Q32. Almsdeeds

Secunda Secundae · chapter 32 of 185 · ▶ Speed Read

Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Secunda Secundae·Q32. Almsdeeds

Source context

Theme: Almsdeeds as obligatory and meritorious acts of material charity toward the needy
Soul-faculty: Sentient Soul

Steiner

not engaged in the GA corpus

Cross-tradition

Jewish tradition (tzedakah)Tzedakah frames charitable giving not as voluntary generosity but as a justice-obligation, a structural parallel to Aquinas's argument that almsgiving can be a matter of precept rather than mere counsel.
Islamic tradition (zakat/sadaqa)Zakat (obligatory alms) and sadaqa (voluntary charity) instantiate a comparable two-tier structure to Aquinas's distinction between alms as precept (from superfluous goods) and alms as counsel (from necessary goods).
Buddhist tradition (dana)Dana, the first of the ten perfections in Theravada ethics, treats generosity as a foundational spiritual discipline; cross-tradition congruence with Aquinas lies in the shared principle that material giving cultivates interior detachment and moral virtue.

Article 1

[II-II.q.32.a.1.arg.1] Objection 1. It would seem that almsgiving is not an act of charity. For without charity one cannot do acts of charity. Now it is possible to give alms without having charity, according to 1 Corinthians 13:3: "If I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor . . . and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." Therefore almsgiving is not an act of charity.

[II-II.q.32.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod dare eleemosynam non sit actus charitatis. Actus enim charitatis non potest esse sine charitate. Sed largitio eleemosynarum potest esse sine charitate, secundum illud I ad Corinth., xiii, 3: Si distribuero in cibos pauperum omnes facultates meas..., charitatem autem non habuero, nihil mihi prodest. Ergo dare eleemosynam non est actus charitatis.

[II-II.q.32.a.1.arg.2] Objection 2. Further, almsdeeds are reckoned among works of satisfaction, according to Daniel 4:24: "Redeem thou thy sins with alms." Now satisfaction is an act of justice. Therefore almsgiving is an act of justice and not of charity.

[II-II.q.32.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, eleemosyna computatur inter opera satisfactionis, secundum illud Dan., iv, 24: Peccata tua eleemosynis redime. Sed satisfactio est actus justitiæ. Ergo dare eleemosynam non est actus charitatis, sed justitiæ.

[II-II.q.32.a.1.arg.3] Objection 3. Further, the offering of sacrifices to God is an act of religion.

But almsgiving is offering a sacrifice to God, according to Hebrews 13:16: "Do not forget to do good and to impart, for by such sacrifices God's favor is obtained." Therefore almsgiving is not an act of charity, but of religion.

[II-II.q.32.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, offerre hostiam Deo est actus latriæ. Sed dare eleemosynam est offerre hostiam Deo, secundum illud ad Hebr., ult., 16: Beneficentiæ et communionis nolite oblivisci; talibus enim hostiis promeretur Deus. Ergo non est actus charitatis dare eleemosynam, sed magis latriæ.

[II-II.q.32.a.1.arg.4] Objection 4. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, l) that to give for a good purpose is an act of liberality. Now this is especially true of almsgiving. Therefore almsgiving is not an act of charity.

[II-II.q.32.a.1.arg.4] 4. Præterea, Philosophus dicit in IV Ethic., cap. 1, quod dare aliquid propter bonum est actus liberalitatis. Sed hoc maxime fit in largitione eleemosynarum. Ergo dare eleemosynam non est actus charitatis.

[II-II.q.32.a.1.sc] On the contrary, It is written 1 John 3:17: "He that hath the substance of this world, and shall see his brother in need, and shall put up his bowels from him, how doth the charity of God abide in him?"

[II-II.q.32.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur I Joan., iii, 17: Qui habuerit substantiam hujus mundi, 1. Utrum eleemosyna sit actus virtutis. 2. De distinctione eleemosynarum quæ est quod quædam sunt corporales, quædam spirituales. 3. Quæ sint potiores; utrum, scilicet, corporales sint spiritualibus præferendæ. 4. Utrum eleemosynæ corporales habeant quem-dam spiritualem effectum. 5. Utrum dare eleemosynam cadat sub præcepto. 6. De quo debet dari eleemosyna. 7. Utrum quilibet possit dare eleemosynam. 8. Quibus dandæ sunt eleemosynæ. 9. Utrum abundanter. 10. Utrum homo possit dare eleemosynam sibi-ipsi. 11. De his quæ movere debent ad eleemosynas faciendas. 12. De multiplici effectu eleemosynæ. et viderit fratrem suum necessitatem patientem*, et clauserit viscera sua ab eo, quomodo charitas Dei manet in illo?

[II-II.q.32.a.1.co] I answer that, External acts belong to that virtue which regards the motive for doing those acts. Now the motive for giving alms is to relieve one who is in need. Wherefore some have defined alms as being "a deed whereby something is given to the needy, out of compassion and for God's sake," which motive belongs to mercy, as stated above (30, 1,2). Hence it is clear that almsgiving is, properly speaking, an act of mercy. This appears in its very name, for in Greek eleemosyne it is derived from having mercy eleein even as the Latin "miseratio" is. And since mercy is an effect of charity, as shown above (30, 2, 3, Objection 3), it follows that almsgiving is an act of charity through the medium of mercy.

[II-II.q.32.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod exteriores actus ad illam virtutem referuntur ad quam pertinet id quod est motivum ad agendum hujusmodi actus. Motivum autem ad dandum eleemosynas est ut subveniatur necessitatem patienti. Unde quidam definientes eleemosynam, discunt quod eleemosyna est « opus quo datur aliquid indigenti ex compassione propter Deum; » quod quidem motivum pertinet ad misericordiam, ut supra dictum est. Unde manifestum est quod dare eleemosynam proprie est actus misericordiae. Et hoc apparet ex ipso nomine; nam in græco, « eleemosyna » a misericordia derivatur, sicut in latino « miseratio. » Et quia misericordia est effectus charitatis, ut supra ostensum est; ex consequenti dare eleemosynam est actus charitatis, misericordia mediante.

[II-II.q.32.a.1.ad.1] Reply to Objection 1. An act of virtue may be taken in two ways: first materially, thus an act of justice is to do what is just; and such an act of virtue can be without the virtue, since many, without having the habit of justice, do what is just, led by the natural light of reason, or through fear, or in the hope of gain. Secondly, we speak of a thing being an act of justice formally, and thus an act of justice is to do what is just, in the same way as a just man, i.e. with readiness and delight, and such an act of virtue cannot be without the virtue.

Accordingly almsgiving can be materially without charity, but to give alms formally, i.e. for God's sake, with delight and readiness, and altogether as one ought, is not possible without charity.

[II-II.q.32.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod aliquid dicitur esse actus virtutis dupliciter : uno modo materialiter, sicut actus justitiæ est facere justa; et talis actus virtutis potest esse sine virtute; multi enim non habentes habitum justitiæ, justa operantur ex naturali ratione vel ex timore, sive ex spe aliquid adipiscendi. Alio modo dicitur esse aliquid actus virtutis formaliter, sicut actus justitiæ est actio justa, eo modo quo justus facit, scilicet prompte et delectabiliter; et hoc modo actus virtutis non est sine virtute. Secundum hoc ergo dare eleemosynas materialiter potest esse sine charitate; formaliter autem eleemosynas dare, id est propter Deum, delectabiliter, et prompte, et omni eo modo quo debet, non est sine charitate. 13. Qualis debet esse, ut Deo grata sit, et saluti-fera patienti. 14. De hospitalitate specialiter. 15. De visitatione infirmorum. 16. De visitatione incarceratorum. 17. De sepultura mortuorum. 18. De pietate parentum. » Distinctio xviii quatuor primos articulos explicat, distinctio xix sex sequentes, distinctio xx undecimum, distinctio xxi duodecimum, distinctio xxii decimum tertium, distinctio xxiii decimum quartum, distinctio xxiv tres sequentes, distinctio xxv ultimum. Sic cod.; in Parm.: « agere. » Secundum Guillermum: « per compassionem. » — Albertus Magnus dicit: « communiter ex magistris. »

[II-II.q.32.a.1.ad.2] Reply to Objection 2. Nothing hinders the proper elicited act of one virtue being commanded by another virtue as commanding it and directing it to this other virtue's end. It is in this way that almsgiving is reckoned among works of satisfaction in so far as pity for the one in distress is directed to the satisfaction for his sin; and in so far as it is directed to placate God, it has the character of a sacrifice, and thus it is commanded by religion.

Wherefore the Reply to the Third Objection is evident.

[II-II.q.32.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod nihil prohibet actus qui est proprie unius virtutis, elec- tive attribui alteri virtuti sicut imperanti et ordinanti ad suum finem; et hoc modo dare eleemosynam ponitur inter opera satisfactoria, inquantum miseratio defectum pa- tientis ordinatur ad satisfaciendum pro culpa; secundum autem quod ordinatur ad placandum Deum, habet rationem sacrificii; et sic imperatur a latria. Unde patet responsio ad tertium.

[II-II.q.32.a.1.ad.4] Reply to Objection 4. Almsgiving belongs to liberality, in so far as liberality removes an obstacle to that act, which might arise from excessive love of riches, the result of which is that one clings to them more than one ought.

[II-II.q.32.a.1.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod dare eleemosynam pertinet ad liberalitatem, inquantum liberalitas aufert impedimentum hujus actus quod esse posset ex superfluo amore divitia- rum, propter quem aliquis efficitur nimis retentivus earum.

Article 2

[II-II.q.32.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that the different kinds of almsdeeds are unsuitably enumerated. For we reckon seven corporal almsdeeds, namely, to feed the hungry, to give drink to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to harbor the harborless, to visit the sick, to ransom the captive, to bury the dead; all of which are expressed in the following verse: "To visit, to quench, to feed, to ransom, clothe, harbor or bury."

Again we reckon seven spiritual alms, namely, to instruct the ignorant, to counsel the doubtful, to comfort the sorrowful, to reprove the sinner, to forgive injuries, to bear with those who trouble and annoy us, and to pray for all, which are all contained in the following verse: "To counsel, reprove, console, to pardon, forbear, and to pray," yet so that counsel includes both advice and instruction.

And it seems that these various almsdeeds are unsuitably enumerated. For the purpose of almsdeeds is to succor our neighbor. But a dead man profits nothing by being buried, else Our Lord would not have spoken truly when He said (Matthew 10:28): "Be not afraid of them who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do." [The quotation is from Luke 12:4.] This explains why Our Lord, in enumerating the works of mercy, made no mention of the burial of the dead (Matthew 25:35-36). Therefore it seems that these almsdeeds are unsuitably enumerated.

[II-II.q.32.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod inconvenienter eleemosynarum genera distinguantur. Ponuntur enim septem eleemosynæ corporales, scilicet pascere esurientem, potare sitientem, vestire nudum, recolligere hospitem, visitare infirmum, redimere captivum, et sepelire mortuum; quæ in hoc versu continentur. Visito, poto, cibo, redimo, tego, colligo, condo. Ponuntur etiam aliæ septem eleemosynæ spirituales, scilicet docere ignorantem, consulere dubitanti, consolari tristem, corrigere peccantem, remittere offendenti, portare onerosos, et graves, et pro omnibus orare; quæ etiam in hoc versu continentur. Consule, castiga, solare, remitte, fer, ora. Ita tamen quod sub eodem intelligatur consilium et doctrina. Videtur autem quod inconvenienter hujusmodi eleemosynæ distinguantur. Eleemosyna enim ordinatur ad subveniendum proximo. Sed per hoc quod mortuus sepelitur, in nullo ei subvenitur; alioquin non esset verum quod Dominus Sic cod.; in margine tamen cujusdam cod. manus altera scripsit: « elicitive » quod et Parm. habet. Sed iste qui scripsit voluit explicite dare vocem quam male legerat. Unus cod. habet: « electione. » 2 Ita mss. et editi; edit. Patav. ex Nicolaï habet ad marginem.: « Plenius sic. » Consule, carpe, doce, solare, remitte, fer, ora. modo, aut defectus est interior, aut exterior. Interior quidem est duplex: unus quidem cui subvenitur per alimentum siccum, scilicet fames; et secundum hoc ponitur « passere esurientem. » Alius autem est cui subvenitur per alimentum humidum, scilicet sitis; et secundum hoc dicitur « potare sientem. » Defectus autem communis respectu exterioris auxilii est duplex: unus respectu tegumenti; et quantum ad hoc ponitur « vestire nudum. » Alius autem respectu habitaculi; et quantum ad hoc ponitur « suscipere hospitem. » Similiter autem si sit defectus aliquis specialis, aut est ex causa intrinseca, sicut infirmitas; et quantum ad hoc ponitur « visitare infirmum; » aut est ex causa extrinseca; et quantum ad hoc ponitur « redemptio captivorum. » Post vitam autem exhibetur mortuis « sepultura. » Similiter autem spiritualibus defectibus spiritualibus actibus subvenitur dupliciter: uno modo poscendo auxilium a Deo; et quantum ad hoc ponitur oratio, qua quis pro aliis orat. Alio modo impendendo humanum auxilium, et hoc tripliciter. Uno modo contra defectum intellectus; et si quidem sit defectus speculativi intellectus, adhibetur ei remedium per doctrinam; si autem practici intellectus, adhibetur ei remedium per consilium. Alio modo est defectus ex passione appetiti-væ virtutis; inter quos maximus est tristitia, cui subvenitur per consolationem. Tertio modo ex parte inordinati actus; qui quidem tripliciter considerari potest. Uno modo ex parte ipsius peccantis, inquantum procedit ab ejus inordinata voluntate; et sic adhibetur remedium per correctionem. Alio modo ex parte ejus in quem peccatur; et sic si quidem sit peccatum in nos, remedium adhibemus remittendo offensam; si autem sit in Deum vel in proximum, non est nostri arbitrii remittere, ut Hieronymus dicit, Sup. illud Matth., xviii: Si peccaverit in te, etc., col. 431, t. 7. Tertio modo ex parte sequelæ ipsius actus inordinati, ex quo aggravantur ei conviventes, etiam praeter peccantis intentionem; et sic remedium adhibetur supportando, maxime in his qui ex infirmitate peccant, secundum illud Rom., xv, 1: Debemus nos firmiores infirmitates* aliorum sustinere: et non solum secundum quod infirmi sunt graves ex inordinatis actibus, sed etiam quæcumque eorum onera sunt supportanda, secundum illud Galat., vi, 2: Alter alterius onera portate.

[II-II.q.32.a.2.arg.2] Further, as stated above (Article 1), the purpose of giving alms is to relieve our neighbor's need. Now there are many needs of human life other than those mentioned above, for instance, a blind man needs a leader, a lame man needs someone to lean on, a poor man needs riches. Therefore these almsdeeds are unsuitably enumerated.

[II-II.q.32.a.2.arg.3] Further, almsgiving is a work of mercy. But the reproof of the wrong-doer savors, apparently, of severity rather than of mercy. Therefore it ought not to be reckoned among the spiritual almsdeeds.

[II-II.q.32.a.2.arg.4] Further, almsgiving is intended for the supply of a defect. But no man is without the defect of ignorance in some matter or other. Therefore, apparently, each one ought to instruct anyone who is ignorant of what he knows himself.

[II-II.q.32.a.2.sc] Gregory says (Nom. in Evang. ix): "Let him that hath understanding beware lest he withhold his knowledge; let him that hath abundance of wealth, watch lest he slacken his merciful bounty; let him who is a servant to art be most solicitous to share his skill and profit with his neighbor; let him who has an opportunity of speaking with the wealthy, fear lest he be condemned for retaining his talent, if when he has the chance he plead not with him the cause of the poor." Therefore the aforesaid almsdeeds are suitably enumerated in respect of those things whereof men have abundance or insufficiency.

[II-II.q.32.a.2.co] The aforesaid distinction of almsdeeds is suitably taken from the various needs of our neighbor: some of which affect the soul, and are relieved by spiritual almsdeeds, while others affect the body, and are relieved by corporal almsdeeds. For corporal need occurs either during this life or afterwards. If it occurs during this life, it is either a common need in respect of things needed by all, or it is a special need occurring through some accident supervening. On the first case, the need is either internal or external. Internal need is twofold: one which is relieved by solid food, viz. hunger, in respect of which we have "to feed the hungry"; while the other is relieved by liquid food, viz. thirst, and in respect of this we have "to give drink to the thirsty." The common need with regard to external help is twofold; one in respect of clothing, and as to this we have "to clothe the naked": while the other is in respect of a dwelling place, and as to this we have "to harbor the harborless." Again if the need be special, it is either the result of an internal cause, like sickness, and then we have "to visit the sick," or it results from an external cause, and then we have "to ransom the captive." After this life we give "burial to the dead."

In like manner spiritual needs are relieved by spiritual acts in two ways, first by asking for help from God, and in this respect we have "prayer," whereby one man prays for others; secondly, by giving human assistance, and this in three ways. First, in order to relieve a deficiency on the part of the intellect, and if this deficiency be in the speculative intellect, the remedy is applied by "instructing," and if in the practical intellect, the remedy is applied by "counselling." Secondly, there may be a deficiency on the part of the appetitive power, especially by way of sorrow, which is remedied by "comforting." Thirdly, the deficiency may be due to an inordinate act; and this may be the subject of a threefold consideration. First, in respect of the sinner, inasmuch as the sin proceeds from his inordinate will, and thus the remedy takes the form of "reproof." Secondly, in respect of the person sinned against; and if the sin be committed against ourselves, we apply the remedy by "pardoning the injury," while, if it be committed against God or our neighbor, it is not in our power to pardon, as Jerome observes (Super Matth. xviii, 15). Thirdly, in respect of the result of the inordinate act, on account of which the sinner is an annoyance to those who live with him, even beside his intention; in which case the remedy is applied by "bearing with him," especially with regard to those who sin out of weakness, according to Romans 15:1: "We that are stronger, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak," and not only as regards their being infirm and consequently troublesome on account of their unruly actions, but also by bearing any other burdens of theirs with them, according to Galatians 6:2: "Bear ye one another's burdens."

[II-II.q.32.a.2.ad.1] Burial does not profit a dead man as though his body could be capable of perception after death. On this sense Our Lord said that those who kill the body "have no more that they can do"; and for this reason He did not mention the burial of the dead with the other works of mercy, but those only which are more clearly necessary. Nevertheless it does concern the deceased what is done with his body: both that he may live in the memory of man whose respect he forfeits if he remain without burial, and as regards a man's fondness for his own body while he was yet living, a fondness which kindly persons should imitate after his death. It is thus that some are praised for burying the dead, as Tobias, and those who buried Our Lord; as Augustine says (De Cura pro Mort. iii).

[II-II.q.32.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod sepultura mortui non confert ei quantum ad sensum, quem corpus post mortem habeat, et secundum hoc Dominus dicit, quod interficientes corpus non habent amplius quid faciant; et propter hoc etiam Dominus non commemorat sepulturam inter alia misericordiæ opera; sed enumerat solum illa quæ sunt evidentioris necessitatis. Pertinet tamen ad defunctum, quid de ejus corpore agatur; tum quantum ad hoc quod vivit in memoris hominum, cujus honor dehonestatur, si insepultus remaneat; tum etiam quantum ad affectum, quem adhuc vivens habebat de suo corpore; cui piorum affectus cenformari debet post mortem ipsius; et secundum hoc commendantur aliqui de mortuorum sepultura, ut Tobias, et illi qui Dominum sepelierunt, ut patet per Augustinum, in lib. De cura pro mortuis agenda, cap. Ⅲ, col. 595, t. 6.

[II-II.q.32.a.2.ad.2] All other needs are reduced to these, for blindness and lameness are kinds of sickness, so that to lead the blind, and to support the lame, come to the same as visiting the sick. On like manner to assist a man against any distress that is due to an extrinsic cause comes to the same as the ransom of captives. And the wealth with which we relieve the poor is sought merely for the purpose of relieving the aforesaid needs: hence there was no reason for special mention of this particular need.

[II-II.q.32.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod omnes aliæ necessitates ad has reducuntur: nam cæciitas et claudicatio sunt infirmitates quædam; unde dirigere cæcum, et sustentare claudum reducuntur ad visitationem infirmorum. Similiter etiam subvenire homini contra quam-cumque oppressionem illatam extrinsecus, reducitur ad redemptionem captivorum. Divitiæ autem quibus paupertati subvenitur non quæruntur nisi ad subveniendum prædictis defectibus; et ideo non fuit specialis mentio de hoc defectu facienda.

[II-II.q.32.a.2.ad.3] The reproof of the sinner, as to the exercise of the act of reproving, seems to imply the severity of justice, but, as to the intention of the reprover, who wishes to free a man from the evil of sin, it is an act of mercy and lovingkindness, according to Proverbs 27:6: "Better are the wounds of a friend, than the deceitful kisses of an enemy."

[II-II.q.32.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod correctio peccantium, quantum ad ipsam executionem actus, severitatem justitiæ continere videtur; sed quantum ad intentionem corripientis, qui vult hominem a malo culpæ liberare, pertinet ad misericordiam et directionis affectum, secundum illud Prov., xxvii, 6: Meliora sunt vulnera diligentis quam fraudulenta oscula odientis.

[II-II.q.32.a.2.ad.4] Nescience is not always a defect, but only when it is about what one ought to know, and it is a part of almsgiving to supply this defect by instruction. On doing this however we should observe the due circumstances of persons, place and time, even as in other virtuous acts.

[II-II.q.32.a.2.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod non quæliet nescientia pertinet ad hominis defectum, sed solum ea qua quis nescit ea quæ convenit eum scire; cui defectui per doctrinam subvenire ad eleemosynam pertinet. In quo tamen observandæ sunt debitæ circumstan-tiae personæ, loci et temporis, sicut et in aliis actibus virtuosis.

Article 3

[II-II.q.32.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that corporal alms are of more account than spiritual alms. For it is more praiseworthy to give an alms to one who is in greater want, since an almsdeed is to be praised because it relieves one who is in need. Now the body which is relieved by corporal alms, is by nature more needy than the spirit which is relieved by spiritual alms. Therefore corporal alms are of more account.

[II-II.q.32.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod eleemosynæ corporales sint potiores quam spirituales. Laudabilius enim est magis indigenti eleemosynam facere; ex hoc enim eleemosyna laudem habet quod indigenti subvenit. Sed corpus, cui subvenitur per eleemosynas corporales, est indigentioris naturæ, quam spiritus cui subvenitur per eleemosynas spirituales. Ergo eleemosynæ corporales sunt potiores.

[II-II.q.32.a.3.arg.2] Further, an alms is less praiseworthy and meritorious if the kindness is compensated, wherefore Our Lord says (Luke 14:12): "When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy neighbors who are rich, lest perhaps they also invite thee again. Now there is always compensation in spiritual almsdeeds, since he who prays for another, profits thereby, according to Psalm 34:13: "My prayer shall be turned into my bosom: and he who teaches another, makes progress in knowledge, which cannot be said of corporal almsdeeds. Therefore corporal almsdeeds are of more account than spiritual almsdeeds.

[II-II.q.32.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, recompensatio beneficii laudem et meritum eleemosynæ minuit; unde et Dominus dicit, Lucæ, xiv, 42: Cum facis prandium aut cænam, noli vocare vicinos divites; ne forte te et ipsi reinvitent. Sed in eleemosynis spiritualibus semper est recompensatio; quia qui orat pro alio, sibi proficit, secundum illud psal. xxxiv, 43: Oratio mea in sinu meo convertetur; qui etiam alium docet, ipse in scientia proficit: quod non contingit in eleemosynis corporalibus. Ergo eleemosynæ corporales sunt potiores quam spirituales.

[II-II.q.32.a.3.arg.3] Further, an alms is to be commended if the needy one is comforted by it: wherefore it is written (Job 31:20): "If his sides have not blessed me," and the Apostle says to Philemon (verse 7): "The bowels of the saints have been refreshed by thee, brother." Now a corporal alms is sometimes more welcome to a needy man than a spiritual alms. Therefore bodily almsdeeds are of more account than spiritual almsdeeds.

[II-II.q.32.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, ad laudem eleemosynæ pertinet quod pauper ex eleemosyna data consoletur: unde Job, xxxi, 20, dicitur: Si non benedixerunt mihi latera ejus; et ad Philemonem, vii, dicit Apostolus: Viscera sanctorum requieverunt per te, frater. Sed quandoque magis est grata pauperi eleemosyna corporalis quam spiritualis. Ergo eleemosyna corporalis potior est quam spiritualis.

[II-II.q.32.a.3.sc] Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 20) on the words, "Give to him that asketh of thee" (Matthew 5:42): "You should give so as to injure neither yourself nor another, and when you refuse what another asks you must not lose sight of the claims of justice, and send him away empty; at times indeed you will give what is better than what is asked for, if you reprove him that asks unjustly." Now reproof is a spiritual alms. Therefore spiritual almsdeeds are preferable to corporal almsdeeds.

[II-II.q.32.a.3.sc] Sed contra est quod Augustinus, in lib. I De serm. Dom. in monte, cap. xx, § 67, col. 4264, t. 3, super illud: Qui petit a te, da ei, dicit: « Dandum est quod nec tibi, nec alteri noceat, et cum negaveris quod petit, indicanda est justitia, ut non eum inanem dimittas; et aliquando melius aliquid dabis, cum injuste petentem correxeris. » Correctio autem est eleemosyna spiritualis. Ergo spirituales eleemosynæ sunt corporalibus præferendæ. 1 In Catil., in comparat. M. Caton. et C. Cæsar. Notate versus:

[II-II.q.32.a.3.co] There are two ways of comparing these almsdeeds. First, simply; and in this respect, spiritual almsdeeds hold the first place, for three reasons. First, because the offering is more excellent, since it is a spiritual gift, which surpasses a corporal gift, according to Proverbs 4:2: "I will give you a good gift, forsake not My Law." Secondly, on account of the object succored, because the spirit is more excellent than the body, wherefore, even as a man in looking after himself, ought to look to his soul more than to his body, so ought he in looking after his neighbor, whom he ought to love as himself. Thirdly, as regards the acts themselves by which our neighbor is succored, because spiritual acts are more excellent than corporal acts, which are, in a fashion, servile.

Secondly, we may compare them with regard to some particular case, when some corporal alms excels some spiritual alms: for instance, a man in hunger is to be fed rather than instructed, and as the Philosopher observes (Topic. iii, 2), for a needy man "money is better than philosophy," although the latter is better simply.

[II-II.q.32.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod comparatio istarum eleemosynarum potest attendi dupliciter: uno modo, simpliciter loquendo; et secundum hoc eleemosynæ spirituales pra-eminent, triplici ratione: primo quidem quia id quod exhibetur, nobilius est, scilicet donum spirituale, quod praeeminet corporali secundum illud Proverb., iv, 2: Donum bonum tribuam vobis, legem meam ne dere-linquatis. Secundo ratione ejus cui subvenitur: quia spiritus nobiliar est corpore: unde sicut homo sibiipsi magis debet providere quantum ad spiritum, quam quantum ad corpus; ita et proximo, quem debet sicut seipsum diligere. Tertio quantum ad ipsos actus quibus subvenitur proximo; quia spirituales actus sunt nobiliores corporalibus, qui sunt quodammodo serviles. Alio modo possunt comparari secundum aliquem particularem casum, in quo quædam corporalis eleemosyna alicui spirituali præfertur; puta magis est pascendus fame moriens, quam docendus; sicut et indigenti, secundum Philosophum, lib. III Top., c. ii, loco 40: « Melius est ditari quam philosophi; » quamvis hoc sit simpliciter melius.

[II-II.q.32.a.3.ad.1] It is better to give to one who is in greater want, other things being equal, but if he who is less needy is better, and is in want of better things, it is better to give to him: and it is thus in the case in point.

[II-II.q.32.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod dare magis indigenti melius est, cæteris paribus; sed si minus indigens sit melior, et melioribus indigeat, dare ei melius est; et sic est in proposito.

[II-II.q.32.a.3.ad.2] Compensation does not detract from merit and praise if it be not intended, even as human glory, if not intended, does not detract from virtue. Thus Sallust says of Cato (Catilin.), that "the less he sought fame, the more he became famous": and thus it is with spiritual almsdeeds.

Nevertheless the intention of gaining spiritual goods does not detract from merit, as the intention of gaining corporal goods.

[II-II.q.32.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod recompensatio non minuit meritum et laudem eleemosynæ, si non sit intenta; sicut et humana gloria, si non sit intenta, non minuit rationem virtutis; sicut et de Catone Sallustius dicit quod « quo minus gloriam petebat, eo magis illam assequebatur. » Et ita contingit in eleemosynis spiritualibus. Et tamen intentio bonorum spiritualium non minuit meritum, sicut intentio bonorum corporalium.

[II-II.q.32.a.3.ad.3] The merit of an almsgiver depends on that in which the will of the recipient rests reasonably, and not on that in which it rests when it is inordinate.

[II-II.q.32.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod meritum dantis eleemosynam attenditur secundum id in quo debet rationabiliter requiescere voluntas accipientis, non in eo in quo requiescit, si sit inordinata.

Article 4

[II-II.q.32.a.4.arg.1] It would seem that corporal almsdeeds have not a spiritual effect. For no effect exceeds its cause. But spiritual goods exceed corporal goods. Therefore corporal almsdeeds have no spiritual effect.

[II-II.q.32.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod eleemosynæ corporales non habeant effectum spiritualem. Effectus enim non est potior sua causa. Sed bona spiritualia sunt potiora corporalibus. Non ergo eleemosynæ corporales habent spirituales effectus.

[II-II.q.32.a.4.arg.2] Further, the sin of simony consists in giving the corporal for the spiritual, and it is to be utterly avoided. Therefore one ought not to give alms in order to receive a spiritual effect.

[II-II.q.32.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, dare corporale pro spirituali vitium est simoniæ. Sed hoc vitium est omnino vitandum. Non ergo sunt dandæ eleemosynæ ad consequendum spirituales effectus.

[II-II.q.32.a.4.arg.3] Further, to multiply the cause is to multiply the effect. If therefore corporal almsdeeds cause a spiritual effect, the greater the alms, the greater the spiritual profit, which is contrary to what we read (Luke 21:3) of the widow who cast two brass mites into the treasury, and in Our Lord's own words "cast in more than . . . all." Therefore bodily almsdeeds have no spiritual effect.

[II-II.q.32.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, multiplicata causa, multiplicatur effectus. Si ergo eleemosyna corporalis causaret spiritualem effectum, sequetur quod major eleemosyna magis spiritualiter proficeret; quod est contra illud quod legitur Luc., xxi, de vidua mittente duo aera minuta in gazophylacium, quæ secundum sententiam Domini plus omnibus* misit. Non ergo eleemosyna corporalis habet spiritualem effectum.

[II-II.q.32.a.4.sc] It is written (Sirach 17:18): "The alms of a man . . . shall preserve the grace of a man as the apple of the eye."

[II-II.q.32.a.4.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Eccli., xvii, 18: Eleemosyna viri... gratiam hominis quasi pupillam conservabit.

[II-II.q.32.a.4.co] Corporal almsdeeds may be considered in three ways. First, with regard to their substance, and in this way they have merely a corporal effect, inasmuch as they supply our neighbor's corporal needs. Secondly, they may be considered with regard to their cause, in so far as a man gives a corporal alms out of love for God and his neighbor, and in this respect they bring forth a spiritual fruit, according to Sirach 29:13-14: "Lose thy money for thy brother . . . place thy treasure in the commandments of the Most High, and it shall bring thee more profit than gold."

Thirdly, with regard to the effect, and in this way again, they have a spiritual fruit, inasmuch as our neighbor, who is succored by a corporal alms, is moved to pray for his benefactor; wherefore the above text goes on (Sirach 29:15): "Shut up alms in the heart of the poor, and it shall obtain help for thee from all evil."

[II-II.q.32.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod eleemosyna corporalis tripliciter potest considerari. Uno modo secundum suam substantiam: et secundum hoc non habet nisi corporalem effectum, inquantum scilicet supplet corporales defectus proximorum. Alio modo potest considerari ex parte causæ ejus, inquantum scilicet aliquis eleemosynam corporalem dat propter dilectionem Dei et proximi; et quantum ad hoc affert fructum spiritualem, secundum illud Eccli., xxix, 13: Perde pecuniam propter fratrem..., pone thesaurum in præceptis Altissimi; et proderit tibi magis quam aurum. Tertio modo ex parte effectus; et sic etiam habet spiritualem fructum, inquantum scilicet proximus, cui per corporalem eleemosynam subvenitur, movetur ad orandum pro benefactore. Unde et ibidem subditur: Conclude eleemosynam in sinu* pauperis; et hæc pro te exorabit ab omni malo.

[II-II.q.32.a.4.ad.1] This argument considers corporal almsdeeds as to their substance.

[II-II.q.32.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ratio illa procedit de corporali eleemosyna secundum suam substantiam.

[II-II.q.32.a.4.ad.2] He who gives an alms does rot intend to buy a spiritual thing with a corporal thing, for he knows that spiritual things infinitely surpass corporal things, but he intends to merit a spiritual fruit through the love of charity.

[II-II.q.32.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod ille qui dat eleemosynam, non intendit emere aliquid spirituale per corporale, quia scit spiritualia in infinitum corporalibus præeminere; sed intendit per charitatis affectum spiritualem fructum promereri.

[II-II.q.32.a.4.ad.3] The widow who gave less in quantity, gave more in proportion; and thus we gather that the fervor of her charity, whence corporal almsdeeds derive their spiritual efficacy, was greater.

[II-II.q.32.a.4.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod vidua, quæ minus dedit secundum quantitatem, plus dedit secundum suam proportionem; ex quo pensatur in ipsa major charitatis affectus, ex quo corporalis eleemosyna spiritualem efficaciam habet.

Article 5

[II-II.q.32.a.5.arg.1] It would seem that almsgiving is not a matter of precept. For the counsels are distinct from the precepts. Now almsgiving is a matter of counsel, according to Daniel 4:24: "Let my counsel be acceptable to the King; [Vulgate: 'to thee, and'] redeem thou thy sins with alms." Therefore almsgiving is not a matter of precept.

[II-II.q.32.a.5.arg.1] Ad quintum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod dare eleemosynam non sit in præcepto. Consilia enim a præceptis distinguentur. Sed dare eleemosynam est consilium, secundum illud Dan., iv, 24: Consilium meum regi placeat: peccata tua eleemosynis redime. Ergo dare eleemosynam non est in præcepto.

[II-II.q.32.a.5.arg.2] Further, it is lawful for everyone to use and to keep what is his own. Yet by keeping it he will not give alms. Therefore it is lawful not to give alms: and consequently almsgiving is not a matter of precept.

[II-II.q.32.a.5.arg.2] 2. Præterea, cuilibet licet sua re uti, et eam retinere. Sed retinendo rem suam aliquis eleemosynam non dabit. Ergo licitum est eleemosynam non dare. Non ergo dare eleemosynam est in præcepto.

[II-II.q.32.a.5.arg.3] Further, whatever is a matter of precept binds the transgressor at some time or other under pain of mortal sin, because positive precepts are binding for some fixed time. Therefore, if almsgiving were a matter of precept, it would be possible to point to some fixed time when a man would commit a mortal sin unless he gave an alms. But it does not appear how this can be so, because it can always be deemed probable that the person in need can be relieved in some other way, and that what we would spend in almsgiving might be needful to ourselves either now or in some future time. Therefore it seems that almsgiving is not a matter of precept.

[II-II.q.32.a.5.arg.3] 3. Præterea, omne quod cadit sub præcepto aliquo tempore obligat transgressores ad peccatum mortale; quia præcepta affirmativa obligant pro tempore determinato. Ergo si dare eleemosynam caderet sub præcepto, esset determinare aliquod tempus in quo homo peccaret mortaliter, nisi eleemosynam daret. Sed hoc non videtur: quia semper probabiliter aestimari potest quod pauperi aliter subveniri possit, et quod id quod est in eleemosynas erogandum, posset ei esse necessarium vel in præsenti, vel in futuro. Ergo videtur quod eleemosynam dare non sit in præcepto.

[II-II.q.32.a.5.arg.4] Further, every commandment is reducible to the precepts of the Decalogue. But these precepts contain no reference to almsgiving. Therefore almsgiving is not a matter of precept.

[II-II.q.32.a.5.arg.4] 4. Præterea, omnia præcepta ad præcepta decalogi reducuntur. Sed inter illa præcepta nihil continetur de datione eleemosynarum. Ergo dare eleemosynas non est in præcepto.

[II-II.q.32.a.5.sc] No man is punished eternally for omitting to do what is not a matter of precept. But some are punished eternally for omitting to give alms, as is clear from Matthew 25:41-43. Therefore almsgiving is a matter of precept.

[II-II.q.32.a.5.sc] Sed contra, nullus punitur poena aeterna pro omissione alicujus quod non cadit sub præcepto. Sed aliqui puniuntur poena aeterna pro omissione eleemosynarum, ut patet Matth., xxv. Ergo dare eleemosynam, est in præcepto.

[II-II.q.32.a.5.co] 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 3:18: "Let us not love in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth." And in order to be a person's well-wisher and well-doer, we ought to succor his needs: this is done by almsgiving. Therefore almsgiving is a matter of precept.

Since, however, precepts are about acts of virtue, it follows that all almsgiving must be a matter of precept, in so far as it is necessary to virtue, namely, in so far as it is demanded by right reason. Now right reason demands that we should take into consideration something on the part of the giver, and something on the part of the recipient. On the part of the giver, it must be noted that he should give of his surplus, according to Luke 11:41: "That which remaineth, give alms." This surplus is to be taken in reference not only to himself, so as to denote what is unnecessary to the individual, but also in reference to those of whom he has charge (in which case we have the expression "necessary to the person" [The official necessities of a person in position] taking the word "person" as expressive of dignity). Because each one must first of all look after himself and then after those over whom he has charge, and afterwards with what remains relieve the needs of others. Thus nature first, by its nutritive power, takes what it requires for the upkeep of one's own body, and afterwards yields the residue for the formation of another by the power of generation.

On the part of the recipient it is requisite that he should be in need, else there would be no reason for giving him alms: yet since it is not possible for one individual to relieve the needs of all, we are not bound to relieve all who are in need, but only those who could not be succored if we not did succor them. For in such cases the words of Ambrose apply, "Feed him that dies of hunger: if thou hast not fed him, thou hast slain him" [Cf. Canon Pasce, dist. lxxxvi, whence the words, as quoted, are taken]. Accordingly we are bound to give alms of our surplus, as also to give alms to one whose need is extreme: otherwise almsgiving, like any other greater good, is a matter of counsel.

[II-II.q.32.a.5.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod cum dilectio proximi sit in præcepto, necesse est omnia illa cadere sub præcepto sine quibus dilectio proximi non conservatur. Ad dilectionem autem proximi pertinet ut proximo non solum velimus bonum, sed etiam operemur, secundum illud I Joan., m, 18: Non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. Ad hoc autem quod velimus et operemur bonum alicujus, requiritur quod ejus necessitati subveniamus; quod fit per eleemosynarum largitionem; et ideo eleemosynarum largitio est in præcepto. Sed quia præcepta dantur de actibus virtutum, necesse est quod hoc modo donum eleemosynæ cadat sub præcepto, secundum quod actus est de necessitate virtutis; scilicet secundum quod recta ratio requirit, secundum quam est aliquid considerandum ex parte dantis, et aliquid ex parte ejus cui est eleemosyna danda. Ex parte quidem dantis considerandum est ut id quod est in eleemosynas erogandum, sit ei superfluum, secundum illud Luc., xi, 41: Quod superest, date eleemosynam. Et dico « superfluum » non solum respectu suiipsius, quod est supra id quod est necessarium naturæ ejus, sed etiam respectu aliorum quorum cura ei incumbit; quia prius oportet quod unusquisque sibi providet, et his quorum cura ei incumbit, et postea de residuo aliorum necessitatibus subveniat, respectu quorum dicitur « necessarium personæ, » secundum quod « persona» dignitatem importat; sicut et natura primo accipit sibi ad sustentationem proprii corporis, quod est necessarium ministerio vir- In Parm.: « individuo. » Sic cod.; in Parm. hæc periodus: « quia prius oportet, » etc., transponitur post verbum « importat. » Sed sensus est iste: necessarium « naturæ » est quod individuo et his quorum cura ei incumbit est necessarium; eorum vitæ; et tunc residuum est necessarium personæ, seu dignitati. Sic refertur in Decreto, distinct. Lxxxvii, cap. « Pasce, » sub nomine Ambrosii, De offieiis. Sed non legitur in libro De offieiis, nec jam habetur liber De alendis pauperibus, de quo affert hunc locum Bartholomæus Urbinas in Milleloquio ambrosiano. Ita Suarez, Bellarminus et veteres. Negat Vasquez hominem teneri ad eleemosynam in com- tutis nutritivæ; superfluum autem erogat ad generationem alterius per virtutem generativam. Ex parte autem recipientis requiritur quod necessitatem habeat, alioquin non esset ratio quare eleemosyna ei daretur. Sed cum non possit ab aliquo uno omnibus necessitatem habentibus subveniri; non omnis necessitas obligat ad præceptum, sed illa sola sine qua is qui necessitatem patitur, sustentari non potest. In illo enim casu locum habet quod Ambrosius dicit: « Pasce fame morientem; si non paveris, occidisti. » Sic ergo dare eleemosynam de superfluo est in præcepto, et dare eleemosynam ei qui est in extrema necessitate; alias autem eleemosynas dare est in consilio, sicut et de quolibet meliori bono dantur consilia.

[II-II.q.32.a.5.ad.1] Daniel spoke to a king who was not subject to God's Law, wherefore such things as were prescribed by the Law which he did not profess, had to be counselled to him. Or he may have been speaking in reference to a case in which almsgiving was not a matter of precept.

[II-II.q.32.a.5.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Daniel loquebatur regi qui non erat legi Dei subjectus; et ideo ea quæ pertinent ad præceptum legis, quam non profitebatur, erant ei proponenda per modum consilii. Vel potest dici quod loquebatur in casu illo in quo dare eleemosynam non est in præcepto.

[II-II.q.32.a.5.ad.2] The temporal goods which God grants us, are ours as to the ownership, but as to the use of them, they belong not to us alone but also to such others as we are able to succor out of what we have over and above our needs. Hence Basil says [Hom. super Luc. xii, 18: "If you acknowledge them," viz. your temporal goods, "as coming from God, is He unjust because He apportions them unequally? Why are you rich while another is poor, unless it be that you may have the merit of a good stewardship, and he the reward of patience? It is the hungry man's bread that you withhold, the naked man's cloak that you have stored away, the shoe of the barefoot that you have left to rot, the money of the needy that you have buried underground: and so you injure as many as you might help." Ambrose expresses himself in the same way.

[II-II.q.32.a.5.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod bona temporalia, quæ homini divinitus conferuntur, ejus quidem sunt quantum ad proprietatem; sed quantum ad usum non solum debent esse ejus, sed etiam aliorum, qui ex eis sustentari possunt ex eo quod ei superfluit. Unde Basilius dicit, Hom. super illud Luc., xi, Destrua horrea mea, §7: « Si fateris ea tibi divinitus provenisse, » scilicet temporalia bona, « an injustus est Deus inæqualiter res nobis distribuens ? Cur tu abundas, ille vero mendicat, nisi ut tu bonæ dispensationis merita consequaris, ille vero patientiae braviis decoretur? est panis famelici, quem tu tenes; nudi tunica, quam in conclavi conservas, discalceati calceus qui penes te munibus pauperum necessitatibus; Tournely et Sanchez volunt divites teneri sub gravi; Medina sub levi, si nulla sit justa causa negandi, alias nullo modo; sic etiam S. Ligorius, in sua Theologia morali, quamvis in Homine apostolico tenat divitem obligari sub gravi. — Idem S. Ligorius docet non adesse obligationem totum superfluum dandi, sed solummodo quinquagesimam redituum partem, si sit superflua. Obligationem gravem dandi in communibus etiam ex superfluis statui negant S. Antoninus, Layman, Sotus, Sylvius, Halensis, etc.; affirmant Cajetanus, Contenson, Tournely, S. Ligorius, etc. S. Ligorius pro sua sententia S. Thomam allegat; invocatque S. Thomæ quem-dam textum qui nil in quæstione probare videtur. marcescit; indigentis argentum, quod possi-des inhumatum. Quocirca tot injurias, quot dare valens es. » Et hoc idem dicit Ambrosius, Serm. lxiv de temp., ut habetur in Decret., c. « Sicut ii, » dist. xlvii, col. 247.

[II-II.q.32.a.5.ad.3] There is a time when we sin mortally if we omit to give alms; on the part of the recipient when we see that his need is evident and urgent, and that he is not likely to be succored otherwise--on the part of the giver, when he has superfluous goods, which he does not need for the time being, as far as he can judge with probability. Nor need he consider every case that may possibly occur in the future, for this would be to think about the morrow, which Our Lord forbade us to do (Matthew 6:34), but he should judge what is superfluous and what necessary, according as things probably and generally occur.

[II-II.q.32.a.5.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod est aliquod tempus in quo mortaliter peccat, si eleemosynam dare omittat; ex parte quidem « recipientis, » cum apparet evidens et urgens necessitas, nec apparet in promptu qui ei subveniat; ex parte vero dantis, cum habet superflua, quæ secundum statum præsentem non sunt sibi necessaria, prout probabiliter aestimari potest. Nec oportet quod consideret omnes casus qui possunt contingere in futurum; hoc enim esset de crastino cogitare, quod Dominus prohibet, Matth., vi. Sed debent dijudicari « superfluum » et « necessarium » secundum ea quæ probabiliter, et ut in pluribus occurrunt.

[II-II.q.32.a.5.ad.4] All succor given to our neighbor is reduced to the precept about honoring our parents. For thus does the Apostle interpret it (1 Timothy 4:8) where he says: "Dutifulness* [Douay: 'Godliness'] is profitable to all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come," and he says this because the precept about honoring our parents contains the promise, "that thou mayest be longlived upon the land" (Exodus 20:12): and dutifulness comprises all kinds of almsgiving. ["Pietas," whence our English word "Piety." Cf. also inf, 101, 2.]

[II-II.q.32.a.5.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod omnis subventio proximi reducitur ad præceptum de honoratione parentum. Sic enim Apostolus interpretatur I ad Timoth., iv, 8, dicens : Pietas ad omnia utilis est, promissionem habens vitæ, quæ nunc est, et futuræ; quod dicit, quia in præcepto de honoratione parentum additur promissio, Exod., xx, 12 : Ut sis longævus super terram. Sub pietate autem comprehenditur omnis eleemosynarum largitio.

Article 6

[II-II.q.32.a.6.arg.1] It would seem that one ought not to give alms out of what one needs. For the order of charity should be observed not only as regards the effect of our benefactions but also as regards our interior affections. Now it is a sin to contravene the order of charity, because this order is a matter of precept. Since, then, the order of charity requires that a man should love himself more than his neighbor, it seems that he would sin if he deprived himself of what he needed, in order to succor his neighbor.

[II-II.q.32.a.6.arg.1] Ad sextum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod aliquis non debeat eleemosynam dare de necessario. Ordo enim charitatis non minus attenditur penes effectum beneficii quam penes interiorem affectum. Peccat autem qui præpostere agit in ordine charitatis; quia ordo charitatis est in præcepto. Cum ergo ex ordine charitatis plus debeat aliquis se quam proximum diligere, videtur quod peccet, si subtrahat sibi necessaria, ut alteri largiatur.

[II-II.q.32.a.6.arg.2] Further, whoever gives away what he needs himself, squanders his own substance, and that is to be a prodigal, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 1). But no sinful deed should be done. Therefore we should not give alms out of what we need.

[II-II.q.32.a.6.arg.2] 2. Præterea, quicumque largitur de his quæ sunt necessaria sibi, est proprie substantiæ dissipator, quod pertinet ad prodigum, ut patet per Philosophum in IV Ethic., c. 1, a princ. Sed nullum opus vitiosum est facien-dum. Ergo non est danda eleemosyna de necessario.

[II-II.q.32.a.6.arg.3] Further, the Apostle says (1 Timothy 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." Now if a man gives of what he needs for himself or for his charge, he seems to detract from the care he should have for himself or his charge. Therefore it seems that whoever gives alms from what he needs, sins gravely.

[II-II.q.32.a.6.arg.3] 3. Præterea, Apostolus dicit I ad Timoth., v, 8 : Si quis suorum, et maxime domesti-corum curam non habet, fidem negavit, et est infideli deterior. Sed quod aliquis det de his quæ sunt sibi necessaria, vel suis, videtur derogare curæ quam quis debet habere de se et de suis. Ergo videtur quod quicumque de necessariis eleemosynam dat, graviter peccet.

[II-II.q.32.a.6.sc] Our Lord said (Matthew 19:21): "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor." Now he that gives all he has to the poor, gives not only what he needs not, but also what he needs. Therefore a man may give alms out of what he needs.

[II-II.q.32.a.6.sc] Sed contra est quod Dominus dicit Matth., xix, 21 : Si vis perfectus esse, vade, et vende omnia quæ habes, et da pauperibus. Sed ille qui dat omnia quæ habet pauperibus non solum dat superflua, sed etiam necessaria. Ergo de necessariis potest homo eleemosynam dare.

[II-II.q.32.a.6.co] A thing is necessary in two ways: first, because without it something is impossible, and it is altogether wrong to give alms out of what is necessary to us in this sense; for instance, if a man found himself in the presence of a case of urgency, and had merely sufficient to support himself and his children, or others under his charge, he would be throwing away his life and that of others if he were to give away in alms, what was then necessary to him. Yet I say this without prejudice to such a case as might happen, supposing that by depriving himself of necessaries a man might help a great personage, and a support of the Church or State, since it would be a praiseworthy act to endanger one's life and the lives of those who are under our charge for the delivery of such a person, since the common good is to be preferred to one's own.

Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary, if a man cannot without it live in keeping with his social station, as regards either himself or those of whom he has charge. The "necessary" considered thus is not an invariable quantity, for one might add much more to a man's property, and yet not go beyond what he needs in this way, or one might take much from him, and he would still have sufficient for the decencies of life in keeping with his own position. Accordingly it is good to give alms of this kind of "necessary"; and it is a matter not of precept but of counsel. Yet it would be inordinate to deprive oneself of one's own, in order to give to others to such an extent that the residue would be insufficient for one to live in keeping with one's station and the ordinary occurrences of life: for no man ought to live unbecomingly. There are, however, three exceptions to the above rule. The first is when a man changes his state of life, for instance, by entering religion, for then he gives away all his possessions for Christ's sake, and does the deed of perfection by transferring himself to another state. Secondly, when that which he deprives himself of, though it be required for the decencies of life, can nevertheless easily be recovered, so that he does not suffer extreme inconvenience. Thirdly, when he is in presence of extreme indigence in an individual, or great need on the part of the common weal. For in such cases it would seem praiseworthy to forego the requirements of one's station, in order to provide for a greater need.

The objections may be easily solved from what has been said.

[II-II.q.32.a.6.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod necessarium dupliciter dicitur : uno modo, sine quo aliquid esse non potest, et de tali necessario omnino eleemosyna dari non debet : puta si aliquis in articulo necessitatis constitutus haberet solum unde possent sustentari et filii sui vel allii ad eum pertinentes; de hoc enim necessario eleemosynam dare, est sibi et suis vitam subtrahere. Sed hoc dico nisi forte talis casus immineret, ubi subtrahendo sibi daret alicui magnæ personæ, per quam Ecclesia vel respublica sustentaretur; quia pro talis personæ liberatione seipsum et suos laudabiliter periculo mortis exponeret; cum bonum commune sit proprio præferendum. Alio modo dicitur aliquid esse necessarium, sine quo non potest convenienter vita transigi secundum conditionem et statum propriæ personæ et aliarum personarum quarum cura ei incumbit. Hujusmodi necessarii terminus non est in indivisibili constitutus, sed multis additis, non potest dijudicari esse ultra tale necessarium; et multis subtractis, adhuc remanet unde possit convenienter aliquis vitam transigere secundum proprium statum. De hujusmodi ergo eleemosynam dare est bonum; et non cadit sub præcepto, sed sub consilio. Inordinatum esset Sermo lxiv de tempore non refertur in edizione Migne, cum nil aliud sit quam hom. S. Basilii in illud Lucæ, xii : Destruam horrea mea, nonnullis Nicolaï : « in infinitum. » autem, si aliquis tantum sibi de bonis propriis subtraheret, ut aliis largiretur, quod de residuo non posset vitam transigere convenienter secundum proprium statum et negotia occurrentia. Nullus enim inconvenienter vivere debet. Sed ab hoc tria sunt excipienda : quorum primum est, quando aliquis statum mutat, puta per religionis ingressum; tunc enim omnia sua propter Christum largiens opus perfectionis facit, se in alio statu ponendo. Secundo, quando ea quæ sibi subtrahit, etsi sint necessaria ad convenientiam vitæ, tamen de facili resarciri possunt, ut non sequatur maximum inconveniens. Tertio, quando occurreret extrema necessitas alicujus privatæ personæ, vel etiam aliqua magna necessitas reipublicæ. In his enim casibus laudabiliter prætermitteret aliquis id quod ad decentiam sui status pertinere videretur, ut majori necessitati subveniret. Et per hoc patet de facili responsio ad objecta.

Article 7

[II-II.q.32.a.7.arg.1] It would seem that one may give alms out of ill-gotten goods. For it is written (Luke 16:9): "Make unto you friends of the mammon of iniquity." Now mammon signifies riches. Therefore it is lawful to make unto oneself spiritual friends by giving alms out of ill-gotten riches.

[II-II.q.32.a.7.arg.1] Ad septimum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod possit eleemosyna fieri de illicite acquisitis. Dicitur enim Luc., xvi, 9: Facite vobis amicos de mammona iniquitatis. Mammona autem significat divitias. Ergo de divitiis inique acquisitis potest sibi aliquis spirituales amicos facere eleemosynas largiendo.

[II-II.q.32.a.7.arg.2] Further, all filthy lucre seems to be ill-gotten. But the profits from whoredom are filthy lucre; wherefore it was forbidden (Deuteronomy 23:18) to offer therefrom sacrifices or oblations to God: "Thou shalt not offer the hire of a strumpet . . . in the house of . . . thy God." On like manner gains from games of chance are ill-gotten, for, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1), "we take such like gains from our friends to whom we ought rather to give." 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.

[II-II.q.32.a.7.arg.2] 2. Præterea, omne turpe lucrum videtur 1 esse illicite acquisitum. Sed turpe lucrum est quod de meretricio acquiritur; unde et de hujusmodi sacrificium, vel oblatio Deo offerri non debet, secundum illud Deuter., xxiii, 18: Non offers mercedem prostibuli in domo Dei tui. Similiter etiam turpiter acquisitur quod acquiritur per aleas : quia, ut Philosophus dicit in IV Ethic., c. 1, prope fin., « tales ab amicis lucrantur, quibus oportet dare. » Turpissime etiam acquisitur aliquid per simoniam, per quam aliquis Spi-ritui sancto injuriam facit. Et tamen de hujusmodi eleemosyna fieri potest. Ergo de male acquisitis potest aliquis eleemosynam facere.

[II-II.q.32.a.7.arg.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. lxxxvi, 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.

[II-II.q.32.a.7.arg.3] 3. Præterea, majora mala sunt magis vitanda quam minora. Sed minus peccatum est detentio rei alienæ quam homicidium, quod aliquis incurrit, nisi alii in ultima necessitate subveniat, ut patet per Ambrosium dicentem, loco cit., art. 5 hujus quæst. : « Pasce fame morientem; quoniam si non paveris occidisti. » Ergo aliquis potest eleemosynam facere in aliquo casu de male acquisitis.

[II-II.q.32.a.7.sc] Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xxxv, 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."

[II-II.q.32.a.7.sc] Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus in lib. De verbis Domini, serm. cxii, cap. ii, col. 649, t. 5: « De justis laboribus facite eleemosynas. Non enim corrupturi estis judicem Christum, ut non vos audiat cum pauperibus, quibus tollitis. Nolite velle eleemosynas facere de fenore, et usuris; fidelibus dico, quibus corpus Christi erogamus. »

[II-II.q.32.a.7.co] A thing may be ill-gotten in three ways. On 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 restitution 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 whoredom. This is filthy lucre properly so called, because the practice of whoredom is filthy and against the Law of God, 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.

[II-II.q.32.a.7.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod tripliciter potest aliquid esse illicite acquisitum : uno enim modo id illicite ab aliquo acquiritur quod debetur ei a quo est acquisitum, nec potest ab eo retineri qui acquisit; sicut contingit in rapina, et furto, et usuris; et de talibus cum homo teneatur ad restitutionem, eleemosyna fieri non potest. Alio vero modo est aliquid illicite acquisitum; quia ille quidem qui acquisitit retinere non potest, nec tamen debetur ei a quo acquisit; quia scilicet contra justitiam accepit, et alter contra justitiam dedit; sicut contingit in simonia, in qua dans et accipiens contra justitiam legis divinæ agit; unde non debet fieri restitutio ei qui dedit, sed debet in eleemosynas erogari. Et eadem ratio est in similibus, in quibus scilicet et datio et acceptio est contra legem. Tertio modo est aliquid illicite acquisitum, non quidem quia ipsa acquisitio sit illicita, sed quia id ex quo acquiritur, est illicitum; sicut patet de eo quod mulier acquirit per meretricium; et hoc proprie vocatur « turpe lucrum; » quod enim mulier meretricium exercat, turpiter agit, et contra legem Dei; sed in eo quod accipit, non injuste agit, nec contra legem. Unde quod sic illicite acquisitum est, retineri potest, et de eo eleemosyna fieri.

[II-II.q.32.a.7.ad.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.

[II-II.q.32.a.7.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod sicut Augustinus dicit in lib. De verb. Dom., ubi 1 Ita cum theologis Nicolaï; al. : « Omne turpe lucrum est quod videtur, » etc. supra: « Illud verbum Domini quidam male intelligendo, rapiunt res alienas, et aliquid inde pauperibus largiuntur, et putant se facere quod præceptum est. Intellectus iste corrigendus est. » Sed omnes divitiæ iniquitatis dicuntur, ut dicitur in lib. II De quæstionibus evangel., quæst. xxxiv, col. 1349, t. 3, quia « non sunt iniquæ divitiæ nisi iniquis qui in eis spem constitunt. » Vel secundum Ambrosium, super illud Luc., xvi: Facite vobis amicos, Serm. lxiv de tempore, « iniquum mammona dixit, quia variis divitiarum illecebris nostros tentat affectus. » Vel quia « in pluribus prædecessoribus quibus patrimonio succedis, aliquis reperitur, qui injuste usurpavit aliena, quamvis tu nescias, » ut Basilius dicit, hom. cit. art. 5. Vel omnes divitiæ dicuntur « iniquitatis, » id est « inæqualitatis, » quia non æqualiter sunt omnibus distributæ, uno egente et alio superabundante.

[II-II.q.32.a.7.ad.2] We have already explained how alms may be given out of the profits of whoredom. 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. On these cases he is bound to restitution, 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 restitution 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 restitution, 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.

[II-II.q.32.a.7.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod de acquisito per meretricium jam dictum est, qualiter eleemosyna fieri possit. Non autem fit de eo sacrificium vel oblatio ad altare, tum propter scandalum, tum propter sacrorum reverentiam. De eo etiam quod est per simoniam acquisitum, potest fieri eleemosyna, quia non est debitum ei qui dedit, sed meretur illud amittere. Circa illa vero quæ per aleas acquiruntur, videtur esse aliquid illicitum ex divino jure, scilicet quod aliquis De loco Ambrosii vide notam ad art. 5 ejusdem quæst., ad 2. — Al.: « inæquitatis. » — Non ut in Parm.: « non inæqualiter. » « Per aleam intelligitur omnis ludus innitens fortunæ, seu hazardo, aut sorti. » — Sic Guillelmus Pippinus. — Utraque lex positiva ludum aleæ prohibuit: lex civilis quam male allegat S. Ligorius in sua Theologia morali, lib. IV, tract. v, cap. III, n° 884, et quæ invenitur in Dig. vet., lib. XI, cap. « De alleæ lusu et aleatoribus, » tit. v; — et lex canonica quæ invenitur in Iª parte Decreti, dist. xxxv, cap. I « Episcopus. » Quid dicit S. Thomas? I. Jure divino videtur illicitum per aleas acquirere, scilicet lucrari ab his qui rem suam alienare non possunt, ut sunt minores, furiosi, et hujusmodi. II. Illicitum est pariter alium ex cupiditate lucrandi trahere ad ludum, et fraudulenter ab eo lucrari. — In his casibus tenetur aleator ad restitutionem. III. Ulterius illicitum est acquirere per aleas ex jure positivo civili, quod tale prohibibet lucrum universaliter. Sed quia jus civile eos obligat solos qui sunt his legibus subjecti, et quia iterum idem jus abrogari potest; ideo apud illos qui sunt hujusmodi legibus adstricti, tenentur universaliter ad restitutionem qui lucrantur, nisi forte contraria consuetudo prævaleat, aut nisi lucratus sit aliquis ab eo qui traxit eum ad ludum, in quo casu non tenetur ad restitutionem: unde debet de hoc eleemosynam facere in hoc casu. — Utrum autem acquisitum in alea sit necessario restituendum? S. Bonaventura dicit quod sic de necessitate salutis, aut in pios usus erogandum. S. Antoninus dicit quod ludere quid modicum, ut pueri faciunt, vel ob recreationem, et moderate, nec videtur esse mortale, nec ad restitutionem obligat. Halensis dicit quod ex quo pactum utrique parti placens intervenit, similiter et obligatio condicti, qui lucrantur sine fraude, et aliis prius positis, non tenentur restituere. Gabriel dicit quod pro securiori tales sunt admonendi, ut restituant, vel in pios usus distribuant. De tali erogatione Pippinus dicit: « Est securior, et ideo potius consulenda. Non est tamen de necessitate imponenda, ita ut propter hoc denegetur ab-tu nescias, » ut Basilius dicit, hom. cit. art. 5. Vel omnes divitiæ dicuntur « iniquitatis, » id est « inæqualitatis, » quia non æqualiter sunt omnibus distributæ, omnino dicendum est, inquit S. Ligorius, cum communi sententia, ipsos peccare mortaliter. Salmanticenses contrarium docent, secluso scandalo, quia leges relatæ vel ab initio non obligarunt nisi ad pœnam, vel ex consuetudine sunt abrogatæ. — S. Ligorius ipse concedit canones prohibentes non esse in tota sua observantia. Cæterum idem sanctus tam graviter damnat solummodo clericos publice et frequenter aleis ludentes. Sed quid de clericis frequenter ludentibus ludo alearum, etsi in parva quantitate? Peccantne graviter? Negant Sylvius, Navarrus, etc., quia frequentia ludi non facit de veniali mortale. — Affirmat sententia communissima, cum hac additione quorumdam: « Si non solum frequenter, sed etiam per longum tempus ludant. » Bordon (eratne theologus?) asserere non erubuit ludere semel in hebdomada esse frequentiam mortalem. — Alii sentiunt non damnandos esse de mortali clericos ludentes ad breve tempus, etsi crebro, recreationis causa, nisi propria statuta diæcesis, vel ordinis id prohibeant. Nos vero dicimus nec etiam de veniali hos in tali casu esse damnandos, et hæc nostra sententia probabilis est juxta ipsum S. Ligorium. Idem sanctus optime advertit sententias quae damnant de mortali clericos aleis ludentes non procedere in omnibus ludis chartarum; quidam enim ludi chartarum non sunt meræ sortis seu fortunæ, sed etiam ingenii ludentium. — Nota Bartholomæum de lucretur ab his qui rem suam alienare non possunt, sicut sunt minores, et furiosi, et hujusmodi; et quod aliquis trahat alium ex cupiditate lucrandi ad ludum, et quod fraudulenter ab eo lucretur: et in his casibus tenetur ad restitutionem. Et sic de eo non potest eleemosynam facere. Aliquid autem videtur esse ulterius illicitum ex jure positivo civili, quod prohibet universaliter tale lucrum. Sed quia jus civile non obligat omnes, sed eos solos qui sunt his legibus subjecti, et iterum per dissuetudinem abrogari potest; ideo apud illos qui sunt hujusmodi legibus obstricti, tenentur universaliter ad restitutionem qui lucrantur; nisi forte contraria consuetudo prævaleat, aut nisi aliquis lucratus sit ab eo qui traxit eum ad ludum; in quo casu non tenetur restituere; quia ille qui amisit, non est dignus recipere, nec potest licite retinere, tali jure positivo durante; S. Fausto errasse circa bullam quamdam S. Pii interdicentem sub pœna excommunicationis clericis et religiosis assistentiam agitationibus taurorum, non vero ludis alearum, ut memoratus auctor affirmat. In Parm.: « habere aliquid de alieno, et potest de hoc. » Raymundus. — Quæritur utrum de illicite acquisitis possit aliquo modo fieri eleemosyna. Ad hoc dicunt generaliter quidam quod non, nec de usura, nec de rapina, vel furto, nec de symonia, nec de histrionatu, nec de meretricio, nec de alea, vel de alio simili. Fundant isti opinionem suam super illa auctoritate: Honora Dominum de tuis laboribus. Item in Deuteronomio: Non accipies mercedem prostibuli. Item Salomon: Qui offert sacrificium ex substantia pauperum, quasi qui victimat filium in conspectu patris. Item Gregorius: « Non est putanda eleemosyna, etiamsi pauperibus dispensetur, quod ex illicitis rebus acquiritur. » Aliii, quibus assentio, ponunt distinctionem trimembrem, videlicet quod in illicite acquisitis aliquando non transfertur dominium in accipientem, ut in rapina et furto; aliquando transfertur, sed illi qui dedit competit repetitio, ut in usura et symonia. Guillermus tamen notavit quod in his non transfertur dominium. Quid si non illi a quo datum est competit repetitio ejus quod turpiter dedit, sed fisco, numquid potest fieri de his eleemosyna ab illo qui recepit, aut restituere debet fisco? Respondeo: in talibus in quibus non transfertur dominium in accipientem, si agatur in forma judicii, facienda est fisco restitutio, vel alii, si competit, ut quando aliquis dat pecuniam alii propter movendam caumniam tertio, competit restitutio illi tertio, in cujus præjudicium data est. In foro autem pœnientiali, credo quod talia turpiter habita possunt dari pauperibus; talia enim quæ extorquentur a turpiter accipientibus per fiscum, vel per alias privatas personas in pœnam taliter accipientium, non debentur illis, nec illi qui acceperunt tenentur solvere, nisi cum agitur circa eos in forma judicii unde debet de hoc eleemosynam facere in hoc casu.

[II-II.q.32.a.7.ad.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.

[II-II.q.32.a.7.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod in casu extremæ necessitatis omnia sunt communia. Unde licet ei qui talem necessitatem patitur, accipere de alieno ad sui sustentationem, si non inveniat qui sibi dare velit; et eadem ratione licet habenti aliquid de alieno de hoc eleemosynam dare, quinimo et accipere, si aliter subvenire non possit necessitatem patienti. Si tamen fieri potest sine periculo, debet, requisita domini voluntate, pauperi providere extremam necessitatem patienti.

Article 8

[II-II.q.32.a.8.arg.1] 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. Ondex to ecclesiastical authorities quoted by St. Thomas] says on 1 Timothy 4:8: "'Dutifulness [Douay: 'godliness'] 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.

[II-II.q.32.a.8.arg.1] Ad octavum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod ille qui est in potestate alterius constitutus, possit eleemosynam facere. Religiosi enim sunt in potestate suorum prælatorum, quibus obedientiam voverunt. Sed si eis non liceret eleemosynam facere, damnum reportarent ex statu religionis; quia, sicut Ambrosius dicit, super illud I ad Timoth., iv: Pietas ad omnia utilis est, col. 500, t. 4: « Summa christianæ religionis in pictate consistit, » quæ maxime per eleemosynæ largitionem commendatur. Ergo illi qui sunt in potestate alterius constituti, possunt eleemosynam facere.

[II-II.q.32.a.8.arg.2] Objection 2. Further, a wife is under her husband's power (Genesis 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 institutions 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.

[II-II.q.32.a.8.arg.2] 2. Præterea, uxor est sub potestate viri, ut dicitur Genes., Ⅲ. Sed uxor potest eleemosynam facere, cum assumatur in viri societatem: unde et de beata Lucia dicitur quod ignorante sponso eleemosynas faciebat. Ergo per hoc quod aliquis est in potestate alterius constitutus, non impeditur quin possit eleemosynas facere.

[II-II.q.32.a.8.arg.3] Objection 3. Further, the subjection of children to their parents is founded on nature, wherefore the Apostle says (Ephesians 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.

[II-II.q.32.a.8.arg.3] 3. Præterea, naturalis quædam subjectio est filiorum ad parentes; unde Apostolus ad Ephes., Ⅳ, 1, dicit: Filii, obedite parentibus in Domino. Sed filii, ut videtur, possunt de rebus parentum eleemosynam facere, quia sunt quodammodo ipsorum, cum sint heredes; et ideo cum possint eis uti ad usum corporis, multo magis videtur quod possint eis uti eleemosynas dando ad remedium animæ suæ. Ergo illi qui sunt in potestate alterius constituti, possunt eleemosynas dare.

[II-II.q.32.a.8.arg.4] Objection 4. Further, servants are under their master's power, according to Titus 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.

[II-II.q.32.a.8.arg.4] 4. Præterea, servi sunt sub potestate dominorum, secundum illud ad Tit., Ⅳ, 9: Servos dominis suis subditos esse. Licet autem eis aliquid in utilitatem domini facere; quod maxime fit, si pro eis eleemosynas largiantur. Ergo illi qui sunt in potestate aliena constituti, possunt eleemosynas facere.

[II-II.q.32.a.8.sc] 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. xxxv, 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.

[II-II.q.32.a.8.sc] Sed contra est quod eleemosynæ non sunt faciendae de alieno; sed de justis laboribus propriis unusquisque eleemosynam facere debet, ut Augustinus dicit in lib. De verbis Domini, serm. cxiii, cap. Ⅳ, col. 649, t. 5. Sed si subjecti aliis eleemosynam facerent, hoc esset de alieno. Ergo illi qui sunt sub potestate constituti aliorum, non possunt eleemosynam facere.

[II-II.q.32.a.8.co] 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.

[II-II.q.32.a.8.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod ille qui est sub potestate alterius constitutus, inquantum hujusmodi, secundum superioris potestatem regulari debet. Hic est enim ordo naturalis, ut inferiora secundum superiora regulentur. Et ideo oportet quod ea in quibus inferior superiori subjicitur, dispenset non aliter quam ei sit a superiore permissum. Sic ergo ille qui est sub potestate constitutus, de re secundum quam superiori subjicitur, eleemosynam facere non debet, nisi quatenus ei a superiore fuerit commissum. Si quis vero habeat aliquid secundum quod potestati superioris non subsit, jam secundum hoc non est potestati subjectus, quantum ad hoc proprii juris existens; et de hoc potest eleemosynam facere.

[II-II.q.32.a.8.ad.1] Reply to Objection 1. If a monk be dispensed through being commissioned by his superior, he can give alms from the property of his monaster, 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."

[II-II.q.32.a.8.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod monachus, si habet dispensationem a prælato commissam, potest eleemosynas facere de rebus monasterii, secundum quod sibi est commissum; si vero non habet dispensationem, quia nihil proprium habet, tunc non potest facere eleemosynam sine licentia abbatis vel expresse habita, vel probabiliter præsumpta; nisi forte in articulo extremæ necessitatis, in quo licitum esset ei furari, ut eleemosynam daret. Nec propter hoc efficitur pejoris conditionis: quia, sicut dicitur in lib. De eccles. dogm., c. xxxviii, col. 1219, t. 8, « bonum est facultates cum dispensatione pauperibus erogare; sed meius est pro intentione sequendi dominum insimul omnia donare, et absolutum sollicitudine egere cum Christo. »

[II-II.q.32.a.8.ad.2] Reply to Objection 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 Corinthians 11:3). As regards Blessed Lucy, she had a betrothed, not a husband, wherefore she could give alms with her mother's consent.

[II-II.q.32.a.8.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod si uxor habet alias res præter dotem, quæ ordinatur ad sustentanda onera matrimonii, vel ex proprio lucro vel quocumque alio licito lucratur. Quæ vero sic de malo acquiruntur, in bonum converti possunt. De peccato etiam non-nunquam aliqua acquiruntur, quæ pauperibus juste erogantur. — Extrav. De usuris, Alexand. III: « Cum sacra Scriptura prohibeit pro alterius vita mentiri, multo magis prohibendus est quis, ne etiam pro redimenda vita captivi, usurarum cri- mine involvatur. » « Omnis summa disciplinæ nostræ in misericordia et pietate est. » Intellige stricte de extrema necessitate, nam Innocentius XI hanc damnavit propositionem: « Permissum est furari, non solum in extrema necessitate, sed etiam in gravi. » modo, potest dare eleemosynas etiam irrequisito assensu viri, moderatas tamen, ne ex earum superfluitate vir depauperetur. Alias autem non debet dare eleemosynas sine consensu viri vel expresso vel præsumpto, nisi in articulo necessitatis, sicut de monacho dictum est. Quamvis enim mulier sit aequalis viro in actu matrimonii, tamen in his quæ ad dispositionem domus pertinent, caput est mulieris vir, secundum Apostolum I ad Cor., xi, 3. Beata autem Lucia sponsum habebat, non virum, unde de consensu matris poterat eleemosynam facere.

[II-II.q.32.a.8.ad.3] Reply to Objection 3. What belongs to the children belongs also to the father: wherefore the child cannot give alms, except in such small quantity 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.

[II-II.q.32.a.8.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod ea quæ sunt filii familias, sunt et patris; et ideo non potest eleemosynam facere, nisi forte aliquam modicam de qua potest præsumere quod patri placeat; nisi forte alicujus rei esset sibi a patre dispensatio commissa. Et idem dicendum est de servis. Unde patet solutio ad quartum.

Article 9

[II-II.q.32.a.9.arg.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 (Sirach 12:4-6): "Give to the merciful and uphold not the sinner . . . Do good to the humble and give not to the ungodly." Now it happens sometimes that those who are closely united to us are sinful and ungodly. Therefore we ought not to give alms to them in preference to others.

[II-II.q.32.a.9.arg.1] Ad nonum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod non sit magis propinquioribus eleemosyna facienda. Dicitur enim Eccli., xii, 4: Da misericordi, et non suscipias peccatorem...; benefac humili, et non des* impio. Sed quandoque contingit quod nostri propinqui sunt peccatores et impii. Ergo non sunt eis magis eleemosynae faciendae.

[II-II.q.32.a.9.arg.2] Further, alms should be given that we may receive an eternal reward in return, according to Matthew 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 passage Augustine expounds (De Verb. Dom. xxxv, 1): "Who shall have everlasting dwellings unless the saints of God? 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.

[II-II.q.32.a.9.arg.2] 2. Præterea, eleemosynae sunt faciendae propter retributionem mercedis æternæ, secundum illud Matth., vi, 48: Et pater tuus, qui videt in abscondito, reddet tibi. Sed retributio æternæ maxime acquiritur ex eleemosynis, quæ sanctis erogantur, secundum illud Luc., xvi, 9: Facite vobis amicos de mammona iniquitatis, ut, cum defeceritis, recipiant vos in æterna tabernacula; quod exponens Augustinus in libro De verbis Domini, serm. cxiii, col. 648, t. 5, dicit: « Qui sunt qui habebunt æterna tunc enim deberet dare intrepide; alias peccaret. Et quod dixi de rebus viri, intelligas etiam de rebus dotalibus. Nam illarum dominium penes virum est. » Guilhermus: « Numquid uxor potest latenter eleemosynas dare, licet credat quod displiceret viro, si sciret? Respondeo: non peccat, quamvis credat quod viro displiceret, si sciret, si moderatas det eleemosynas pro se, et pro viro suo, utiliter gerendo commune negotium. Et sufficit in hoc casu quod non veniat contra prohibitionem mariti, et quod non scandalizet eum ex hujusmodi erogationibus. — Quid de uxore quæ habet legitimos filios de alio viro, numquid potest eis providere de rebus communibus sibi, et marito secundo, cum et ipse de eisdem bonis provideat filiis, quos habeat ex alia uxore? Respondeo: si illi filii habent actionem contra matrem pro alimentis sibi præstandis, vel quia tenetur eos alere, eo quod impuberes sunt, vel quia ipsa et maritus suus habent bona eorum, vel ex alia justa causa, tenetur maritus eos alere, quia mater cum suis oneribus transit ad maritum: sed quia maritus habet administrationem bonorum, non uxor, non debet illa contra prohibitionem mariti eos alere, nisi in extrema aut maxima necessitate. Potest tamen procurare quod compellatur maritus per judicem alere eos. Si autem filii nullam habent actionem contra matrem, non tenetur maritus; nec illa debet contra prohibitionem ejus eis aliquid dare; formare tamen potest sibi largam conscientiam. » Raymundus: « Quid de filiofamilias, numquid et ipse potest facere eleemosynam? Videtur quod sic, quia, etiam vivo patre, videtur quodammodo dominus rerum pater-num. Instit. de hæred. qualit. et dif., § Sed fui. Sed tabernacula, nisi sancti Dei? et qui sunt qui ab ipsis accipiendi sunt in tabernacula æternæ, nisi qui eorum indigentiæ serviunt? » Ergo magis sunt eleemosynæ dandæ sanctioribus quam propinquioribus.

[II-II.q.32.a.9.arg.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.

[II-II.q.32.a.9.arg.3] 3. Præterea, maxime homo est sibi propinquus. Sed sibi non potest homo eleemosynam facere. Ergo videtur quod non sit magis facienda eleemosyna personæ magis conjunctæ.

[II-II.q.32.a.9.sc] The Apostle says (1 Timothy 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."

[II-II.q.32.a.9.sc] Sed contra est quod Apostolus dicit I ad Timioth., v, 8: Si quis suorum, et maxime domesticorum curam non habet, fidem negavit, et est infideli deterior.

[II-II.q.32.a.9.co] 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.

[II-II.q.32.a.9.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut Augustinus dicit in I De doctr. christ., c. xxviii, col. 30, t. 3, « illi qui sunt nobis magis conjuncti, quasi quadam sorte nobis obvenit ut eis magis providere debeamus. » Est tamen circa hoc discretionis ratio adhibenda, secundum differentiam conjunctionis, et sanctitatis, et utilitatis. Nam multo sanctiori magis indigentiam patienti, et magis utili ad commune bonum est magis eleemosyna danda quam personæ propinquiori; maxime si non sit multum conjuncta, illud intelligitur de jurisdictione, quia scilicet speratur futurus dominus, et quia alitur ex illis bonis. Dicimus ergo quod potest de peculio castrensi vel quasi, nam quantum ad illud paterfamilias censetur. Porro de peculio profectitio et adventitio potest, ita deinde si credat hoc patrem permissurum, et aliis modis, ut dixi, scilicet de uxore, et hoc ideo quia profectitium est, et quidquid ex eo acquiritur patris est. Adventitium vero patris est quoad ususfructum. Si tamen esset in scholis de licentia patris, vel in peregrinatione, vel in itinere, tunc posset etiam de peculio et adventitio et profectitio. » Guilhermus: « Licet autem magister hoc dicat de filio, sicut de uxore, credo tamen quod uxor pinguius jus habet in rebus communibus sibi et viro, in partibus gallicanis, quam filiusfamilias in hujusmodi peculio. Et ideo teneas quod notatum est supra de uxore scilicet, quod sufficit quod maritus non prohibeit, et quod eum non scandalizet, dummodo ipsa discrete et moderate eroget. » Ex his sequitur attendendum esse juribus patriæ, vel Ecclesiæ, pro tunc vigentibus, ut solvantur dubia de uxoribus, filiis, et etiam famulis aut famulabus, utrum liceat ipsis ex bonis domus facere eleemosynam: sed et jurium nomine jus consuetudina-rium quoque intelligimus; et insuper uniuscujusque domus consuetudines, ultra jura, consulendæ sunt. De monachis vide ordinum et conventuum regulas, constitutiones, institutionesque omnes. « His potissimum consulendum est, qui pro locorum et temporum vel quarumlibet rerum opportunitatibus, constrictius tibi quasi quadam sorte junguntur. » Migne. cujus cura specialis nobis non immineat, et si magnam necessitatem non patiatur.

[II-II.q.32.a.9.ad.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.

[II-II.q.32.a.9.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod peccatori non est subveniendum, inquantum est peccator, id est, et per hoc in peccato foveatur; sed inquantum homo est, id est, ut natura sustentetur.

[II-II.q.32.a.9.ad.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.

[II-II.q.32.a.9.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod opus eleemosynæ ad mercedem retributionis aeternæ dupliciter valet: uno quidem modo ex radice charitatis; et secundum hoc eleemosynæ est meritoria, prout in ea servatur ordo charitatis, secundum quem propinquioribus magis providere debemus, cæteris paribus. Unde Ambrosius dicit in I De officiis, cap. xxx, § 150, col. 72, t. 3: « Est illa probanda liberalitas, ut proximos sanguinis tui non despicias, si egere cognoscas; melius est enim ut ipse subvenias tuis, quibus pudor est ab aliis sumptum deposcere. » Alio modo valet eleemosynæ ad retributionem vitæ aeternæ ex merito ejus cui donatur, qui orat pro eo qui eleemosynam dedit: et secundum hoc loquitur ibi Augustinus. Ad compassionem erga parentes nos moment sacra Scriptura, instinctus propriæ naturæ, exempla irrationalis creaturæ, sanctorum exempla et documenta, utilitas propria, et Dei beneficia, ipsa quæ pro nobis ipsi parentes pertulerunt incommoda, et ipsa quæ nobis contulerunt, vel ab ipsis, vel occasione ipsorum nobis obvenerunt commoda multimoda, ipsorum impiorum filiorum multiplex pœna. I. Scriptura sacra: Honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam, Exod., xx, etc. II. Propria natura. Basilius: « Parentes nostros ut propria viscera diligamus, hujus supervacuum est in illud nos impelli per quod imus in amorem, et compassionem eorum naturaliter. » III. Exempla irrationalis creaturæ. Dicit Isidorus in lib. De creaturis, quod cyconiorum talis est natura, quod cum ipse se affligant et cibum suum sibi detrahant, ut pullis suis provideant; postquam pulli volare possunt et prædam capere, compatientes maciei et afflictioni parentum compellunt eos morari in nido, usquequo bene convaluerint et ipsi ad prædas volant quasi eis vicem rependendo deportant. IV. Sanctorum monita et exempla: Audi, fili, cum Deus acceperit animam meam, sepeli corpus meum, et honorem habebis matri tuæ, Tob., iv. Fili, suscipe senectam patris tui, etc., Eccl., iii. Eleemosyna patris non erit in oblivionem. Qui honorat patrem jucundabitur in filiis. Joseph de terra Chanaan patrem suum in Ægyptum, ut eum tempore famis ibi reficeret, tam sollicite et devote vocavit ut eum cum tota familia pavit, et circa eum omnia pietatis et honoris officia exercuit. V. Bona quæ ipsi nobis fecerunt, vel ab eis vel Ad tertium dicendum, quod cum eleemosynæ sit opus misericordia; sicut misericordia non est proprie ad seipsum, sed per quamdam similitudinem, ut supra dictum est; ita etiam, proprie loquendo, nullus sibi eleemosynam facit, nisi forte ex persona alterius; puta cum aliquis distributor ponitur eleemosynarum, potest et ipse sibi accipere, si indigeat, eo tenore quo et aliis ministrat.

[II-II.q.32.a.9.ad.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 (30, 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.

Article 10

[II-II.q.32.a.10.arg.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.

[II-II.q.32.a.10.arg.1] Ad decimum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod eleemosyna non sit abundanter facienda. Eleemosyna enim maxime debet fieri conjunctioribus. Sed illis non debet eorum occasione nobis advenerunt, et etiam mala quæ pro nobis sustinuerunt. Quasi dominis servient his qui se genuerunt, Eccl., iii. Honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam, et memento quod nisi per eos non fuisses, et retribue illis quomodo et illi tibi. Gemitus matris tuæ ne obliviscaris, Eccl., vii. Fili, memor esse debes quæ et quanta passa est mater tua propter te, Tob., iv. VI. Utilitas propria, quia filios parentibus compatientes Deus, summus pater, cumulat donis. VII. Impiorum filiorum multiplex pœna. Qui affligit patrem et matrem ignominiosus et infelix erit, Prov., xxx. Cham semen maledicitur, et in servitum reducitur. Subita morte extinguuntur: Qui maledicit patri suo vel matri extinguetur in mediis tenebris lucerna ejus, Prov., xx. Homicidæ similes efficiuntur: Qui subtrahit aliquid patri, vel matri dicens: hoc non est peccatum, particeps est homicidæ, Prov. xviii. Iram Dei super se accumulant. De hoc lege in lib. De civit. Dei, quod refert Augustinus inter miracula B. Stephani. Ad eleemosynas faciendas nos invitant naturæ conformitas: omne animal diligit sibi simile, Eccl., xiii, divina benignitas nos, si misericordes fuerimus, suos esse filios asserens, praecepti necessitas, multiplex utilitas; pietas enim ad omnia valet. Eleemosyna impetrat gratiam, delet maculam, solvit emendam. Cornelius per eleemosynas venit ad gratiam Dei. Similiter B. Eustachius. Eleemosyna Creatorem pacificat, vestit hominem ornamento gratiae et virtutum, protegit tanquam potentissimum munimentum, thesauros multiplicat, in futurum aedificat et in cælis glorificat. Debet esse pura in puritate affectionis in chari- sic dari, ut ditiores inde fieri velint, sicut Ambrosius dicit in I De officiis., cap. xxx, § 150, col. 72, t. 3. Ergo nec aliis debet abundanter dari.

[II-II.q.32.a.10.arg.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.

[II-II.q.32.a.10.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Ambrosius dicit ibidem, § 149: « Non debent simul effundi opes, sed dispensari. » Sed abundantia eleemosyna-tate et ex charitate, pia ex compassione et pietate movente, larga ad exemplum Domini qui cum dedisset sua petentibus, et adhuc petere non cessarent, projecit se inter manus potentium, dans se eis ut non haberent ultra quid ab eo petere possent, discreta ut potius det bonis quam malis, et non uni tantum sed diversis, et primo se Deo quam sua aliis, humilis et devota, ut proximum propter paupertatem non vilipendas, nec te propter opulentiam ei præferre præsumas, sed velut indigenti subvenias, et Deum in ipso paupere recognoscas, et ut holocaustum pingue fiat. Quoad hospitalitatem, fieri debet quia multa bona consequentur ex ea. Per hanc Deus cognoscitur: exemplum de duobus discipulis euntibus in Emmaus, et de Tobia a Raphaele illuminato; gratia infunditur: exemplum de Zachæo et de Rahab meretrice; adaugetur Dei dilectio: Qui vos recipit, me recipit, Matth. x; Qui suscipit unum talem parvulum in nomine meo, me suscipit, Matth. xxviii; Hospes eram, et collegitis me, Matth. xxv; temporalia multiplicantur: exemplum de farinula et lechyto olei, III Reg., xvii, de oleo viduæ, IV Reg., iv; palatium in cælis comparatur: Egenos vagosque induc in domum tuam, et gloria Domini colliget te, Isa., lviii. — Porro debet fieri humiliter exemplo Abrahæ et Loth. Quidem frater dicebat quod advenientibus fratribus hospitibus, fratres deberent occurrere eis reverenter, cum constet Christum advenire. Secundo debet fieri celeriter, ut non vendatur tarditate, vel difficultate recipiendi. Tertio debet fieri hilariter: Zachæus festinans suscepit eum gaudens in domo sua, Luc., xix. Quarto debet fieri pure et misericorditer. Hoc opus misericordiae vix exercetur nunc in Francia, et male, nam mos erat sanctus, et multum sive in praesenti sive in futuro sæculo proficiens. Rurales tamen adhuc pauperes de nocte libenter recipiunt præcipue in provinciis Christo Domino addictioribus, ut Britannia. Quoad infirmorum visitationem, huic operi de-bemus vacare propter vinculum naturale, propter speculum exemplare, propter meriti incrementum, propter præmii complementum. Numquid non unus pater est omnium nostrum, Mal., i. Omnes unum corpus sumus in Christo, singuli autem alter alterius membra, I Cor. xii; si patitur unum membrum compatiuntur omnia membra. Habemus exemplum Christi qui venit in mundum ad infirmos visitandos: Circuiebat Jesus totam Galilæam, sanans omnem languorem et infirmitatem, Matth. iv; angelorum, ut patet Tob., xi et xii, et per angelum qui visitavit et confortavit Christum in agonia suæ passionis, Luc., xx; sanctorum, sive viatorum, sive beatorum: Infirmos curate, Matth., x. Petrus visitavit Agatham in carcere, et de dolore mammillarum suarum curavit eam. B. Franciscus leprosis humillime serviebat, et post mortem suam Joannem rum ad effusionem pertinet. Ergo eleemosyna non debet fieri abundanter.

[II-II.q.32.a.10.arg.3] Further, the Apostle says (2 Corinthians 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.

[II-II.q.32.a.10.arg.3] 3. Præterea, II ad Corinth., viii, 13, dicit Apostolus: Non ut aliis sit remissio, id est, ut alii de vestris otiose vivant, vobis autem sit tribulatio, id est paupertas. Sed hoc contingeret, si eleemosyna daretur abun-de Hylerda lethaliter sociatum visitavit in nocte, et plene sanitati restituit. Sic meritum augetur quia hoc est contra peccata remedium, contra tentationes præsidium, nostræ fragilitatis speculum et veræ religionis exemplum. Tandem Christus judex dicet: Venite, benedicti..., infirmus fui et visitastis me, Matth., xxv. Ad visitationem incarceratorum invitant nos Scripturæ sacræ monita, exempla Christi, angelorum, testibus Danielis, Petri, Agnetis, Vincentii, Catharinæ, et aliorum historiis sanctorum. B. Dominicus, v. g., cum esset Romæ, fere quotidie immuratos visitabat, et eis salutis monita dabat. Scriptura sacra, naturalis pietas, ipsa natura rerum sensibilium, exempla angelorum, ut patet de Lazaro et B. Catharina, exempla patrum anti-querum, et præcipue Tobiæ, multiplex utilitas hujus operis quod a peccato revocat aliquando, a malo conservat, benedictionem Domini et sanctorum et laudem impetrat, ab angelis specialiter Domino præsentatur, hæc omnia nos moment ut sepeliendis mortuis diligentiam impendamus, et eorum sepulturæ personaliter intersimus. Notandum quod olim et nunc etiam in episcoporum palatiis, Christi pauperes ad accipiendum eleemosynam paschalem annue occurrere solebant. — Ex bonis intestatorum quædam sequestrabantur ad pias causas, et hoc vocabatur « eleemosyna rationabilis. » Vocabatur medio ævo « eleemosyna » domus monasterio vel ecclesiis adjuncta, in qua eleemosynæ pauperibus erogabantur ab eleemosynario. Eadem appellabatur « eleemosynaria, » quo nomine donabantur et arcula ubi reponebantur eleemosynæ, et marsupium ex quo promi solebant. In monasteriis erant eleemosynarii, et legitur in libro ordinis S. Victoris parisiensis: « Ad eleemosynam faciendam eligi debet unus de fratribus pius et mansuetus, ut per pietatem compati sciat indigentibus, et per mansuetudinem possit etiam importunitatem petentum tolerare. Oportet in eleemosyna distribuenda magna uti discretione, ut infirmioribus quibusque teneriora et delicatiora reservet, et ut eos forte, qui ex consortio aliorum erubescere potuissent, si qui tales advenerint, seorsim sedere faciat, ut secretius quod eis impertiendum est sumere possint. » — « Eleemosynarius aut per se perquirat, aut per veraces et fideles homines cum multa sollicitudine perquiri faciat, ubi ægri et debiles jaceant, qui non habent unde se susti-nere valeant, et ingressus domum blande consoletur ægrum, et offerat ei quod melius habet, et sibi intelligit esse necessarium. » Lanfrancus, in Decretis pro ord. S. Benedicti, cap. viii, sect. 3. Summi pontifices eleemosynarios habent qui eorum eleemosynas diutim pauperibus distribuunt. Sic cod.; in Parm.: « valeant. » danter. Ergo non est abundanter eleemosyna largienda.

[II-II.q.32.a.10.sc] It is written (Tobit 4:93): "If thou have much, give abundantly."

[II-II.q.32.a.10.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Tob., iv, 9: Si multum tibi fuerit, abundanter tribue.

[II-II.q.32.a.10.co] 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 (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 Corinthians 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."

[II-II.q.32.a.10.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod abundantia eleemosynæ potest considerari et ex parte dantis, et ex parte recipientis. Ex parte quidem dantis, cum scilicet aliquis aliquid dat quod est multum secundum proportionem propriæ facultatis: et sic laudabile est abundanter dare; unde et Dominus, Luc., xxI, laudavit viduam, quæ ex eo quod deerat illi, omnem victum quem habuit, misit; observatis tamen his quæ supra dicta sunt de eleemosyna facienda de necessariis. Ex parte vero ejus cui datur, est abundans eleemosyna dupliciter: uno modo quod suppleat sufficienter ejus indigentiam; et sic laudabile est abundanter eleemosynam tribuere. Alio modo ut superabundet ad superfluitatem; et hoc non est laudabile; sed melius est pluribus indigentibus elargiri; unde et Apostolus dicit I ad Cor., xiii, 3: Si distribuero in cibos pauperum: ubi Glossa interl. dicit: « Per hoc cautela eleemosynæ docetur, ut non uni, sed multis detur, ut pluribus prosit. »

[II-II.q.32.a.10.ad.1] This argument considers abundance of alms as exceeding the needs of the recipient.

[II-II.q.32.a.10.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ratio illa procedit de abundantia superexcedente necessitatem recipientis eleemosynam.

[II-II.q.32.a.10.ad.2] The passage quoted considers abundance of alms on the part of the giver; but the sense is that God 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" (1 Kings 19:21).

[II-II.q.32.a.10.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod auctoritas illa loquitur de abundantia eleemosynæ ex parte dantis; sed intelligendum est quod Deus non vult simul effundi omnes opes, nisi in mutatione status. Unde subdit ibidem: « Nisi forte, ut Elisæus boves suos occidit, et pavit pauperes ex eo quod habuit, ut nulla cura domestica teneretur. »

[II-II.q.32.a.10.ad.3] In the passage quoted the words, "not that others should be eased or refreshed," refer to that abundance of alms which surpasses 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. Nevertheless we must bring discretion to bear on the matter, on account of the various conditions of men, some of whom are more daintily nurtured, and need finer food and clothing. Hence Ambrose says (De Officiis i, 30): "When you give an alms to a man, you should take into consideration his age and his weakness; and sometimes the shame which proclaims his good birth; and again that perhaps he has fallen from riches to indigence through no fault of his own."

With regard to the words that follow, "and you burdened," they refer to abundance on the part of the giver. Yet, as a gloss says on the same passage, "he says this, not because it would be better to give in abundance, but because he fears for the weak, and he admonishes them so to give that they lack not for themselves."

The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ

[II-II.q.32.a.10.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod auctoritas inducta, quantum ad hoc quod dicit, non ut aliis sit remissio vel refrigerium, loquitur de abundantia eleemosynæ, quæ superexcedit necessitatem recipientis; cui non est danda eleemosyna, ut inde luxurietur, sed ut inde sustentetur. Circa quod tamen est discretio adhibenda, propter diversas conditiones hominum, quorum quidam delectationibus' nutriti indigent magis delicatis cibis aut vestibus. Unde Ambrosius dicit in lib. I De offic., cap. xxx, § 158, col. 74, t. 3: « Consideranda est in largiendo ætas atque debilitas; nonnunquam etiam verecundia, quæ ingenuos prodit natales; aut si quis ex divitiis in egestatem cecidit sine vitio suo. Quantum vero ad id quod subditur, vobis autem tribulatio, loquitur de abundantia ex parte dantis. Sed, sicut Glossa interl. ibidem dicit, « non hoc ideo dicit, quin melius esset, » scilicet abundanter dare, « sed de infirmis timet, quos sic dare monet ut egestatem non patiantur. »

← Q31. Beneficence

Secunda Secundae

Q33. Fraternal correction →

JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/secunda-secundae/q032.json