|
Objection 1: It would seem that one who is under another's power
can give alms. For religious are under the power of their prelates to
whom they have vowed obedience. Now if it were unlawful for them to
give alms, they would lose by entering the state of religion, for as
Ambrose says on 1 Tim. 4:8: "'Dutifulness is profitable to
all things': The sum total of the Christian religion consists in
doing one's duty by all," and the most creditable way of doing this
is to give alms. Therefore those who are in another's power can give
alms.
Objection 2: Further, a wife is under her husband's power (Gn.
3:16). But a wife can give alms since she is her husband's
partner; hence it is related of the Blessed Lucy that she gave alms
without the knowledge of her betrothed. Therefore a person is not
prevented from giving alms, by being under another's power.
Objection 3: Further, the subjection of children to their parents
is founded on nature, wherefore the Apostle says (Eph. 6:1):
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord." But, apparently,
children may give alms out of their parents' property. For it is
their own, since they are the heirs; wherefore, since they can employ
it for some bodily use, it seems that much more can they use it in
giving alms so as to profit their souls. Therefore those who are under
another's power can give alms.
Objection 4: Further, servants are under their master's power,
according to Titus 2:9: "Exhort servants to be obedient to their
masters." Now they may lawfully do anything that will profit their
masters: and this would be especially the case if they gave alms for
them. Therefore those who are under another's power can give alms.
On the contrary, Alms should not be given out of another's
property; and each one should give alms out of the just profit of his
own labor as Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xxxv, 2). Now if
those who are subject to anyone were to give alms, this would be out of
another's property. Therefore those who are under another's power
cannot give alms.
I answer that, Anyone who is under another's power must, as such,
be ruled in accordance with the power of his superior: for the natural
order demands that the inferior should be ruled according to its
superior. Therefore in those matters in which the inferior is subject
to his superior, his ministrations must be subject to the superior's
permission.
Accordingly he that is under another's power must not give alms of
anything in respect of which he is subject to that other, except in so
far as he has been commissioned by his superior. But if he has
something in respect of which he is not under the power of his
superior, he is no longer subject to another in its regard, being
independent in respect of that particular thing, and he can give alms
therefrom.
Reply to Objection 1: If a monk be dispensed through being
commissioned by his superior, he can give alms from the property of his
monaster, in accordance with the terms of his commission; but if he
has no such dispensation, since he has nothing of his own, he cannot
give alms without his abbot's permission either express or presumed for
some probable reason: except in a case of extreme necessity, when it
would be lawful for him to commit a theft in order to give an alms.
Nor does it follow that he is worse off than before, because, as
stated in De Eccles. Dogm. lxxi, "it is a good thing to give
one's property to the poor little by little, but it is better still to
give all at once in order to follow Christ, and being freed from
care, to be needy with Christ."
Reply to Objection 2: A wife, who has other property besides her
dowry which is for the support of the burdens of marriage, whether that
property be gained by her own industry or by any other lawful means,
can give alms, out of that property, without asking her husband's
permission: yet such alms should be moderate, lest through giving too
much she impoverish her husband. Otherwise she ought not to give alms
without the express or presumed consent of her husband, except in cases
of necessity as stated, in the case of a monk, in the preceding
Reply. For though the wife be her husband's equal in the marriage
act, yet in matters of housekeeping, the head of the woman is the
man, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:3). As regards Blessed
Lucy, she had a betrothed, not a husband, wherefore she could give
alms with her mother's consent.
Reply to Objection 3: What belongs to the children belongs also to
the father: wherefore the child cannot give alms, except in such small
quantity that one may presume the father to be willing: unless,
perchance, the father authorize his child to dispose of any particular
property. The same applies to servants. Hence the Reply to the
Fourth Objection is clear.
|
|