|
Objection 1: It would seem that alms should not be given in
abundance. For we ought to give alms to those chiefly who are most
closely connected with us. But we ought not to give to them in such a
way that they are likely to become richer thereby, as Ambrose says
(De Officiis i, 30). Therefore neither should we give
abundantly to others.
Objection 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.
Objection 3: Further, the Apostle says (2 Cor. 8:13):
"Not that others should be eased," i.e. should live on you without
working themselves, "and you burthened," i.e. impoverished. But
this would be the result if alms were given in abundance. Therefore we
ought not to give alms abundantly.
On the contrary, It is written (Tobias 4:93): "If thou have
much, give abundantly."
I answer that, Alms may be considered abundant in relation either to
the giver, or to the recipient: in relation to the giver, when that
which a man gives is great as compared with his means. To give thus is
praiseworthy, wherefore Our Lord (Lk. 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
(Article 9).
On the part of the recipient, an alms may be abundant in two ways;
first, by relieving his need sufficiently, and in this sense it is
praiseworthy to give alms: secondly, by relieving his need more than
sufficiently; this is not praiseworthy, and it would be better to give
to several that are in need, wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor.
13:3): "If I should distribute . . . to feed the poor," on
which words a gloss comments: "Thus we are warned to be careful in
giving alms, and to give, not to one only, but to many, that we may
profit many."
Reply to Objection 1: This argument considers abundance of alms as
exceeding the needs of the recipient.
Reply to Objection 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" (3 Kgs. 19:21).
Reply to Objection 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."
|
|