Q32. Almsdeeds

Secunda Secundae · chapter 32 of 184 · ▶ 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 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 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.2] 2. Præterea, principium activum, de quo aliquid concipitur, se habet sicut cui prædictum opus abnuendum est. Ex Augustino desumpta est, De natura boni, c. xxvii, col. 560, t. 8. Sæpius notatum est expositionem prædictam semen in generatione. Sed Spiritus sanctus non se habuit sicut semen in conceptione Christi: dicit enim Hieronymus in Expositione catholicæ fidei: « Non, sicut quidam sceleratissime opinantur, Spiritum sanctum dicimus fuisse pro semine; sed potentia ac virtute Creatoris dicimus esse operatum, » id est, formatum « corpus Christi. » Non ergo debet dici quod Christus sit conceptus de Spiritu sancto.

[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.3] 3. Præterea, nihil unum de duobus formatur, nisi aliquo modo commixtis. Sed corpus Christi formatum est de Virgine Maria. Si ergo Christus dicatur conceptus de Spiritu sancto, videtur quod facta sit commixtio quædam Spiritus sancti et materiæ, quam Virgo ministravit: quod patet esse falsum. Non ergo Christus debet dici conceptus de Spiritu sancto.

[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.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth., 1, 18: Antequam convenirent, inventa est in utero habens de Spiritu sancto.

[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.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod conceptio non attribuitur soli corpori Christi, sed etiam ipsi Christo ratione ipsius corporis. In Spiritu autem sancto duplex habitudo consideratur respectu Christi. Nam ad ipsum Filium Dei, qui dicitur esse conceptus, habet habitudinem consubstantialitatis; ad corpus autem ejus habet habitudinem causæ efficientis. Hæc autem præpositio « de » utramque habitudinem designat; sicut cum dicimus hominem aliquem esse de suo patre. Et ideo convenienter dicere possumus Christum esse conceptum de Spiritu sancto, hoc modo quod efficientia Spiritus sancti referatur ad corpus assumptum, consubstantialitas vero ad personam assumentem.

[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 corpus Christi quia non est consubstantiale Spiritui sancto, non proprie potest dici de Spiritu sancto conceptum, sed magis ex Spiritu sancto, sicut Ambrosius dicit in lib. II De Spiritu sancto, cap. v, § 42, col. 783, t. 3: « Quod ex aliquo est, aut ex substantia est aut ex potestate ejus: ex substantia, sicut Filius, qui a Patre est; ex potestate, sicut ex Deo omnia, quomodo et in utero habuit Maria Spiritu sancto. »

[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 super hoc videtur esse quædam diversitas Hie-non esse Hieronymi sed Pelagii hæretici in confessione fidei ad Damasum papam missa. Melius tamen: ex Spiritu Sancto; sed hic ly de pro ly ex sumitur. ronymi ad quosdam alios doctores, qui asserunt Spiritum sanctum in conceptione Christi fuisse pro semine. Dicit enim Chrysostomus Super Matth., hom. 1 op. imperf. 4, ad fin.: « Unigenito Dei in Virginem ingressuro, praecessit Spiritus sanctus, ut praecedente Spiritu sancto in sanctificationem, nascatur, » scilicet Christus secundum corpus, « Divinitate ingrediente pro semine. » Et Damascenus dicit in III lib. Orth. fid., cap. 11, col. 986, t. 1: « Obumbravit super ipsum Dei sapientia et virtus velut divinum semen. » Sed hoc de facili solvitur: quia secundum quod in semine intelligitur virtus activa, sic Chrysostomus et Damascenus comparant semini Spiritum sanctum, vel etiam Filium, qui est virtus Altissimi: secundum autem quod in semine intelligitur substantia corporalis, quæ in conceptione transmutatur, negat Hieronymus Spiritum sanctum fuisse pro semine.

[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, sicut Augustinus dicit in Enchirid., cap. xL, col. 252, t. 6, non eodem modo dicitur Christus conceptus aut natus de Spiritu sancto et de Maria Virgine; nam de Maria Virgine materialiter, de Spiritu sancto vero effective. Et ideo non habuit hic locum commixtio.

[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. 1. Videtur quod Spiritus sanctus debeat dici pater Christi secundum humanitatem. Quia secundum Philosophum in lib. I De generatione animalium, cap. 11, pater dat principium activum in generatione, mater vero ministrat materiam. Sed B. Virgo dicitur mater Christi, propter materiam quam in conceptione ejus ministravit. Ergo videtur quod etiam Spiritus sanctus possit dici pater ejus, propter hoc quod fuit principium activum in conceptione ipsius.

[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, sicut mentes aliorum sanctorum formantur per Spiritum sanctum, ita etiam corpus Christi est per Spiritum sanctum formatum. Sed alii sancti propter prædictam formationem dicuntur filii totius Trinitatis, et per consequens Spiritus sancti. Videtur ergo quod Christus debeat dici filius Spiritus sancti, inquantum corpus ejus est a Spiritu sancto formatum.

[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, Deus dicitur pater noster secundum hoc quod nos fecit, secundum illud Deuter., xxxii, 6: Nonne ipse est pater tuus, qui possedit te et fecit, et creavit te? Sed Spiritus sanctus fecit corpus Christi, ut dictum est. Ergo Spiritus sanctus debeat dici pater Christi secundum corpus ab ipso formatum.

[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 dicit in Enchir., cap. xL, col. 252, t. 6: « Natus est Christus de Spiritu sancto non sicut filius, et de Maria Virgine sicut filius. »

[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 nomina paternitatis, et maternitatis, et filiationis generationem consequuntur; non tamen quamlibet, sed proprie generationem viventium, et præcipue animalium. Non enim dicimus quod ignis generatus sit filius ignis generantis, nisi forte secundum metaphoram; sed hoc solum dicimus in animalibus, quorum generatio est magis perfecta. Nec tamen omne quod in animalibus generatur, filiationis accipit nomen, sed solum illud quod generatur in similitudinem generantis. Unde, sicut Augustinus dicit in Enchir., cap. xxxix, col. 252, t. 6, non dicimus quod capillus qui nascitur ex homine, sit filius hominis; nec etiam dicimus quod homo qui nascitur, sit filius seminis; quia nec capillus habet similitudinem hominis, nec homo qui nascitur ex semine, habet similitudinem seminis, sed hominis generantis. Et si quidem perfecta sit similitudo, erit perfecta filiatio tam in divinis quam in humanis; si autem sit similitudo imperfecta, erit etiam filiatio imperfecta; sicut in homine est quædam similitudo Dei imperfecta, et inquantum creatus est ad imaginem Dei, et inquantum recreatus est secundum similitudinem gratiae: et ideo utroque modo potest homo dici filius Dei, et quia scilicet est creatus ad imaginem ejus, et quia est ei assimilatus per gratiam. Est autem considerandum, quod illud quod de aliquo dicitur secundum perfectam rationem, non est dicendum de eo secundum rationem imperfectam; sicut quia Socrates dicitur naturaliter homo 1 secundum propriam rationem hominis, nunquam dicitur homo secundum illam significationem qua pictura hominis dicitur homo, licet forte ipse assimiletur alteri homini. Christus autem est Filius Dei secundum perfectam rationem filiationis; unde quamvis secundum humanam naturam sit creatus et justificatus; non tamen debet dici Filius Dei neque ratione creationis, neque ratione justificationis, sed solum ratione generationis æternæ, secundum quam est filius Patris solius. Et ideo nullo modo debet dici Christus filius Spiritus sancti, nec etiam totius Trinitatis.

[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 Christus conceptus est de Maria Virgine materiam ministrante in similitudinem speciei; et ideo dicitur filius ejus. Christus autem, secundum quod homo, conceptus est de Spiritu sancto sicut de activo principio; non tamen secundum similitudinem speciei, sicut homo nascitur de patre suo: et ideo Christus non dicitur filius Spiritus sancti.

[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 homines qui spiritualiter formantur a Spiritu sancto, non possunt dici filii Dei secundum perfectam rationem filiationis: et ideo dicuntur filii Dei secundum filiationem imperfectam, quæ est secundum similitudinem gratiae, et quæ est a tota Trinitate. Sed de Christo est alia ratio ut dictum est. Et similiter dicendum est ad tertium.

[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. 4. Videtur quod B. Virgo aliquid active egerit in conceptione corporis Christi. Dicit enim Damascenus in III lib. Orth. fid., cap. 11, col. 986, t. 4, «quod Spiritus sanctus supervenit Virgini purgans ipsam, et virtutem susceptivam Verbi Dei tribuens, simul autem et generativam.» Sed virtutem generativam passivam habebat a natura, sicut et quælibet femina. Ergo dedit ei virtutem generativam activam: et sic aliquid active egit in conceptione Christi.

[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, omnes virtutes animæ vegetabilis sunt virtutes activæ, sicut Commentator dicit in II De anima, comment. 33 et seq. Sed potentia generativa tam in mare quam in femina pertinet ad animam vegetabilem. Ergo tam in mare quam in femina active operatur ad conceptionem prolis.

[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, femina ad conceptionem prolis materiam ministrat, ex qua naturaliter corpus prolis formatur. Sed natura estprincipium motus intrinsecum. Ergo videtur quod in ipsa materia, quam B. Virgo ministravit ad conceptum Christi, fuerit aliquod principium activum.

[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 principium activum in generatione dicitur ratio seminalis. Sed, sicut Augustinus dicit, X Super Gen. ad litt., cap. xx, §36, col. 424, t. 3, «corpus Christi in sola materia corporali per divinam conceptionis formationisque rationem de Virgine assumptum est, non autem secundum aliquam rationem seminalem humanam. » Ergo B. Virgo nihil active fecit in conceptione corporis Christi.

[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 quidam dicunt B. Virginem aliquid active operatam esse in conceptione Christi et naturali virtute, et supernaturali. Naturali quidem virtute, quia ponunt quod in qualibet materia naturali est aliquod activum principium; alioquin credunt quod non esset transmutation naturalis. In quo decipiuntur, quia transmutatio dicitur naturalis propter principium intrinsecum, non solum activum, sed etiam passivum. Expresse enim dicit Philosophus in VIII Physic., text. 29 et seq., quod in gravibus et levibus est principium passivum motus naturalis, et non activum. Nec est possibile quod materia agat ad sui formationem, quia non est actu: nec est etiam possibile quod aliquid moveat seipsum, nisi dividatur in duas partes, quarum una sit movens, et alia sit mota; quod in solis animalibus contingit, ut probatur VIII Physic., text. 30. Supernaturali autem virtute, quia dicunt ad matrem requiri quod non solum materiam ministret, quæ est sanguis menstruus, sed etiam semen, quod commixtum virili semini habet virtutem activam in generatione. Et quia in B. Virgine nulla fuit facta resolutio seminis propter integerrimam ejus virginitatem, dicunt quod Spiritus sanctus supernaturaliter ei tribuit virtutem activam in conceptione corporis Christi, quam aliæ matres habent per semen resolutum. Sed hoc non potest stare; quia cum quælibet res sit propter suam operationem, ut dicitur II De Cælo, text. 17, natura non distingueret ad opus generationis sexum maris et feminæ, nisi esset distincta operatio maris ab operatione feminæ. In generatione autem distinguitur operatio agentis et patientis. Unde relinquitur quod tota virtus activa sit ex parte maris, passio autem ex parte feminæ: propter quod in plantis, in quibus utraque vis commisctetur, non est distinctio maris et feminæ. Quia igitur B. Virgo non hoc acceptit ut esset pater Christi, sed mater, consequens est quod non acceperit potentiam activam in conceptione Christi, sive aliquid egerit, ex quo sequitur ipsam fuisse patrem Christi; sive nihil egerit, ut quidam dicunt, ex quo sequitur hujusmodi potentiam activam ei frustra fuisse collatam. Et ideo dicendum est quod in ipsa conceptione Christi B. Virgo nihil active operata est, sed solam materiam ministravit; operata tamen est ante conceptionem aliquid active, præparando materiam, ut esset apta conceptui.

[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 illa conceptio tria privilegia habuit: scilicet quod esset sine peccato originali; quod esset non puri hominis, sed Dei et hominis; item quod esset conceptio virginis: et hæc tria habuit a Spiritu sancto. Et ideo dicit Damascenus quantum ad primum, quod Spiritus sanctus supervenit Virgini purgans ipsam, id est, præservans, ne cum peccato originali conciperet. Quantum ad secundum dicit: «Et virtutem susceptivam Verbi Dei tribuens,» id est, ut conciperet Verbum Dei. Quantum autem ad tertium dicit: «Simul autem et generativam;» ut scilicet manens virgo poset generare; non quidem active, sed passive; sicut aliæ matres hoc consequuntur ex semine viri.

[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 potentia generativa in femina est imperfecta respectu potentiæ generativæ quæ est in mare. Et ideo sicut in artibus ars inferior disponit materiam, ars autem superior Scotus tenet generativam potentiam esse active in femina sicut in mare, licet non æque intense, et addit quod B. Virgo non minus fuit mater Christi Jesu quam aliæ matres suorum inducit formam, ut dicitur in II Physic., text. 25, ita etiam virtus generativa feminæ præparat materiam, virtus autem activa maris format materiam præparatam.

[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 ad hoc quod transmutatio sit naturalis, non requiritur quod in materia sit principium activum, sed solum passivum, ut dictum est.

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 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 comtutis 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. — — Non ut in « 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 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 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 charisic 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 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