwilling to give up everything and vow poverty; for that is the counsel which Christ gave to that young man; but seeing him bitter, resisting any alms whatsoever from superfluities, he said: Quam difficile est, etc. Facilius est, etc. ut supra ad 18. Lucae — How difficult it is, etc. It is easier, etc., as above at 18. Luke.

It is proved fifthly from S. Doctor ex illo Lucae 16, where that rich man Sepultus est in inferno — was buried in hell — doubtless because of his lack of mercy toward Lazarus.

It is proved sixthly from S. Doctor ex illo Lucae 12, where that rich man, whose field had yielded abundant fruits, said: Destruam horrea mea, et faciam maiora: et illuc congregabo omnia, quae nata sunt mihi, et bona mea — I will destroy my barns and make greater ones, and there I will gather all things that are born to me and my goods — but by night he heard: Stulte, hac nocte animam tuam repetent a te; quae autem parasti, cuius erunt? Sic est (inquit Christus) qui sibi thesaurizat, et non est in Deum dives — Fool, this night your soul shall be required of you; whose then shall those things be which you have provided? So is he (says Christ) who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God — where he admonishes that which he had taught Matth. 6, where alms is enjoined, and the simple manner handed down: Cum facis eleemosynam noli tuba canere — When you make alms, do not sound a trumpet. He adds: Thesaurizate vobis thesauros in caelo, etc. Nolite thesaurizare vobis thesauros in terra — Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, etc. Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth. As if to say: Everyone who lays up treasure on earth, retaining his superfluities, loses the treasures of heaven, destitute of Divine grace. Tanner also uses these means.

Hence Basil, on that passage: Destruam, etc. — I will destroy, etc. — says: Cur tu abundas; ille vero mendicat, nisi ut tu bona dispensationis merita consequaris; ille vero patientia braviis decoretur. Est panis famelici, quem tu tenes; tunica, quam in conclavi conservas; discalceati calceus, qui penes te marcescit; indigentis argentum, quod possides infossum. Quocirca tot iniuriaris, quot dare valens es — Why do you abound, while that man begs, unless that you may obtain the merits of dispensation of goods, and that he be adorned with the prizes of patience? The bread of the hungry is that which you hold; the coat, which you keep in your closet; the shoe of the barefoot, which withers in your keeping; the silver of the needy, which you possess buried. Wherefore you commit as many injuries as you are able to give.

Crying out SIMILAR things is S. Gregory of Nyssa, and he concludes, in the oration on loving the poor: O pauperum inimici! an nescitis horum causa commemorari in Evangelio exempla horrenda, et terribilia? — O enemies of the poor! Do you not know that for their sake horrible and terrible examples are recounted in the Gospel? And he adds the two examples of the twin rich men alleged above Lucae 12. et 16.

And D. Ambrose lib. de Nabuthe, cap. 11 has the same, and serm. 81: Quis tam iniustus, tam avidus, quam, qui multorum alimenta suum non usum, sed abundantiam, et delicias facit? Neque enim maius est crimen habenti tollere, quam cum possides, et abundas, indigentibus denegare. Esurientium panis est, quem tu detines — Who is so unjust, so greedy, as he who makes the food of many his own abundance and delights, not his use? For no greater crime is it to take from one who has, than, when you possess and abound, to deny the needy. The bread of the hungry is that which you detain.

D. HIERONYMUS in regula, cap. 6, as cited by Gratian, says: Aliena rapere convincitur, qui ultra necessaria sibi retinere probatur — He is convicted of seizing what belongs to others who is proved to retain for himself beyond the necessaries.

To Our Venerable Brethren, All Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World, in Peace and Communion With the Apostolic See.

Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction.

IT is not surprising that the spirit of revolutionary change, which has so long been predominant in the nations of the world, should have passed beyond politics, and made its influence felt in the cognate field of practical economy. The elements of a conflict are unmistakable: the growth of industry, and the surprising discoveries of science; the changed relations of masters and workmen; the enormous fortunes of individuals, and the poverty of the masses; the increased self-reliance and the closer mutual combination of the working population ; and, finally, a general moral deterioration. The momentous seriousness of the present state of things just now fills every mind with painful apprehension ; wise men discuss it; practical men propose schemes ; popular meetings, legislatures, and sovereign princes,—all are occupied with it, and there is nothing which has a deeper hold on public attention.

Therefore, Venerable Brethren, as on former occasions, when it seemed opportune to refute false teaching, We have addressed you in the interest of the Church and of the common weal, and have issued Letters on Political Power, on Human Liberty, on the Christian Constitution of the State, and on similar subjects, so now We have thought it useful to speak on the CONDITION OF LABOR. It is a matter on which We have touched once or twice already. But in this Letter the responsibility of the Apostolic office urges Us to treat the question expressly and at length, in order that there may be no mistake as to the principles which truth and justice dictate for its settlement. The discussion is not easy, nor is it free from danger. It is not easy to define the relative rights and the mutual duties of the wealthy and of the poor, of capital and of labor. And the danger lies in this, that crafty agitators constantly make use of these disputes to pervert men’s judgments and to stir up the people to sedition.

But all agree, and there can be no question whatever, that some remedy must be found, and quickly found, for the misery and wretchedness which press so heavily at this moment on the large majority of the very poor. The ancient workmen’s Guilds were destroyed in the last century, and no other organization took their place. Public institutions and the laws have repudiated the ancient religion. Hence by degrees it has come to pass that Working Men have been given over, isolated and defenceless, to the callousness of employers and the greed of unrestrained competition. The evil has been increased by rapacious Usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is, nevertheless, under a different form, but with the same guilt, still practised by avaricious and grasping men. And to this must be added the custom of working by contract, and the concentration of so many branches of trade in the hands of a few individuals, so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the masses of the poor a yoke little better than slavery itself.

To remedy these evils the Socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, endeavor to destroy private property, and maintain that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that, by thus transferring property from private persons to the community, the present evil state of things will be set to rights, because each citizen will then have his equal share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their proposals are so clearly futile for all practical purposes, that if they were carried out the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. Moreover they are emphatically unjust, because they would rob the lawful possessor, bring the State into a sphere that is not its own, and cause complete confusion in the community.

It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the very reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and to hold it as his own private possession. If one man hires out to another his strength or his industry, he does this for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for food and living; he thereby expressly proposes to acquire a full and real right, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of that remuneration as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and invests his savings, for greater security, in land, the land in such a case is only his wages in another form; and, consequently, a working man’s little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his own disposal as the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in this power of disposal that ownership consists, whether the property be land or movable goods. The Socialists, therefore, in endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, for they deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thus of all hope and possibility of increasing his stock and of bettering his condition in life.

What is of still greater importance, however, is that the remedy they propose is manifestly against justice. For every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation. For the brute has no power of selfdirection, but is governed by two chief instincts, which keep his powers alert, move him to use his strength, and determine him to action without the power of choice. These instincts are self-preservation and the propagation of the species. Both can attain their purpose by means of things which are close at hand ; beyond their surroundings the brute creation cannot go, for they are moved to action by sensibility alone, and by the things which sense perceives. But with man it is different indeed. He possesses, on the one hand, the full perfection of animal nature, and therefore he enjoys, at least as much as the rest of the animal race, the fruition of the things of the body. But animality, however perfect, is far from being the whole of humanity, and is, indeed, humanity’s humble handmaid, made to serve and obey. It is the mind, or the reason, which is the chief thing in us who are human beings ; it is this which makes a human being human, and distinguishes him essentially and completely from the brute. And on this account—viz., that man alone among animals possesses reason—it must be within his right to have things not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living beings have them, but in stable and permanent possession; he must have not only things which perish in the using, but also those which, though used, remain for use in the future.

This becomes still more clearly evident if we consider man’s nature a little more deeply. For man, comprehending by the power of his reason things innumerable, and joining the future with the present—being, moreover, the master of his own acts—governs himself by the foresight of his counsel, under the eternal law and the power of God whose Providence governs all things. Wherefore it is in his power to exercise his choice, not only on things which regard his present welfare, but also on those which will be for his advantage in time to come. Hence man not only can possess the fruits of the earth, but also the earth itself; for of the products of the earth he can make provision for the future. Man's needs do not die out, but recur; satisfied to-day, they demand new supplies to-morrow. Nature, therefore, owes to man a storehouse that shall never fail, the daily supply of his daily wants. And this he finds only in the inexhaustible fertility of the earth.

Nor must we, at this stage, have recourse to the State. Man is older than the State ; and he holds the right of providing for the life of his body prior to the formation of any State. And to say that God has given the earth to the use and enjoyment of the universal human race is not to deny that there can be private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general; not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they please, but rather that no part of it has been assigned to any one in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man’s own industry and the laws of individual peoples. Moreover, the earth, though divided among private owners, ceases not thereby to minister to the needs of all; for there is no one who does not live on what the land brings forth. Those who do not possess the soil, contribute their labor ; so that it may be truly said that all human subsistence is derived either from labor on one’s own land, or from some laborious industry which is paid for either in the produce of the land itself or in that which is exchanged for what the land brings forth.

Here, again, we have another proof that private ownership is according to nature's law. For that which is required for the preservation of life, and for life’s well-being, is produced in great abundance by the earth, but not until man has brought it into cultivation and lavished upon it his care and skill. Now, when man thus spends the industry of his mind and the strength of his body in procuring the fruits of nature, by that act he makes his own that portion of nature's field which he cultivates—that portion on which he leaves, as it were, the impress of his own personality ; and it cannot but be just that he should possess that portion as his own, and should have a right to keep it without molestation.

These arguments are so strong and convincing that it seems surprising that certain obsolete opinions should now be revived in opposition to what is here laid down. We are told that it is right for private persons to have the use the soil and the fruits of their land, but that it is unjust for any one to possess as owner either the land on which he has built or the estate which he has cultivated. But those who assert this do not perceive that they are robbing man of what his own labor has produced. For the soil which is tilled and cultivated with toil and skill utterly changes its condition; it was wild before, it is now fruitful, it was barren, and now it brings forth in abundance. That which has thus altered and improved it becomes so truly part of itself as to be in great measure indistinguishable and inseparable from it. Is it just that the fruit of a man’s sweat and labor should be enjoyed by another? As effects follow their cause, so it is just and right that the results of labor should belong to him who has labored.

With reason, therefore, the common opinion of mankind, little affected by the few dissentients who have maintained the opposite view, has found in the study of nature, and in the law of Nature herself, the foundations of the division of property, and has consecrated by the practice of all ages the principle of private ownership, as being preëminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing, in the most unmistakable manner, to the peace and tranquillity of human life. The same principle is confirmed and enforced by the civil laws,—laws which, as long as they are just, derive their binding force from the law of nature. The authority of the Divine Law adds its sanction, forbidding us, in the gravest terms, even to covet that which is another’s: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife ; nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything which is his.^*

^* Deuteronomy v. 21.

The rights here spoken of, belonging to each individual man, are seen in a much stronger light if they are considered in relation to man’s social and domestic obligations.

In choosing a state of life, it is indisputable that all are at full liberty either to follow the counsel of Jesus Christ as to virginity, or to enter into the bonds of marriage. No human law can abolish the natural and primitive right of marriage, or in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage, ordained by God's authority from the beginning. Increase and multiply.^† Thus we have the Family; the “society” of a man’s own household; a society limited, indeed, in numbers, but a true “ society,” anterior to every kind of State or nation, with rights and duties of its own, totally independent of the commonwealth.

^† Genesis i. 28.

That right of property, therefore, which has been proved to belong naturally to individual persons, must also belong to a man in his capacity of head of a family; nay, such a person must possess this right so much the more clearly in proportion as his position multiplies his duties. For it is a most sacred law of nature that a father must provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten; and, similarly, nature dictates that a man’s children, who carry on, as it were, and continue his own personality, should be provided by him with all that is needful to enable them honorably to keep themselves from want and misery in the uncertainties of this mortal life. Now, in no other way can a father effect this except by the ownership of profitable property, which he can transmit to his children by inheritance. A family, no less than a State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by a power within itself, that is to say, by the father. Wherefore, provided the limits be not transgressed which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists, the Family has, at least, equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of those things which are needful to its preservation and its just liberty.

We say, at least, equal rights; for since the domestic household is anterior both in idea and in fact to the gathering of men into a commonwealth, the former must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the latter, and which rest more immediately on nature. If the citizens of a State—that is to say, the Families—on entering into association and fellowship, experienced at the hands of the State hindrance instead of help, and found their rights attacked instead of being protected, such association were rather to be repudiated than sought after.

The idea, then, that the civil government should, at its own discretion, penetrate and pervade the family and the household, is a great and pernicious mistake. True, if a family finds itself in great difficulty, utterly friendless, and without prospect of help, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid; for each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the walls of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, the public power must interfere to force each party to give the other what is due; for this is not to rob citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the State must go no further: nature bids them stop here. Paternal authority can neither be abolished by the State, nor absorbed; for it has the same source as human life itself. “The child belongs to the father,” and is, as it were, the continuation of the father’s personality; and, to speak with strictness, the child takes its place in civil society not in its own right, but in its quality as a member of the family in which it is begotten. And it is for the very reason that “the child belongs to the father,” that, as St. Thomas of Aquin says, “ before it attains the use of free will, it is in the power and care of its parents.”^* The Socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and introducing the providence of the State, act against natural justice, and threaten the very existence of family life.

^* St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 2a 2æ Q. x. Art. 12.

And such interference is not only unjust, but is quite certain to harass and disturb all classes of citizens, and to subject them to odious and intolerable slavery. It would open the door to envy, to evil-speaking, and to quarrelling ; the sources of wealth would themselves run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality of which so much is said would, in reality, be the levelling down of all to the same condition of misery and dishonor.

Thus it is clear that the main tenet of Socialism, the community of goods, must be utterly rejected; for it would injure those whom it is intended to benefit, it would be contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and it would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonwealth. Our first and most fundamental principle, therefore, when we undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This laid down, We go on to show where we must find the remedy that we seek.

We approach the subject with confidence, and in the exercise of the rights which belong to Us. For no practical solution of this question will ever be found without the assistance of Religion and of the Church. It is We who are the chief guardian of Religion, and the chief dispenser of what belongs to the Church, and We must not by silence neglect the duty which lies upon Us. Doubtless this most serious question demands the attention and the efforts of others besides Ourselves—of the rulers of States, of employers of labor, of the wealthy, and of the working population themselves for whom We plead. But We affirm without hesitation, that all the striving of men will be vain if they leave out the Church. It is the Church that proclaims from the Gospel those teachings by which the conflict can be put an end to, or at the least made far less bitter; the Church uses its efforts not only to enlighten the mind, but to direct by its precepts the life and conduct of men; the Church improves and ameliorates the condition of the working man by numerous useful organizations; does its best to enlist the services of all ranks in discussing and endeavoring to meet, in the most practical way, the claims of the working classes; and acts on the decided view that for these purposes recourse should be had, in due measure and degree, to the help of the law and of State authority.

Let it be laid down, in the first place, that humanity must remain as it is. It is impossible to reduce human society to a level. The Socialists may do their utmost, but all striving against nature is vain. There naturally exist among mankind innumerable differences of the most important kind; people differ in capability, in diligence, in health, and in strength; an unequal fortune is a necessary result of inequality in condition. Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community; social and public life can only go on by the help of various kinds of capacity and the playing of many parts; and each man, as a rule, chooses the part which peculiarly suits his case. As regards bodily labor, even had man never fallen from the state of innocence, he would not have been wholly unoccupied ; but that which would then have been his free choice and his delight, became afterwards compulsory, and the painful expiation of his sin. Cursed be the earth in thy work; in thy labor thou shalt eat of it all the days of thy life.^* In like manner, the other pains and hardships of life will have no end or cessation on this earth; for the consequences of sin are bitter and hard to bear, and they must be with man as long as life lasts. To suffer and to endure, therefore, is the lot of humanity; let men try as they may, no strength and no artifice will ever succeed in banishing from human life the ills and troubles which beset it. If any there are who pretend differently—who hold out to a hardpressed people freedom from pain and trouble, undisturbed repose, and constant enjoyment—they cheat the people and impose upon them, and their lying promises will only make the evil worse than before. There is nothing more useful than to look at the world as it really is—and at the same time to look elsewhere for a remedy to its troubles.

^* Genesis iii. 17.

The great mistake that is made in the matter now under consideration, is to possess oneself of the idea that class is naturally hostile to class; that rich and poor are intended by nature to live at war with one another. So irrational and so false is this view, that the exact contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human body is the result of the disposition of the members of the body, so in a State it is ordained by nature that these two classes should exist in harmony and agreement, and should, as it were, fit into one another, so as to maintain the equilibrium of the body politic. Each requires the other; capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in pleasantness and good order; perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and outrage. Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in making it impossible, the efficacy of Christianity is marvellous and manifold. First of all, there is nothing more powerful than Religion (of which the Church is the interpreter and guardian) in drawing rich and poor together, by reminding each class of its duties to the other, and especially of the duties of justice. Thus Religion teaches the laboring man and the workman to carry out honestly and well all equitable agreements freely made; never to injure capital, or to outrage the person of an employer; never to employ violence in representing his own cause, or to engage in riot or disorder; and to have nothing to do with men of evil principles, who work upon the people with artful promises, and raise foolish hopes which usually end in disaster and in repentance when too late. Religion teaches the rich man and the employer that their work-people are not their slaves; that they must respect in every man his dignity as a man and as a Christian; that labor is nothing to be ashamed of, if we listen to right reason, and to Christian philosophy, but is an honorable employment, enabling a man to sustain his life in an upright and creditable way ; and that it is shameful and inhuman to treat men like chattels to make money by, or to look upon them merely as so much muscle or physical power. Thus, again, Religion teaches that, as among the workman’s concerns are Religion herself and things spiritual and mental, the employer is bound to see that he has time for the duties of piety; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions; and that he be not led away to neglect his home and family or to squander his wages. Then, again, the employer must never tax his work-people beyond their strength, nor employ them in work unsuited to their sex or age. His great and principal obligation is to give to every one that which is just. Doubtless before we can decide whether wages are adequate, many things have to be considered; but rich men and masters should remember this—that to exercise pressure for the sake of gain, upon the indigent and the destitute, and to make one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a crime which cries to the avenging anger of heaven. Behold the hire of the laborers . . . which by fraud hath been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.^* Finally, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workman’s earnings, either by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing ; and with the more reason because the poor man is weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should be sacred in proportion to their scantiness.

^* St. James v. 4.

Were these precepts carefully obeyed and followed, would not strife die out and cease ?

But the Church, with Jesus Christ for its Master and Guide, aims higher still. It lays down precepts yet more perfect, and tries to bind class to class in friendliness and good understanding. The things of this earth cannot be understood or valued rightly without taking into consideration the life to come, the life that will last forever. Exclude the idea of futurity, and the very notion of what is good and right would perish; nay, the whole system of the universe would become a dark and unfathomable mystery. The great truth which we learn from Nature herself is also the grand Christian dogma on which Religion rests as on its base—that when we have done with this present life, then we shall really begin to live. God has not created us for the perishable and transitory things of earth, but for things heavenly and everlasting; He has given us this world as a place of exile, and not as our true country. Money, and the other things which men call good and desirable—we may have them in abundance, or we may want them altogether ; as far as eternal happiness is concerned, it is no matter; the only thing that is important is to use them aright. Jesus Christ, when He redeemed us with plentiful redemption, took not away the pains and sorrows which in such large proportion make up the texture of our mortal life; He transformed them into motives of virtue and occasions of merit: and no man can hope for eternal reward unless he follow in the blood-stained footprints of his Saviour. If we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him.^* His labors and His sufferings, accepted by His own free will, have marvellously sweetened all suffering and all labor. And not only by His example, but by His grace and by the hope of everlasting recompense, He has made pain and grief more easy to endure ; for that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory.^†

^* II. Timothy ii. 12.

^† II. Corinthians iv. 17.

Therefore those whom fortune favors are warned that freedom from sorrow, and abundance of earthly riches, are no guarantee of the beatitude that shall never end, but rather the contrary ;^* that the rich should tremble at the threatenings of Jesus Christ—threatenings so strange in the mouth of Our Lord ;^† and that a most strict account must be given to the Supreme Judge for all that we possess. The chiefest and most excellent rule for the right use of money is one which the heathen philosophers indicated, but which the Church has traced out clearly, and has not only made known to men’s minds but has impressed upon their lives. It rests on the principle that it is one thing to have a right to the possession of money, and another to have a right to use money as one pleases. Private ownership, as we have seen, is the natural right of man; and to exercise that right, especially as members of society, is not only lawful, but absolutely necessary. It is lawful, says St. Thomas of Aquin, for a man to hold private property ; and it is also necessary for the carrying on of human life.^‡ But if the question be asked, How must one’s possessions be used? the Church replies without hesitation in the words of the same holy Doctor: Man should not consider his outward possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without difficulty when others are in need. Whence the Apostle saith, Command the rich of this world... to give with ease, to communicate.§ True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own necessities and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life; for no one ought to live unbecomingly.|| But when necessity has been supplied, and one’s position fairly considered, it is a duty to give to the indigent out of that which is over. That which remaineth, give alms.¶ It is a duty, not of justice (except in extreme cases), but of Christian charity —a duty which is not enforced by human law. But the laws and judgments of men must give place to the laws and judgments of Christ the true God, Who in many ways urges on His followers the practice of almsgiving—It is more blessed to give than to receive ;^* and Who will count a kindness done or refused to the poor as done or refused to Himself—as long as you did it to one of My least brethren, you did it to Me.^† Thus to sum up what has been said: Whoever has received from the Divine bounty a large share of blessings, whether they be external and corporeal or gifts of the mind, has received them for the purpose of using them for the perfecting of his own nature, and, at the same time, that he may employ them, as the minister of God’s providence, for the benefit of others. He that hath a talent, says St. Gregory the Great, let him see that he hide it not; he that hath abundance, let him arouse himself to mercy and generosity; he that hath art and skill, let him do his best to share the use and the utility thereof with his neighbor.^‡

^* St. Matthew xix. 23, 24.

^† St. Luke vi. 24, 25.

^‡ 2a 2æ Q. lxvi. Art. 2. § Ibid. Q. lxv. Art. 2. || Ibid. Q. xxxii. Art. 6. ¶ St. Luke xi. 41.

^* Acts xx. 35.

^† St. Matthew xxv. 40.

^‡ St. Gregory the Great. Hom. ix. in Evangel. n. 7.

§ II. Corinthians viii. 9. || St. Mark vi. 3.

¶ St. Matthew v. 3: “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” ** Ibid. xi. 28. “Come to Me, all you that labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you.”

As for those who do not possess the gifts of fortune, they are taught by the Church that in God's sight poverty is no disgrace, and that there is nothing to be ashamed of in seeking one’s bread by labor. This is strengthened by what we see in Christ Himself, Who whereas He was rich, for our sakes became poor ;§ and Who, being the Son of God, and God Himself, chose to seem and to be considered the son of a carpenter—nay, did not disdain to spend a great part of His life as a carpenter Himself. Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary?|| From the contemplation of this Divine example it is easy to understand that the true dignity and excellence of man lies in his moral qualities, that is, in virtue; that virtue is the common inheritance of all, equally within the reach of high and low, rich and poor; and that virtue, and virtue alone, wherever found, will be followed by the rewards of everlasting happiness. Nay, God Himself seems to incline more to those who suffer evil; for Jesus Christ calls the poor blessed;¶ He lovingly invites those in labor and grief to come to Him for solace;** and He displays the tenderest charity to the lowly and the oppressed. These reflections cannot fail to keep down the pride of those who are well off, and to cheer the spirit of the afflicted ; to incline the former to generosity and the latter to tranquil resignation. Thus the separation which pride would make tends to disappear, nor will it be difficult to make rich and poor join hands in friendly concord.

But if Christian precepts prevail, the two classes will not only be united in the bonds of friendship, but also in those of brotherly love. For they will understand and feel that all men are the children of the common Father, that is, of God; that all have the same last end, which is God Himself, Who alone can make either men or angels absolutely and perfectly happy; that all and each are redeemed by Jesus Christ and raised to the dignity of children of God, and are thus united in brotherly ties both with each other and with Jesus Christ, the first-born among many brethren; that the blessings of nature and the gifts of grace belong in common to the whole human race, and that to all, except to those who are unworthy, is promised the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven. If sons, heirs also, heirs indeed of God, and co-heirs of Christ.^*

^* Romans viii. 17.

Such is the scheme of duties and of rights which is put forth to the world by the Gospel. Would it not seem that strife must quickly cease were society penetrated with ideas like these ?

But the Church, not content with pointing out the remedy, also applies it. For the Church does its utmost to teach and to train men, and to educate them; and by means of its Bishops and clergy it diffuses its salutary teachings far and wide. It strives to influence the mind and heart so that all may willingly yield themselves to be formed and guided by the commandments of God. It is precisely in this fundamental and principal matter, on which everything depends, that the Church has a power peculiar to itself. The agencies which it employs are given it for the very purpose of reaching the hearts of men, by Jesus Christ Himself, and derive their efficiency from God. They alone can touch the innermost heart and conscience, and bring men to act from a motive of duty, to resist their passions and appetites, to love God and their fellow-men with a love that is unique and supreme, and courageously to break down every barrier which stands in the way of a virtuous life.

On this subject We need only recall, for one moment, the examples written down in history. Of these things there cannot be the shadow of doubt; for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by the teachings of Christianity ; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things,—nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to pass in the ages that have yet to be. Of this beneficent transformation, Jesus Christ was at once the first cause and the final purpose; as from Him all came, so to Him all was to be referred. For when, by the light of the Gospel message, the human race came to know the grand mystery of the Incarnation of the Word and the redemption of man, the life of Jesus Christ, God and Man, penetrated every race and nation, and impregnated them with His faith, His precepts, and His laws. And if Society is to be cured now, in no other way can it be cured but by a return to the Christian life and Christian institutions. When a Society is perishing, the true advice to give to those who would restore it is to recall it to the principles from which it sprung; for the purpose and perfection of an association is to aim at and to attain that for which it was formed; and its operation should be put in motion and inspired by the end and object which originally gave it its being. So that to fall away from its primal constitution is disease; to go back to it is recovery. And this may be asserted with the utmost truth both of the State in general and of that body of its citizens—by far the greater number— who sustain life by labor.

Neither must it be supposed that the solicitude of the Church is so occupied with the spiritual concerns of its children as to neglect their interests temporal and earthly. Its desire is that the poor, for example, should rise above poverty and wretchedness, and should better their condition in life; and for this it strives. By the very fact that it calls men to virtue and forms them to its practice, it promotes this in no slight degree. Christian morality, when it is adequately and completely practised, conduces of itself to temporal prosperity, for it merits the blessing of that God Who is the source of all blessings; it powerfully restrains the lust of possession and the lust of pleasure—twin plagues, which too often make a man without self-restraint miserable in the midst of abundance ;^* it makes men supply by economy for the want of means, teaching them to be content with frugal living, and keeping them out of the reach of those vices which eat up not merely small incomes, but large fortunes, and dissipate many a goodly inheritance.

^* “The root of all evils is cupidity.”—I. Tim. vi. 10.

Moreover, the Church intervenes directly in the interest of the poor, by setting on foot and keeping up many things which it sees to be efficacious in the relief of poverty. Here, again, it has always succeeded so well that it has even extorted the praise of its enemies. Such was the ardor of brotherly love among the earliest Christians that numbers of those who were better off deprived themselves of their possessions in order to relieve their brethren; whence neither was there any one needy among them.^† To the order of Deacons, instituted for that very purpose, was committed by the Apostles the charge of the daily distributions; and the Apostle Paul, though burdened with the solicitude of all the churches, hesitated not to undertake laborious journeys in order to carry the alms of the Faithful to the poorer Christians. Tertullian calls these contributions, given voluntarily by Christians in their assemblies, deposits of piety ; because, to cite his words, they were employed in feeding the needy, in burying them, in the support of boys and girls destitute of means and deprived of their parents, in the care of the aged, and in relief of the shipwrecked.^‡

^† Acts iv. 34.

^‡ Apologia Secunda, xxxix.

Thus by degrees came into existence the patrimony which the Church has guarded with religious care as the inheritance of the poor. Nay, to spare them the shame of begging, the common Mother of rich and poor has exerted herself to gather together funds for the support of the needy. The Church has stirred up everywhere the heroism of charity, and has established Congregations of Religious and many other useful institutions for help and mercy, so that there might be hardly any kind of suffering which was not visited and relieved. At the present day there are many who, like the heathen of old, blame and condemn the Church for this beautiful charity. They would substitute in its place a system of State-organized relief. But no human methods will ever supply for the devotion and self-sacrifice of Christian charity. Charity, as a virtue, belongs to the Church; for it is no virtue unless it is drawn from the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ; and he who turns his back on the Church cannot be near to Christ.

It cannot, however, be doubted that to attain the purpose of which We treat, not only the Church but all human means must conspire. All who are concerned in the matter must be of one mind and must act together. It is in this as in the Providence which governs the world: results do not happen save where all the causes co-operate.

Let us now, therefore, inquire what part the State should play in the work of remedy and relief.

By the State We here understand, not the particular form of government which prevails in this or that nation, but the State, as rightly understood ; that is to say, any government conformable in its institutions to right reason and natural law, and to those dictates of the Divine wisdom which We have expounded in the Encyclical on the Christian Constitution of the State. The first duty, therefore, of the rulers of the State should be to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, shall be such as to produce of themselves public well-being and private prosperity. This is the proper office of wise statesmanship and the work of the heads of the State. Now a State chiefly prospers and flourishes by morality, by well-regulated family life, by respect for religion and justice, by the moderation and equal distribution of public burdens, by the progress of the arts and of trade, by the abundant yield of the land—by everything which makes the citizens better and happier. Here, then, it is in the power of a ruler to benefit every order of the State, and amongst the rest to promote in the highest degree the interests of the poor, and this by virtue of his office, and without being exposed to any suspicion of undue interference; for it is the province of the commonwealth to consult for the common good. And the more that is done for the working population by the general laws of the country, the less need will there be to seek for particular means to relieve them.

There is another and a deeper consideration which must not be lost sight of. To the State the interests of all are equal, whether high or low. The poor are members of the national community equally with the rich; they are real component parts, living parts, which make up, through the family, the living body; and it need hardly be said that they are by far the majority. It would be irrational to neglect one portion of the citizens and to favor another; and therefore the public administration must duly and solicitously provide for the welfare and the comfort of the working people, or else that law of justice will be violated which ordains that each shall have his due. To cite the wise words of St. Thomas of Aquin: As the part and the whole are in a certain sense identical, the part may in some sense claim what belongs to the whole.** Among the many and grave duties of rulers who would do their best for the people, the first and chief is to act with strict justice—with that justice which is called in the school distributive—towards each and every class.

But although all citizens, without exception, can and ought to contribute to that common good in which individuals share so profitably to themselves, yet it is not to be supposed that all can contribute in the same way and to the same extent. No matter what changes may be made in forms of government, there will always be differences and inequalities of condition in the State: Society cannot exist or be conceived without them. Some there must be who dedicate themselves to the work of the commonwealth, who

• 2a 2æ Q. lxi. Art. 1 ad 2. make the laws, who administer justice, whose advice and authority govern the nation in times of peace, and defend it in war. Such men clearly occupy the foremost place in the State, and should be held in the foremost estimation, for their work touches most nearly and effectively the general interests of the community. Those who labor at a trade or calling do not promote the general welfare in such a fashion as this; but they do in the most important way benefit the nation, though less directly. We have insisted that, since it is the end of Society to make men better, the chief good that Society can be possessed of is Virtue. Nevertheless, in all well-constituted States it is a by no means unimportant matter to provide those bodily and external commodities the use of which is necessary to virtuous action.^* And in the provision of material well-being, the labor of the poor— the exercise of their skill, and the employment of their strength in the culture of the land and the workshops of trade—is most efficacious and altogether indispensable. Indeed, their co-operation in this respect is so important that it may be truly said that it is only by the labor of the working man that States grow rich. Justice, therefore, demands that the interests of the poorer population be carefully watched over by the Administration, so that they who contribute so largely to the advantage of the community may themselves share in the benefits they create—that being housed, clothed, and enabled to support life, they may find their existence less hard and more endurable. It follows that whatever shall appear to be conducive to the well-being of those who work should receive favorable consideration. Let it not be feared that solicitude of this kind will injure any interest; on the contrary, it will be to the advantage of all; for it cannot but be good for the commonwealth to secure from misery those on whom it so largely depends. We have said that the State must not absorb the individual or the family; both should be allowed free and untrammelled action as far as is consistent with the common good and the interests of others. Nevertheless, rulers should anxiously safeguard the community and all its parts; the community, because the conservation of the community is so emphatically the business of the supreme power, that the safety of the commonwealth is not only the first law, but it is a Government’s whole reason of existence; and the parts, because both philosophy and the Gospel agree in laying down that the object of the administration of the State should be, not the advantage of the ruler, but the benefit of those over whom he rules. The gift of authority is from God, and is, as it were, a participation of the highest of all sovereignties; and it should be exercised as the power of God is exercised— with a fatherly solicitude which not only guides the whole, but reaches to details as well.

^* St. Thomas of Aquin. De Regimine Principum, I. cap. 15.