And most of all are the profits from simony ill-gotten, since thereby the Holy Ghost is wronged. Nevertheless out of such gains it is lawful to give alms. Therefore one may give alms out of ill-gotten goods.
Obj. 3: Further, greater evils should be avoided more than lesser evils. Now it is less sinful to keep back another"s property than to commit murder, of which a man is guilty if he fails to succor one who is in extreme need, as appears from the words of Ambrose who says (Cf.
Canon _Pasce_ dist. lx.x.xvi, whence the words, as quoted, are taken): "Feed him that dies of hunger, if thou hast not fed him, thou hast slain him". Therefore, in certain cases, it is lawful to give alms of ill-gotten goods.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. x.x.xv, 2): "Give alms from your just labors. For you will not bribe Christ your judge, not to hear you with the poor whom you rob ... Give not alms from interest and usury: I speak to the faithful to whom we dispense the Body of Christ."
_I answer that,_ A thing may be ill-gotten in three ways. In the first place a thing is ill-gotten if it be due to the person from whom it is gotten, and may not be kept by the person who has obtained possession of it; as in the case of rapine, theft and usury, and of such things a man may not give alms since he is bound to restore them.
Secondly, a thing is ill-gotten, when he that has it may not keep it, and yet he may not return it to the person from whom he received it, because he received it unjustly, while the latter gave it unjustly.
This happens in simony, wherein both giver and receiver contravene the justice of the Divine Law, so that rest.i.tution is to be made not to the giver, but by giving alms. The same applies to all similar cases of illegal giving and receiving.
Thirdly, a thing is ill-gotten, not because the taking was unlawful, but because it is the outcome of something unlawful, as in the case of a woman"s profits from wh.o.r.edom. This is filthy lucre properly so called, because the practice of wh.o.r.edom is filthy and against the Law of G.o.d, yet the woman does not act unjustly or unlawfully in taking the money. Consequently it is lawful to keep and to give in alms what is thus acquired by an unlawful action.
Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. 2), "Some have misunderstood this saying of Our Lord, so as to take another"s property and give thereof to the poor, thinking that they are fulfilling the commandment by so doing. This interpretation must be amended. Yet all riches are called riches of iniquity, as stated in _De Quaest. Ev._ ii, 34, because "riches are not unjust save for those who are themselves unjust, and put all their trust in them. Or, according to Ambrose in his commentary on Luke 16:9, "Make unto yourselves friends," etc., "He calls mammon unjust, because it draws our affections by the various allurements of wealth." Or, because "among the many ancestors whose property you inherit, there is one who took the property of others unjustly, although you know nothing about it," as Basil says in a homily (Hom. super Luc. A, 5). Or, all riches are styled riches "of iniquity," i.e., of "inequality,"
because they are not distributed equally among all, one being in need, and another in affluence.
Reply Obj. 2: We have already explained how alms may be given out of the profits of wh.o.r.edom. Yet sacrifices and oblations were not made therefrom at the altar, both on account of the scandal, and through reverence for sacred things. It is also lawful to give alms out of the profits of simony, because they are not due to him who paid, indeed he deserves to lose them. But as to the profits from games of chance, there would seem to be something unlawful as being contrary to the Divine Law, when a man wins from one who cannot alienate his property, such as minors, lunatics and so forth, or when a man, with the desire of making money out of another man, entices him to play, and wins from him by cheating. In these cases he is bound to rest.i.tution, and consequently cannot give away his gains in alms.
Then again there would seem to be something unlawful as being against the positive civil law, which altogether forbids any such profits.
Since, however, a civil law does not bind all, but only those who are subject to that law, and moreover may be abrogated through desuetude, it follows that all such as are bound by these laws are bound to make rest.i.tution of such gains, unless perchance the contrary custom prevail, or unless a man win from one who enticed him to play, in which case he is not bound to rest.i.tution, because the loser does not deserve to be paid back: and yet he cannot lawfully keep what he has won, so long as that positive law is in force, wherefore in this case he ought to give it away in alms.
Reply Obj. 3: All things are common property in a case of extreme necessity. Hence one who is in such dire straits may take another"s goods in order to succor himself, if he can find no one who is willing to give him something. For the same reason a man may retain what belongs to another, and give alms thereof; or even take something if there be no other way of succoring the one who is in need. If however this be possible without danger, he must ask the owner"s consent, and then succor the poor man who is in extreme necessity.
_______________________
EIGHTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 32, Art. 8]
Whether One Who Is Under Another"s Power Can Give Alms?
Objection 1: It would seem that one who is under another"s power can give alms. For religious are under the power of their prelates to whom they have vowed obedience. Now if it were unlawful for them to give alms, they would lose by entering the state of religion, for as Ambrose [*The quotation is from the works of Ambrosiaster. Cf. Index to ecclesiastical authorities quoted by St. Thomas] says on 1 Tim.
4:8: ""Dutifulness [Douay: "G.o.dliness"] is profitable to all things": The sum total of the Christian religion consists in doing one"s duty by all," and the most creditable way of doing this is to give alms.
Therefore those who are in another"s power can give alms.
Obj. 2: Further, a wife is under her husband"s power (Gen. 3:16). But a wife can give alms since she is her husband"s partner; hence it is related of the Blessed Lucy that she gave alms without the knowledge of her betrothed [*_Sponsus._ The matrimonial inst.i.tutions of the Romans were so entirely different from ours that _sponsus_ is no longer accurately rendered either "husband" or "betrothed."]
Therefore a person is not prevented from giving alms, by being under another"s power.
Obj. 3: Further, the subjection of children to their parents is founded on nature, wherefore the Apostle says (Eph. 6:1): "Children, obey your parents in the Lord." But, apparently, children may give alms out of their parents" property. For it is their own, since they are the heirs; wherefore, since they can employ it for some bodily use, it seems that much more can they use it in giving alms so as to profit their souls. Therefore those who are under another"s power can give alms.
Obj. 4: Further, servants are under their master"s power, according to t.i.tus 2:9: "Exhort servants to be obedient to their masters." Now they may lawfully do anything that will profit their masters: and this would be especially the case if they gave alms for them.
Therefore those who are under another"s power can give alms.
_On the contrary,_ Alms should not be given out of another"s property; and each one should give alms out of the just profit of his own labor as Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. x.x.xv, 2). Now if those who are subject to anyone were to give alms, this would be out of another"s property. Therefore those who are under another"s power cannot give alms.
_I answer that,_ Anyone who is under another"s power must, as such, be ruled in accordance with the power of his superior: for the natural order demands that the inferior should be ruled according to its superior. Therefore in those matters in which the inferior is subject to his superior, his ministrations must be subject to the superior"s permission.
Accordingly he that is under another"s power must not give alms of anything in respect of which he is subject to that other, except in so far as he has been commissioned by his superior. But if he has something in respect of which he is not under the power of his superior, he is no longer subject to another in its regard, being independent in respect of that particular thing, and he can give alms therefrom.
Reply Obj. 1: If a monk be dispensed through being commissioned by his superior, he can give alms from the property of his monastery, in accordance with the terms of his commission; but if he has no such dispensation, since he has nothing of his own, he cannot give alms without his abbot"s permission either express or presumed for some probable reason: except in a case of extreme necessity, when it would be lawful for him to commit a theft in order to give an alms. Nor does it follow that he is worse off than before, because, as stated in _De Eccles. Dogm._ lxxi, "it is a good thing to give one"s property to the poor little by little, but it is better still to give all at once in order to follow Christ, and being freed from care, to be needy with Christ."
Reply Obj. 2: A wife, 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 as stated, in the case of a monk, in the preceding Reply.
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 (1 Cor. 11:3). As regards Blessed Lucy, she had a betrothed, not a husband, wherefore she could give alms with her mother"s consent.
Reply Obj. 3: What belongs to the children belongs also to the father: wherefore the child cannot give alms, except in such small quant.i.ty that one may presume the father to be willing: unless, perchance, the father authorize his child to dispose of any particular property. The same applies to servants. Hence the Reply to the Fourth Objection is clear.
_______________________
NINTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 32, Art. 9]
Whether One Ought to Give Alms to Those Rather Who Are More Closely United to Us?
Objection 1: It would seem that one ought not to give alms to those rather who are more closely united to us. For it is written (Ecclus.
12:4, 6): "Give to the merciful and uphold not the sinner ... Do good to the humble and give not to the unG.o.dly." Now it happens sometimes that those who are closely united to us are sinful and unG.o.dly. Therefore we ought not to give alms to them in preference to others.
Obj. 2: Further, alms should be given that we may receive an eternal reward in return, according to Matt. 6:18: "And thy Father Who seeth in secret, will repay thee." Now the eternal reward is gained chiefly by the alms which are given to the saints, according to Luke 16:9: "Make unto you friends of the mammon of iniquity, that when you shall fail, they may receive you into everlasting dwellings," which pa.s.sage Augustine expounds (De Verb. Dom. x.x.xv, 1): "Who shall have everlasting dwellings unless the saints of G.o.d? And who are they that shall be received by them into their dwellings, if not those who succor them in their needs?" Therefore alms should be given to the more holy persons rather than to those who are more closely united to us.
Obj. 3: Further, man is more closely united to himself. But a man cannot give himself an alms. Therefore it seems that we are not bound to give alms to those who are most closely united to us.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Tim. 5:8): "If any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 28), "it falls to us by lot, as it were, to have to look to the welfare of those who are more closely united to us." Nevertheless in this matter we must employ discretion, according to the various degrees of connection, holiness and utility. For we ought to give alms to one who is much holier and in greater want, and to one who is more useful to the common weal, rather than to one who is more closely united to us, especially if the latter be not very closely united, and has no special claim on our care then and there, and who is not in very urgent need.
Reply Obj. 1: We ought not to help a sinner as such, that is by encouraging him to sin, but as man, that is by supporting his nature.
Reply Obj. 2: Almsdeeds deserve on two counts to receive an eternal reward. First because they are rooted in charity, and in this respect an almsdeed is meritorious in so far as it observes the order of charity, which requires that, other things being equal, we should, in preference, help those who are more closely connected with us.
Wherefore Ambrose says (De Officiis i, 30): "It is with commendable liberality that you forget not your kindred, if you know them to be in need, for it is better that you should yourself help your own family, who would be ashamed to beg help from others." Secondly, almsdeeds deserve to be rewarded eternally, through the merit of the recipient, who prays for the giver, and it is in this sense that Augustine is speaking.
Reply Obj. 3: Since almsdeeds are works of mercy, just as a man does not, properly speaking, pity himself, but only by a kind of comparison, as stated above (Q. 30, AA. 1, 2), so too, properly speaking, no man gives himself an alms, unless he act in another"s person; thus when a man is appointed to distribute alms, he can take something for himself, if he be in want, on the same ground as when he gives to others.
_______________________
TENTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 32, Art. 10]
Whether Alms Should Be Given in Abundance?
Objection 1: It would seem that alms should not be given in abundance. For we ought to give alms to those chiefly who are most closely connected with us. But we ought not to give to them in such a way that they are likely to become richer thereby, as Ambrose says (De Officiis i, 30). Therefore neither should we give abundantly to others.
Obj. 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Officiis i, 30): "We should not lavish our wealth on others all at once, we should dole it out by degrees." But to give abundantly is to give lavishly. Therefore alms should not be given in abundance.
Obj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (2 Cor. 8:13): "Not that others should be eased," i.e. should live on you without working themselves, "and you burthened," i.e. impoverished. But this would be the result if alms were given in abundance. Therefore we ought not to give alms abundantly.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Tob. 4:93): "If thou have much, give abundantly."
_I answer that,_ Alms may be considered abundant in relation either to the giver, or to the recipient: in relation to the giver, when that which a man gives is great as compared with his means. To give thus is praiseworthy, wherefore Our Lord (Luke 21:3, 4) commended the widow because "of her want, she cast in all the living that she had."
Nevertheless those conditions must be observed which were laid down when we spoke of giving alms out of one"s necessary goods (A. 9).
On the part of the recipient, an alms may be abundant in two ways; first, by relieving his need sufficiently, and in this sense it is praiseworthy to give alms: secondly, by relieving his need more than sufficiently; this is not praiseworthy, and it would be better to give to several that are in need, wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor.
13:3): "If I should distribute ... to feed the poor," on which words a gloss comments: "Thus we are warned to be careful in giving alms, and to give, not to one only, but to many, that we may profit many."
Reply Obj. 1: This argument considers abundance of alms as exceeding the needs of the recipient.
Reply Obj. 2: The pa.s.sage quoted considers abundance of alms on the part of the giver; but the sense is that G.o.d does not wish a man to lavish all his wealth at once, except when he changes his state of life, wherefore he goes on to say: "Except we imitate Eliseus who slew his oxen and fed the poor with what he had, so that no household cares might keep him back" (3 Kings 19:21).
Reply Obj. 3: In the pa.s.sage quoted the words, "not that others should be eased or refreshed," refer to that abundance of alms which surpa.s.ses the need of the recipient, to whom one should give alms not that he may have an easy life, but that he may have relief.