Chapter 7 — Is it lawful for religious to live on alms?

Objections

The adversaries of Christian poverty strive to prevent its practice not only by raising objections against it, but by trying, indirectly, to abolish it entirely. They endeavour to deprive the poor of Christ of the means of subsistence, by teaching that it is not lawful for them to live on alms. They thus come under the category of those of whom the Preacher speaks, the bread of the needy is the life of the poor; whoever deprives them of it is a man of blood (Sir 34:21). They try to uphold their opinion by various arguments.

Obj. 1: They quote the words of Deuteronomy 16:19: you shall not show partiality, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. Now alms are a species of gift; and as religious, above all other men, ought to have the eyes of the soul enlightened, they are not justified in living on alms.

Obj. 2: The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender (Prov 22:7). Much more then is he who accepts a gift the servant of him who gives it. Now it religious should be free from the bondage of the world, for they are called unto liberty of spirit. The Gloss, on the words, to give you in our conduct an example to imitate (2 Thess 3:9), observes: our religion calls men to freedom. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Thess 3:9 (PL 192:324D).) Therefore, religious ought not to live on alms.

Obj. 3: Religious make profession of a state of perfection. Now it is a more perfect thing to give than to receive alms. Hence Acts 20:35 says: it is more blessed to give than to receive. Therefore, religious ought, rather, to work with their hands, so that they may be able to give to the needy, instead of receiving from others alms, upon which they are to live.

Obj. 4: St. Paul, writing to Timothy (1 Tim 5:16), ordains that widows who have other means of subsistence are not to live on the charity of the Church, lest they become a burden to her, and so make it difficult for her to support such as are widows indeed. Therefore, strong, able-bodied men ought to work for their living, and not to deprive the poor of the alms on which they depend for support.

Obj. 5: St. Jerome says, they who are able to live either on their patrimony or by means of their work, and yet accept alms, commit a sacrilege; and by their abuse of charity they eat and drink judgment to themselves (Decretals, I, q. 2, Clericos). (Jerome, original source unknown, but found in Decretum, P. 2, C. 1, q. 2, ch. 6 (Friedberg, 1:409).) Hence anyone who has other means of subsistence, and chooses to live on alms, must be reputed as guilty of sacrilege.

Obj. 6: The Gloss commenting on the text of 2 Thess, that we might give ourselves a pattern, says: he who, in his indolence, constantly eats at the table of another must necessarily flatter his host. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Thess 3:9 (PL 192:324D).) Now they who live on charity often eat at the expense of their neighbour; they are, therefore, sure to become flatterers. It is sinful in them, therefore, to reduce themselves to a condition which obliges them to live on alms.

Obj. 7: The acceptance of gifts cannot be an act of any virtue save of liberality, which is the mean between giving and receiving. But a liberal man only accepts in order to give, as Aristotle says (Ethics, 4). (Aristotle, Ethics 4.2, 1120b16.) Hence they who spend their lives in accepting live in a reprehensible manner.

Obj. 8: St. Augustine in his book De opere monachorum thus rebukes certain monks who wished to live on alms, instead of by work: these brethren, rashly, in my opinion, assume that they have the right to live by the Gospel, instead of by the labor of their hands. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 21.24 (CSEL 41:569; PL 40:567).) Yet, those whom he thus reproaches, as we know by St. Augustine’s own testimony, (Augustine, De opere monachorum 17.20 (CSEL 41:564; PL 40:564).) had renounced all things for the love of Christ, and devoted themselves to spiritual exercises, such as prayer, psalmody, reading and the Word of God. Hence they who leave all things for Christ, even if they be entirely occupied in spiritual concerns, ought not to live on alms.

Again, we are told in Mark 6:8 that he charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff. The Gloss remarks, by a staff is signified the power of accepting necessary things from inferiors. But none but prelates have inferiors. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 541 at Mark 6:8 (PL 114:201).) Hence those religious who are not prelates have no right to accept alms from the faithful.

Obj. 9: Only those who labor have a right to the privileges of labor. Now the privilege granted by our Lord to those that preach the Gospel is that they shall live by the Gospel. This is confirmed by St. Paul, it is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops (2 Tim 2:6; cf. 1 Cor 9:14). Therefore, those that do not preach the Gospel ought not to live on the charity of the faithful.

Obj. 10: St. Paul refused to accept alms from the Corinthians, in order to take away occasion from false prophets (2 Cor 11:12). But there are still certain men who shamefully choose to live on charity; therefore, if only to set them a better example, religious ought not to accept alms. Hence St. Augustine in De operibus monachorum says, you have the same grounds as had the apostles to remove the occasion from those who seek occasion. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 28.36 (CSEL 41:586; PL 40:576).)

Obj. 11: St. Paul refused to accept charity from the Gentiles, in order to avoid giving them any scandal. Hence the Gloss, on the words in Luke 8, and many other women ministered to them, says: it was in those days customary among the Jews, and was not esteemed any fault, for women, of their own resources, to supply teachers with food and clothing. But, as the Gentiles might have taken scandal at this custom, St. Paul notes that for this reason he had abstained from accepting alms from them (1 Cor 9). (Glossa ordinaria 5, 807 at Luke 8:3 (PL 114:272-73); The gloss refers to verses 4 sqq.) But many seculars nowadays are scandalized at the sight of religious who wish to live without manual labor. On this account, it is the duty of religions to refrain from receiving charity. St. Augustine, in De opere monachorum, says: in your meditation let your fire flame forth that you may pursue their evil works by your own good deeds; so that you may take from them the occasion of riotous merrymaking, wherein your reputation suffers and scandal is given to those weak in the faith. Have pity, therefore, and compassion on other men; and show them that you do not eat the bread of idleness, but that you seek the Kingdom of God by a narrow and toilsome road. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 28.36 (CSEL 41:586; PL 40:576).)

Obj. 12: If religious who are well and strong may lawfully live on alms without manual labor, other men are justified in doing the same. But, if everyone pursue the same course, the human race will come to an end; for no one will be found to prepare what is necessary for the support of life. Hence it can by no means be counted lawful for strong and healthy religious to live on alms.

Obj. 13: Again, in the Conferences of the Fathers, are found these words of Anthony: more seriously than from what we said above, you should know that you are wounded by this deficiency, that, while having a healthy and robust body, you are depending for a living on a stipend that is rigthly given only to the weaker. (Cassian, Coll. 24.12 (CSEL 13:686; PL 49:1300C).) Therefore, those who are not weak should not live on alms.

Obj. 14: Again, Jerome wrote to Mark the priest: I grabbed nothing from anyone, I accept nothing while being idle, I get my food by my own hands and sweat every day, knowing that the Apostle said: "he who does not work should not eat." (Jerome, Epistole 17, para. 2 (CSEL 54:72; PL 22:360); Jerome is referring to 2 Thess 3:10.) Therefore it is not lawful to live on alms and not do manual work.

Objections against begging

Our adversaries, seek likewise to prove that although religious may live on the alms offered to them, they have no right to beg.

Obj. 1: We read in Deuteronmy 15:4, there shall be no poor nor beggar among you. Hence it is forbidden for anyone to beg, who can get his living by other means.

Obj. 2: In Psalm 36:25, it is written: I have not seen the just forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread. Therefore, beggars are not the seed of the just man, that is, of Christ.

Obj. 3: A curse is not uttered in Sacred Scripture against the just. But in Psalm 108:10 mendicity is accounted a curse: let his children be carried about vagabonds and beg. Hence mendicity is not a state befitting perfect men.

Obj. 4: St. Paul exhorts the Thessalonians in the following terms: work with your hands, as we charged you; so that you may command the respect of outsiders, and be dependent on nobody (1 Thess 4:11). The Gloss adds: therefore, should you work, and not live in idleness. This is honorable, and is as a light to unbelievers. You should not desire another man’s goods, you should neither ask for them, nor take them. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Thess 4:11 (PL 192:300D).) Hence it is plain that manual labor is preferable to begging.

Obj. 5: St. Augustine thus comments on the words: if any man will not work, saying: the servants of God ought to do some work, whereby they may earn a livelihood; so that they may not be compelled by necessity to beg. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Thess 3:10 (PL 192:325A); William of Saint-Amoure attributes this to Augustine in De periculis, 12; Cf. Collectiones catholicae et canonicae scripturae 2, 214.) Thus, we see that they are bound to manual labor rather than to mendicancy.

Obj. 6: St. Jerome writes to Nepotian: let us never ask, and but rarely accept when we are pressed to do so. For it is more blessed to give than to receive. (Cf. Jerome, Epistle 52, para. 16 (CSEL 54:439; PL 22:539).) The servants of God ought then neither to beg for, nor to accept the necessities of life.

Obj. 7: The more severe the penalty inflicted, the more heinous, evidently, is the offence committed. This is laid down in the Decretals, XXIV. q, 1, let us not use unequal scales. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 24, q. 1, ch. 21 (Friedberg, 1:974).) According to civil law, a sturdy beggar, if discovered, is sorely punished. For if he is of a servile condition, he is given over to be the slave of his accuser; if he is a freeman, he is condemned to be his perpetual servant (De mendicant. valid., lib. unica). (Justinian, Codex Iustinianus 11.26(25), p. 435.) Religious in robust health, therefore, sin by begging.

Obj. 8: St. Augustine, in De opere monachorum, speaks thus of mendicant religious: our crafty enemy sends out hypocrites who, in the monastic habit, roam from province to province. They bear no commission. They settle nowhere, and are never at rest. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 28.36 (CSEL 41:585; PL 40:575).) They beg for everything. They exact all things, either as the requirements of their lucrative poverty, or as the reward of their pretended sanctity. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 28.36 (CSEL 41:585; PL 40:575).) Therefore it seems that the life of religious mendicants should be reprobated.

Obj. 9: That which naturally causes shame in man, is intrinsically disgraceful. For, as St. John Damascene says, we only blush for what is shameful. (John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, bk. 2, ch. 15 (PG 94:932B).) Now men are instinctively ashamed of begging; and the nobler a mans’ nature, the more acutely he feels the disgrace of mendicancy. Thus St. Ambrose says (lib. de offic.) that shame at begging proves the nobility of a man. (Ambrose, De officiis ministorum 1.30.158 (CCSL 15; PL 16:74B).) And Aristotle (Ethics, 5) says that a freeman is not prone to beg. (Aristotle, Ethics 4.2, 1120a33.) Mendicity then is in itself disgraceful; and no one ought to resort to it who can live by any other means.

Obj. 10: The Gloss, on the words: God loves a cheerful giver (2 Cor 9:7), runs as follows: he who gives in order to rid himself of the importunity of a beggar rather than to relieve the need of a poor man loses the merit of his alms. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Cor 9:7 (PL 192:63B).) But charity is often thus bestowed on beggars; for they weary men by their persistence.

Objections against preachers begging or living on alms

Our opponents likewise try to prove that even religious who preach ought not to beg nor to live on alms.

Obj. 1: St. Paul says, we never used either words of flattery, as you know (1 Thess 2:5). Now preachers who beg and live on alms are obliged to flatter those whose charity they receive. The Gloss on the words, leaving them, he went out of the city (Matt 21:17) says: for as he was poor and flattered none, he received hospitality from no one in the city, save from Lazarus. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 349 at Matt 21:17 (PL 114:153).) And yet, for this very cause, the preaching of our Lord was all the more powerful. For, as Luke 21:38 tells us: early in the morning all the people came to him in the temple to hear him. Again, St. Paul says, to the present hour we hunger and thirst, and we are ill-clad (1 Cor 4:11). On these words the Gloss makes the following comment: those who preach, the truth with sincerity and without flattery, and who reprove the vices of mankind are not favourably heard. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 4:11 (PL 191:1569A).) Therefore, preachers ought not to ask for alms.

Obj. 2: St. Paul says: neither have we taken a cloak for greed, as God is witness (1 Thess 2:5). The Gloss observes hereon, the Apostle does not say: "I have not been covetous," but "I have neither said nor done anything that can be an occasion of covetousness.” (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Thess 2:5 (PL 192:293A).) Preachers ought to be able to speak in like manner. Those, however, who beg become, on the contrary, an occasion of covetousness to others.

Obj. 3: Again, St. Paul says, I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you (2 Cor 12:14). Likewise, he writes: not that I seek the gift; but I seek the fruit (Phil 4:17). The Gloss says: by the gift is meant the things given, such as money, food and the like; the fruit signifies the good works, and the upright intention of the giver. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Phil 4:17 (PL 192:257B).) True preachers then ought not to seek temporal gifts from their hearers. For this reason, the ought not to live by begging.

Obj. 4: On the words: it is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops (2 Tim 2:6), the Gloss says: the Apostle desires the evangelist to understand that he may accept that which is needful from them for whom he labors in God, whom he cultivates as a vinedresser tends his vine, and whom he feeds as a shepherd feeds his flock For to act thus is a right; it is not beggary. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Tim 2:6 (PL 192:368C-D).) Hence we see that those who preach the Gospel have a claim to live by it; and that they are not mendicants when they do so. But this right belongs only to prelates, and, therefore, other preachers ought not to live by the Gospel.

Obj. 5: St. Paul (1 Cor 9), wishing to show that it was lawful for him to accept alms from the faithful, first proves that he is an Apostle. Those who are not apostles, have no right to live by the charity of the faithful. Preaching religious, not being prelates, are not apostles; therefore they do not have this right.

Obj. 6: The Gloss, commenting on the words of 1 Thess 2:7, whereas we might have been burdensome to you as the apostles of Christ, says: St. Paul points out the hypocrisy of the false prophets, by refusing to ask for the support which he might justly have claimed, in order to rebuke those who, although they had no right to ask for assistance, blushed not to do so. He speaks of this apostolic claim to the alms of the faithful as “a burden,” in allusion to the false prophets who unlawfully usurped the right of asking for charity, and importunately urged their pretended claims. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Thess 2:7 (PL 192:293B).) It thus becomes plain that they who require the faithful to support them must, as they are not apostles, be accounted to be false prophets. Therefore, preachers who are not prelates, ought not to beg.

Obj. 7: Preachers who are not prelates either have, or have not, a right to be maintained by those to whom they preach. If they possess this right, they can enforce it by coercion. This idea is, of course, absurd. If they have no right to such support, they are begging unlawfully and unjustly; and they ought, as we have just shown from the Gloss, to be counted as false prophets. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Thess 2:7 (PL 192:293B).)

Obj. 8: Prelates who receive from the laity tithes and offerings are bound to provide for their spiritual needs. Hence if others be commissioned by bishops to minister to the faithful and to receive alms from them, it is unfair to the people. For it is the bishops, and not the people, who ought to provide for the wants of those whom they send.

Obj. 9: Prelates who commission others to preach are bound to supply their necessities (Extra de offic., ord. Inter caetera). (Liber extravagantium decretalium (Decretales Gregorii Papae IX), bk. 1, tit. 31, ch. 35 (Friedberg, 2:192).) If then the preachers demand offerings from their bearers, they are doing them an injustice; for they ought not to accept remuneration from them.

Obj. 10: Our Lord says to the Pharisees, woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses and for a pretense you make long prayers (Matt 23:14). Those are equally reprehensible who beg for alms, under the pretext of praying, or preaching, or of any other act of the like nature.

Obj. 11: Christ, when he sent forth his disciples to preach, said to them: whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it, and stay with him until you depart (Matt 10:11). The Gloss says on this verse, we must choose our host by the testimony of his neighbours, lest his bad life should cause our preaching to be neglected. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 192 at Matt 10:11.) Again, he is worthy to entertain us, who understands that thereby he receives, rather than confers, a favour. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 192 at Matt 10:11.) Hence it is highly reprehensible for preachers to condescend to wealthy sinners, and to those who do not esteem their abode with them to be a favour.

Obj. 12: He who barters a spiritual for a temporal good commits the sin of simony, whether, like Giezi, he asks for a gift, or whether a gift be offered to him, like that which Elisha refused to accept from Naaman (2 Kings 5). The sin is equal, whether it be before or after the work that the gift is accepted (Decretals, I, q. 1., Eos). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 1, q. 1, ch. 21 (Friedberg, 1:365).) Now he who preaches to the people exercises a spiritual ministry towards them. Hence a preacher should not accept their temporal gifts, whether he asks for them, or whether they offer them without being asked.

Obj. 13: St. Paul says: abstain from every form of evil (1 Thess 5:22). The Gloss adds: if something appears to be wrong, although it be not actually wrong, do not do it impulsively. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Thess 5:22 (PL 192:309D).) Now it has a bad appearance for a preacher to seek material assistance from those to whom he preaches. Hence St. Paul said: I seek not what is yours but you (2 Cor 12). (2 Cor 12:14.) For, as the Gloss observes, the Apostle, lest he might seem to sell the Gospel, desired not gifts, but fruit. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Cor 12:14 (PL 192:87C).) In like manner, preachers ought not to beg for a livelihood from those to whom they preach.

Objections against giving alms to religious

Our opponents, also, attempt to prove that alms ought not to be given to religious.

Obj. 1: They, quote the words, when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind (Luke 14:13), from whom, as the Gloss says, there is nothing to be expected. (Glossa interlinearis, at Luke 14:13 (in Glossa ordinaria 5, 895-96).) But you might gain something from strong and healthy beggars, who are often the parasites of rich men. Therefore, we ought not to give to the latter class of mendicant.

Obj. 2: St. Augustine writes to Vincent the Donatist that it is better to deprive a hungry man of food, than to give bread to one who, being sure of a livelihood, will forsake justice. For by succouring such a one, we connive at his evildoing. (Augustine, Epistle 93, ch. 2, para. 4 (CCSL 31A:169; CSEL 34:2:448-449; PL 33:323).) Now he who will not work for his living when he is able, or he who can get food in a lawful manner without begging and yet prefers to beg, acts unjustly. Hence alms should not be bestowed upon him.

Obj. 3: The Gloss on the words, give to every one who begs from you (Luke 6:30) says, give him what he wants or a reproof. (Glossa interlinearis, at Luke 6:30 (in Glossa ordinaria 5, 785-86).) Again, on the words, give to him who begs from you (Matt 5:42), the Gloss says: give in such a way as to injure neither yourself nor another. For justice should be balanced. Thus, you should give to every one who asks you, if not what he asks for, then some better thing, namely, a rebuke for asking wrongfully. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 117 at Matt 5:42 (PL 114:97).) Now as we have shown, he who prefers begging to manual labor begs unjustly; and he deserves reproof rather than alms.

Obj. 4: St. Augustine, in his letter to the Donatist Vincent, says, the evil have often persecuted the good, and the good have persecuted the evil. The evil persecuted the good by injustice; and the good persecute the bad by correction. (Augustine, Epistle 93 2.8 (CCSL 31A; CSEL 34.2:452; PL 33:325).) Hence for the sake of correction, the good may persecute the bad; and to deprive them of food is a species of correction. Now sturdy beggars sin, even though they preach; and therefore, they ought to be deprived of food.

Obj. 5: St. Ambrose (De officiis, 1) says: in giving charity, we must take into consideration the age of the one who asks of us, his health and the boldness with which he begs. For shame in asking for alms often betrays the nobility of him who asks. We must give more abundantly to the aged, who cannot gain a living by the labor of their hands. The sick, likewise should be promptly relieved; and those who have fallen form wealth into poverty, not by their own fault, but through robbery or proscription or calumny. (Ambrose, De officiis ministorum 1.30.158 (CCSL 15; PL 16:69B).) Now robust beggars are neither infirm in health nor shamefaced; neither have they lost their property through robbery or proscription. Therefore, they should not be helped by charity.

Obj. 6: Alms should be given for the purpose of relieving indigence; and the greater the distress, the greater should be our liberality. But those who cannot work for their living and cannot get support by any other means are in much greater straits than are they who are able to obtain a livelihood. As long, therefore, as we find indigent persons belonging to the first category, we should not give to those belonging to the second.

Obj. 7: Alms-giving is a work of mercy. Therefore, it is to be performed only in behalf of those in need. Now those who voluntarily reduce themselves to beggary are not in need. It is only those that are compelled to suffer penury who can be said to be in want. Aristotle says: what is involuntary deserves forgiveness (Ethics, 3). (Aristotle, Ethics 3.1, 1109b32; 3.3, 1111a1.) Hence alms are not to be bestowed on voluntary mendicants.

Obj. 8: St. Augustine says (De doctrina Christiana, 1): as you cannot assist all, you should help those who are most closely bound to you by time or place or by some other circumstance. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 1.28.29 (CCSL 32; CSEL 80; PL 34:30).) Now our closest ties are to our neighbours and our kinsfolk. Therefore, as long as any of our friends are in need, we must not give alms to strangers.

Response

I answer that, the errors which we have noted are no novelty. They appeared in the very early days of the Church. In 3 John we read, Diotrephes, who loves to have pre-eminence among them, does not receive us (3 John 1:9). Again, and as if these things were not enough for him, neither does he himself receive the brethren (3 John 1:10), that is, the needy, as the Gloss explains. (Glossa interlinearis, at 3 John 1:10 (in Glossa ordinaria 6, 1429-30).) And those who do receive them he banishes and casts out of the church, that is, for fear that they should help the needy he does not let them go to their usual place of meeting (Gloss). (3 John 1:10, and Glossa interlinearis, at 3 John 1:10 (in Glossa ordinaria 6, 1429-30).) Another commentary on the same text says: you ought to persevere in almsgiving, for it is a work so profitable that I would have written in its praise not only to you, but to the whole Church. But this desire I was constrained to leave unfulfilled; for Diotrephes cares not for our authority. (Glossa ordinaria 6, 1429 at 3 John 1:9 (PL 114:705-06).)

Diotrephes, a heresiarch of the primitive times of the Church, taught, as we see from the text and the Gloss, that humanity has no claim on our care, and that we should not assist pilgrims who have left their own possessions. Vigilantius revived this heresy, as we learn from the Epistle of St. Jerome to Riparius and Desiderius against Vigilantius. In this Epistle he writes: further, I am informed, by the same epistles that contrary to the authority of the Apostle Paul, also of Peter, and of John and James, who held out to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of communication and commanded them to be mindful of the poor, that you forbid any sums to be sent to Jerusalem, for the benefit of the needy. (Jerome, Contra Vigilantium, para. 13 (CCSL 79C; PL 23:365A).)

In combating these errors we shall proceed in the following manner:

First, we shall prove that those who are poor because they have given up everything for God may live on alms.

Second, we shall show that preachers, even though they be not prelates, may, when commissioned by bishops to preach, accept the charity of the faithful to whom they preach.

Third, that, even though they are in robust health, they may beg.

Fourth, that they have a special right to the alms of the faithful.

Fifth, we shall confute the arguments brought in support of the contrary propositions.

That religious have a right to live on alms

The fact that those who are poor because they have renounced all things for Christ have a right to live on alms is proved by the example of St. Benedict. He, as St. Gregory tells us (Diologues, 2), lived for three years in a cave after he left his parents’ house, dependent on the ministry of the monk Romanus. (Gregory the Great, Dialogues 2.1 (PL 66:128D-130A).) He was in sound health, but we do not read that he worked for his living.

In the Decretals, I, q. 2, Sacerdos, it is laid down that he who has either renounced all his property in favour of his kinsfolk, or has distributed it to the poor, or given it to the Church, and has thus, for love of poverty, made himself poor, is not only free from the guilt of covetousness if he accept assistance from the faithful; but that he may laudably do so, in order thereby to assist the poor, while he himself lives in voluntary poverty. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 1, q. 2, ch. 9 (Friedberg, 1:410).) It is thus evident that a man who has renounced all things for Christ, may live on the charity of the faithful.

A man is bound rather to sacrifice some good, which he may relinquish without sin, than to commit sin. If then they who are in robust health sin by taking alms, they ought to relinquish every other occupation, however good, rather than accept charity. This proposition is false, as we see by the words of St. Augustine in De opere monachorum. The Saint says that those servants of God who work with their hands ought to have some time set apart in which to rest from labor, and to commit to memory what they ought to know. They ought, he says, to be assisted by the good offices of the faithful, in order that at the times devoted to learning, they may dot be depressed by want. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 17.20 (CSEL 41:565; PL 40:565).) St. Augustine thus shows that, in his opinion, monks ought not to be entirely dependent on labor for their daily bread; otherwise no opportunity would be afforded them for spiritual exercises.

In the same work, St. Augustine, referring to a certain rich man who had given all his wealth to a monastery, says that he performed a good work by laboring with his hands, in order to give an example; although, by the benefit which he had conferred on the community, he had a right to be supported by it. For, had he been unwilling to work, who would have dared to urge him to do so? (Augustine, De opere monachorum 25.33 (CSEL 41:579; PL 40:573).) Hence we see that he who bestows his substance on a monastery, has a right to live in that monastery without manual labor. But Augustine further remarks that as all Christians form one republic, it is of no consequence to which section of the commonwealth each one gives his money, nor from whom he derives support. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 25.33 (CSEL 41:580; PL 40:573).) Hence they who have left all things for Christ may accept the necessities of life from anyone.

The intention of refraining from a deed, bad in itself, does not diminish the intrinsic evil of the deed, though it may lessen the sin committed. If, therefore, it is in itself sinful for a man who is able to work to live on alms, those who, although in good health, intend to live for a time on charity, intending at other times to live by other means, cannot be excused from sin. Pilgrims, therefore, who beg on their pilgrimages, commit sin. Sin is likewise committed by those who enjoin pilgrimages. This supposition is of course absurd.

It is more meritorious in a man to devote himself to divine contemplation than to the study of philosophy. Some men, however, do, without sin, live for a time on charity in order to pursue such study. Therefore, it is permissible for others to live for a time on alms, in order to devote themselves to divine contemplation. But, it is more praiseworthy in a man to consecrate himself perpetually to contemplation than temporarily to study. Consequently it is lawful for men to set aside manual labor and to live, absorbed in contemplation, on the alms of the faithful.

Christian charity forms a closer bond than does political friendship. Now if anyone makes me a present, I am justified in making any use of it that I choose. It is then even more permissible for me to live by the things that are given me, for the love of Christ.

If it be lawful to accept what is greater, it is still more allowable to receive that which is less. But religious are permitted to receive a certain income (mille marcharum) and to live on it without manual labor. Were such not the case, many communities that are in possession of large properties would be in a state of damnation. For the same reason, many of the secular clergy who have no care of souls, live on ecclesiastical possessions, which are the gifts of the faithful. Hence it is absurd to say that poor religious may not accept small alms and live thereby, without manual labor.

The poor who are unable to work are more grossly defrauded, if what is their due is given to others, than if those others receive what they have a claim to. Now the income of ecclesiastical property is intended be given to the poor (Decretals, XII, q. 1, Videntes). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 12, q. 1, ch. 16 (Friedberg, 1:682).) Hence it is laid down (Decretals, I, q. 2*, Clericus; Si quis*) that clerics who can live on their own patrimony cannot, without sin, live on the goods of the Church, which are destined for the support of the poor. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 1, q. 2, ch. 6, ch. 8 (Friedberg, 1:409-10).) Hence a greater injustice is committed against the poor, if those who, although in good health, do no manual labor, and yet live on ecclesiastical property, than if the poor of Christ live by the private offerings of the faithful, which are not the right of the poor. If those in the first category do not defraud the poor, those who are in the second most certainly do not do so.

In our treatise on manual labor will be found many other arguments in proof of the same point.

That preachers may accept alms

Our next task will be to show that preachers, although, they be not prelates, may accept for their maintenance alms from those to whom they preach.

St. Paul writes to the Corinthians, who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? (1 Cor 9:7). St. Paul alleges these examples (as the Gloss remarks) in order to prove that the apostles did not claim more than was their due if, according to the precept of our Lord, they who preached the Gospel lived by it, and likewise freely accepted the charity of those to whom they freely ministered. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 9:7 (PL 191:1608C).) Now it is quite certain that a soldier, and a vinedresser, and a herdsman, ought to live by the fruit of their toil. Therefore, as not only prelates, but all preachers, labor to announce the Gospel, they have a right to accept the means of subsistence from those among whom they labor.

St. Paul likewise maintains that the apostles has a right to accept temporal assistance from those to whom they ministered spiritual good. For it is not out of order for him who gives great things to receive small things in exchange. To quote St. Paul’s own words, if we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? (1 Cor 9:11). Now the spiritual truths taught by prelates are proclaimed, equally by all preachers bearing an episcopal commission. There is therefore no reason why they, as well as prelates, should not accept material means of support.

In the first Chapter of the Epistle just quoted, St. Paul likewise says: they who preach the gospel, should live by the gospel (1 Cor 9:14). The Gloss observes: the reason why this command was given was to render preachers more diligent in their office. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 9:14 (PL 191:1610A).) Now all (not only prelates) whose duty it is to preach ought to be zealous in so doing. Therefore, the rule laid down by our Lord applies not only to prelates, but to all who preach the word of God. This is plain by the very words of St. Paul. He does not say, “all who have ordinary authority to preach,” but, those who preach the Gospel.

When our Lord sent forth his disciples to preach, he said: remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages (Luke 10:7). This passage proves that preachers earn their living, as payment due to them, from those to whom they preach The following observation from, the Gloss renders this proposition still more clear: a preacher is entitled to two rewards for his one work. One reward he receives on earth, in the support afforded to him in his labor; the other reward awaits him in heaven, in a glorious resurrection. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 838 at Luke 10:7 (PL 114:284).) Now reward is due not to power, nor to authority, nor to habit, but to deed; for deeds alone are meritorious. Aristotle says: as in the Olympian games, the crown was given not to the strongest nor to the noblest, but to those who fought most strenuously and who, therefore, were victorious; so they are rightly deemed the most illustrious who in life have done the best and bravest deeds (Ethics, 1). (Aristotle, Ethics 1.12, 1099a3-7.) St. Paul again says: an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules (2 Tim 2:5). They, therefore, whether prelates or not, who legitimately preach the Gospel, may lawfully live by it.

They who are sent by bishops to preach, labor more than do the others of the order from which they are sent, or than they who, at the bidding of a bishop, send them. But it is lawful for the rest of an order to live on the alms given to its preachers, even though those preachers be not prelates. This is proved by the following words: it has pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a contribution for the poor saints that are in Jerusalem. For it has pleased them, and they are their debtors. For, if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things (that is, according to the Gloss, partakers of the spiritual advantages of the Jews who had sent them preachers from Jerusalem (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Rom 15:26 (PL 191:1526B).)), they ought also in carnal things to minister to them (Rom 15:26). Now by the poor of whom St. Paul here speaks, we cannot understand the apostles. For, as they were only twelve in number, and were content with little, they did not need a collection to be made for them in all the Churches, especially as we know that they were supported by those to whom they preached (1 Cor 9:11). Hence all preachers, even though they are not bishops, but are sent by bishops, have a right to live by the Gospel.

They who, by episcopal commission, are employed in preaching are of far greater use to bishops in spreading the word of God, than are they who are engaged in other functions of the ministry. Now prelates who preach may accept alms, not only for themselves, but for their households. More justly then may they who preach by episcopal commission, accept from the faithful the means of subsistence.

He who gives to another gratis what he is not obliged to give, has as good a right to take a reward as he who does merely what he is obliged to do. Now it is a bounden duty for bishops to minister to their flocks in spiritual matters. For, as St. Paul says: if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! (1 Cor 9:16). They therefore who are not prelates, and have not the responsibility of a flock, are justified in accepting material assistance from those to whom they preach.

St. Augustine says in De opere monachorum: if they (that is, religious) are preachers of the Gospel, I admit their right, (Augustine, De opere monachorum 21.24 (CSEL 41:569-570; PL 40:567).) that is, to live on the alms of the faithful. But these words apply not only to prelates, but to all who can preach, even to deacons. Hence St. Paul says: his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11). The Apostle thus draws a distinction between Evangelists and Pastors and apostles, by which term we are to understand prelates. Hence all preachers, be they prelates or not, may live by the Gospel.

Preaching is the noblest of all ecclesiastical functions. Our Lord declared that this was the purpose of his coming into the world: I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other cities also; for I was sent for this purpose (Luke 4:43). (Although Thomas references the second chapter of Mark, the text he is referring to is Mark 1:38.) Isaiah also, speaking in the person of Christ, says: he sent me to preach to the poor (Isa 61:1). (Cf. Luke 4:18.) St. Paul likewise says: Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel (1 Cor 1:17). Now they who are engaged in the business of the Church ought not to work with their hands, but to live on the property of the Church, as St. Augustine says (De opere monachorum), speaking of himself. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 21.24 (CSEL 41:570; PL 40:567).) This rule applies much more forcibly to those engaged in preaching, who have every right to live by the Gospel, instead of by manual labor.

The office of a preacher is more useful to the community than is that of a lawyer. But lawyers may, from the legitimate exercise of their profession, earn a livelihood. Therefore, preachers, may, if their preaching be authorised, live by means of it, whether they be prelates or not.

Although alms cannot be given out of money made by usury, preachers may, nevertheless, accept alms from money thus gained, provided they cannot, without so doing, remain in a place inhabited by usurers. The reason for this concession is that preachers, by inducing usurers to restore their ill-gotten gains, are directing the affairs of those to whom this money is due. This is distinctly established in the decretal Extra de sent. excom., cap. cum voluntate. (Liber extravagantium decretalium (Decretales Gregorii Papae IX), bk. 5, tit. 39, ch. 54 (Friedberg, 2:911).) But preachers are, in like manner, occupied with the affairs of all men, both rich and poor, when they urge the rich to give alms to the poor and to perform other salutary works. Hence they are justified in accepting alms from those to whom they preach.

We see that in mechanical trades, it is not they only who work with their hands who live by the trade, but the architect who directs their labor profits by it likewise. Now the man who teaches morals is, so to speak, the architect of all human duties (Ethics, 1). (Aristotle, Ethics 1.2, 1094a24.) Therefore, preachers have a right to live by their preaching, even though they do not work with their hands.

Health of soul is to be preferred before health of body. Physicians live without manual labor by giving advice to their patients. Therefore, those who are engaged about the spiritual welfare of others have a right to accept alms for their maintenance, even though they do not labor with their hands.

That preachers may beg for charity

Our next task will be to show that preachers may not only live by alms freely offered to them, but that they may likewise beg for charity.

This is proved by the example of Christ, speaking in whose person the Psalmist says: I am poor and needy (Ps 39:18). The Gloss remarks on this text: Christ speaks thus of himself in the form of a servant. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Ps 39:18 (PL 191:406B).) Again: a beggar is one who asks from another; a poor man one who has not enough for himself. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Ps 39:18 (PL 191:406B).)

In Psalm 69:6, we find the words: but I am needy and poor. On which the Gloss says: I am needy, that is, begging, and poor, that is, I do not have the means to support myself. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Ps 69:6 (PL 191:645A).) He who speaks thus owns no material wealth; and, having spiritual riches, he ever desires more, craves for it, and receives it.

In Psalm 108:17 we read: he persecutes the poor man and the beggar, that is, Christ, as the Gloss expounds it. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Ps 108:17 (PL 191:992B).) Another commentary says: it is pure malice to persecute the poor. Rich men may sometimes suffer persecution on account of their position or wealth. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Ps 108:17 (PL 191:992B).) Both these commentaries show that the words of the Psalm are understood as being an allusion to material poverty.

St. Paul says: you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor (2 Cor 8:9), that is, in the world (Gloss). (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Cor 8:9 (PL 192:58A).) That the poverty of Christ ought to be imitated is proved by the Gloss in the following words: let no one despise himself. He who inhabits a poor dwelling is rich in conscience, and he sleeps more peacefully on the ground, than the wealthy man can rest amidst his gold and purple. Fear not then in your misery, to approach him who has put on our poverty. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Cor 8:9 (PL 192:58A).)

Our Lord asked for hospitality. We know this by his words to Zacchaeus: make haste and come down; for I must stay at your house today (Luke 19:5). The Gloss says: he offers himself, although he has not been invited. For he knew the disposition of Zacchaeus’ heart, although he had uttered no word of invitation. (Glossa interlinearis, at Luke 19:5 (in Glossa ordinaria 5, 945-46).)

We read in St. Mark 11:11, having viewed all things round about, when now the eventide was come. The Gloss understands these words to mean: having looked all around him to see if any would offer him hospitality. For he was so poor and so carefully avoided flattering any man that he found none to shelter him in all that large city. (Glossa interlinearis, at Mark 11:11 (in Glossa ordinaria 5, 599-600).) Hence we see that the poverty of our Lord was so extreme that he possessed nothing with which to hire a lodging, but sought and hoped for hospitality from others. It is, therefore, blasphemous to say that it is unlawful to beg.

Again, Jerome wrote to Furia about staying a widow: whenever you extend your hand, think of Christ. Beware of building up the riches of others, while your Lord is begging. (Jerome, Epistle 54, para. 12 (CSEL 54:478-479; PL 22:556).) From this it is clear that Christ begged.

The same lesson is taught by the example of the apostles. They were instructed by our Lord not to take with them on their way what they needed for their journey (Matt 10, Mark 6, Luke 9). They could not have taken what they needed as a right; they must, therefore, have begged for it.

Again, the same fact is made evident by the conduct of the apostles after the resurrection of Christ. St. John says: they have set out for his sake (away, as the Gloss expresses it (Glossa ordinaria 6, 1429 at 3 John 1:7 (PL 114:705).)), and have accepted nothing from the heathen (3 John 1:7). (Glossa interlinearis, at 3 John 1:7 (in Glossa ordinaria 6, 1429-30).) Hence they went forth without the necessities of life. These, therefore, they must have gained by begging,

A man is more strictly bound to provide for himself than for others. Now the apostles asked for alms for the poor of the saints who were in Jerusalem. (Cf. Rom 15:26-27.) If then it be lawful to beg for our brethren, it is equally right to do so for ourselves.

The example of St. Alexis shows that mendicancy is permissible. This Saint, having renounced all things for the love of Christ, lived not by work, but by begging. He asked for alms even from the servants whom his father sent to seek him; and he thanked God that he received charity from them. His sanctity was made known by a voice from Heaven. This voice was heard by the Pope, by the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius, and by the people of Rome assembled in the basilica of St. Peter. The voice announced that the preservation of Rome was due to the merits of Alexis. After the death of the Saint, his fame was spread by means of many miracles; and he was canonised. His feast is solemnly observed by the whole Roman Church.

St. Jerome, writing to Oceanus in praise of Fabiola, says of her that she desired to sacrifice her riches and to live on charity. (Jerome, Epistle 77, para. 9 (CSEL 55:47; PL 22:696).) Had this wish been sinful on her part, she could not have been commended for it.

What is unlawful cannot be imposed by this Church as a penance. But for certain grave offences, a sinner may be enjoined to make a pilgrimage and to beg his way. Hence mendicancy is not sinful, but may be a penitential exercise. It may, therefore, be practiced, together with other works of penance, for the love of God, and as a means to perfection.

As vigils, fasting and suchlike macerations of the flesh are employed as means to combat concupiscence, so everything that tends towards humiliation diminishes pride, which is as much to be avoided as lust, since, as St. Gregory says, spiritual sins are the more heinous. (Gregory the Great, Morals 33.12.25 (CCSL 143B; PL 76:688B-C).) Now no penitential exercise can be more humiliating than mendicancy, for man is naturally ashamed of begging. Hence as fasting and watching, regarded in the light of bridles to concupiscence, pertain to the state of perfection; mendicancy likewise, embraced for the love of Christ and for the sake of humility, pertains to the same state.

Again, the charity of Christ is more liberal than is the friendship of the world. Now even in human friendship, friends make no difficulty about asking each other for what they need, particularly in cases where some return can be made for what is given. The form in which such return is made is of no consequence, as the philosopher says (Ethics, 5). (Aristotle, Ethics 5.8, 1133a16; cf. 8.14, 1163b2.) Hence it is permissible for a man, even though he be in good health, to ask for the love of God for what he needs, especially as he can make a return to the donor by prayers and spiritual works.

It is lawful to ask another for a favour, if, by so doing, we give him a chance of improving his condition. Now by giving alms, a man betters his condition by meriting eternal life. Hence it cannot be unlawful to ask for charity.

The needs of the poor cannot be relieved unless they be known; and they cannot be known unless they be revealed. Hence if it is right for any to be in a state of destitution, it is right for them to beg for what they need. But, as we have already proved, it is lawful for men to reduce themselves to such poverty for the love of God that even (as St. Augustine says in De opere monachorum (Augustine, De opere monachorum 16.19 (CSEL 41:564; PL 40:564).)) their manual labor does not suffice to support them. It is, therefore, justifiable in them to beg.

That it is right to give alms to mendicant religious

We shall now prove that it is right to give alms to mendicant religious.

First, St. John says, beloved, it is a loyal thing you do when you render any service to the brethren, especially to strangers (3 John 1:5), and he immediately points out to whom he refers by saying: for his name they went out, (3 John 1:7.) that is, leaving their own possessions (Gloss). (Glossa interlinearis, at 3 John 1:7 (in Glossa ordinaria 6, 1429-30).) And again, we, therefore, ought to receive such (3 John 1:8). The Gloss here remarks: John had renounced all things, but he speaks of himself as belonging to the number of the rich, in order to make those whom he addresses more prompt and more ready in helping the needy. (Glossa ordinaria 6,1429 at 3 John 1:8.) Hence it is praiseworthy to give alms to those who, for the love of Christ, live without possessions of their own.

We read in Matthew 10:41, he who receives a just man in the name of a just man shall receive the reward of a just man. The Gloss remarks that on this account he is called just. (Glossa interlinearis, at Matt 10:41 (in Glossa ordinaria 5, 203-04).) The Gloss also adds, someone may therefore say: "We shall thus receive false prophets, and the traitor Judas.” But the Lord, foreseeing this objection, says not that persons are to be received but their names; and that he who receives another shall not be deprived of a reward on account of the unworthiness of the object of his charity. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 202-03 at Matt 10:41.) Hence we must conclude that alms are to be given to those who bear, even though unjustly, the name of sanctity.

St. Paul praises the faithful of Macedonia and Achaia for their resolution to make a collection for the poor among the saints (Rom 15:26). The Gloss remarks hereon: these men devoted themselves wholly to the Divine service, heeding no worldly matters, and caring only to set an example of holy living to those who believed. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Rom 15:26 (PL 191:1526A).) The Achaians and Macedonians had made a collection for these good men; and St. Paul invites the Romans to do the same. Hence we see that alms may be given to the poor of Christ.

The Gloss says, commenting on the words, your abundance at the present time should supply their want (2 Cor 8:14), that is, the want of those who have renounced all earthly things. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Cor 8:14 (PL 192:59A).) These words are a further confirmation of the opinion which we have already expressed.

Again, on the words, brethren, do not be weary in well-doing (2 Thess 3:13), the Gloss observes that “well doing” here signifies doing good to the poor. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Thess 3:13 (PL 192:325B-326A).) Another commentary says: because, although they work, they are still in need of certain things. Thus, St. Paul warns the faithful that if they have the means of supplying the necessities of the servants of God, they should not be remiss in so doing. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Thess 3:13 (PL 192:326A).) A man cannot be blamed for generosity; he, only, deserves a rebuke who, while able to work, prefers to lead an idle life. Hence it is praiseworthy to give alms to the servants of God, whether they work or not, even though they may be to blame for not working.

St. Jerome says, when writing against Vigilantius: we do not deny that if anyone is able to do so and is generously minded, he may give alms to all poor men, even to Samaritans and Jews. The Apostle teaches that charity is to be given to all men, but chiefly to those who are of the household of the Faith. It is of such that our Lord says: "Make friends with the mammon of iniquity, who will receive you into everlasting dwellings." (Luke 16:9.) But can these poor persons, whose physical degradation corresponds with their mental depravity, receive us into everlasting dwellings, when they possess no home at the present time and have no hope of any habitation in the future? It is not simply the poor, but the poor in spirit, that are called "blessed." And it is of such that the Psalmist writes: "blessed is he who considers the poor" (Ps 41:1). In order to succour the ordinary poor, alms are necessary, not understanding. In order to assist the holy poor mentioned in the beatitude, there must be intelligence, in order that alms may be given to him who is grieved and ashamed to accept them, and who, reaping material advantage, sows spiritual good. (Jerome, Contra Vigilantium, para. 14 (CCSL 79C: PL 23:366A-B).) Hence we see that it is better to give alms to the poor who are holy than to any others.

On the words, he scatters abroad, he gives to the poor (2 Cor 9:9), the Gloss thus comments: if the reward of him who gives to the poor is great, how much greater shall be the prize awarded to him who ministers to the saints? For anyone may be poor, even though he be wicked. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Cor 9:9 (PL 192:64A).) This is a further argument, in favour of the opinion that we have just expressed.

St. Jerome comments thus on the words: let him who is taught the word share all good things with him who teaches (Gal 6:6): St. Paul commands that were infirm disciples and carnal men, to contribute to the material needs of the masters from whom they have received spiritual instruction, and who, being entirely devoted to study, lack the necessities of life. (Jerome, Commentary on Galations, bk. 3, ch. 4, at ch. 6 verse 6 (CCSL 77A; PL 26:429C-D).) Hence we see that alms are to be given not to such as work with their hands, but to those that are engaged in the study of the Scripture.

St. Jerome likewise writes to Paulinus: he is rather to be considered a courtier than a monk, who always, or often, talks of money, and who takes no heed of the alms which belong to all. (Jerome, Epistle 58, para. 6 (CSEL 54:536; PL 22:584).) From which words it is evident that alms are to be given to monks and to all others, and that monks have a right to speak of asking for charity.

We read in Decretals, XLII: if any man contemn those who faithfully prepare the agapes, or banquets of the poor, and call the brethren together for the glory of God, and despises the work they do, let him be anathema. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 42, ch. 1 (Friedberg, 1:151).) It is, therefore, a crime worthy of excommunication, to condemn the practice of almsgiving.

We read in Proverbs 21:13: he who stops his ear against the cry of the poor shall also cry himself, and he shall not be heard. The Gloss observes: these words refer to the poor considered generally, not only to the sick or destitute. For he who prefers to judge his neighbour, rather than to pity his sinfulness, shows that he himself is not free from guilt, nor worthy to be heard by the divine mercy. (Glossa ordinaria 3, 1695 at Prov 21:13 (PL 113:1104).) Alms then are to be given to all who are poor, even though they are in robust health.

On the words of Psalm 104(103):14: you cause the grass to grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate, the Gloss says: the, earth, being fertile, was able to provide grass (that is, material subsistence) for cattle (that is, for preachers), in order that they who preach the Gospel may live by the Gospel. If the earth does not bring forth this temporal support for preachers it is barren. If it produces these material good things it is bearing fruit. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Ps 104 (103):14, labelled verse 15 in the gloss (PL 191:934C-D).) And again: preachers have a right to material assistance, since they impart spiritual gifts. It is of these that it is written: "blessed is he who anticipates the voice of him who asks." You should not act towards the ox that treads the grain as you act towards the beggar who passes by. You give to the one who asks, for you have read, "give to him who asks of you!" But you should likewise give to him who does not ask. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Ps 104 (103):14, labelled verse 15 in the gloss (PL 191:935A).) Again, the Gloss says: give to every one who asks, whoever he may be, recognising in his person him to Whom you give. But, much more, give to the servant of God, the soldier of Christ, who does not ask. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Ps 104 (103):14, labeled verse 15 in the gloss (PL 191:935B).) Hence we see that if we are to bestow alms on all the poor, even on those who do not beg for them, preachers ought in an especial manner to be assisted by those who hear them.

In St. Luke 16:9 we read: make yourselves friends with the mammon of iniquity. Here the Gloss remarks: this text does not refer to the poor indiscriminately, but to those who can receive us unto everlasting dwellings. (Glossa interlinearis, at Luke 16:9 (in Glossa ordinaria 5, 841-42).) Now the poor of Christ, beyond all others, can receive us into everlasting dwellings, for they, together with Christ, will be our judges. Therefore, it is especially to these that we should give alms.

Replies to objections

We must now reply to the objections of our opponents.

Ad 1: To the argument that temporal possessions blind the eyes of the wise, we reply that temporal possessions may be understood in a twofold sense.

First they may be considered as hoarded up. Now to accept them in order thus to treasure them is an act of covetousness which blinds the eyes of the soul and causes it to decline from justice.

But temporal things may also be accepted in order to supply necessary food and clothing; and to accept them for this reason is not cupidity and does not blind the eyes of the soul.

This distinction is grounded on the words of St. Paul: if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content (1 Tim 6:8). The Gloss remarks: he who goes beyond that finds what is evil. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Tim 6:8 (PL 192:358D).) Hence it is added: for those who would become rich fall into temptation and into the snare of the devil. (1 Tim 6:9.)

Ad 2: There are two kinds of slavery, namely, the slavery of fear and the slavery of love. He who accepts gifts from cupidity is enslaved by fear; for the things acquired by cupidity are possessed in fear. Now we ought to be free from this servitude and we ought to be the servants of Christ. For, as St. Paul says, you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear (Rom 8:15). They who accept gifts in charity are the bondsmen of love, and the servants of Christ are not free from this bondage. Hence St. Paul says, what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake (2 Cor 4:5). Hence he who, in order to fulfil the duties of charity, accepts alms for his bodily sustenance, incurs not a bondage unworthy of the servants of Christ, but only such as befits the servants of the Lord.

Ad 3: The act of giving is, in itself, more meritorious than that of receiving. Hence Aristotle says (Ethics, 4), the act of liberality is greater in giving than in receiving, although a liberal man may both give and receive. There is nothing, however, to prevent the act of receiving from being, at times, from some special circumstance, the more commendable. It would then although exceptionally, be more praiseworthy than that of giving. (Aristotle, Ethics 4.1, 1120a10.) If then nothing is considered in a poor man, save the fact that he accepts charity, the rich man who gives the alms, is more blessed than the poor man who receives it, But circumstances may render the recipient of charity more meritorious, than the giver. Thus a man who, for the love of Christ, has made himself voluntarily poor and accepts alms is more blessed than the rich man who bestows the gift. Hence the Gloss remarks: the Lord does not prefer rich men who give alms to the poor who have renounced all for his sake; but he gives the greatest glory to those who, after forsaking all their possessions, labor with their hands in order to have something to give to those in need. (Glossa ordinaria 6, 1204 at Acts 20:35 (PL 114:464).) Now this conduct is certainly very commendable in those who are not engaged in more important occupations. And, it would be most perfect, if religious, without detriment to such occupation could, as we have before said, perform some manual labor and give their earnings in charity. But religious are not bound to do everything that is perfect; they are only bound to accomplish what their vows oblige them to.

Ad 4: It is no burden to the Church if religious live on alms, seeing that although they produce great fruits in the Church, their wants are very small. In fact, such religious do, in reality, lighten the expenses of the Church; for they perform at very small cost labor for which others, who are not satisfied with so little, would require much larger sums. Neither do mendicant orders deprive the poor of their rights; for, by their counsel and influence, much larger sums are given to the poor than they themselves receive. And further, these religious before entering their monastery, gave away all their goods to the poor, who have thus received far more than the alms bestowed on mendicant orders.

Ad 5: The decree cited in this objection is misquoted. This is evident by the words of Gratian, given in the next chapter: These authorities forbid the Church to receive not such as were originally rich but left all things, as did Peter, Matthew and Paul, or who, like Zechaeus, distributed their goods to the poor, or presented them to the Church, as did the early Christians who sold all that they had, and laid the price at the feet of the apostles. What is forbidden to the Church is to receive those who, while living in the house of their parents, or refusing to sacrifice their patrimony, desire at the mine time to enjoy ecclesiastical benefices. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 1, q. 2, writing by Gratian after ch. 7 (Friedberg, 1:409).) And this is proved through the following chapters.

Ad 6: St. Augustine speaks of those religious who live idle lives and, being of no use to those who maintain them, are forced to gain their bread by flattery. For no one will support a useless person unless his favour be secured by adulation. But those religious to whom charity is extended for the love of Christ and who, in exchange for material assistance, confer spiritual benefits, have no need to flatter their benefactors. For those who relieve them do so for the love of Christ, who has said, he who receives you receives me (Matt 10:40). Now as the Gloss says, nothing is received in the apostles save what is in Christ. (Glossa interlinearis, at Matt 10:40 (in Glossa ordinaria 5, 201-02).) Hence they who, for the love of God, become poor, and beg and live on alms need not resort to flattery. Those who are really driven to servility and adulation are wealthy sycophants who, in order to preserve and increase their riches, are obliged to flatter the sovereigns on whom, they depend. Thus St. Chrysostom writes: princes and soldiers and subjects are obliged to flatter, and to stand in need of many things. They are reduced to ignominious servility; they live in fear; hence they are exposed to the suspicion and calumny of those that envy them. Far other is the lot of the poor (super Matth.). (John Chrysostom, Homilies on Mattew, homily 90, para. 3 (PG 58:791).)

Ad 7: It is true that to receive is not an act of liberality (excepting in so far as receiving stands in relation to giving). But, in those who, for the love of Christ, have made themselves poor, it is an act of humility to accept as alms the necessities of life; and humility is a greater virtue than liberality.

Ad 8: St. Augustine, in the place quoted in the objection, had two reasons for rebuking monks who desired to live on alms.

First, he reproved them for failing into the error of believing manual labor to be contrary to the evangelical precept: do not be anxious . . . about your body (Matt 6:25).

Second, he reproached them for the sloth which caused them to desire to escape from the laborious lives which they had led in the world. He says that it by no means suits artisans to be idle in a life where senators work hard. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 25.33 (CSEL 41:580; PL 40:573).)

He does not, however, forbid those who in the world lived on their own income, or those occupied in ecclesiastical offices, to live on alms after the example of the early Christians of the Church of Jerusalem. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 21.25 (CSEL 41:570; PL 40:568).) This is plain to anyone who will read his words with care. Religious are not forbidden to live like poor men on alms, even though they cannot, by preaching, claim a right to do so. For charity is given with a different intention to the preacher and to the mendicant, as the Gloss observes on the words in Psalm 104(103):14, you cause the grass to grow for the cattle. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Ps 104(103):14, labelled verse 15 in the gloss (PL 191:935A).)

Ad 9: There is nothing inconsistent in the fact that one man accepts assistance as his due, and that another receives it as a favour and charity. The alms given to a preacher are but the just return for his labor; but assistance may be rendered to all poor men, not as their due recompense, but out of a spirit of charity.

Ad 10: More harm was done in the Church by the teaching of the false prophets, from whom St. Paul, by laboring with his hands, took away the occasion of living on the charity of the faithful, than was done by the Apostle’s supporting himself by his own labor. Now on the contrary, the Church derives profit from the example of humility set by the mendicant orders who live on alms and devote themselves to the salvation of souls instead of to manual labor. This advantage outweighs the harm done by a few men who live on charity as an excuse for their sloth. There is, therefore, no reason why the poor of the Church should cease to receive alms, in order to take away the occasion of those who make bad use of them.

Ad 11: It was the custom amongst the Jews that their teachers should be maintained by the people. At the preaching of the Gospel, this custom became general among the faithful. When the Gentiles were first converted, the apostles refused to ask or accept assistance from them, fearing lest they might take scandal. There is now, however, no reason to fear such scandal. Indeed, the example of moderation in food and clothing set by religious, is a subject rather of edification than of scandal. They who profess to be scandalized at the sight of religious accepting alms are like the Pharisee who, as we are told in Matthew 15, took scandal at our Lord, and whom he told his disciples to ignore. (Matt 15:12-14.) The case would be very different were religious to accept alms, not in order to provide for themselves the necessities of life, but for the sake of amassing wealth or of indulging in riotous living.

Ad 12: To the twelfth objection, we may reply, as St. Jerome replied to Vigilantius that according to the same reasoning virginity is not a good thing, for if all were virgins, the human race would cease. (Jerome, Contra Vigilantium, para. 15 (CCSL 79C; PL 23:366C).) Again, virtue is rare and desired by few; it would be wonderful if all men resembled those few of whom it is said: "many indeed are called but few are chosen.” (Jerome, Contra Vigilantium, para. 15 (CCSL 79C; PL 23:366D-367A); Cf. Matt. 20:16 and 22:14.) This is the answer to the aforesaid objection. The works of perfection are so difficult that but very few attempt to accomplish them. There is, therefore, no grounds for fearing that the world will cease to exist on account of the perfection of its inhabitants.

Ad 13: To the thirteenth, we may reply that in that citation "stipend" is used widely for everything that that is not acquired by manual labor, whether inherited or from any source of revenue. So following this passage are the words: not only those who take pride in being sustained by their parents' money or the work of servants or the fruits of their farms, but also kings of the world certainly are sustained by this agape, that is, alms. For the fathers included under agape all that we consume in our daily living which did not arise from the work of our hands. (Cassian, Coll. 24.12 (CSEL 13:687; PL 49:1301A).) Thus it is clear that his is not speaking about the harm of blame; otherwise everyone would surely be guilty of sin by not using his own hands to prepare his food, even if the food is his own. But he is speaking of the nutriment of perfection, which consists in distributing one's possessions to the poor and working one's body by manual labor, even though, according to the Apostle, the work of piety, such as preaching and teaching and all such like are preferable. (1 Tim 4:8.)

Ad 14: To the fourteenth, we may replay that Jerome is speaking about himself, as is clear if you examine his letter. He is talking a about when he was living solitary in a hermitage, where he did not teach or preache. And yet, we cannot conclued that he did this because of precept, but voluntarily, unless the statutes of hermits had prescribed manual labor.

Replies to objections against begging

We must now proceed to answer the arguments of those who maintain that it is not lawful to seek alms by begging.

Ad 1: The words: there shall be no poor man and no beggar amongst you, (Deut 15:4.) do not forbid persons to embrace the condition of poverty and mendicity. These words prohibit men to leave their neighbours in a condition of misery, which forces them to beg. This is proved by the words. occurring in the same chapter of Deuteronomy: of your countrymen and neighbour you shall not have power to demand it again. (Deut. 15:3.) On these words, the Gloss observes: although all men be our neighbours, we are chiefly bound to show mercy to those who, together with ourselves, are the members of Christ. (Glossa ordinaria 1,1543 at 15:3 (PL 113:466).) Hence although charity is enjoined, mendicity is not forbidden.

Ad 2: The Gloss interprets the words, I have not seen the just man forsaken by God, to mean: I have not seen the seed of the just man perishing for want of spiritual food, that is, the Word of God; for the Word of God is always with him. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Ps 36:25 (PL 191:374A).) But, if this text be understood to refer to material bread, it means that the just are not reduced to beggary by necessity, or because God has deserted them; since it is said: I will never fail you nor forsake you (Heb 13:5). The words do not mean that just men may not, for love of God, embrace poverty, although they did not do so in the days of the Psalmist. For such works of perfection were reserved for the time of grace.

Ad 3: It is not unfitting that what indicted on one man as a penalty may be, in another, a self-imposed work of justice. Criminals have their goods confiscated as a legal punishment; but this is no reason why other men may not despoil themselves of their possessions for the love of God. Again, beggary may fall upon sinners as a divine chastisement; but this is no reason why mendicity, voluntarily embraced for Christ, should not be a work of justice.

Ad 4: The Gloss understands the text quoted in the fourth objection to mean that men are not to beg avariciously. Otherwise the commentary would not be in harmony with the text. The text says: that you want nothing of any man’s. (Cf. 1 Thess 4:11.) Now they beg avariciously who seek, not merely necessary food and clothing, but who further desire to amass riches. This, as has been already pointed out, is made clear by the words in 1 Timothy 6:8-9, quoted above.

Ad 5: There are two kinds of mendicity, namely, voluntary and compulsory. Those reduced to beggary against their will, are liable to be tempted to impatience. Voluntary mendicity, which does not proceed from avarice, has the merit of humility. Hence St. Augustine does not forbid voluntary mendicity. He simply teaches that the occasion of compulsory beggary should be avoided by the poor of Christ by means of manual labor. This is evident by his words: that they may not be compelled by need. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Thess 3:10 (PL 191:325A).)

Ad 6: The sixth objection is quite irrelevant to the matter in hand. For the words of St. Jerome refer to the habit of asking for and accepting superfluities. This is evident by what he says in his letter to the priest Nepotian.

Ad 7: The law referred to, applies to sturdy beggars who were useless to the state and who, living idle lives, defrauded other poor people of their rights. The law in question speaks of them as slothful men. (Justinian, Codex Iustinianus* 11.26(25), p. 435.)* Of this class are gluttons who beg for food which they may eat in idleness. Religious cannot, except in malice, be held to belong to this class. It need not always be a heinous sin which is punished severely; for chastisement is inflicted not merely as a penalty for guilt, but also as a warning to the offender or to others. Hence at times a heavy penalty is awarded to an offence which, though not heinous in itself, is habitual. This is done in order that it may act as a deterrent to the criminal. The chapter quoted in the objection refers only to punishment inflicted to avenge sin.

Ad 8: Those of whom St. Augustine speaks begged not merely for necessities, but for superfluities. Their holiness, therefore, was not true, but hypocritical. This is made clear by the fact that he speaks of their desiring luxurious poverty, or the recompense of feigned sanctity. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 28.36 (CSEL 41:585; PL 40:575).) In thus acting they were, of course, reprehensible.

Ad 9: Shame results from a base action: baseness is opposed to beauty. Hence baseness, and the shame consequent upon it, must be distinguished according to the kind of beauty to which it is opposed. Beauty may be either spiritual or physical. Spiritual beauty consists in a well ordered soul, and in abundance of spiritual gifts. Hence all that arises from a deficiency of spiritual good, or which points to spiritual disorder, is base. Physical beauty consists in symmetry of body and in the due proportion of such things as pertain to corporeal perfection. Bodily deformity or deficiency is, in a certain sense, base. And as both spiritual and physical beauty are loved and desired, spiritual and physical deformity cause a certain shame. Thus, a man is ashamed of being poor or unsightly or ignorant or awkward. Since spiritual deformity is always reprehensible, all that produces the shame of such deformity ought to be avoided. We speak not of the confession of sins, for the shiner is ashamed, not of his confession, but of the guilt which he acknowledges. But holy men think little of physical defect or deformity. In fact, they embrace it willingly for the love of Christ and for the sake of perfection. Hence the ignominy that accompanies such physical deformity is not always an object of contempt. Sometimes, indeed, it is worthy of high praise, as when it is assumed for the sake of humility. Now beggary is shameful, inasmuch as it is a disgrace attached to a material deficiency. For a beggar acknowledges that he is poor and is often subject to the one to whom he appeals for the relief of his needs. But beggary undertaken for the sake of Christ deserves honor rather than contempt.

Ad 10: A man who is asked for charity ought not to be wearied, if the petition is properly made. And if he is wearied, the fault lies in him for giving alms in order to free himself from importunity, rather than with him who asks in a becoming manner, for the relief of his needs. But, if the petition is not rightly made, the fault lies with the petitioner.

Replies to objections against preachers begging or living on alms

We shall next undertake to answer, in their proper order, the arguments of those who hold that religious who preach may not live on charity, or beg for alms.

Ad 1: It by no means follows that because preachers live on alms, they must necessarily be flatterers. When they preach without flattery, they often find but small favour among wicked and carnal-minded men, although they are approved of by the good; in face, sometimes they have to suffer at the hands of those whose favour they could not win without adulation. At other times they are well received by good men who do not wish to be flattered. They thus resemble Lord who, at times, had no roof to shelter him, and at other times was entertained by many and who received the ministry of women who followed him, as we read in Luke 8:3. Thus likewise the apostles sometimes endured great distress; and at other times they were well supplied, behaving with discretion under both circumstances. I know, says St. Paul, how to be abased, and I know how to abound (Phil 4:12). Vicissitudes of this description are the common experience of poor preachers in our own days.

Ad 2: Preachers, by asking for charity, do nothing that can be an occasion of avarice. Avarice is an inordinate love of possessing. It is not inordinate to wish to have necessary food and clothing. If we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content (1 Tim 6:8). Hence poor men are not, by begging for the necessities of life, exposed to any danger of avarice.

Ad 3: Preachers ought not to desire material assistance as their primary end or object. They may, however ask for such temporal goods as a secondary end, or as the means whereby they may be enabled to achieve their primary end, which is the preaching of the Gospel. Commenting on the words, seek first his kingdom and his righteousness (Matt 6:36), the Gloss says: by these words, our Lord shows us that we are not to desire temporal things as our chief and most necessary good. We are to seek the Kingdom of Heaven, and to set it before us as our end, and do all things for the attainment of that end. Let us then eat in order to preach, but not preach in order to eat. (Glossa ordinara 5, 142 at Matt 6:33 (PL 114:107).)

Ad 4: The stipend which preachers receive is due to them for their work. They have a twofold right to the alms which they accept. A debt may be due by a double right. Some have a right to payment as a debt of legal justice due to them. Such a debt is the one resulting from the compact made between a workman and his employer, whereby the laborer can sue his employer for his wages. Others can likewise claim a reward as a debt of friendly justice. For when one man does a service to another, it is only fair that the other should make the best return within his power, although his friend cannot legally compel him to make any return. Aristotle speaks of this twofold sort of justice in Ethics, 8. (Aristotle, Ethics 8.13, 1162b22-36.) I maintain, therefore, that when a prelate is set over the people, they have a right to demand spiritual ministrations from him; and he has a right to claim material assistance from them. But the people cannot claim spiritual service from any save prelates. Neither on the other hand, even though they preach by the permission of prelates, can any of the clergy who are not prelates, claim material assistance from the laity. They can only do so if they are appointed to be, in all things, the vicars of prelates. Hence we see that the poor who render no service whatsoever stand on a different footing in the matter of accepting alms, to religious who preach by permission of prelates, and are not themselves prelates, and to prelates themselves. For the poor accept everything gratis; and thus are mere mendicants. But preachers who are not prelates accept charity as a recompense due to them, although they cannot enforce its payment. Bishops, however, have compulsory power and can exact payment as a right. Nevertheless, if he who has the right to demand something does not assert this right, but begs for what he needs as if it were a free gift, he does no harm to anyone; but by his example he shows the beauty of humility.

Ad 5: The fifth objection is answered by saying that St. Paul wished to show that he had as good a right as the other apostles to receive the donations of the faithful. And in order to make good this point, he began by proving that he was an Apostle just like the other apostles.

Ad 6: The false apostles were unjust usurpers when they accepted the contributions of the faithful. Three reasons prove this.

First, they taught a doctrine that was false and contrary to the Gospel. For, as the Gloss observes, on the words, I appeal to you, brethren (Rom 16:17), they forced believers to follow Jewish rites. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Rom 16:17 (PL 191:1529D).)

Second, they preached without any commission from the true apostles. Therefore, St. Paul says that they came in privately.

Third, they behaved as if they possessed the authority of apostles.

Now as the objection ignores these three points, the reasoning contained in it is worthless.

Ad 7: Preaching religious beg for what is, according to the second mode of justice, due to them; for a debt is a matter of justice. But they are the more to be commended, in as much as they ask for that which is their due as though it were a free gift.

Ad 8: Prelates who receive tithes and offerings from their people, and who duly minister to them, may elect certain coadjutors to assist them more efficiently in so doing. Such conduct is not unfair to the faithful. For if the laity give more temporal alms than is agreed upon, they receive, in return, more spiritual assistance than the prelates are obliged to give. Furthermore, their alms are not taken as a right, but are accepted thankfully and humbly.

Ad 9: Everyone may renounce what is owing to him. Thus, although bishops are bound to support those whom they send to preach, the preachers may renounce their claim to such support. They do not, for this reason, become a burden on the people to whom they are sent. For they ask nothing from them but necessary food; and this they do not claim as a right but beg for as alms, according as each one of their hearers may have determined in his heart. They thus imitate the example of St. Paul (2 Cor 8:7).

Ad 10: Hypocrites were rebuked by our Lord for seeking gain by means of prayer and of superstitious practices. The Gloss says: woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, for by your superstitions you aim at nothing save at despoiling those who listen to you. (Glossa interlinearis, at Matt 23:14 (in Glossa ordinaria 5, 381-382).) But it is rash to pass this judgment on anyone, for his private motive is the secret of each man’s own heart.

Ad 11: Preachers have no right to consort with persons of bad character, if there is danger that the vices of such persons may be attributed to them also, and if their preaching may, for this reason, fall into discredit. St. Gregory says: if a man’s conduct is despised, his preaching will be contemned. (Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels 1.12.1 (CCSL 141; PL 76:1119A).) The Gloss speaks in like manner. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 192 at Matt 10:11.) If, however, preachers, without losing their own reputation, make friends with men of bad character in order to reform them, it is a praiseworthy act. It is done in imitation of our Lord. For we read in Matthew 9:11, the scribes and Pharisees said to his disciples: why does your Master eat with publicans and sinners? The Gloss observes that Christ, by so doing, gave his disciples an example of mercy. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 174 at Matt 9:12.) But if sinners do not esteem it a favour that the preachers of the Gospel should consort with them, the fault lies with them, not with the preachers,

Ad 12: If those who preach the Word accept from their hearers the necessities of life, they do not sell the Gospel. For, as we have already said, material gain is not their primary motive in preaching. The Gloss, on the words: let the priests that rule well be considered worthy of double honor (1 Tim 5:17), remarks: good and faithful dispensers of the Word ought not to attain heavenly glory only, but likewise earthly honor that so they may not have cause for sadness. Again, alms are given from charity, and accepted through necessity. Nevertheless the Gospel is not venal. It is not preached in exchange for earthly goods. They who proclaim it do so for the sake of eternal happiness. For, were they to sell so great a treasure, they would show that they held it in contempt. Let preachers then, accept from the people as a necessity the means of existence, and let them receive from the Lord the reward of their labors. For they do not regard the alms of the faithful as a recompense or a motive for their work. Their ministry is one of love. They accept what is given them as a stipend whereby they may procure the supplies which are necessary to enable them to continue their labors. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Tim 5:17 (PL 192:354C).)

Ad 13: Although there might have been some appearance of evil in the conduct of the apostles if they had taken alms from the Gentiles to whom they preached the faith, and if they had thereby introduced a new custom, it cannot now be considered disedifying if preachers accept alms from the faithful. For this custom is sanctioned by the Gospel; and those to whom charity is given need it not for superfluities, but for the necessities of life. It is evident also that religious do not preach for the sake of gain; for the alms that they receive are far inferior in amount to the worldly possessions which they renounced for the love of Christ.

Replies to objections against giving alms to religious

We will next reply, one by one, to the arguments brought to show that alms ought not to be given to religious:

Ad 1: The words call the poor, from whom you have at present nothing to expect, (Glossa interlinearis, at Luke 14:13 (in Glossa ordinaria 5, 895-96).) mean only that in giving alms the intention of receiving a reward must not be present to the mind, though they may receive it in the future. For there is no one so poor that he may not, in some case of emergency, be of use to us. This is made clear by the following words of the Gloss: if you invite others in order to be invited yourself, you may deceive yourself. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 895 at Luke 14:13.) Neither are we to understand that there will be no eternal reward for those who call together rich men or their own kinsfolk, for such an invitation may proceed from charity, and may be given for the love of God. Hence the Gloss says: those who invite the poor expect a future recompense; those who call together their friends and brethren, or wealthy people, have their reward now. But if, like the sons of Job, they entertain rich persons for the love of God, then he who commands us to practice brotherly love will reward such hospitality equally with other works of charity. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 895 at Luke 14:13.) But we are not to conclude that it is a sin to entertain our kinsfolk, even from mere natural affection, but only that such hospitality does not deserve an everlasting recompense. The Gloss remarks: our Lord does not forbid us to call together our wealthy friends, and our kinsmen, as if it were criminal to do so. He only tells us that such an invitation, will not be rewarded with eternal life. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 895 at Luke 14:13.)

Ad 2: The saying of St. Augustine, adduced in the second objection, is to be understood in the same sense as that of Sirach 12:4: give to the godly man, but do not help the sinner. The Gloss observes on this text: do not encourage sinners in their sinful ways; do not hold communication with them, as they do who entertain actors, and suffer the poor of Christ to hunger. (Glossa ordinaria 3, 2033 at Sirach 12:4 (PL 113:1196).) But he who gives to a sinner who is in want, not in order to encourage him to sin, but because he recognises him as a man, assists not a sinner but a just man, because he loves not the sinner but human nature. It is better, however, to withhold an alms, than to give it to a man because he is a sinner, or in order to cause him to sin. But it does not follow that we may not bestow charity on the poor of Christ who do no manual work. For, as we have already shown, they commit no sin by omitting to perform such labor. And even were their omission criminal, we would not be assisting them because they are sinners, but because they are in distress.

Ad 3: He who asks in an unbecoming manner should not obtain what he demands; he should rather but corrected. But he who begs befittingly should, if possible, receive what he asks for. Hence St. Gregory (Moral., 21), says on the words of Job: if I have denied to the poor what they desired, (Job 31:16) that the holy man, in this saying, bears testimony to himself that he not only assisted the poor in their needs, but condescended to their desires. But what is to be done when the poor ask for things that are not expedient for them to have? Or, since in Sacred Scripture, the poor are spoken of as being humble, are we to consider that they ought to have only those things for which they ask with humility? It is certain that we ought to give them those things that they beg humbly for, that is, that they ask for out of necessity, not out of covetousness. For it would be great pride if they were to beg for what is unsuited to their condition of poverty. (Gregory the Great, Morals 21.16.25 (CCSL 143A; PL 76:204D-205A).) We should, therefore, unhesitatingly, assist the poor in their necessities, and we should. rebuke those who ask for superfluities.

Ad 4: As it is said in the fourth objection, we must refuse alms when, by giving them, we would encourage the recipients to commit injustice; but we should not refuse such assistance in cases of extreme necessity. But as mendicant religious ask for alms not for criminal purposes, but for the furtherance of their sacred labors, this proposition does not apply to them.

Ad 5: St. Ambrose does not say, in the words referred to, that infirmity of health or the shame experienced by those who beg are to be considered as reasons for giving alms. We give alms on account of the need of those who ask for them. What St. Ambrose says is that we should give more abundantly to those who are sick and to those who are ashamed of begging. He does not say that we are not to give to those who are in good health, and to those who are not ashamed to beg; but that, other things being equal, the sick and retiring are especially deserving of our charity. But sickness and reluctance to beg are not the only conditions which should, excite our charity. We must also consider the reputation of the one who asks us, his claims upon us, his needs, etc. It is not only those who have lost their fortune by accident who feel ashamed to beg. Religious, who have voluntarily renounced all things for the love of God, experience the reluctance. For they often belong to noble families; and shame at begging is therefore natural to them. But in religious this natural shame, like other passions, is perhaps more fully subject to reason than is the case with laymen.

Ad 6: Although there may be many reasons for giving more abundant alms to one man than to another, we cannot conclude for any one reason that one man always deserves more assistance than others. Thus the fact that a man is in greater need than are others is not always a reason why he should be helped more than others. For a man in less distressed circumstances might be able to show cause why he should receive more assistance from us than a neighbour poorer than he. Aristotle teaches (Ethics, 9) that the preponderating reason for relieving another is his claim upon us. (Aristotle, Ethics 9.2, 1164b35.) For, except under very peculiar circumstances, we are more strictly bound to pay a debt than to give a favour. (Aristotle, Ethics 9.2, 1165a2-14.) Now as we owe preachers the necessities of life as a stipend for their labors, we are bound in a special manner to bestow our alms upon them, especially when they are in distress. This is a debt of justice. This, therefore, we ought to pay, unless there are many grave reasons to prevent our so doing.

Ad 7: In reply to the seventh difficulty we must say that there are two sorts of happiness, spiritual and material. There are likewise two kinds of misery, spiritual and material. Religious, who have made themselves voluntarily poor have not to suffer spiritual misery, which is absolute misery. Rather, our Lord calls them blessed (Matt 5:3, Luke 6:20). They are, however, subject to physical distress, and are therefore worthy objects of material relief.

Ad 8: Kinship is one reason for giving alms more abundantly in some cases than in others. It is not, however, the only standard whereby our charity is to be proportioned. Therefore, it does not follow, as we have already said, that we are always to give most assistance to those most nearly related to us.