 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
In its widest and highest sense, charity includeslove ofGod as well aslove of man. The latter kind oflove is so closely connected with, and dependent upon, the former, that neither it nor its fruits, under theChristiandispensation, can be adequately set forth without a brief preliminary glance at the relations existing between the two kinds.
As a virtue, charity is that habit or power which disposes us toloveGod above all creatures for Himself, and tolove ourselves and our neighbours for the sake ofGod. When this power or habit is directly infused into thesoul byGod, the virtue issupernatural; when it is acquired through repeated personal acts, it is natural. If, in the last sentence but one, for the words, "power or habit which disposes us to" we substitute the words, "act by which we", the definition will fit theact of charity. Such an act will besupernatural if it proceeds from the infused virtue of charity, and if its motive (God lovable because of Hisinfinite perfections) is apprehended through revelation; if either of these conditions is wanting the act is only natural. Thus, when aperson with the virtue of charity in hissoul assists a needy neighbour on account of the words ofChrist, "as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me", or simply because hisChristian training tells him that the one in need is a child ofGod, the act is one ofsupernatural charity. It is likewise meritorious of eternal life. The same act performed by one who had never heard of theChristian revelation, and from the same motive oflove ofGod, would be one of natural charity. When charity towards the neighbour is based uponlove ofGod, it belongs to the same virtue (natural orsupernatural according to circumstances) as charity towardsGod. However, it is notnecessary that acts of brotherlylove should rest upon this high motive in order to deserve a place under the head of charity. It is enough that they be prompted by consideration of the individual's dignity, qualities, or needs. Even when motivated by some purely extrinsic end, as popular approval or the ultimate injury of the recipient, they are in essence acts of charity. The definition given above is at present scarcely ever used outside ofCatholic religious andethical treatises. In current speech and literature the term is restricted tolove of neighbour. Accordingly, charity may be popularly defined as the habit, desire, or act of relieving the physical,mental, moral, or spiritual needs of one's fellows. (SeeALMS AND ALMSGIVING.)
Theobligation to perform acts of charity is taught both by revelation and by reason. Under the former head may be cited the words of Christ: "thou shaltlove thy neighbour as thyself"; "as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner"; and particularly the description in St. Mathew (xxv) of the separation of the good from the bad at the Final Judgment. Reason tells us that we ought tolove our neighbours, since they are children ofGod; since they are our brothers, members of the same humanfamily; and since they have the same nature, dignity, destiny, and needs as ourselves. Thislove, or charity, should be both internal and external. The former wishes the neighbour well, and rejoices in his good fortune; the latter comprises all those actions by which any of the needs are supplied. Charity differs fromjustice, inasmuch as it conceives its object, i.e. the neighbour, as a brother, and is based on the union existing between man and man; whereasjustice regards him as a separate individual, and is based on his independent personal dignity andrights. The spirit of the Gospel as regards charity is for superior to that of any of the other greatreligions. Its excellence appears in the following points:love of the neighbour is akin tolove ofGod; the neighbour is to beloved even as the self; men are brothers, members of the samefamily; thelaw of charity extends to the wholehuman race, thus making allpersons equal; men areobliged tolove even their enemies; the neighbour is not merely arational creature made in the image and likeness ofGod, but also the supernaturally adopted son of the Father, and the brother of the Father's Only-Begotten Son; finally, the Gospel presents the supreme exemplification of brotherlylove in the death of Christ on the Cross. In no other religion are all these characteristics found; in most they are totally wanting. The charity inculcated byJudaism is of a very high order, but it falls considerably below that of theNew Testament. Although bothlove of the neighbour as one's self (Leviticus 19:18) and care of the poor (Deuteronomy 15:4, 11) are strictly commanded in thePentateuch asduties toGod, the neighbour meant only theJews and the strangers dwelling within their gates. It did not embrace allmankind. The writes of the "imprecatory" Psalms, for example xvi and liii, rejoice in their enemies misfortune. Indeed,hatred of enemies was so generally regarded as lawful that Christ proclaimed His injunction oflove of enemies as something new and unfamiliar. While theJewish religion taught and still teaches the Fatherhood ofGod, thisdoctrine is much less attractive than theChristian conception of the sametruth. Besides, it embraces only thechildren of Israel. The Hebrewidea of the brotherhood of man is correspondingly restricted. Among the otherreligions,Buddhism probably has the highest form of caritativedoctrine, but the motives of its charity are cold,utilitarian, and selfish. It does not command its followers tolove their enemies, but merely to refrain from hating them.
The charitable achievements of the non-Christianreligions have exhibited all the limitations of their defective first principles. Among the Greeks and the romans the humanperson had no inherent worth. He was of importance only as a citizen. The majority of the subjects of these two great powers, being slaves, were without any legalrights. The poor, whether slaves or freemen, were treated by even the noblest and wisest of the Greeks and romans with contempt or at most with pity which is akin to contempt. Owing to itsdoctrine that the emotions should be suppressed and that pain should be borne with indifference,Stoicism had the practical effect of discouraging sympathy with, or charity towards, the unfortunate and the indigent. Human wretchedness was regarded as a minorevil or as noevil at all. Gifts to beggars were few, and usually from motives entirely selfish. Although the assertion is sometimes made thatAthens andRome possessedhospitals, the weight of evidence seems to show conclusively that no public institution for the regular treatment of diseases existed anywhere before the coming of Christ. The rich citizens ofRome annually distributed large sums of money among their clients and dependents, and the Government regularly provided for the needs of thousands upon thousands, but neither of these practices was intended to benefit any of the poor who were not citizens. The dominant motive of both was political — to secure the goodwill and civic influence of the crowd. In Athens the subventions of public money to the poorer artisans were similarly restricted and directed to the same ends.
Hebrew charity was of a much higher order, being motivated by obedience toGod and genuine pity for the unfortunate. One of its ideals was thus expressed in the words ofJehovah: "there shall be no poor or beggar among you". Owners were warned that their possessions were fromGod, and that they were but stewards. Thewidow, theorphan, the blind, and the lame, were objects of special compassion and assistance. The poor were permitted to gather up for themselves the gleanings left in the field by the reapers, and to take possession of everything that grew spontaneously in the year of theSabbath. Those who lent money were forbidden to take interest from their fellow-Hebrews or from the strangers within their land. The fact that labour was held inhonour went far towards making the condition of the lowly much less hard than among theheathen peoples. Nevertheless, Jewish charity was essentially national, for it took no account of the alien dwelling without.Interest, and frequently exorbitant interest, was exacted from the latter. In the later centuries of their existence as a nation, the Chosen People departed to a great extent from both the letter and the spirit of their excellent legislation on behalf of the poor. HenceChrist's frequent condemnation of their leaders ashypocrites, self-seekers, oppressors of thepoor, and givers ofalms in order to be seen of men. While theKoran strongly enjoins theduty ofalmsgiving, and while theMohammedans seem to be fairly charitable towards their coreligionists, their treatment of non-believers has been uniformly devoid of either charity orjustice. The acts of oppression, cruelty, andmurder which they have perpetrated against other peoples, show thatMohammedans have no conception of charity in theChristian sense. It istrue thatChristian nations have frequently been cruel towards one another and towards unbelieving races, but not in the consistent, unmitigated, and unlimited fashion of the followers ofIslam.
Since the body of this article is to be occupied with a somewhat detailed account of the charitable activity of theChurch, only a word need now be said concerning its general superiority over that ofPaganism,Judaism, andMohammedanism. This word cannot be more effectively uttered than in the following sentences of Lecky: "Christianity for the first time made charity a rudimentary virtue, giving it a leading place in the moral type, and in the exhortation of its teachers. Besides its general influence in stimulating the affections, it effected a complete revolution in this sphere, by regarding the poor as the special representatives of theChristian Founder, and thus making thelove ofChrist, rather than thelove of man the principle of charity . . . . . A vast organization of charity, presided over bybishops, and actively directed by thedeacons, soon ramified overChristendom, till the bond of charity became the bond of unity, and the most distant sections of theChristian Church corresponded by the interchange of mercy" (History ofEuropean Morals, II, 3rd ed., 79, 80).
The conception oflove and of brotherhood which Christ brought into the world obtained ample expression and development in theActs of the Apostles and in the Epistles, particularly those written bySt. Paul. There is no longer any distinction ofJew andGentile, Barbarian and Scythian, bond and free; but "Christ is all, and in all" (Colossians 3:11). Even those who are not of the household of the Faith are to beloved and assisted (Romans 12:14-20;Galatians 6:10). In the sight ofGod the slave is the equal and the brother of his master (Philemon 16). Labour is no longer dishonourable, but the normal condition of livelihood (2 Thessalonians 3:10). "Religion clean and undefiled beforeGod . . . Is this: to visit the fatherless andwidows in their tribulation" (James 1:27). While the church has especial solicitude forwidows andorphans, she is not to be burdened with those who can be supported by their own relatives (1 Timothy 5:8, 16). Persons who seek to become rich are exposed to many snares andtemptations, "for the desire of money is the root of all evils" (1 Timothy 6:9, 10). Fraternal charity done in the spirit of Christ effects an equality among all the members of theChristianfamily, for the material gift of the giver is balanced by thelove andprayers of the receiver (2 Corinthians 8:13, 14; 9:11-12). Even the poor can and should contribute their mite (2 Corinthians 8:11, 12). The rich should give to the poor in the spirit of Christ who became poor for our sake (2 Corinthians 8:9). Hence charity is not to be performed as under the compulsion of law, but freely and spontaneously. The gift should be from the heart, for "God loveth a cheerful giver" (2 Corinthians 9:7).
These doctrines were carried into the everyday life of the new believers. InJerusalem, "the multitude of believers had but one heart and onesoul; neither did any one say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but all things were common unto them. . . . For neither was there any one needy among them" (Acts 4:32, 34). As soon as the Apostles realized that their spiritual mission was impeded by personal attention to the material works of charity, they appointed as their representatives the sevendeacons to serve the tables and provide for thewidows (Acts 6:1-6). Thus the caritative function of theChurch became specialized. Both the spirit and the deeds of charity were exemplified in the agapæ, orlove feasts, where rich and poor partook of a common meal to which all had contributed according to their means. (SeeAGAPE.) When some rich Corinthians introduced the practice of consuming their own contributions before the poor had arrived at the place of the meal, they were reprimanded bySt. Paul (I cor., xi, 21, 31). Each congregation had a treasury for the relief of its own poor, and many of them shared their stores with other congregations in times of unusual distress. During a famine inJerusalem assistance came from theChurch atAntioch, and from theGentile Churches (Acts 11:29;Galatians 2:10).
As compared with their numbers and resources, the charity of theChristians of this period seems to have surpassed anything that the world has witnessed since. The explanation is to be found in four principal causes: (a) the principles that were kept constantly before the minds of the faithful; (b) the social and political conditions surrounding them; (c) their excellent administration of charity; and (d) the manifold sources from which it was provided.
(a) At the basis of all giving was a thorough grasp of thetruth that the human possessor of goods is only a distributor and steward for the supreme owner, who isGod. The rich believer recognized hisobligation to give to the needy all of his resources that were left after his own wants had been supplied. And he was taught that his own wants were to be interpreted rather strictly, that he was to forego luxuries, and even unnecessary comforts and conveniences. Like other believers, he was to be distinguished from hispagan neighbours by his life of contentment, simplicity, and moderation. Clement,Cyprian, andTertullian describe minutely the complex and luxurious life of theheathens, and denounce it was wholly unworthy of imitation byChristians who reallylove their poor neighbours (Ratzinger, "Armenflege", p. 85 sq.; Uhlhorn, "Christian Charity in the Ancient Church", p. 129 sq.). And their interpretation of simple and properChristian life seems to have been adopted by substantially all the believers. In this respect the latter were far in advance of theChristians of modern times. Thisduty of distribution was discharged by placing the gifts on thealtar, whence they were received and dispensed by thebishop. Through this practice the rich were impressed with thetruth that they were merely making a return toGod, while the poor were taught to look upon what their received as gift ofGod. Moreover, they were enabled to accept it without injury to self-respect, and in a spirit of gratitude both toGod and to the human giver who was onlyGod's instrument. Bypraying for the latter they made an equitable return, were intruth dispensers of charity themselves. Two important consequences of this method and this view of charity were: first, the faithful gave so freely and spontaneously that no specific definitions of theduty or penalties for the neglect ofalmsgiving were formulated by theChurch during this period; and second, no contributions were accepted from unbelievers,public sinners, extortioners,unjust possessors, orpersons engaged insinful occupations.
(b) The second cause to which the superabundant charity of the earlyChristians has been attributed was their social and political environment. Refusing to accept the authority of the Roman State in matters of morality, worship, and religion, they were brought under the displeasure of thecivil power. Refusing to offer sacrifice or to takeoaths in the name offalse gods, they were shut out from the everyday life of the field, the market-place, the social gatherings, the theatre, and the forum, as well as from most of the gainful occupations. Forced to live a life apart, they easily became objects of misunderstanding, suspicion, andcalumny. Then came that long and frightful series of persecutions, which they met with a uniform policy of non-resistance. The important consequence of all these conditions was that the normal life of theChristian became one of sacrifice and suffering, ofprayer,fasting, and chastity. A very large proportion of them looked forward complacently tomartyrdom for themselves, and to the near approach of the end of the world for all. In these circumstances the possession and enjoyment of earthly goods could have very little attraction and very little meaning. Almsgiving , andalmsgiving in abundance, became one of the ordinary activities of the earnestChristian who had anything in excess of his own simple needs.
(c) In the third place, the administration of charity was under the immediate and exclusive direction of thebishop. The details of the work, as investigating and registering those in distress, and distributing the amount of relief which thebishop deemed proper in each case, were attended to by thedeacons, and in the case of needywomen by thedeaconesses. The latter were either unmarriedwomen orwidows of mature years. Assistance was given only topersons unable to earn their living and in real need, and to these only in so far as was strictlynecessary. Centuries of subsequent experience, combined with the latest theoreticalknowledge, have neither produced a better system nor achieved more satisfactory results than this primitiveChristian organization of charity. In the words of theLutheran Uhlhorn, "never has she [theChurch] more highly reverenced thepoor, more kindly and lovingly treated them; never also has she been farther from fostering beggary, and making life easy to idlers" (o. Cit., p. 180).
(d) Among the sources of the material relief dispensed by theChurch during the age of the persecutions, the most important seems to have been the oblations of natural products placed upon the altar at the time of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. All the faithful who could do so participated in this offering, since it was regarded as an element of the religious service. The names of the contributors were announced to the congregation. Distinct from the oblations were thecollectæ, which were likewise natural products, but which were handed in on certain fast days immediately before the reading of the epistle. Another source consisted of money contributions to the church treasury, to thecorbona orarca. These were usually given secretly. Extraordinary collections were taken up from the richer members, and large sums were obtained from those who on the occasion of their conversion sold all their goods for the benefit of the poor. In their capacity as collegia, or corporations, some of the churches may have taken dues from their members which helped to swell their resources for works of charity. Finally, the needy of all classes received a great deal of assistance directly fromindividuals. Heads offamilies wereobliged to care not only for their children and other dependent relatives, but for all the members of their household, both bond and free. So cheerfully and so generously did theChristians give, so generally did they part with all the superfluous revenues for the benefit of the distressed, that theChurch was not called upon to determine theduty of charitable contributions by any precise ordinance or law. The imposition oftithes did not begin until after the victory of Constantine in 312 (Ratzinger, op. cit., pp. 71, 72).
The results produced by the four factors just described were remarkable not only in the material order but also in the realm of thought. Assistance was afforded to theclergy, towidows andorphans, to the destitute, the aged, the sick, thepersecuted, andimprisoned, and the stranger; and decent burial was given to the neglected dead. Although theclergy had the first claim upon the charity of thefaithful, only those were assisted who were unable to support themselves from their own resources or by their own labour. Indeed, it was through the latter means that the greater number obtained their livelihood. The claims of thewidows andorphans were recognized as second only to those of theclergy. Children abandoned by thepagans received support from theChurch. In general all members of the community who were wholly or partially incapable of self-maintenance were given the measure of assistance that they needed. Owing to the frequent pestilences, sickness was one of the very important forms of distress, and it received from the charity of theChristians all the care and comfort that theknowledge and resources of the time made possible. Material and moral aid was extended to the victims ofpersecution. Prisoners were visited and comforted, especially those condemned to inhuman conditions of life and toil in the mines. Succour was frequently brought to the latter from a distance of hundreds of miles.Christians were compelled, througheconomic conditions or on account of the persecutions, to seek shelter or a livelihood far from home, obtained abundant hospitality from their fellow-Christians. Another form of charity practised by the faithful at this time, and a mostnecessary one in view of the indifference of thepagans, was the burying of the dead. Although their charity was organized on congregational lines, it was not confined toparochial needs. Aid was given to other congregations, even to those at a great distance. Thus Carthage came to the relief of Numidia, andRome to the assistance of Cæsarea. Even thePagans and theJews were not forgotten; witness touching instances furnished by theChristians of Carthage and Alexandria (Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 84).
Another beneficent work ofChristian charity in the material order consisted in transforming the attitude of men towards labour, and the relations between masters and slaves. Freemen who had hitherto been ashamed to work, and who had led amendicant and parasitic life, became self-supporting and self-respecting. In theChristian workshop master and servant regarded each other as brothers instead of enemies, and the worker performed his task freely instead of under compulsion of the chain and the lash. In thepagan view and inRoman law, the slave had norights, neither to humane treatment nor to marriage nor to life. He was not aperson, but a thing.Christianity taught the master that the slave was his brother inChrist, and his equal both in theChristian assemblies and in the sight ofGod. It commanded the master to treat his slaves with mildness and humanity, to grant then freedom from toil onSundays and holidays, to permit them to live afamily life in the same conditions of privacy, security, and indissolubility that ought to mark his own marital relations. It enjoined upon the slave theduty of respecting himself as a man and a brother ofChrist, and bade him obey his master not out of fear but out of regard for the social authority of Christ. It permitted him to aspire to the highest honours in theChurch. While the church made no effort during this period towards the emancipation of the slaves, her attitude in this respect was dictated by motives of the greatest kindness and the truest charity. Socially and economically theChristian slave was no worse off than hispersecuted fellow-Christians, whereas if he obtained his freedom he would be unable to find an occupation compatible with a moral life. The agapæ not only helped to feed thepoor, but promoted thedoctrine of equality and brotherhood. Here the poor man and the slave sat down with the rich man and the master to partake of a meal to which all had contributed according to their means; and the wealthy and the powerful were strikingly reminded that possessions and authority were relatively insignificant in the eyes of the common Father of all. Abuses did, indeed, gradually creep in; in many places the love-feast took on the character of a sumptuous banquet, or was wholly provided by some rich man as a meal for the poorerChristians only; but these changes were largely due to the increase in the size of the congregations, and to the dangers of meeting openly during the time ofpersecution.
The most notable achievement ofChristian charity in the world ofideas sprang from its teaching concerning ownership, and concerning the intrinsic value of the individual. It was in large measure owing to the thoroughness with which theChristians put into practice thetruths thatGod created the earth for all the children of men, and that the human owner is merely the steward and distributor of his possessions, that they were so soon able to triumph over a hostile civilization which was built upon force and selfishness. In reproach of that civilizationTertullian could proudly exclaim: "All things are common among us exceptwomen". TheChristian preaching and exemplification of thetruth that not merely the Roman citizen, but every human being is clothed with the dignity ofpersonality, brought about at length the end of slavery, and exerted a considerable influence upon legislation even before the victory of Constantine.Trajan encouraged the emancipation of slaves;Hadrian deprived the masters of theright toput them to death; Plutarchy and Epictetus held far more humane views concerning the claims of slaves than did Cicero and Cato. Nerva andTrajan extended public assistance to the needy children throughoutItaly, instead of confining its benefits to the idlers in the city ofRome, after the manner of all their predecessors. Uhlhorn maintains that as soon as theChurch had freed herself from theheresy ofMontanism, theChristians began to lose their grasp of the higher motives of charity, and to lay stress upon the distinction between the counsels and the Commandments (op. Cit., p. 205 sq.). For the majority, who aimed only to comply with the Commandments, theduties of charity became, like all otherduties, less rigorous. The motives of their charitable activity also degenerated into the desire to obtain personal merit in thesupernatural order, and release from theirsins. According to Uhlhorn, these doctrines first found definite statement in the works of Hermas,Cyprian, andOrigen; but they soon became the prevailing views of theChurch, and so continued untilReformation, when a return was made to the primitive teaching (pp. 397, 398). These, however, are the facts: whatever diminution of charitable work occurred is explained by the change in the political and social conditions surrounding theChristians; the distinction between counsel and precept was originated byChrist Himself (Matthew 19:11, 12); the meritorious character ofalmsgiving was likewise taught by Him (Matthew 25:31 — 46, and frequently elsewhere); and both these doctrines, together with that ofalmsgiving was expiatory of the temporal punishment due tosin (not ofsin itself), are found in all the early writers, as well as in the liturgy of that age (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., pp. 89-92).
As a result of the freedom and social importance which theChurch obtained through the victory of Constantine, she was called upon to relieve the distress not merely of her own children, but of the whole population. The universal corruption, cruelty, and extravagance of the civil officials, the relentless and grindingusury of the money-lenders and the almost continuous invasions of the barbarians, combined to produce a greater amount of wretchedness than had ever before existed in the empire. Over the three classes just mentioned theChurch had very little influence, since none of them became fullyChristianized until long afterChristianity had become the established religion. Among the means available to meet this distress there remained the oblations at Mass, the collections on fast days, and the extraordinary collections. But none of these was relatively as fruitful as in the age of the persecutions. Hence exhortations toalmsgiving become much more frequent, and towards the end of the sixth century thelaw oftithes makes its appearance. A new source of charitable relief was created by the contributions of the emperors, and of the powerful and wealthy generally. Many of the latter were converted on their death-beds, and endeavoured to atone in their wills for previous neglect of theduty ofalmsgiving. Thebishops not only condemned this postponement of a graveChristianobligation, but refused to accept money which was acquired through dishonesty or extortion, even when it came from the hands of kings. As in the preceding period, the relief of the poor was recognized as a primary function of theChurch, and all her revenues even thesacred vessels, as subject to the demands of charity. Hence arose the custom of referring to the possessions of theChurch as "the patrimony of the poor". In the interests of security and system, the church revenues were divided into four parts, of which one went to thebishop, another to theclergy, a third to the maintenance of worship, and the fourth to the relief of distress. This practice became quite general inRome during the fifth century, whence it gradually extended over the wholeChristian world (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 116 sq.). The administration of charity remained in the hands of thebishop, assisted by theoeconomus, who was usually apriest. The latter was in turn assisted by thedeacons,subdeacons, anddeaconesses. In every episcopal city, and in other places of importance, were houses calleddiaconiæ, at which and from which assistance was given to thepoor, the sic, and the aged. A new institution of charity appears in thexenodochia,hospitals, which originated during the reign of Constantine. They were primarily intended for the reception of strangers, but soon undertook the care of the sick, the homeless poor,widows, abandoned children, and other helpless classes. In brief, they performed the tasks that are now divided amonghospitals, hotels, almshouses, and asylums. Towards the end of the fourth century they increased very rapidly and by the time ofGregory the Great were to be found in almost every city of the empire. They were all under the control of thebishop, and were maintained by landed endowments, the general revenues of theChurch, and special contributions from thefaithful. A form of charity which in the latter half of theMiddle Ages became the dominant one, came into existence during the period now under consideration. This was the monastic system of poor relief. The precept of labour, which occupied a primary place in the rules both of Basil and Benedict, was the means of providing a most striking and most beneficent example to an age that had not yet learned the dignity and value of work. And a large share of the product of the industry of themonks was distributed among the poor. Themonasteries supplied physicians for all the sick of the neighbourhood, maintainedhospitals for all classes of the distressed, reared andeducated the young, and during the fifty century were about the only places of refuge forpersons whose homes lay in the path of the devastating barbarians. On the other hand, the present period witnessed the decay of the once important agapæ. More and more they became repasts for the poor provided by the rich, until at length they degenerated into display of the lavish generosity of their providers, and came under the condemnation of theChurch. Among the practices of charity by privateindividuals were:alms given to those of the poor who had permission to solicit aid at the doors of the churches; large donations ofproperty for the endowment ofhospitals, such, for example, as those made by Fabiola, Pammachius, Demetrias, Zoticus, Pulcheria, and Olympia; the direct distribution of all their goods to the poor by many of the wealthy; and many other forms and practices which have necessarily been overlooked by the historian.
In the preaching of theChurch at this time the fundamentaltruths ofChristian charity were constantly applied to the different social needs and institutions. Thebishops protested strongly and frequently against the excessive taxes and the harsh methods employed in collecting them; against the landowner's oppression of his tenants, and the extortion practised by theusurer; against the forcible enslavement of freemen, the tyranny of civil officials, and theinjustice of the courts; against the inhuman treatment of slaves, and in favour of emancipation. In opposition to the almost universal selfishness of the age, they incessantly proclaimed theduty ofalmsgiving, the stewardship of wealth, and the solidarity ofmankind. To those possessors who refused to distribute their superfluous goods among the needy, some of the Fathers applied the terms "robber", "thief", "extortioner". And they regarded as superfluous all that remained after the reasonable needs of the owner had been supplied. They exacted a restitution for the benefit of the poor of all the proceeds of extortion andusury. Nevertheless they all defended the principle of private ownership. Finally, they kept constantly before the faithful thedoctrine thatalmsgiving is an offering toGod by the rich, and a gift fromGod to the poor. The results of theChurch's preaching and practice of charity during this period were thatwidows,orphans, abandoned children, friendless youngwomen,prisoners, the sick, the helpless poor, and the victims of the barbarian invasions, received all the care and assistance which their condition and the available resources permitted. In fact, the unrelieved poverty of that day seems to have been less appalling than is the pauperism of our own time. The vigilance of thedeacons anddeaconesses seems to have been fairly successful in preventing a waste of charity upon beggars and idlers. While the church was not able to bring about the abolition of the manifold social abuses of the time, she was directly instrumental in modifying them to a considerable degree. Thus, thebishops gave a humane example by their treatment of the tenants of the lands owned by the church, punished themurder of slaves byexcommunication, frequently emancipated their own bondmen, and demanded for the slave as well for the freeman the privilege of Sunday rest. The civil legislation of the time granted this demand, abolished the gladiatorial sports and the right of life and death which the father had possessed over his children, conceded the right of asylum to theChristian churches, recognized theduty of the State towards all thepoor, prohibited indiscriminate begging, and made thebishop president of a court for the trial of cases which concerned thepoor, thewidow, and theorphan. Thebishop's title, "father of thepoor and protector of widows and orphans", was recognized by the State as well as by theChurch. Nodoubt the more frequent stress now laid upon thesupernatural rewards of charity does indicate a decline from the fervour of the preceding age, but there is no evidence that the change in the generosity of the faithful was as great as many historians assume. And it is sufficiently explained by the more heterogeneous character of theChristian population after the danger ofpersecution had passed. Failure to preach the meritorious character ofalmsgiving would not only have been an injury to thepoor, but would have shown contempt for the teaching of Christ.
The first important event in the world of charity after the reign ofGregory the Great was the deterioration that it suffered in Gaul under the Merovingians. Owing to theanarchic social and political conditions of the time and the resulting demoralization of theclergy, the poor were all but forgotten, and institutions of charity either disappeared or were diverted to other uses. Although themonasteries discharged theirduties fairly well during the early part of the Merovingian period, they became involved later on in the general disorder, worldliness, and negligence which reached a climax underCharles Martel. Then came the great law-giver,Charlemagne, who effected a manifold and far-reaching reform. He recovered thechurch property that had been misappropriated, and re-established thelaw oftithes, the fourfold division of church revenues, the oblations during Divine service, and other offerings to thepriest for charity, and the custom of regarding all the goods of theChurch as primarily the patrimony of the poor. According to hislegislation, thebishop was to remain the supreme director of charity administration, but in thebeneficedparishes the immediate control was in the hands of theperson who occupied thebenefice. Every form of genuine distress was to be relieved, but idlers, beggars, and vagabonds were to be turned away and compelled to work. Thefeudal lord was charged with theduty of caring for all the needy among his own vassals. This provision was merely an application tofeudal conditions ofSt. Paul's injunction that everyone should maintain the dependents of his own household. It continued in force, theoretically at least, throughout the whole of theMiddle Ages. Themonasteries, too, were required to resume their former practices of charity and their more important function as centres of industry, religion, morality, and civilization for all the surrounding populations. Thus it came about that the work of civilizing andChristianizing the Germanic peoples was for the most part accomplished by themonks of St. Benedict and themonks fromIreland (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., pp. 216-218).
A great impetus was given to charitable activity by the discipline of penance, according to whichfasting,prayer, and other forms of penitential exercises were, to a considerable degree, replace byalmsgiving. The amount to be contributed was proportioned to the offence; for some of the gravestsins the penalty was total renunciation of one's possessions and entrance into amonastery. Especially large donations to charity were required of those who had neglected the corporal works of mercy. Thebishops and otherChristian teachers of the time ofCharlemagne frequently reminded the kings, princes, and lords that all earthly power was fromGod, and that their subjects were their equals beforeGod and their brothers in Christ. Through this teaching Germanic slavery (which, indeed, had never been so general nor so deep-rooted as among the Greeks and the Romans) was mitigated into serfdom. Through theChristian teaching and example concerning the dignity of labour, there arose a class of artisans who were not ashamed of their calling, and who were therefore able at length to free themselves from subjection to thefeudal lord. Thedoctrine that all superfluous wealth ought to be employed for the benefit of thepoor, was as clearly proclaimed, at least by the greatChristian teachers, such asBede andAlcuin, as it every had been; but it was not preached so generally nor observed so faithfully. After the death ofCharlemagne his organization of charity fell rapidly into decay.Feudalism, all-powerful, haughty, belligerent, unscrupulous, acknowledging no claims but those of might, demoralized bothecclesiastical and civil order. The spiritual leaders of the people were to a very great extent incompetent, worldly, andavaricious. Clerics as well as nobles exploited their serfs and neglected the poor. From the middle of the ninth to the beginning of the twelfth century these deplorable conditions were general throughoutEurope. InEngland, however, the demoralization did not reach its lowest depths until the second half of the tenth century; inIreland it did not come until the eleventh. Nevertheless thedoctrine of charity, as expressed in the documents accompanying charitable foundations, and in the writings of the great teachers likeSt. Bernard, was everywhere identical with that of the Scripture and the Fathers. The oldtruths aboutproperty as a trust, about theduty of distributing superfluous goods among thepoor, about thesupernatural rewards ofalmsgiving, and its value as expiatory of the temporal punishment due tosin — are all clearly taught. Owing to the relatively lower average ofChristian fervour, the last two features assume a relatively greater prominence than they had in the teaching of the age of persecutions.
During the three centuries following the death ofCharlemagne, the work of relieving the poor was steadily and rapidly transferred from thediocesanclergy to themonasteries. The demoralization of thediocesanclergy, the misappropriation ofchurch property and revenues by theclergy and the lords, the theory that the lords were to care for all the poor within their domains, the deflexion to some of themonasteries oftithes that formerly went to theparishclergy, the practice of giving landed endowments to themonasteries instead of to theparish churches, the humane treatment generally accorded to their tenants by themonks, and the fact thatChristian life became more and more centred about themonasteries — combined to effect this transformation. The new and dominant position of themonasteries is thus described byRatzinger: "The energy ofChristian life had gone over from the diocese to themonastery. The latter became the centre for rich and poor, high and low, for innocent youth and repentant age. It provided in some measure a substitute for the primitive episcopalparish. In every district, alike on towering mountain and in lowly valley, arosemonasteries which formed the centres of the organizedreligious life of the neighbourhood, maintainedschools, provided models for agriculture, industry, pisciculture, and forestry, sheltered the traveller, relieved thepoor, reared theorphans, cared for the sick, and were havens of refuge for all who were weighed down by spiritual or corporal misery. For centuries they were the centres of all religious, charitable, and cultural activity" (op. Cit., pp. 287, 288) — that is, until the end of the fifteenth century. The orders that took the most prominent part in the work of poor-relief were theBenedictines,Cistercians,Premonstratensians,Dominicans, andFranciscans. Through theportariusalms were daily distributed atmonastery gate. The needy who were unable to come for a portion of this received assistance in their homes. Connected with themonasteries werehospitals for the treatment and relief of all forms of distress. In addition to their material works of charity, themonasteries did much for the improvement of social conditions and ideals. They treated their tenants and servants a great deal better than did the secular lords, and in theirschools maintained a genuine equality between the children of the rich and the poor. The teaching and example of St. Francis and his followers concerning the solid worth of holy poverty recalled millions ofsouls from selfishness, luxury, andavarice to simpler and saner ideals of life, and as a further result not merely gave an immense impetus to charitable activity among all the people, but contributed not a little towards the abolition of serfdom inItaly (cf. Dubois,Saint Francis of Assisi, pp. 59 — 61). During the fourteenth and more frequently in the fifteenth century, however, a many abuses got a foothold in the richermonasteries.Avarice, luxurious living, lavish entertainment of guests, favouritism towards relatives, and other forms of relaxation rendered these institutions unable and unwilling to attend properly to the relief of distress. Moreover, themendicant orders withdrew in the laterMiddle Ages to the towns, where they devoted themselves almost exclusively to the contemplative life and to preaching.
Next in importance to themonasteries came thehospitals. As already noted, these institutions discharged the functions of guest-house, asylum, almshouse, andhospital in the modern sense. Many of them were managed by secular brotherhoods whose members lived a common life and wore a distinctive garb, but did not claim the privileges of areligious order. The first of thesehospitals were established at the end of the ninth century, inSiena, by a certain Soror. Similar institutions in charge of similar brotherhoods soon made their appearance in many of the other cities ofItaly. About the middle of the twelfth century the Brotherhood of the Holy Spirit was founded by one Guido in connection with thehospital atMontpellier. This association grew very rapidly. In 1198Pope Innocent III took it under his special protection, and entrusted to it a largehospital which he had endowed atRome. This was but one of the manyhospitals established under the direction of that remarkable pontiff. By the end of the thirteenth century there was hardly an important town inGermany that did not possess one or morehospitals of Brotherhood of the Holy Spirit.St. Elizabeth of Hungary founded threehospitals. Themilitary orders, such as the Knights of St. John and theHospitallers inGermany, whose existence is due to the spirit of service and self-sacrifice created by theCrusades, established and maintainedhospitals in nearly every country ofEurope. These orders did an immense amount of good while they remained true to their original spirit, but their usefulness had come to an end by the middle of the fifteenth century. In the laterMiddle Ages numeroushospitals were maintained by the free towns and cities. Every town inItaly andGermany had at least one, while the larger cities possessed several. They were superintended by alayman, but the attendants and nurses were members of religious associations. Akin to thehospitals were theleper houses andleper huts in which were sheltered the victims of that form ofleprosy which theCrusades brought back from the East. In the thirteenth century these institutions numbered, according toMatthew Paris, nineteen thousand (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 341). To meet the plague there arose in the twelfth century themilitary order of St. Lazarus. It spread rapidly over the whole ofEurope, had charge of manyhospitals, and obtained extensive landed possessions. Having finished its tasks and become somewhat demoralized, it was dissolved byPope Innocent VIII at the end of the fifteenth century.
Several otherreligious communities and pious associations having for their chief object the relief of distress arose during the period which we are now considering. A group ofwomen belonging to theThird Order of St. Francis, and under the patronage ofSt. Elizabeth of Hungary (now known as Elisabetherinnen inGermany andGrey Nuns inFrance), were formed into a community byPope Martin V in 1428. Their work on behalf of thepoor, the sick and the distressed inGermany,France,Austria, andItaly, has been noteworthy in amount and quality. At the end of the twelfth century a lay sisterhood, calledBeguine, was organized to care for the sick in the homes of the latter. Later on they gave instruction to poor girls, and shelter to poor girls andwidows. They became quite numerous in theNetherlands andGermany, but failed to retain their early spirit, especially in the matter of respect forecclesiastical authority. By the end of the sixteenth century their career had practically ceased. Among the other communities worthy of mention are: that of St. Anthony of Vienne, which arose in the second half of eleventh century to minister to those afflicted with the disease known as St. Anthony's fire, and whose period of usefulness lasted about two centuries; the Alexian Brothers, originally a lay association whose chief work was to bury the dead, but which soon undertook other charitable functions; they were formed into a religious congregation in 1458, and still exist in charge ofhospitals; the Trinitarians, and the congregation founded byRaymund of Pennafort and Peter Nolasco, both of which appeared about the beginning of the thirteenth century, and in the course of the next five hundred years relieved an immense amount of physical andmental wretchedness by ransoming captives, particularly from theMohammedans; finally, the"Fratres Pontifices" (Bridge Builders), who during the last four centuries of theMiddle Ages made bridges and roads, erected inns for poor and sick travellers, and protected merchants and other wayfarers against the thievery andviolence of highwaymen. Their diffusion was rapid and general throughoutEurope, and their services to the social and commercial life of the period were incalculable. To the modern mind an organization bound by a religiousvow to the avocation of bridge-building may seem fantastic, but it was merely a particular illustration of the general fact that in the Ages of Faith the church was able to create an institution for the relief of every social need. (SeeBRIDGE-BUILDING BROTHERHOOD.)
A very important agency in the charitable activity of the laterMiddle Ages was that ofpious foundations or endowments. They consisted of lands or other revenue-producingproperty, the income of which was to be expended for the benefit of the poor. In return for this charity the beneficiaries were expected topray for the donor, or for the repose of hissoul. Here we see the same conception of charity as an instrument of equality between rich and poor, which was enunciated bySt. Paul and exemplified in the primitive oblations. Many of the foundations required that requiem Masses should be celebrated for the benefactor. The greater number were connected withmonasteries andhospitals, although some were entrusted to theparish churches and, in the cities, to the civil magistrates. Besides theirhospitals, the free cities gradually undertook their works of charity, until in the fifteenth century they either directly or indirectly discharged the greater part of the task of relieving thepoor, the helpless, and the stranger. The guilds, which played such an important and varied role in the life of the cities, were not merely associations having charge of trade and industry; they were often mutual benefitsocieties which cared for all needy members and for the dependentfamilies of needy and deceased members. As a result of the charitable activity of Church, municipality, guild, and other associations like theCalenderii inGermany and theHumiliati inItaly, there was practically no unrelieved poverty in the cities during the laterMiddle Ages. The spectre of the modern proletariat, wretched, debased, with no definite place in the social organism, and no definitely recognized claims upon any social group or institution, had no counterpart in the municipal life of that time.
From the fact that in the cities the care of the poor had for the most part been taken over by municipal agencies in the fifteenth century, and that theparish system of relief had ceased before the end of the eleventh, it is not to be inferred that the charitable activity and influence of theChurch were restricted to thereligious orders and religious association. The whole structure of municipal charity was built up under her inspiration, encouragement, and direction. All through theMiddle Ages thediocesanclergy continued to collect and distribute the means of charitable relief. In the cities they supplied the needs of thosepersons who had been overlooked by themonasteries,hospitals, and guilds. In the country the theory offeudal responsibility for all dependents caused the charity of thediocesanclergy to be confined to travellers and strangers. Moreover,Ratzinger maintains that inEngland the system ofparish relief continued in full vigour and efficiency up to the time of theReformation (op. Cit., p. 421 sq.). Professor Ashley contends that it had disappeared before the twelfth century, but his conclusion is based on the presumption of similarity of conditions inEngland and on the Continent rather than upon positive arguments (English Economic History, II, 309 sq.). Then there was the beneficent influence of theChurch upon social and political institutions. Her prohibition ofusury, which was also under the ban of thecivil law, was a great boon to the poor and all the economically weak. For in those days money was nearly always borrowed to meet temporary and personal needs, and not as now for use as capital. While thetheologicalproof that interest-taking was unlawful may not have been any better understood by the mass of themedieval population than by many of its modern critics, thedoctrine itself, reinforced by theecclesiastical and civil legislation, effectively taught men that gains ought to be the fruit of labour not of exploitation, and on the whole protected the economically weak against the economically strong (cf. Ashley, op. cit., II, 434 sq.). When the increased need for loans threatened to place large numbers of the people at the mercy of the Jewishusurers, theMontes Pietatis were established, mostly by theFranciscans, from which money could be borrowed on payment of a sum sufficient to cover risks and the cost of maintenance. Finally, theChurch successfully inculcated what Dr. Cunningham has called, "a keen sense of personal responsibility in the employment ofsecular power of every kind" (Western Civilization, II, 104). King, prince, andfeudal lord held their office fromGod, and were responsible to Him for the people committed to their charge. The poor, the weak, and the helpless were, in theory, and to a considerable degree in practice, objects of their special care. While the cultivators of the land remained, until the latter part of theMiddle Ages, unfree, "bound to the soil", they enjoyed security of tenure, and could claim the protection and support of the lord. The mutualduties andrights of lord and serf were in a high degree personal, and not reducible to any mere cash-nexus. The principles of charity expounded during the last three centuries remained the same as those found in the Scripture and in theChristian teaching of every age from the beginning. Only they were presented more precisely and systematically. ThusSt. Thomas, whose treatment of the matter may be taken as typical, declares that charity towards the neighbour should have as its motive thelove ofGod, and thatalmsgiving may be made meritorious of eternal rewards and expiatory of the temporal punishment due tosin. He insists that fraternal charity ought to be free, spontaneous, from the heart. When he speaks of it as aduty he has in mind moralduty, not the constraint of external law (cf. Summa Theologica, II — II, all of Q. xxxii). While he maintained that the contemplative life is in itself of higher moral andsupernatural worth than the active life, inasmuch as it is more directly concerned withlove ofGod, he also pointed out that a life of activity and labour may become strictlyobligatory, and hence more meritorious than a life of contemplation — for example, in order to gain a livelihood, escape the moral dangers of idleness, or givealms to the needy (II-II.182.1 and 2;II-II.187.3). In spite of some occasional exaggeration of the contemplative, and disparagement of the active, life, the utility and dignity of labour have never been more generally recognized than in the second half of theMiddle Ages. As to privateproperty, St. Thomas taught that, while it was useful and lawful, all superfluous goods should be used for social purpose (II — II, Q. lxvi, a. 2). In no age has the conception of ownership as a social trust been put into practice by so large a proportion of the community as during this period. Forproof we need only point to its innumerable and magnificent institutions, foundations, and expenditures for the glory ofGod and the service ofmankind (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., p. 392).
There are certain serious and oft-repeat ed criticisms ofCatholic charity in general and ofmedieval charity in particular which may be conveniently noticed at this point. They are all reducible to the general assertion that theChurch's teaching concerning the meritorious character ofalmsgiving led to so much indiscriminate charity as to raise the question whetherCatholic work on behalf of poverty was not productive of more harm than good. With regard to this contention, the first observation to be made is that theChurch did teach that charitable actions from the proper motive promoted the spiritual welfare of the giver, but that this was the teaching ofChrist Himself, as well as of theChristian authorities in every age (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., pp. 89, 160, 388). If thedoctrine seems to have been more frequently and more strongly inculcated in theMiddle Ages than in the first centuries of theChristian Era, the explanation is to be sought not merely in a lesser spirit of self-sacrifice, but also in the more developed and systematic presentation of the theory, as well as in the fuller accounts which history has handed down to us concerning thebeliefs and deeds of the later time. In the second place, the contention, or assumption, that theChurch, or any of her authoritative exponents, ever taught thatalmsgiving was meritorious regardless of the need of the recipient — in other words, that it is a good work to give the neighbour something which does him harm — is simplyfalse. How could any sane and intelligentChristian defend the proposition that an act of injury to the neighbour would win the favour ofGod? To Him the welfare of one man is as dear as that of another. If this a priori consideration seem inconclusive, let us cite the admissions of theeconomic historian, Professor Ashley: "It is not difficult to adduce a long catena of passages from the Fathers and from the canons of Councils, which declare in the most explicit fashion theduty of investigation" (op. Cit., II, 315). In this way, he says "Ehrle is able to make a very effective reply to the exaggerations of Emminghaus" (p. 369). His conclusion is: "It must be allowed that so far as the theory ofalmsgiving is concerned, themedieval Church was free from the fault that has been imputed to it. . . ." (p. 316).
But the important question concerns neither the motives nor thedoctrine ofmedieval charity, but its effectiveness in the relief of poverty. Here are three typical answers to this question: ". . .in the sphere of simple poverty it fan hardly bedoubted that theCatholic church has created more misery than it has cured" (Lecky, History ofEuropean Morals, II, 95, 3rd ed.). "For eighteen centuries the charitable and legislative efforts ofsociety have been pauperizing instead of elevating men" (H. B. Adams, Johns Hopkins University Historical Studies, fifty series, p. 319). "This [private charity], like the charity of theChurch, was wholly indiscriminating and, therefore,evil in its consequences" (Charles A. Ellwood, in Henderson's Modern Methods of Charity, p. 167). In all probability these statements are a fairly adequate reflection of what is still the prevailing view outside theCatholicChurch. As a matter of simple fact, this view has never been justified by evidence; all the available evidence tends to show that it is a gross exaggeration. It seems to be due partly to prejudice, partly to a priori inferences, and partly to hasty generalizations from isolated and inadequate data. That a large part has been played by the element of religious prejudice, becomes clear when we reflect that most of the descriptions of monastic corruption and incompetence which have formed the original basis of the theory under discussion, were written by men who were bitter opponents of themonks, their religion, and their institutions. In a considerable proportion of cases (ve.g. the case of Fuller, who is quoted below, and of the King's Commissioners of 1535, quoted by Froude, II, 434) their object was not so much to write history as to discredit the old religion and the old regime. Careful historians of today recognize this, but popular writers on the history of charity have not yet given it sufficient attention. The other two causes of the theory, illicit use of the a priori method and hasty generalization, usually appear together, though now one, now the other, predominates. A very common misuse of the a priori method is seen in the contention that the amount of begging, particularly unjustifiable begging, in theMiddle Ages was enormous. This charge is based not so much upon statistics — which are almost entirely wanting — nor upon authentic general descriptions, as upon two assumptions: first, that a goodCatholic would give indiscriminately to all beggars for the sake of thesupernatural merit attached to charitable actions; and second, that the practice of begging was made honourable by themendicant orders, who employed it as their regular means of obtaining a livelihood. Again and again we meet with this form of argument.
Of courseCatholics have never believed thatalmsgiving which is not beneficial to the receiver could be spiritually helpful to the giver. Consequentlybelief in the meritorious character of works of charity no more necessarily leads to indiscriminate giving thanbelief in the virtue of mercy involves indiscriminate condoning of crime. Secondly, the fact that certainreligious orders got their living and performed their charitable functions through begging, no more sanctified unworthy begging (which was always under the ban of theChurch) to the people of theMiddle Ages than the solicitations ofclergymen and charity organizations, both of whom live by a species of begging, justifies the general practice of mendicancy to ourminds. Concerning generalizations from insufficient data, two instances will suffice. Emminghaus, whose work heads the list of authorities in many non-Catholic works, has, as Professor Ashley admits, misrepresented the position of theChurch on meritoriousalms giving, apparently because he did not study sufficiently the sources. If he has been guilty of such a fault concerning the theory ofCatholic charity, need we be surprised to find that his generalizations about the practice and results are likewise based upon insufficient acquaintance with the sources?Ratzinger calls attention to several instances of this, and declares that the conclusions of Emminghaus with regard to charity in the early Church are due to unpardonableignorance (op. Cit., p. 93). Professor Ashley writes thus: "There are strong reasons forbelieving that for a couple of centuries at least before theReformation, theEnglishmonasteries had done but little for the relief of honest poverty; . . . That, in the strong words of Fuller, 'the Abbeys did but maintain the poor which they made'" (op. Cit., II, p. 312). Inproof of this statement, he quotes two passages fromRatzinger concerning the decline of the monastic system of relief on the Continent, and declares that the same thing must have occurred in connection with theEnglishmonasteries. In the first of the passages in question,Ratzinger says that grave abuses, such asavarice, luxury, and a diminution oflove for thepoor, got into the richermonasteries, and he intimates that to some extent in the fourteenth, and to a greater extent in the fifteenth, century, these abuses were no longer mere exceptions; but he adds that no other period can show as many foundations and works of benevolence (op. Cit., p. 311). All that he tells us in the second passage quoted is that the multiplicity of charitable agencies —monasteries,hospitals, orders, and associations — without any centralized directions, was less effective than the oldparish system, and was unable to overcome begging (p. 397). Obviously these limited and qualified statements are not equivalent to Professor Ashley's sweeping assertion. It would seem that in spite of his usual fairness, he is here unable to emancipate himself from the long prevailing English tradition concerning all pre-Reformation institutions. Similarerrors have nodoubt been committed more frequently by writers who are less competent and less fair than Professor Ashley.
Assuming that the extreme view under discussion rests upon no sufficient foundation, what conclusion concerningCatholic charity in the laterMiddle Ages seems to be justified by the evidence? Notwithstanding the well-recognized danger of generalizing from historical facts, it seems safe to say that the amount of culpable waste and of unwise and indiscriminate giving to the poor was considerable; but that the amount of distress that went unrelieved was not, relatively toeconomic resource and standards of living, greater than the unrelieved want of any age since. The first part of this conclusion seems to be abundantly established by the investigations ofRatzinger (op. Cit., pp. 311, 313, 315, 319, 323, 360, 362, 396-399, 437 sqq., and elsewhere). Justice, however, requires that we make some qualifications. The prevalence of begging during the fifteenth century was due not so much to misdirected charity as to the breaking up offeudalism and to the agrarian changes, such as enclosures and sheep-farming (cf. Ashley, op. cit., p. 352), which deprived immense numbers ofpersons of all means of likelihood. The fact that theduty of discrimination in giving was not so generally preached and practised as today, is largely accounted for by a less developed appreciation of theevil of social dependency. This was inevitable infeudalsociety. In the third place, much of the inefficiency of themedieval agencies must be attributed solely to their lack of co-ordination and centralization. The second part of our generalization calls to mind the words of the Rev. Dr. Gibbins: "But poverty was neither so deep nor so widespread as it is now, nor as it soon became, and themonasteries and guilds (when they did theirduty) were possibly quite as efficient as a modern Board of Guardians" (Industry inEngland, p. 195). Dr. Gibbins is not aCatholic. Dr. Ellwood maintains (Henderson's Modern Methods of Charity, foot-note, p. 167) that the dissolution of theEnglishmonasteries "revealed" rather than "caused" a large amount of pauperism and vagrancy. We may pertinently ask whether the Poor Law "covered", i.e. relieved, these conditions as fully and as humanely as the monastic system which is supplanted. Some of its early provisions for the repression of begging constitute a foul blot on the history of English legislation. Cruel as they were, these measuresproved ineffective. Speaking ofEuropean conditions generally,Ratzinger declares that it was precisely in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when the prohibition of begging was most severe, that the practice was most extensive (op. cit., p. 445).
After more than two centuries of variations, during which the defects of the Statute of Elizabeth had been corrected by the Settlement Law of Charles II, which, in the words of Dr. Ellwood (Henderson, op. cit., p. 173) was "disastrous to rich and poor alike", the English Poor Law went to that extreme of indiscriminate liberality provided for by the Allowance system of 1782. So demoralizing was this measure that, to quote General Walker, "the condition of theperson who threw himself flat upon public charity was better than that of the labourer who struggled on to preserve his manhood in self-support" (cf. Warner, American Charities, p. 15). Despite the great reform which thelaw underwent in 1834, and despite the intelligent administration which it ought to receive at the end of the nineteenth century, Mr. Thomas Mackay is constrained to write; "the Poor Law as administered throughout the greater part of the country is simply a disaster to the best interests of the poorer classes, and succeeds in maintaining a head of pauperism which, though it continues to decrease, is still a disgrace to the intelligence of the country" (The State and Charity, p. 137). Now, if the case be so with the English Poor Law, which represents the most systematic, determined, and long-continued endeavour to find an adequate substitute for pre-Reformation agencies; if not only inEngland but in every otherEuropean country, the amount of unrelieved want is still, relatively to national resources and standards of living, greater than it was in theMiddle Ages; if, as even Uhlhorn admits, "no period has done so much for the poor as theMiddle Ages" (op. Cit., p. 397); if the possessors of wealth of those days were imbued with sanerideas as to its worth and a broader and more generous conception of its uses, we can bear with some complacency theknowledge thatmedieval charity is chargeable with much injudicious distribution and even with considerable misappropriation. Professor Patten, who is one of the leading authorities on economics andeconomic history in America writes: "Theeconomic aims of theChurch were also fairly well realized. It provided food and shelter for the workers, charity for the unfortunate, and relief from disease, plague, and famine, which were but too common in theMiddle Ages. When we note the number of thehospitals and infirmaries, the bounties of themonks, and the self-sacrifice of thenuns, we cannotdoubt that the unfortunate of that time were at least as well provided for as they are at the present. If the workmen were well fed, warmly clothed, and comfortably housed, surely theeconomic aims of the age were fairly well realized" (The Development of English Thought, pp. 90, 91).
The great increase of distress which followed so soon upon theReformation was due in some measure to the rapid decay offeudalism and the agrarian changes, but in greater measure to the confiscation of the monastic and other sources ofCatholic charity, and to the substitution of an extortionate set of secular landlords for themonasteries and the churches. The last factor was especially harmful inEngland (cf. Gibbins, op. cit., pp. 203 — 205), but itsevil results were considerable in all the regions where theReformation triumphed (Ratzinger, o. cit., pp. 456 — 463). Luxury and selfishness increased among the wealthy, while charitable contributions decreased among all classes. Uhlhorn admits that the purer motives of giving, which were the gift of theReformation, did not lead to the expected results; "that our Church has in this respect also, and perhaps most of all in this, come short in practice of what has been given her inknowledge" (op. Cit., p. 398). How far the practice of giving and the spirit of charity had declined since the advent of the new religion is sufficiently indicated by the bitter complaints ofLuther (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., pp. 457, 458). As anecessary consequence the relief of the poor fell more and more to the care of thecivil authorities, national, provincial, and municipal. Municipal poor-relief did not, however, originate with theReformation. As noted above, it had been quite general in the fifteenth century. In the first half of the sixteenth it underwent important developments in the cities ofBelgium, beginning with Ypres (1524). The new ordinances of this city were, it seems, chiefly due to theideas of the Spanishtheologian andhumanist, Vives. His work, "De Subventione Pauperum", was written while he resided at the court ofHenry VIII, and was published atBruges in 1526 (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit., pp. 438 sq.). It was soon translated into Spanish, Italian, and French. In the second part, which deals with public charity, Vives declares that it is theduty of thecivic authorities to care for the needy, and lays down provisions by which the work can best be accomplished. His most important recommendations are: that a census be taken of the indigent; that all who are able be compelled to work; that the authorities, ifnecessary, provide employment; and that begging be prohibited. These proposals aroused considerable opposition on the ground that they savoured ofLutheranism, denied the natural right of man to beg, and were too harsh upon the deserving poor. The faculty of theSorbonne, to which the controversy was referred for adjudication, decided that the recommendations of Vives were contrary neither to the Gospel nor the Fathers, but made the reservation that begging should not be prohibited unless the public resources were sufficient to relieve all the distressed. In the work of Vives, saysRatzinger, we find all the fundamental principles of every sound system of relief that has ever existed. And we might add that, as they were not due to theReformation, but to theintellectual revival which preceded it, they would have been much more fruitful had their application not been hindered by the social, political, and religious disturbances for which theReformation was responsible. In 1531 the proposals of Vives were embodied in a general law of theEmperor Charles V, with the proviso that the local authorities should have discretionary power to license certainpersons to beg. The means of caring for distress under the new ordinances were to be provided by thehospitals and other foundations, and byvoluntary contributions.
TheCouncil of Trent laid down minute regulations concerning the administration ofhospitals andhospital funds, and reaffirmed theduty of thebishops not only to enforce these regulations, but to examine and oversee all measures for the relief of the poor (De Reformatione, Sess. VII, XXII, XXV). In many portions of theCatholic world these ordinances soon bore considerable fruit, especially in connection with the re-establishment of the system ofparish relief. The greatest name identified with this work is that ofSt. Charles Borromeo,Bishop ofMilan. As a result of his boundlesszeal and tireless activity, hisdiocese before long possessed a complete organization of charity which was worthy of comparison with that of the early church, and surpassed any system of his own time. One of the most important features of the period now under consideration has been the rise ofreligious communities and other associations to relieve various kinds of distress. The Brothers of Charity, founded bySt. John of the Cross inGranada, 1534, to care for the sick, soon spread overSpain,Portugal,Italy,France, andGermany. In North America appeared thehospital orders of the Brothers of St. Hippolytus (Mexico, 1585) and theBethlehemites (Guatemala, 1660). A congregation whose members are at oncepriests and physicians arose in Turkey under the name of "Fathers of the Pestilence". The Daughters, or Sisters, of Charity, founded bySt. Vincent de Paul about the year 1633 have become celebrated for their manifold works of mercy in every part of the world. St. Vincent's work on behalf of foundlings, galley-slaves, and the wretched of all descriptions, makes him the most remarkable worker in the field of charity that the world has ever known. ThePiarists whose object is the instruction and care of poor children were instituted in 1597 by Joseph of Calasanza, and have become very numerous inAustria,Italy,Spain, andPoland. TheInstitute of the Blessed Virgin, the"English Ladies", founded byMary Ward in 1611, was intended to be chiefly a teaching order, though it also hasorphan asylums, chiefly in Bucharest andBavaria. The Sisters of the Good Shepherd devote themselves to the reformation of wayward girls. Their founder was aFrenchman, Father Eudes (1642). TheLittle Sisters of the Poor had their origin in the charitable work of a French servant girl, Jeanne Jugan, and received theapprobation of theHoly See in 1854. Their splendid work on behalf of the aged, as also the rescue work of the sisters of the Good Shepherd, is recognized by all classes in all civilized countries. Although the congregations just mentioned are among the most important that have been established for the relief of distress since theReformation, they are in reality only a small part of the whole number (cf. Ratzinger, op. cit. pp. 508 — 536). By far the greatest lay association that has arisen during this period is theSociety of St. Vincent de Paul. It was originated in 1833 byFrédéric Ozanam and seven otherCatholic students inParis. At present, branches of thesociety, called conferences, are to be found in almost every country ofEurope, North and South America, and in many parts ofAsia,Africa, and Australasia. In 1905 the whole number of conferences throughout the world was estimated at six thousand, with a combined membership of one hundred thousand, or two hundred thousand, including the honorary members. The individual conferences of each city are usually combined into a particular council, the particular councils of a large locality, province, or country, are federated into a central or a superior council, while the superior councils of all the countries are represented in the council-general inParis. Thesociety does not confine its ministrations to direct material assistance, but in many places maintains nurseries,libraries,orphanages,schools, and employment bureaus, and strives everywhere to extend moral and religious aid and encouragement to those in need of these forms of charity. Owing to its religious spirit, its centralized organization, and its method of personal contact with the needy, theSt. Vincent de Paulsociety is, relatively to its resources, probably the most effective of all existing associations for the relief of distress.
Today the characteristic agencies ofCatholic charity are: institutions in charge ofreligious communities, asmonasteries,hospitals, reformatories, and asylums for homeless infants, ororphans, for the deaf, dumb, blind, aged, crippled and insane; theSociety of St. Vincent de Paul, and other associations of the same general character; and theparish, through the informal and unorganized, yet very important, work of theparochialclergy. In conformity with the regulations of theCouncil of Trent, all these are under the supreme direction of thebishop. Some statistics pertaining toFrance and theUnited States may be taken as fairly representative. In 1901 the number ofpersons assisted byCatholicsocieties in the former country was 107,400, or 83,000 children, 700 girls andwomen in refuges, 17,000 aged, and 6,700 insanepersons. The total number ofCatholic charitablesocieties exceeded 4000 (Henderson, Modern Methods of Charity, p. 527). In the preceding year the 1400 French conferences of theSt. Vincent de Paulsociety expended 440,000 dollars in relief work. According to theCatholic directory for 1908, there were in theUnited States 272orphan asylums with 42,597 inmates, and 1054 other charitable institutions. The Report of the Superior Council of New York for the year 1905 informs us that there were in theUnited States 443 conferences of theSt. Vincent de Paulsociety, whose combined membership was 7,423. During that year they assisted 19,193families and expended 233,698 dollars.
If the charitable work of theChurch since theReformation seems to compare unfavourably with her record before theMiddle Ages, and during the latter half of theMiddle Ages, and if in some places and times it seems to have lacked energy, foresight, vigilance, and progressiveness — these appearances are almost wholly explained by the obstacles that have confronted her during that period. The most serious hindrance was, of course, the confiscation of monastic and otherchurch properties from which the poor had been relieved. This occurred not merely in places where theReformation triumphed, but inCatholic countries also, as inFrance andSpain during the eighteenth century, and inItaly during the nineteenth. Civil legislation in general has likewise been frequently obnoxious. A great part of theChurch's energies both inCatholic and non-Catholic lands has been absorbed in defending the Faith. The policy of state support of the poor through taxation, which has everywhere been increasing its scope, has not only diminished the field ofCatholic charity, but has inflicted serious injury upon the spirit of charity among all classes. The trend of political economy, especially in its popularized forms, during the greater part of the nineteenth century, was strongly against charitable activity, on the ground that compulsory self-reliance would in practically all cases best develop strength of character and capacity for self-support (cf. Warner, American Charities, ch. i). Finally, the materialistic theory of life, according to which the supreme good is abundant and diversified satisfaction of the senses, has produced an immense increase of self-love and selfishness, and a profound diminution oflove ofGod and effectivelove of the neighbour. While these deplorable conditions have been most general amongpersons outside theChurch, they have seriously affected a large proportion of theCatholic populations everywhere. Surveying the whole historical field ofCatholic charity, we are justified in saying that, in proportion to her resources, theChurch met the various forms of distress of every age more adequately than any other agency or system; that her shortcomings in charitable activity were due to the nature of the peoples and civilizations, and to the political, social,economic, and religious conditions in which she worked; that the instances of heroic charity which stand to her credit surpass by an immeasurable distance all instances of that class outside her fold; that the individual gifts to charity which she has inspired are likewise supereminent; and that, had she been permitted to reorganize and develop her charities without the interference of theReformation, the amount of social distress, and of socialinjustice as well, would be much smaller than it is today.
Before theReformation all charities ere administered by theChurch; today most of them are under the control of the State. Nevertheless the field still open toCatholic charity is neither small nor likely to become smaller. The limitations and defects of public charity are well known; it is almost inevitably more mechanical and less sympathetic that private charity; it is more wasteful, not only because it is less carefully administered, but also on account of the readiness of manypersons to claim public relief as a right; and, inasmuch as it supplants appeals to the individualconscience by the imposition of a tax, it inflicts a mortal injury upon the spontaneity of charity and the sense of personal responsibility towards the unfortunate. The inferiority of state-administered charity, so far as outdoor relief is concerned, has received striking illustration in the achievements of Dr. Chalmers in Glasgow more than half a century ago, in the experiment of substitutingvoluntary for public relief in Whitechapel and Stepney, London, and in the policy of refusing public outdoor relief which prevails inBrooklyn and Philadelphia (cf. Bliss, encyclopedia, s.v. Chalmers; Mackay, The State and Charity, pp. 164 sq.; and Warner, American Charities, pp. 162 -176). The general principles underlying the whole problem of state charity would seem to be these: instead of assuring everyperson a living, the State ought so to regulateeconomic conditions that everyperson able to obtain a livelihood by labour should have that opportunity; that it should have charge of certain extreme forms of distress, such as virulent disease and insanity; and that in general it should co-operate withvoluntary charitable agencies, and stand ready to relieve all serious want which is not met by them. At any rate, students and workers in the field of charity seem to be practically unanimous in thebelief that the scope of private charity ought to be extended rather than restricted. In this fieldCatholic charity should occupy the foremost place, and do by far the largest and most effective work. The principles ofCatholic charity, concerning the ownership and use of goods, thetrue equality and brotherhood of men, spontaneity in giving, and the motives for giving, are supremely great. Especially is thistrue of the motives. The neighbour ought to be assisted out oflove ofGod. As the highest form of this is toloveGod for His own sake, so the highest form of fraternal charity is that which is motived by the thought that the neighbour is the creature, the image, the child ofGod, and the brother of Christ. Inasmuch as this motive points to a worth and sacredness in the individual which is higher than anything that he possesses when considered in himself, it is more effective and more comprehensive than the motive which is restricted tolove of the neighbour for his own sake. Many needyindividuals are in themselves repellent rather than sympathy-compelling. While the second form of fraternal charity forlove ofGod, namely to obtain the spiritual rewards whichGod has annexed to this form ofgoodworks, is lower than the first, it is entirely natural, entirely praiseworthy, and has the approval ofChrist Himself. This motive appeals to multitudes who would rarely be able to rise to the higher one, and is occasionally effective in the case of the least selfish. Warner declares that, "of all the churches the one that still induces the largest amount of giving in proportion to the means of those who give is nodoubt theRoman Catholic" (op. Cit., p. 316). To a large extent this fact is due to theChurch's practice of insisting upon both motives, and thus touching all the springs of charity inman's complex nature. At the same time it is a patent fact that large numbers of men andwomen devote themselves and their means to works of charity solely out oflove for the neighbour regarded in himself. This motive is likewise in harmony with the promptings ofhumannature. It is particularly effective in loftysouls who, lacking any positive religiousfaith, find in works of charity satisfaction of the desire to serve and worship something outside of themselves. While the number of suchpersons will in all probability be largely augmented in the near future, neither in numbers nor in achievements will they be worthy of comparison with those who come under the influence and the motives supplied byChristianity.
The second advantage possessed byCatholics in the work of charity lies in theirecclesiastical organization. Relief can be individualized by means of theparish, and centralized by means of thediocese. In many placesCatholics are, moreover, co-operating with non-Catholics through the charity organizationsocieties. This is entirely fitting, for two reasons: First, because the methods and purposes of what has come to be called organized charity — namely, investigation, attention to causes, specific treatment, self-help, record-keeping, and co-operation among the different charitable agencies in order to eliminate duplicated and misdirected effort — are entirely sound. Second, becauseCatholics have a prior claim upon these principles and practices. As noted above, the general principles were first formulated by thetheologian, Vives, in 1526, and received their first application about the same time in theCatholic cities of theNetherlands andGermany. They were developed and applied along the specific lines of present practice byFrédéric Ozanam in 1833 (cf.O'Meara, Life of Ozanam). The first non-Catholic to exemplify these modern methods was Chalmers in 1850, while the first charity organizationsociety did not come into existence until 1868 (cf. Warner, op. cit., pp. 377 — 392). True, these methods are liable to abuse: the work may become too formal, too mechanical, too much given to investigation, and the results may be waste of money, lack of sympathy, and unnecessary hardship to the deserving poor. Nevertheless time and experience seem, in most places, to have reduced these evils to the lowest proportions that can reasonably be expected in a human institution. In many localities it is desirable thatCatholic charitable agencies should make a fuller use of these methods, and in general become better organized and better systematized. Where theSt. Vincent de Paul Society lives up to the standard set by its founder in this matter, it is the most effective reliefsociety in existence. Some of the American conferences of the association have in recent years begun to employ paid agents with gratifying results. This is a wise feature, inasmuch asvoluntary workers cannot always be obtained in sufficient numbers who possess the time, ability, and experience essential to the largest achievement. Again,Catholic charity-workers will follow the best traditions ofCatholic charity by co-operating with the tendency, which is every day becoming stronger in the circles of organized charity, to attack the social causes of distress (cf. Proceedings of the Thirty-third National Conference of Charities and Correction, pp. 1 — 10). This is, of course, the wisest, most effective, most difficult, and, therefore, most meritorious form of charitable effort. In theMiddle Ages the social causes of poverty were much better controlled than at present, because theChurch had infused into all classes thedoctrine that social power carries with it social responsibility. Today the chief social causes of poverty are the worship of money, and the lack of social responsibility in those who possess social power, i.e.economic power. Only within theCatholic church can be found the principles, resources, organization, and authority through which these causes can be repressed.
Finally, the opportunities of private charity, the direct assistance ofindividuals byindividuals, are still and will continue to be large. This form of charity has always been encouraged by theChurch, and when wisely administered it has advantages which are not attainable by the organized form. It makes possible that exchange and the equalization between giver and receiver spoken of bySt. Paul, and promotes that mutual understanding and mutual sympathy which are especiallynecessary in our day, when the gulf separating those who have those who have not has become so wide and so ominous. Individual charity also increases vastly the total amount that passes from the more to the less fortunate, thereby producing a more equitable distribution of the earth's bounty than would take place if all cases of distress were referred to the already overburdened organization. Dr. Devine, who is one of the foremost authorities in the field of organized charity, speaks in the highest terms of rightly-administered individual charity, and declares that, "it is a question whether the unmeasured but certainly large amount of neighbourly assistance given in the tenement-houses of the city, precisely as in a New England village or in a frontier settlement, does not rank first of all among the means for the alleviation of distress" ("The Principles of Relief", p. 332, and the entire chapter). SeeALMS AND ALMSGIVING;HOSPITALS;POVERTY; ORPHANAGES;EDUCATION OF THE BLIND;HOMES;PROTECTORIES; PHILANTHROPY; MONASTERY.
BALUFFI, The Charity of the Church a Proof of Her Divinity, tr. GARGAN (Dublin, 1885), general and popular rather than definite and systematic; BOGLIE, ST. Vincent de Paul, tr. PARTRIDGE (London 1899); UHLHORN, Charity in the Ancient Church, tr. (New York, 1883), excellent except for some erroneous notions of doctrine; LECKY, History of European Morals (New York, 1880), II, iv; ASHLEY, English Economic History (New York and London, 1893), II, v; DOLLINGER, Gentile and Jew, tr. DARNELL (London, 1906), II; JANSSEN, History of the German People, tr. MITCHELL AND CHRISTIE (St. Louis, 1896-1900), I, II, III, IV; O'MEARA, Life of Ozanam (London, 1878); WARNER, American Charities (New York, 1894); DEVINE, The Principles of Relief (New York, 1905); MACKAY, The State and Charity (London and New York, 1898); HENDERSON, Modern Methods of Charity (New York, 1904), the best work in English on the subject with which it deals, and comparatively fair to Catholic charity; it contains an excellent bibliography; International congress of Charities at Chicago in 1893 (Baltimore and London, 1894); Proceedings of the National Conferences of Charities and Correction (Indianapolis, 1874 — 1907); Proceedings of the International Convention of the St. Vincent de Paul Society (St. Louis, 1905); The St. Vincent de Paul Quarterly (New York); Charities and the Commons (New York); PALGRAVE AND LALOR, Dictionaries of Political Economy; BLISS, Encyclopedia of social Reform, s. vv. Charity, Poverty, Pauperism, Poor Laws, Philanthropy; RATZINGER, Armenpflege (Freiburg, 1884), in all probability the best work on Catholic charity; it contains the fullest references to the sources; EHRLE, Beiträge zur Geschichte . . .der Armenpflege (Freiburg, 1881); UHLHORN, Christliche Liebesthätigkeit (Stuttgart, 1883-1890); EMMINGHAUS, Armenwesen . . . In europäischen Staaten (1870), tr. under title, Poor Relief in different Parts of Europe (London, 1873); this work was so inaccurate that it called forth the works of RATZINGER on the Catholic side and UHLHORN on the Protestant; STEIN, in Kirchenlex., s.v. Armenpflege; LALLEMAND, Historie de la charité (Paris, 1902); MONNIER, Histoire de l'assistance publique dans les temps anciens et modernes (1866); DE GERANDO, De la beinfaisance publique (1839); La grand eencyclopédie, s.v. Charité.
APA citation.Ryan, J.A.(1908).Charity and Charities. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03592a.htm
MLA citation.Ryan, John Augustine."Charity and Charities."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 3.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1908.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03592a.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Ted Rego.Dedicated to Mme. Nerina Lafrance and Mme. Yvette Téofilovic, Resto-Vie, Pierrefonds, Province of Quebec, Canada, for their devotion to charity.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.