|
Objection 1: It would seem that one ought not to give alms to those
rather who are more closely united to us. For it is written
(Ecclus. 12:4,6): "Give to the merciful and uphold not the
sinner . . . Do good to the humble and give not to the 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.
Objection 2: Further, alms should be given that we may receive an
eternal reward in return, according to Mt. 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 Lk. 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.
Objection 3: Further, man is more closely united to himself. But
a man cannot give himself an alms. Therefore it seems that we are not
bound to give alms to those who are most closely united to us.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Tim. 5:8): "If any
man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he
hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
I answer that, As Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i,
28), "it falls to us by lot, as it were, to have to look to the
welfare of those who are more closely united to us." Nevertheless in
this matter we must employ discretion, according to the various degrees
of connection, holiness and utility. For we ought to give alms to one
who is much holier and in greater want, and to one who is more useful
to the common weal, rather than to one who is more closely united to
us, especially if the latter be not very closely united, and has no
special claim on our care then and there, and who is not in very urgent
need.
Reply to Objection 1: We ought not to help a sinner as such, that
is by encouraging him to sin, but as man, that is by supporting his
nature.
Reply to Objection 2: Almsdeeds deserve on two counts to receive an
eternal reward. First because they are rooted in charity, and in this
respect an almsdeed is meritorious in so far as it observes the order of
charity, which requires that, other things being equal, we should,
in preference, help those who are more closely connected with us.
Wherefore Ambrose says (De Officiis i, 30): "It is with
commendable liberality that you forget not your kindred, if you know
them to be in need, for it is better that you should yourself help your
own family, who would be ashamed to beg help from others."
Secondly, almsdeeds deserve to be rewarded eternally, through the
merit of the recipient, who prays for the giver, and it is in this
sense that Augustine is speaking.
Reply to Objection 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 (Question 30, Articles 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.
|
|