Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 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 Dan. 4:24: "Let my counsel be acceptable to the King; redeem thou thy sins with alms." Therefore almsgiving is not a matter of precept.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

On the contrary, 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 Mt. 25:41-43. Therefore almsgiving is a matter of precept.

I answer that, 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 Jn. 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 Lk. 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" 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" . 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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 : "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.

Reply to Objection 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 (Mt. 6:34), but he should judge what is superfluous and what necessary, according as things probably and generally occur.

Reply to Objection 4: All succor given to our neighbor is reduced to the precept about honoring our parents. For thus does the Apostle interpret it (1 Tim. 4:8) where he says: "Dutifulness* 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" (Ex. 20:12): and dutifulness comprises all kinds of almsgiving.

Articulus 5

Argumentum 1

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod dare eleemosynam non sit in praecepto. Consilia enim a praeceptis distinguuntur. Sed dare eleemosynam est consilium, secundum illud Dan. IV, consilium meum regi placeat, peccata tua eleemosynis redime.

Ergo dare eleemosynam non est in praecepto.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, 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 praecepto.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, omne quod cadit sub praecepto aliquo tempore obligat transgressores ad peccatum mortale, quia praecepta affirmativa obligant pro tempore determinato. Si ergo dare eleemosynam caderet sub praecepto, 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 possit ei esse necessarium vel in praesenti vel in futuro.

Ergo videtur quod dare eleemosynam non sit in praecepto.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, omnia praecepta reducuntur ad praecepta Decalogi.

Sed inter illa praecepta nihil continetur de datione eleemosynarum. Ergo dare eleemosynas non est in praecepto.

Sed Contra

Sed contra, nullus punitur poena aeterna pro omissione alicuius quod non cadit sub praecepto. Sed aliqui puniuntur poena aeterna pro omissione eleemosynarum; ut patet Matth. XXV.

Ergo dare eleemosynam est in praecepto.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod cum dilectio proximi sit in praecepto, necesse est omnia illa cadere sub praecepto sine quibus dilectio proximi non conservatur. Ad dilectionem autem proximi pertinet ut proximo non solum velimus bonum, sed etiam operemur, secundum illud I Ioan. III, non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate.

Ad hoc autem quod velimus et operemur bonum alicuius requiritur quod eius necessitati subveniamus, quod fit per eleemosynarum largitionem. Et ideo eleemosynarum largitio est in praecepto.

Sed quia praecepta dantur de actibus virtutum, necesse est quod hoc modo donum eleemosynae cadat sub praecepto, 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 eius cui est eleemosyna danda.

Ex parte quidem dantis considerandum est ut id quod est in eleemosynas erogandum sit ei superfluum, secundum illud Luc. XI, quod superest date eleemosynam.

Et dico superfluum non solum respectu sui ipsius, quod est supra id quod est necessarium individuo; sed etiam respectu aliorum quorum cura sibi incumbit, quia prius oportet quod unusquisque sibi provideat et his quorum cura ei incumbit (respectu quorum dicitur necessarium personae secundum quod persona dignitatem importat), et postea de residuo aliorum necessitatibus subveniatur sicut et natura primo accipit sibi, ad sustentationem proprii corporis, quod est necessarium ministerio virtutis nutritivae; 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 praeceptum, 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 igitur dare eleemosynam de superfluo est in praecepto; et dare eleemosynam ei qui est in extrema necessitate.

Alias autem eleemosynam dare est in consilio, sicut et de quolibet meliori bono dantur consilia.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Daniel loquebatur regi qui non erat legi dei subiectus. Et ideo ea etiam quae pertinent ad praeceptum 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 praecepto.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod bona temporalia, quae homini divinitus conferuntur, eius quidem sunt quantum ad proprietatem, sed quantum ad usum non solum debent esse eius, sed etiam aliorum, qui ex eis sustentari possunt ex eo quod ei superfluit.

Unde basilius dicit, si fateris ea tibi divinitus provenisse (scilicet temporalia bona) an iniustus est deus inaequaliter res nobis distribuens? cur tu abundas, ille vero mendicat, nisi ut tu bonae 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 marcescit, indigentis argentum quod possides inhumatum.

Quocirca tot iniuriaris quot dare valeres.

Et hoc idem dicit Ambrosius, in decret., dist. XLVII.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod est aliquod tempus dare 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 quae secundum statum praesentem non sunt sibi necessaria, prout probabiliter aestimari potest.

Nec oportet quod consideret ad omnes casus qui possunt contingere in futurum, hoc enim esset de crastino cogitare, quod dominus prohibet, Matth. VI.

Sed debet diiudicari superfluum et necessarium secundum ea quae probabiliter et ut in pluribus occurrunt.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod omnis subventio proximi reducitur ad praeceptum de honoratione parentum.

Sic enim et apostolus interpretatur, I ad Tim. IV, dicens, pietas ad omnia utilis est, promissionem habens vitae quae nunc est et futurae, quod dicit quia in praecepto de honoratione parentum additur promissio, ut sis longaevus super terram.

Sub pietate autem comprehenditur omnis eleemosynarum largitio.