Charity

CHARITY. - The third of the three theological virtues.

SUMMARY:

I. Theology of charity

II. History of charity

III. Iconography of charity.

I. THEOLOGY OF CHARITY

SUMMARY:

I. Nature of charity

II. Object of charity

III. Charity and the supreme precept

IV. Charity and Christian perfection

V. The increase of charity and progressive purification

VI. Charity and disinterestedness

VII. Charity and the other supernatural and natural virtues

VIII. The exercise of charity

IX. Selfishness, the perversion of charity.

I. NATURE OF CHARITY

In Christian thought charity is the highest of the three theological virtues, from which proceed the love of God and of neighbor. According to Revelation and the definitions of the Church, it is an infused virtue, specifically distinct from natural love of God, given at the moment of justification, never separated from sanctifying and habitual grace, which makes us adopted children of God. St. Paul says: “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us” (Rom. 5:5) and he extols it greatly in 1 Cor. 13:1–13: “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal... If I have not charity, I am nothing... and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” Indeed, without charity, which is inseparable from sanctifying grace, man is in a state of mortal sin; instead of loving God above all things, he loves himself most of all, his heart turned in the opposite direction to that of the heart of God. But when he receives sanctifying grace and charity, his sin is remitted, he becomes a son of God and a friend of God, acquiring within himself the seed of eternal life.

St. Paul goes on to show that charity inspires in the just man all the virtues while rendering them meritorious of eternal life: “Charity is patient, is kind; charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up, is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never falleth away... now there remain faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” Together with sanctifying grace it will endure eternally, while faith will give way to the immediate vision of the divine essence, and hope to the everlasting possession of God.

Various theologians, and especially St. Thomas, have studied deeply the nature of charity. As the latter explains (1a2ae, q. 26, aa. 1, 2, 3, 4), love is the inclination or propensity of the appetite toward a good in which it takes delight. When this love chooses a good by preferring it to another, it is called dilectio. With love of concupiscence or desire we seek a good, whether inferior or superior to ourselves. With love of benevolence we will the good of another as our own, and when this is mutual and demonstrated by a communion of thought, will, and action, it merits the name of friendship. When the good sought is of the highest worth, and the person for whom it is desired is most dear, the love of benevolence is called charity.

Theologians have therefore posed the question whether infused charity, of which Holy Scripture speaks, is not fundamentally the supernatural friendship between God and the just man, as well as among the adopted children of God. The affirmative answer is already contained in the Old Testament: Judg. 8:22; Wis. 7:27; Ps. 138:17 (according to the Septuagint and Vulgate); and above all in the declaration of Jesus: “You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doth. But I have called you friends; because all things whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to you... This is my commandment, that you love one another” (John 15:14–15). Indeed, it is only through charity that we are friends of God.

St. Thomas demonstrates (2a2ae, q. 23, a. 1) that in charity the three conditions of true friendship are realized. For this is indeed a love of benevolence, a mutual love of benevolence, and is founded upon a communion of life, a life shared by two. It presupposes mutual knowledge and a common life, at least spiritually, through the exchange of thoughts and intimate feelings.

It is precisely these three characteristics of true friendship that we find in charity, which unites us with God and with souls in him.

Even natural inclination, which persists in the depths of our will despite original sin, leads us to love above ourselves and above all things God, the author of our nature (1a, q. 60, a. 5). But this natural inclination, weakened by original sin, cannot without healing grace impel us to an effective love of God above all things (1a2ae, q. 109, a. 3).

Far above this natural inclination, we have received in Baptism sanctifying grace and charity, together with faith and hope. Now charity is precisely this mutual love of benevolence, which makes us will for God, the author of grace, the good that befits him, namely, his deep reign in souls, just as he wills our good for time and eternity. This is indeed a friendship founded upon a communion of life, since God has communicated to us a sharing in his intimate life by giving us his grace, the seed of eternal life. Through sanctifying grace, the root of infused charity, we are “born of God” (John 1:13), made like to God as children to a father. Now this life shared by two entails a permanent union, which is at times merely habitual, as, for example, during sleep, and at other times actual, that is, when we perform an act of love of God. Then there is truly a life shared by two (convivere), that is, a true friendship with God, which begins here on earth; there is the meeting of the paternal love of God for his child with the love of the child for the father, which enlivens him. This spiritual communion is the prelude to that of eternity.

Charity, even in its lowest degree, makes us love God more than ourselves and more than his gifts, with an effective love of esteem, because God is infinitely better than we and than any created gift; yet this effective love of esteem is not always felt, as, for example, in times of aridity; and in its beginning it does not yet have the intensity or fervor that it possesses in perfect men and above all in the blessed in heaven. Every Christian mother feels more keenly her love for her child than that which she has for God, whom she does not see; yet, if she is truly Christian, she loves with an effective love of esteem the Lord more than her own child. Therefore theologians usually distinguish between appreciative love and intensive love, the latter generally being greater toward those we see than toward those who are distant. The effective love of esteem, which persists even in great aridities of the senses, is therefore altogether the opposite of sentimentality, which is merely an affectation of love that one does not possess.

Charity is therefore the supernatural friendship with God, as well as with the children of God, not excluding sinners who are called to conversion and the blessedness of the just: though they do not possess charity, it is necessary to have it for them. Charity makes us ever desire more deeply the reign of God in souls. No science is needed for this love of God; it suffices to know by faith the Father in heaven.

Whoever ceases to love him, through any mortal sin, goes toward perdition. God says: “I love them that love me: and they that in the morning early watch for me, shall find me” (Prov. 8:17). And Jesus: “He that loveth me, not shall keep my word, and my Father shall love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him” (John 14:23). In defining charity as supernatural friendship, theology does not deduce a new truth, but explains a revealed truth and permits it to be more deeply understood.

II. OBJECT OF CHARITY

God is the first and principal object of charity, in accordance with the precept: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment” (Mt 22:37). One’s neighbour is the secondary object of charity: “And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (ibid.).

The theologians have asked: for what formal reason do we love with charity God known in a supernatural manner? The reason is that God is infinitely good in Himself, and therefore infinitely lovable. To love God for His benefits is not yet to love Him for Himself; yet this predisposes us and leads us to think that the benefactor is good in Himself, indeed infinitely better than His benefits.

Moreover, the love of God and that of one’s neighbour both derive from the same infused virtue, since the formal reason for which we love our neighbour with charity is likewise God, inasmuch as He loves the neighbour and calls him to the same beatitude to which we are called. It is through charity that we desire the neighbour to belong to God, to adhere to Him, and to glorify Him with us, both in time and in eternity. Indeed, we cannot love God without willing that He be loved and glorified.

Just as, in the natural order, one who loves a friend also loves, with the same love, the friend’s children—if not for their own sake, at least for the sake of their father, and bears with them for his sake—so too, in the supernatural order, while loving God, our common Father, we must love for His sake all His adopted children, as well as all those called to become such. It follows that we do not love our neighbour with supernatural charity when we love him for his natural qualities (Sum. Theol., 2a-2ae, q. 25, aa. 1, 4, 5, 8).

Fraternal charity is therefore nothing other than the extension and irradiation of the charity we owe to God. Hence it is the surest sign of the progress of the love of God within us. “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another” (Jn 13:35). In Acts 4:32 there is described the wonderful spectacle presented by the first Christians through mutual love: “the multitude of believers were of one heart and one soul; no one claimed anything as his own, but all things were held in common.” Indeed, the practice of fraternal charity is the thermometer of the interior life, that is, of the love of God, because it is visible precisely as it proceeds from the same theological virtue of the love of God. Through charity, therefore, we have for our neighbour not only a supernatural love, but also a theological one, since in him we love the Son of God.

III. CHARITY AND THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT

According to the greatest commandment we must love God above all things and more than ourselves, with an esteeming love which must be not merely affective but also effective. From this point of view the love of God is the opposite of spiritual sloth, called acedia, which is a bad sadness arising from the thought of God and from the work of sanctification; from it proceed mockery of sacred things, lukewarmness, negligence regarding the means of salvation and finally despair.

Theologians have asked themselves about the greatest commandment whether it obliges all Christians to strive for the perfection of charity.

Some, like Suárez (De statu perfectionis cap. 11, nn. 15-16), have thought that to observe even perfectly the greatest commandment of the love of God and of neighbour, there is no need of great charity. For these the perfection would not be the purpose of this commandment but would exceed it, while consisting in the fulfilment of certain counsels of charity which would be above the very first commandment. In this way the commandment would have a limit, which may seem true if we consider things superficially.

Nevertheless, after St Augustine, St Thomas (Sum. Theol., 2a-2ae, q. 184, a. 3, in corp. and ad 2ii), as well as St Francis de Sales (Traité de l'Amour de Dieu, I, III, cap. 1), Pius XI (enc. Studiorum ducem, 29 June 1923 for the 6th centenary of St Thomas; enc. Rerum omnium perturbationem, 26 Jan. 1923 for the 3rd centenary of St Francis de Sales), teach that all in general are obliged, of course not to be perfect, but to strive for the perfection of charity, each according to his own condition. “It would be wrong to imagine that the love of God and of neighbour is only up to a certain point the object of a precept, beyond which this love would become the object of a mere counsel. Not at all. The statement of the commandment is clear while showing what perfection is: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength, and with thy whole mind’” (St Thomas, ibid.). There is therefore no limit, because, according to the teaching of St Paul (1 Tim. 1:5), charity is the end of the commandment and of all the commandments. Now the end is not willed half-way, up to a certain point, and it is in this that it differs from the means, as Aristotle observed. The physician does not will the healing of the sick half-way; what is measured is the medicine, and never the health, which is willed without measure. It is therefore clear that perfection consists substantially in the precepts. Hence it is said in De perfectione iustitiae (attributed to St Augustine), cap. 8: “Why then would this perfection not be commanded to
CHARITY - The C. Drawing in pen in the so-called Book of Giusto. Giusto Padovano (14th cent.).

Why should this perfection not be commanded to man, even though we cannot possess it fully in this life?

According to the commandment, all of us must strive, whereas the three evangelical counsels are merely instruments or means to reach it more securely and more quickly; hence the counsels are subordinated to the supreme precept and not superior to II.
The best commentators on St Thomas Aquinas, together with Cajetan and Passerini, say that the perfection of charity is subject to the supreme precept, not as its matter [non ut materia], not as something to be immediately realized, but as its end [sed ut finis], but as an end toward which we must all strive, each according to his own condition. This is a general obligation. Religious and priests, moreover, have in this case a special obligation, the former by virtue of their vows, the latter by virtue of their ordination and priestly functions.

From this lofty doctrine two important consequences follow from a spiritual point of view. 1st. He who does not advance on the way of God necessarily falls back, since all have the duty to advance. 2nd. In view of the loftiness of the first precept, new actual graces are always offered to us to attain this end, because God does not command what is impossible. He loves us more than we think. We must therefore correspond to His love.

With varied words Jesus incessantly recalls in the Gospel the supreme precept, which dominates all other commandments as well as the counsels, namely the precept of the love of God and of neighbor: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength, and with thy whole mind: and thy neighbor as thyself” (Lk 10:27). This precept, which dominates the Decalogue, is far superior to the ideal of dominating strength of barbarian heroes, as well as to the ideal of speculative wisdom of the Greek philosophers, who did not sufficiently think of rectifying the will at its root, which can only be done through the love of God and of neighbor. Jesus taught this with His whole life and in all His teaching.

IV. CHARITY AND CHRISTIAN PERFECTION

St. Paul says: “Above all put on charity, which is the bond of perfection. Let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts, to which also you are called in one body, and be ye thankful” (Col. 3, 12).

Charity is “the bond of perfection” because it is the highest of the virtues and unites our soul with God; it will endure eternally, and already vivifies all the other virtues by rendering their acts meritorious and by directing them to their ultimate end, namely their proper object: God loved above all things. Hence St. Paul declares, I Cor. 13, 1: “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels… and if I have prophecy… and all faith so that I could remove mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing.” Indeed without charity the will of man turns away from God and is already in a state of mortal sin; if he dies in this state he is lost forever, even though he possessed the knowledge of angels. On the contrary, charity—which presupposes faith and hope—unites us with God and is accompanied by all the infused moral virtues and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5, 5).

In conformity with revealed principles, Christian perfection coincides in the main with charity: “Each being is perfect insofar as it attains its proper end, that is, its ultimate perfection. Now the ultimate end of human life is God, and it is charity that unites us to Him, according to the words of St. John: ‘He that abideth in charity abideth in God, and God in him’ (I John 4, 16). Therefore it is especially in charity that the perfection of the Christian life consists” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 184, a. 1). Infused faith and hope can subsist in a state of mortal sin.

The infused moral virtues, which rectify us with respect to the means to be employed in pursuing the ultimate end, presuppose charity, which confers rectitude with respect to that end. “Therefore perfection resides principally in the love of God and of neighbor, both objects of the two great precepts of the divine law; in an accidental manner it resides also in the counsels, insofar as these are means, that is, instruments of perfection” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 184, a. 3).

The Angelic Doctor observes, to explain this doctrine more fully, that on earth the love of God is more perfect than the knowledge of God, since through love the will tends toward the beloved object as it is in itself, whereas here below we cannot know God otherwise than by imposing on Him in some way the limits of our imperfect concepts (I, q. 82, a. 3). Our love of God, however, does not draw God down to us but rather draws us up to Him, so that we love in Him even what remains hidden from us (v. PARADISO).

V. THE GROWTH OF CHARITY AND PROGRESSIVE PURIFICATION

St Paul exhorts: “Grow in charity” (Eph. 4:15); “I pray that your charity may abound yet more and more” (Phil. 1:9); “the Lord make you to increase and abound in charity one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you” (1 Thess. 3:12). Charity must grow in us until death, for the Christian on earth is a wayfarer (viator) who journeys toward God with the “steps of love” (gressibus amoris, St Gregory the Great), ever increasing in love.

St Thomas likewise teaches (Epistle to the Hebrews, X, 25) that the Christian must hasten more swiftly toward God as he draws nearer to Him. Just as a stone falls faster the closer it comes to the earth that draws it, so souls in the state of grace must tend more swiftly toward God as they draw nearer to Him and are more strongly attracted by Him. This law of gravitation and acceleration is applied also to spirits. The later years of the saints indeed show a far swifter advance than their earlier years. From the spiritual standpoint there is for them no twilight, but an ever more rapid ascent until they enter heaven.

Charity does not grow in us by addition, like a heap of grain, but grows in intensity as a quality does, for example heat or light. It takes ever deeper root in our will, while by diminishing and eliminating selfishness it inclines our will more and more to tend toward God and to flee sin through ever more generous acts (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 24). The increase of charity is obtained through our merits, through prayer, and through the Sacraments.

It is not the meritorious acts, which proceed from charity, that increase it, since charity is not an acquired but an infused virtue, given by Baptism and restored by absolution to those who have lost II. Yet meritorious acts dispose us and make us worthy of the increase of charity granted by God: “God gives the growth” (1 Cor. 3:7). Prayer can likewise obtain this, and the Sacraments produce it ex opere operato, that is, by their own efficacy, applying to us the fruits of the passion of the divine Saviour. Chiefly does the Eucharistic Communion increase charity within us and, with it, the infused virtues and the seven gifts.

Finally, there are the passive purifications of which St John of the Cross speaks in The Dark Night, whose purpose is to free the infused virtues from any human alloy; more especially the passive purifications of the spirit aim strongly to bring into relief the proper object and formal motive of the three theological virtues above every secondary motive. Thus the passive purification of faith and hope brings into prominence the First Truth as revealer and the Almighty as helper. The passive purification of charity disposes the soul to love God alone for His own sake, above all His gifts, and to love the neighbour despite his lack of consideration and ingratitude. During this passive purification the soul is often

deprived of any spiritual consolation for months and years, though God becomes more intimately present within it and exercises a deeper action upon II. God seems to abandon it, as the Father seemed to abandon the soul of Jesus on the Cross. Yet precisely then the soul makes a great act of love for the single reason that God is infinitely better than any created gift, while He has loved us first, He who cannot command the impossible and never abandons us first. Following the example of His crucified Son, I must correspond to His love... St Teresa of Avila says: “The soul is like one suspended in mid-air, who cannot set foot on earth nor rise to heaven; it burns with thirst, and this thirst is of such a nature that no water on earth can quench it” (The Interior Castle, 6th dwelling, ch. 11).

At the end of this trial charity toward God and neighbour is purified of every alloy, as gold in the crucible is freed from its dross. The love of charity is thus not only purified but notably increased. The love of God and of souls then becomes ever more disinterested, pure, strong and irresistible: it explains the heroic deeds of the martyrs, the greatest works of the saints, which endure for centuries after their death and amid which they are ever more conformed to Christ in His hidden life, in His apostolic life, and in His life of suffering, before being conformed to Him in eternal life in glory.

Medieval theology explained and reinforced the traditional doctrine with its analysis of the formal motive of Christian charity and with the well-known distinction between love of benevolence and love of concupiscence. Even common sense conceives true love as a free gift of the lover to the beloved, as forgetfulness and self-sacrifice in favour of the beloved person; love ignores the “do ut des,” it makes the beloved not a means but an end. Hence arises the problem: if the supreme law of Christian morality is disinterested love, what moral value does Christianity ascribe to those feelings and actions of man that are motivated by fear of punishment or by the desire for personal advantage, whether eternal or temporal? The teaching of Jesus Christ and the Fathers already contained a solution to the problem, favouring the licitness and compatibility of interested motives with charity. Those who love their neighbour are promised the “reward” of the heavenly Father (Mt 5:46; 6:1, 4, 6, 18); Christ promises a hundredfold in this life and possession of eternal life to those who, for his sake, abandon all (Mt 10:29; Lk 18:29); he expressly inculcates in them the fear of Gehenna (Mt 5:29–30; 10:28); he urges them to reconcile with their adversary so as to avoid the summons of a lawsuit with the danger of imprisonment and severe reparation (Mt 5:25). The only interested motive condemned by Jesus Christ is that which makes earthly goods the sole and ultimate end of human action (Mt 6:1–6); that considers physical evil as the supreme evil to be feared (Mt 10:28; Lk 9:26).

Following in the footsteps of Christ’s thought, so too did that of the Church. In the eyes of the Fathers, the aforementioned categories of slaves and mercenaries are indeed imperfect, but not illicit, since fear of punishment and desire for reward dispose and lead man to love; once attained, this love does not suppress or exclude fear and interest, but infuses them with a new spirit.

Traditional Church doctrine has always acknowledged as licit and salutary the repentance of sins motivated solely by fear of eternal punishment (v. ATTRIZIONE) and has counted among the theological virtues, obligatory for every Christian, hope, that is, the desire for eternal happiness. The main deviations from this traditional doctrine of the Church were embodied in Baianism, Jansenism, and the semi-quietism of Fénelon. Baius and Jansenius made charity the unique and exclusive motive of every good action; they therefore considered any motive of human action other than pure charity as illicit and sinful; thus it was sinful and illicit to do good with the sole aim of eternal reward, and likewise sinful and illicit was attrition alone. Hence those who do not have perfect charity are deemed unworthy to receive Communion. The Church expressly condemned these doctrines (Denz-U, nn. 1300, 1303, 1305, 1313). Fénelon did not consider the fear of punishment and the desire for reward as immoral in themselves, but simply as incompatible with the state of perfect charity, which, in his view, is the exclusive and unique principle of the entire interior life and of every meritorious act. These theses too were condemned by the Church (Denz-U, nn. 1327, 1328, 1345, 1349).

The problem of the relationship between charity and self-interest fits into the broader problem of the relationship between charity and all other virtues, both supernatural and natural.

VII. CHARITY AND THE OTHER SUPERNATURAL AND NATURAL VIRTUES

In the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Fathers, it is clearly stated that charity is the supreme virtue, indispensably required for salvation; however, it is not always indicated with the same
CHARITY - Charity. Detail from the fresco by Giotto (1303-1305). Padua, Scrovegni Chapel.

The relationship between charity and the other virtues is not always clearly indicated in the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Fathers, despite the clarity with which it is stated that charity is the supreme virtue indispensably required for salvation. Is charity not only the highest virtue but perhaps the only true virtue demanded by Christian morality? Can there be a morally good act or virtue where charity does not reign? Or is there no middle ground between sin and charity? Does charity perhaps replace and render other virtues superfluous, or does it require them? Although the teaching of Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and the Fathers provided answers to all these questions, these answers were not always clear and explicit. The unsystematic, occasional, and fragmentary nature of their teaching could give rise to ambiguous and false interpretations. Many centuries would pass before Christian thought would fully illuminate these problems, dispelling doubts, misunderstandings, and errors.

A clear and precise exposition of traditional Christian doctrine on the relationship between charity and the other virtues is provided by St. Thomas Aquinas, and can be summarized in the following points. Charity is the highest ethical value because it enables man to possess the ultimate supernatural end (Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 66, a. 6; II-II, q. 23, a. 6). It is not, however, the only ethical value, for man can perform honest acts even without charity (ibid., I-II, q. 65, a. 2; q. 109, aa. 2, 4). Even the theological virtues of faith and hope can exist in a man separately from charity (ibid., I-II, q. 65, a. 4). Nevertheless, these ethical values, distinct from and separable from charity, are in themselves imperfect and relative; they are not sufficient in themselves to enable man to attain his ultimate end. Only through charity do they receive the value of means proportionate to the attainment of that end. In this sense, it can truly be said that there is no true virtue except where charity is present; not in the sense that where charity is absent there is always, in law and in fact, only sin. A man who lacks faith, and consequently charity, does not sin in every action (ibid., II-II, q. 10, a. 4). All ethical values distinct from charity stand to it as the tool in the hand that wields it, as the body to the soul that vivifies it, as matter to form (ibid., II-II, q. 23, a. 8). The function of these ethical values in relation to charity is twofold: one is to prepare the ground for charity, the other is to serve as a means, more or less necessary, for its exercise (ibid., I-II, q. 65, aa. 3, 5; q. 106, a. 1; q. 108, a. 1).

Can man, without charity, love God naturally above all things? St. Thomas’s thought on this point has been variously interpreted, and today’s theology is divided. From St. Thomas onward, extreme doctrines emerged that provoked the intervention of ecclesiastical authority to defend the aforementioned traditional positions. Some, such as the Beghards, deduced from the character of charity as the most perfect virtue inherent in charity that a man endowed with charity is not bound to exercise the other virtues or to observe human, civil, and ecclesiastical laws (Denz.-U., nn. 473, 476). Those who made charity the supreme and exclusive virtue, condemning as intrinsically sinful every human action not inspired by charity, were Baius, Jansenius, and Quesnel, echoed in Italy by the Synod of Pistoia. According to them, man either loves God and neighbor supernaturally or sins; there is no middle ground. Hence, natural love of God is impossible (Denz.-U., nn. 1034-38, 1297, 1394-1400, 1523-24); it is impossible to perform any good action without charity (Denz.-U., nn. 1390-96); it is impossible to separate faith and hope from charity (Denz.-U., nn. 1302, 1407); it is impossible to observe any law without the influence of charity (Denz.-U., nn. 1016).

All these theses were condemned by the Church as heretical, erroneous, and subversive of Christian morality.

The ethical values distinct from charity do not all have the same relationship to II. As St. Thomas rightly observes, some are necessary and indispensable means, by divine or natural law, for the acquisition or exercise of charity, such as the obligation to receive the sacraments, to believe, to practice justice, etc.; others, however, are more or less free and optional means, and are therefore left to the free determination of individuals or human authorities according to times and circumstances, such as ecclesiastical laws on festive rest, fasting, clerical celibacy, etc. (Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 108, aa. 1-2). Of all the moral problems concerning charity, the most pressing today is that of its relationship to justice. From the above principles regarding the relationship between charity and the other virtues, it follows that charity neither replaces nor absorbs justice, but presupposes and requires II. This means that one cannot give to another, as an act of charity, what is owed to him by right; it also means that there can be no true charity where rights are trampled upon, and that charity awakens above all a sense of strict justice and inspires its observance. On the other hand, charity cannot be entirely absorbed by justice: beyond ethical relationships circumscribed within the limits of strict right—where its violation gives rise to a claim—there are, and in fact exist, ethical relationships between men that are irreducible to the category of justice. For example, the offender has no right to forgiveness, the nuisance has no right to be tolerated; yet Christian morality obliges the offended to forgive and the troubled to be patient—obligations of charity, not of justice.

In conclusion: charity is not the sum of all virtues, but an autonomous virtue, distinct in its specific motive from all others. These, in turn, are not mere aspects or effects of charity, but ethical values autonomous in their own right, specifically distinct from charity by their formal motive. Charity and the other virtues are not, however, entirely independent of one another; they are intrinsically harmonized with each other in a hierarchical whole, in which charity figures as the supreme and absolutely autonomous element, while the other virtues appear as subordinate elements, moved and directed by charity.

Since Christian morality has charity as its inspiring principle, it takes on as its peculiar characteristics spontaneity, interiority, freedom, and heroism. It is of the essence of love not to be constrained but spontaneous: for one who acts out of the motive of Christian charity, the coercive force of the law becomes in a sense superfluous, and even the obligatory force of duty is transformed into a spontaneous impulse of the heart. The much-vaunted autonomy of Kant’s categorical imperative cannot compare with the autonomy of Christian love. Spontaneity is inseparable from interiority: not the external act in itself, but the good or bad disposition of the heart is the principal criterion that distinguishes men as good or bad in Christian morality. Spontaneity and interiority, thus conjoined, confer upon Christian morality a twofold freedom: moral freedom from every imposition that has no relation to the love of God and neighbor or is even contrary to it; and psychological freedom from every impulse or motive that constrains the will of the acting subject (cf. Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 108, a. 1, ad 2). Finally, love knows no measure, for it is not a means to perfection but perfection itself (ibid., II-II, q. 27, a. 6). Hence arises the heroic aspect of Christian morality, which, alongside duty, proposes counsel, and whose inspiring principle, love, impels man to total self-dedication both in fulfilling duty and in practicing counsel.

VIII. THE PRACTICE OF CHARITY

1. Charity toward God. It is exercised positively by acts of love of God, and negatively by combating contrary sentiments. Once man has reached the use of reason, he is not only bound to maintain a habitual state of friendship with God, but must also translate this into explicit or implicit acts. When, toward the end of the 17th century, the moral problem of the necessity of the actual love of God was expressly raised, some moralists of a very broad tendency believed they could affirm that man is never bound in his life to perform acts of charity or is bound to do so at most once in a lifetime; others, less broad in their outlook, narrowed the obligation down to a period of five years. Popes Innocent XI in 1679 and Alexander VIII in 1690 condemned as scandalous and practically harmful such assertions (Denz.-U., nn. 1101, 1155-57, 1289). Modern moralists declare that an explicit or implicit act of charity is obligatory at the threshold of moral life, in the face of death, in grave temptations directly threatening the love of God in itself, and with a certain frequency throughout life. Every chronological specification in this regard—some hold that an act of charity is obligatory every year, others every month, others every Sunday and feast day—is judged by eminent moralists, and rightly so, as superfluous and harmful: love is not measured by the dropper; and when it exists, the love of God spontaneously translates, even if indirectly, into acts of every good work performed by man with a right intention.

Among the sentiments directly contrary to the love of God, moralists especially point to hatred and sloth. Unfortunately, man is capable not only of indirectly hating God by committing any mortal sin, but also of hating Him directly, either denying His existence or His attributes. Proudhon’s phrase, “God, that is evil!”—considered objectively—is the expression of a direct hatred of God. Sloth is the nausea, felt and accepted, of God and of all that pertains to Him; it is an antipathy that disposes the heart to hatred of God or flows from it, just as sympathy for God disposes the heart to love of Him or results from II. One would be a victim of sloth, in the sense now defined, for example, if, though convinced of the truth of the Christian faith, he regretted having received this gift and envied the lot of the unbelievers.

2. Charity toward one’s neighbor. — a) Motive and extent. The love of neighbor is the necessary consequence of the love of God and could be defined as the love of God in the neighbor. Indeed, according to Christian doctrine, all men are destined to participate in a supernatural way in the being and happiness of God; they are living images of Him. This supernatural sharing in perfection constitutes the specific foundation of Christian love of neighbor. It does not exclude but rather presupposes and ennobles all other possible upright relations of love among men, such as family love, patriotism, friendship, etc. Since every living man belongs, actually or potentially, to the family of the children of God, Christian love extends to all men, indeed to all intelligent beings; only those who are definitively and irreparably separated from the supernatural society are excluded, namely, the damned. Even sinners, therefore, as long as they live on this earth, are the object of Christian love—not, of course, insofar as they are sinners, but insofar as they are men who can still recover lost grace. Christian love thus knows no racial or national barriers.

b) The order of charity. The universality of Christian love does not exclude inequalities and preferences. These can be derived from different points of view: first, from the importance of the good that must be willed and procured for one’s neighbor; second, from the more or less close degree of proximity; third, from the more or less grave need in which the neighbor may find himself. From the first point of view, the hierarchy of loves follows the hierarchy of goods: eternal and spiritual goods take precedence over material and temporal ones; hence one must will and procure for one’s neighbor first those, then these, in the sense that material beneficence must never be an end in itself, nor even hinder spiritual beneficence, but must implicitly or explicitly aim at the eternal good of one’s neighbor. From the same point of view, Christian love prefers those more endowed with spiritual goods to those less so. From the second point of view, the hierarchy of preferences in Christian love runs parallel to that of natural love, based especially on ties of blood: spouses, children, parents, blood relatives and in-laws; or on ties of common education, beneficence, or friendship. From the third point of view, precedence is given to those most in need, and among these to those in grave danger of eternal loss. When conditions are equal, the most urgent and serious needs are attended to first.

c) Love of enemies. The extension of love even to enemies is expressly commanded by Jesus Christ to His disciples both by word and example: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt 5:43-45). The supreme example of love toward enemies was given by Jesus Christ on the cross in forgiving His crucifiers. The motive for the love owed to enemies is indicated by Jesus Christ in the following words: “So that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven, for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (ibid.). Christ’s precept has always been considered obligatory for all Christians.

By “enemy” is meant one who harbors hatred in his heart toward his fellow man, or who has violated his rights, or who in any way maliciously opposes him. By virtue of the precept to love one’s enemy, hatred toward him and illicit vengeance are forbidden; forgiveness of offenses and prompt reconciliation are commanded instead.

Hatred of an enemy is understood as the deliberate aversion to the person himself and to his goods; it belongs to hatred to wish to destroy and to cause suffering. Hence, not every spontaneous and deliberate antipathy toward him is hatred of an enemy; still less is aversion of the soul toward his bad qualities, defects, and faults—all of which, subject to certain other norms of charity, can and must be detested in him. It is, however, the fruit and sign of hatred, for example, to wish eternal damnation, death, illness, poverty, or infamy upon one’s neighbor; or to take pleasure when he is struck by these evils. As for bodily evils, it must be observed that they can be desired or rejoiced in insofar as a greater good may result or has resulted from them. Not every form of vengeance is forbidden by charity toward one’s neighbor, but only that which seeks the evil of the offender rather than his correction and the reparation of the justice that has been violated, with possible compensation for damages suffered.

The forgiveness of offenses committed by one’s neighbor was inculcated by Christ as an indispensable condition for obtaining from God the forgiveness of our own sins: “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”; the parable of the servant, who was forgiven by his master an enormous debt of ten thousand talents yet proved so exacting toward his fellow servant who owed him a mere hundred denarii, closes with this warning: “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart” (Mt 18:21-33). A refusal to forgive would be betrayed by withholding from the offender the ordinary signs by which, according to the times, circumstances, places, and customs, people express feelings of friendship, affection, or goodwill toward one another, such as a greeting. A reserved or aloof attitude toward the offender may, however, be permissible in certain cases as a means inspired by charity itself for the purpose of correcting the offender. Reconciliation with one’s neighbor is enjoined by Jesus Christ as a duty even more stringent than that of external religious worship: “If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift” (Mt 5:23-24). The duty of initiating reconciliation falls first and foremost upon the offender; if the offense was mutual, the initiative devolves upon the primary or more serious offender.

d) The works of charity. The duties of charity are those that do not fall within the sphere of strict justice, since their fulfillment cannot be claimed in virtue of a corresponding true right. Christian tradition has summarized the duties and works of charity into two groups of seven each: the seven corporal works of mercy and the seven spiritual works of mercy (v. MISERICORDIA). The traditional list draws partly from the very words of Jesus Christ (Mt 25:35-45), partly from the Old Testament and the writings of the Apostles. All the corporal works of mercy may be summed up in the duty of almsgiving. Among the spiritual works of mercy, fraternal correction is especially noteworthy.

e) The vices opposed to charity. Although every sin and vice is incompatible with charity, there are nevertheless feelings and sinful actions that are directly contrary to II. The first of these is hatred of neighbor, which has already been discussed above. Following the order established by St. Thomas (Sum. Theol., 2a-2ae, qq. 36-43), the others are envy, discord, contention, schism, war, strife, sedition, scandal, and cooperation in evil.

3. Love of self

The man who loves his neighbor because he is a living, natural, and supernatural image of God cannot fail to remember that he too is a creature and a child of God; with this affectionate esteem for himself begins Christian self-love. In Christian love, the self is not the ultimate and absolute end toward which love tends, but a means for the love of God. The first effect of this love is to induce man to attain in himself the most perfect likeness to God by acquiring and increasing sanctifying grace, fleeing from sin, and exercising the virtues.

Since repression of the lower appetites, corrupted by original sin, is necessary for this purpose, a certain self-renunciation and self-hatred form part of Christian self-love, which is expressed above all in the mortification of the flesh. Within this framework, the following paradoxical sayings of Christ reveal their profound meaning: “He who would save his life [i.e., who loves himself] will lose it; but he who loses his life [i.e., who hates himself] for my sake will find it” (Mt 10:39; 16:24-25). More explicitly still in Lk 14:26: “If any one comes to me and does not hate… even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”

Subordinate to the supreme good of supernatural likeness to God, which is prepared here below by a holy life and consummated in eternity by the beatific vision, man may and must love the values of this present life, whether material—such as life, health, and sensible joys—or spiritual—such as knowledge, art, and honor.

IX. SELFISHNESS, THE PERVERSON OF CHARITY

The true and proper enemy of Christian charity is not hatred, but selfishness, that is, love torn from its proper order. The fundamental disorder of selfishness consists in this: that man loves himself as the supreme and absolute good, subordinating everything else to this love as a means. Disordered self-love is the radical sin, of which all individual vices and sins are partial and diverse manifestations. St Augustine perceived in charity and selfishness the two antithetical forces that ultimately determine the tangled web of human history, which he summarises synthetically in these words: «Two loves have created two races of men: love of self, carried even to the contempt of God, has begotten the earthly race; love of God, carried even to the contempt of self, has begotten the heavenly race» (De civitate Dei, XIV, 28).

II. HISTORY OF CHARITY

SUMMARY:

I. In Christian antiquity

II. In the Middle Ages

III. In the modern age.

I. IN EARLY CHRISTIAN ANTIQUITY

4. Apostolic Age

The Christian concept of love of neighbour is based exclusively on the teaching of Jesus Christ, whose doctrine presents a new character in comparison with other conceptions of the ancient world. The Old Testament insisted on love of neighbour; yet on the lips of Jesus it sounded like a new commandment (Jn 13:34). For the Jews,

neighbour was a privileged category, opposed to another, that of enemies, whom every Israelite felt justified in hating, since they were at the same time enemies of God (Mt 5:43). It is true that after the decline of the Greek cities, the conquests of Alexander the Great and the influence of Stoic philosophy, a broader concept of human solidarity had gained ground and the world was viewed as a city of men. In reality, however, this doctrine had been set aside by wars and slavery. Jesus was the first to illustrate the Law and the Prophets in this sense and to bring them to perfection. Above all, he was the first to give life to a speculative principle that had remained a dead letter until the love of neighbour was linked by him — and this is the principal originality of his teaching — to the love of God, the true hearth and supreme motive of charity.

The law of Christian love broke down the barriers of religious or national particularism; since all are one in Christ, there is no longer Greek or barbarian, slave or free man (Gal 3:28).

From the very beginning, the two precepts of love of God and of neighbour became the fundamental charter of Christianity. St John delights in fusing them into a single commandment (1 Jn 4:20-21), while St Paul sums up the entire substance of the Christian law in the second precept (Gal 5:14; 6:2; Rom 13:8).

This conception of human brotherhood inaugurated by Christ could not fail to have wide repercussions in the thought and actions of the Apostles. St Paul often returns to it in his catechesis: he insists on the equality of slave and master (Philem 16); the abundance of those who possess must supply the indigence of the poor (2 Cor 8:12). Charity, however, must be exercised in the spirit of Christ, who, though rich, became poor for man’s sake; therefore it must be done not under compulsion but freely, since God loves a cheerful giver (2 Cor 9:7). St James also insists on this practical side of active charity, for whom true religion in the sight of God consists not only in keeping oneself unstained from the world, but in visiting orphans and widows in their affliction (Jas 1:27). The principles of the Redeemer, faithfully guarded by the Apostles, soon passed into the practice of daily life of the early Christian community, both in Jerusalem and Corinth, in Rome as in Asia Minor.

In Jerusalem from the very beginning there was constituted the voluntary community of the sharing of goods, intended to support the Apostles engaged in preaching the good news and the poor of the nascent Church (Acts 2:44 ff.; 4:32 ff.).

As soon as the work of material assistance began to hinder their spiritual mission, the Apostles elected seven deacons to serve at table and provide for the needs of widows (Acts 6:1-6). Thus the charitable function of the Church became specialized, while remaining always under the direct supervision of the shepherds of the community. The very fact of the election of deacons proves the great importance assumed in the life of the Church by the ministry to the poor. This concern was not confined only to the needy of one’s own community, but extended also to distant communities. Thus, during a famine, the Church of Jerusalem was assisted by the Christians of Antioch and by other churches of the Gentiles (Acts 11:29; Gal 2:10). The form of assistance particularly in vogue at that time was that of gifts in kind. But the use of such gifts was not made by dividing them into equal parts among the poor; a good portion was reserved for the common meals, for which a public assistance order was soon constituted in the creation of the deacons. Hence the origin of the so-called agapai, concerning which discussions are still not closed. Public assistance through the deacons was naturally supplemented by the exercise of private charity, since the precept of love of neighbour is individual. St Paul forbade the admission, for the ministry of public assistance to the poor, of widows neglectful of their duties towards their dependents and of hospitality towards the poor and wayfarers (1 Tim 5:4 ff.). The individual is bound to assist indigent members of his own family (1 Tim 5:8), indigent members of his own or other communities, and finally non-Christians (Gal 6:10). A moving picture of private charity in the early Christian community is offered by the account in the Acts concerning Tabitha (Acts 9:36).

5. Period of persecutions

How vividly this teaching remained in the spirit of the Christian generations that followed the apostolic age is revealed by the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, in which the theme of charity is developed in various forms.

“Do not be surprised if a man can become an imitator of God,” writes the author of the Letter to Diognetus — “he who takes upon his shoulders the burden of his neighbour, and seeks in those things in which he is superior to benefit the inferior, who by providing for the needy with the things received from God is to the beneficiaries as a god, he is an imitator of God. Then, though you are on earth, you will be granted to see that God reigns in heaven” (ch. 10). And St Justin in his Apology to Emperor Hadrian: “We who once loved more than anything else the means of acquiring wealth and fortune, now share in common even those things that we have and distribute to every needy person; we who used to hate and kill one another and did not share in common with those of another family, now, after the coming of Christ, live in common and pray for our enemies, and we try to persuade those who unjustly hate us to live according to the fine commandments of God, so that they may be filled with hope of obtaining the same goods together with us from God, Lord of all things” (Apol. 1, 14).

The best picture of the practice of charity is offered by the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, and the Apostolic Constitutions. The former gives precious indications and prescriptions for bishops considered as fathers of the poor (cf. chs. 1, 3 and 4); the latter insists on the same motives, partly accentuating them, partly enlarging them (cf. chs. 1, 2, 4, and especially 8 where are contained the most ancient documents of the liturgy, the prayers for the sick and the needy).

From the whole, it follows that individual faithful have a duty to care for their neighbours, especially the poor, for whom the following rules apply: 1) bishops and deacons dependent on them are to care for the poor. It is the duty of the deacons to diligently inquire into the sufferings of those in need; they must bring these to the attention of the people, and if these are unaware of their infirmities, they must visit them and provide for their necessities, also informing the bishop of what they have given them. 2) Such aid given to the poor has the character of a sacrifice upon the altar of Christ, because it is connected with divine service. Thus honest poverty is freed from all shame. 3) Bishops, as dispensers of the Lord’s goods, must distribute them wisely, each according to their needs; first to widows and orphans, then to the abandoned and all who are in indigence. 4) Abuses of charity must be prevented by a serious inquiry and by requiring newcomers to present letters of recommendation; in doubtful cases the bishop decides. 5) Those who are able to work must be given steady employment. Orphans are to be entrusted to Christian families that will take care of their upbringing; poor children, instead, are to be placed under the care of a craftsman who will teach them a trade. 6) Charity is something sacred, and therefore sinners must not take part in II.

Let no one think to substitute penance for his own sins with monetary offerings. 7) Those assisted must pray for their benefactors.

The position of the bishop, whom St Paul wishes to be liberal and disinterested toward orphans, widows, and the afflicted (1 Tim. 3:2 ff.), appears prominent in charitable provisions, especially in the writings of St Ignatius of Antioch, who calls him the providence of widows (Ad Polycarp., 4). As such, offerings for the poor are entrusted to him, of which he disposes, rendering account to God alone (Constit. Apost., I, 1; II, 25, 26, 57). Deacons ordained solely for the ministry of C. are the assistants, the echo of the bishop’s voice, acting under his authority (Constit. Apost., II, 29–33). Widows who have contracted only one union, or virgins of prudent conduct, though of advanced age, may occupy themselves, under the direction of the deacons, with persons of their own sex; these are the deaconesses (v. COSTITUZIONI APOSTOLICHE). What occurred in Jerusalem was also practiced, more or less, in other churches of Christendom.

The Church came to the aid of the needy: 1) through offerings in kind (oblata), presented by the faithful during the Offertory of the Mass on Sunday. Every attendant, writes St Justin, participates in “the distribution of the consecrated things and sends them through the deacons even to those not present. The rich, indeed, and those who wish, each according to his means, give what he wills, and what is collected is deposited with the head [i.e., the bishop]; and he succors orphans and widows, and those in need through sickness or other cause, those in prison, and strangers, and without exception cares for all” (Apol. I, 67); 2) through free periodic offerings to which the faithful bound themselves: “Modicam unusquisque stipem menstrua die vel cum velit...,” wrote Tertullian (Apologeticum, 39). The measure of such offerings was in no case determined, and all went into the common chest (arca communis), whose administration was the responsibility of the bishop. 3) There were also extraordinary revenues from large donations in money or property, made by the faithful on the occasion of their baptism or as death approached. Tertullian reports (De praescript. haer., cap. 30 and Adv. Marcionem, IV, 4) that Marcion, on the occasion of his baptism in Rome, donated to the Church two hundred thousand sesterces, which were later returned to him when he separated from its communion. 4) Moreover, there was the product of tithes, firstfruits for the maintenance of the clergy (Const. Apost., V, 20), and extraordinary collections made in times of great necessity (cf. Cyprian, Epist., 60; PL 4, 359 ff.). 5) Fasting also provided the Church with notable resources for the exercise of C. It was indeed a common doctrine among the Fathers that fasting had no value for salvation unless accompanied by almsgiving equal to the ration of food from which one abstained by fasting (cf. Shepherd of Hermas, 5:3; Origen, Hom. X in Lev.; St John Chrysostom, Sermo de Ieiun.; St Augustine, Sermo 208 in quadrag.).

If the offerings were not immediately distributed among the poor—as happened in times of persecution to shield them from the rigor of the tax authorities—they were gathered into a common fund, which enabled the Church to meet the exigencies of daily life. First, care was taken of confessors of the faith languishing in prisons or condemned to the mines, then of widows and orphans, especially if they were children of martyrs, and then of the aged and the sick in general. To maintain good order and avoid abuses, the system of matriculation was employed, which the deacons kept up to date. Thus in Rome, at the time of Pope Cornelius, the poor registered and maintained by the Church numbered fifteen hundred (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccles., VI, 34).

Naturally, public charity did not preclude private charity. How extensive and heartfelt this was is proven by the passage of Aristides (ch. 15) in his Apology to Emperor Hadrian, which allows us to glimpse the vast field of this activity. From hints in Tertullian (cf. De cultu femin., II, 11 and especially Ad Uxorem, II, 4) one can also see the importance attached to hospitality toward brothers in the faith. In times of persecution this had to be practiced even at personal risk (Const. Apost., V, 3; VIII, 45), and one of the functions of the deacons was to inform the bishop of the arrival of foreign brothers so as not to leave them isolated in the midst of idolatrous crowds, often hostile.

But the spirit of dedication had scope to manifest itself in exceptional circumstances, as, for example, in cases of epidemic. Carthage was struck in 252, and Bishop Cyprian drew a very grim picture of it in his De mortalitate (ch. 14: PL 4, 591–93). While others fled, Cyprian gathered his flock and reminded them of the duty of the hour. In response to his appeal, admirable measures were taken, but he himself was the first to set the example of what a father can do (cf. Vita Cypriani: PL 3, 1489 ff.). The same occurred a few years later in Alexandria, during a typhus epidemic that broke out in 268. Priests, deacons, and simple laity exerted themselves; many of them perished in the exercise of C. (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccles., VII, 22).

The duty of visiting confessors confined in prisons, so insistently inculcated by the Constit. Apost. (VII, 1–3) and so vivid in the pastoral concerns of St Cyprian (cf. Epist., 37: PL 4, 326 ff.), obliged especially the deacons to resort to every device to elude the surveillance of the police and to make contact with prisoners, to whom they brought necessary aid after mollifying the prison guards with money. Well-known are the examples of the deacons Tertius and Pomponius in Africa and the C. exercised toward the martyrs Perpetua and Felicity (cf. Passio, in O. Gebhardt, Acta martyrum selecta, Berlin 1902, p. 66). Deacons and acolytes were also charged with this mission toward those condemned to the mines (St Cyprian, Epist., 78: PL 4, 433–34), and the Church of Rome distinguished itself in these merits with its subsidies to the martyrs of Egypt and Asia (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl., IV, 23) even in the time of Pope Soter.

The crisis in which the empire was already struggling allowed barbarian tribes to make incursions into the frontier region; often Christians fell captive to pirates, who dragged them away after devastating their territory. Such was the case in Numidia in 253. St Cyprian collected a sum of one hundred thousand sesterces, the fruit of a collection in the Church of Carthage, and sent it to the bishops of Numidia, accompanying the gift with an incomparable letter that is an exaltation of active C. (cf. Epist., 60: PL 4, 359).

To this, which might be called C. in exceptional circumstances, must be added that sum of daily services in favor of all forms of indigence, in which not only authorized representatives but simple faithful visited the sick at home, and pious women went from one quarter to another in search of the filthiest hovels, where there was room only for C. (cf. Tertullian, Ad uxorem, II, 4).

3. C. in the Free Church. - The edict of tolerance, by granting the Church freedom, gave it the possibility of organizing C. more suitably to its development. The freedom of worship was followed by the Church’s juridical capacity to possess; it in fact recovered all the goods confiscated by Diocletian (cf. Lactantius, De morte persecutorum, 48).

The position of the bishops was now strengthened; the Christian emperors, recognizing their obligation to succor the poor, entrusted this duty to the shepherds of the Church and their representatives (cf. Corpus Iuris Civilis, Codex Iustinian., I, 2-3). Constantine himself had already entrusted the bishops with the administration of the customary grain dole for orphans and widows, which, after Julian’s interruption, was partially reinstated by Jovian (Theodoret, Hist. eccl., I, 10; IV, 4). Later, bishops were also charged with visiting prisoners.

From this time onward, councils, which could assemble freely, frequently reminded bishops of their duties toward the poor, a task admirably fulfilled by all the great bishops of the post-Constantinian era. What Saint Cyprian had accomplished during the persecution, Saint Basil, for example, did under freedom: in his homilies he made the distress of others his own and called the rich to the duties of the Gospel (cf. PG 31, 277 ff.). During a famine he saved his people from hunger for an entire year and erected at the gates of Caesarea the Basileias, the oldest known hospital, which was still spoken of with wonder seventy years later (cf. Sozomen, Hist. eccl., VI, 34).

His emulators included Saint John Chrysostom, who did not content himself with words to urge the wealthy to do good but organized aid for the poor by mobilizing the aristocracy of the Byzantine capital, where he found noble souls who followed him generously, such as Olympia, wife of the former prefect Nebridius, Petadia, Procula, Nicarete, and others (cf. on this point Ch. Baur, Johannes Chrisostomus und seine Zeit, I, Munich 1929, pp. 130 ff., 303 ff.; II, ibid. 1930, pp. 55, 73).

Numerous other testimonies prove that the average bishop was always absorbed by this concern. Among others, one may recall the examples set by Epiphanius of Pavia, Acacius of Amida, Atticus of Constantinople, Saint Martin of Tours, Saint Aignan of Orléans, Saint Caesarius of Arles, Maximus of Turin, and Nicerius of Lyons. The bishops did not merely concern themselves with distributing food and clothing but also sought to mitigate the rigor of laws, the harshness of state officials; they intervened with tax collectors and pleaded on behalf of the poor, ever striving to defend them from the rapacity of usurers. Several mitigations in civil legislation, such as, for example, the abolition of torture for debtors, were owed at least indirectly to the Church’s intervention. For the defense of the poor’s rights, procuratores pauperum were appointed, and, more importantly, bishops were constituted official defenders whose protests judges were bound to heed (cf. S. Mochi Onory, Vescovi e città, Bologna 1933, pp. 25 ff., 55 ff.).

Of great significance also was the right of asylum, recognized by the state from Constantine onward and extended to church buildings.

Open proof of the immense influence exercised by charity in the social life of the time is found in a declaration of the Emperor Julian the Apostate in 362 to the high priest Arsacius: “Why do we not turn our gaze to the institutions to which the impious religion of the Christians owes its growth, to their care for strangers?... Therefore let many xenodochia be built in every city. I have ordered that throughout Galatia 300 modii of grain and 60,000 sextarii of wine be distributed. One-fifth shall belong to the priests... and the rest shall go to strangers and beggars. It is a disgrace for us that among the Jews no one begs, and that the impious Galileans support not only their own poor but also ours...” (Sozomen, Hist. eccl., V, 16). Thus by the mid-fourth century, xenodochia must have held particular importance in social life, since Julian drew the attention of a pagan high priest to them.

But these institutions developed even further in the following decades, and even today the already mentioned Basileias, a hospital and hospice combined founded by Saint Basil at Caesarea amid enormous difficulties (cf. Epist., 94: PG 32, 485; cf. also the funeral oration of Saint Basil delivered by Gregory Nazianzen: PG 36, 578–79), the hospice for the poor at Ostia founded by Pammachius, and the hospital in Rome founded by Fabiola, extolled by Saint Jerome (Epist., 77, to Oceanus, 6: PL 22, 694), are remembered; likewise the hospice at Autun founded by Childebert, the hospice for the elderly in Rome founded by Pelagius II (577), and the one on Mount Sinai erected by Isaurus (Saint Gregory, Registrum epist., XI, 6, in MGH, Epistolae, II, p. 261). All these hospices were regarded as church property, with a legal existence of their own recognized by the law, whose administration and founding were likewise in the hands of the bishops (Cod. Iustin., I, tit. II, 19; tit. III, 35, 49; tit. VIII and XLIV, 36, 3), a characteristic feature of the charitable movement from the fourth to the eighth century. Their importance was to prove decisive especially in the Middle Ages.

These grand manifestations of public beneficence did not exhaust the exercise of private charity, for eloquent evidence of which is found in funerary inscriptions. Charity was held in honor among the representatives of the ancient high nobility, and Ammianus Marcellinus highlights that of the consul Lampadius, who in 367 celebrated his entry into office with lavish distributions in favor of the poor (Ammianus Marcellinus, XXVII, 3.5). Likewise, the prefect of Constantinople Nebridius distributed his annual revenues to the poor, an act praised by Saint Jerome (cf. Ep., 85). After his death, his wife Olympia devoted her life exclusively to charity. Saint John Chrysostom received substantial support from her for his apostolate among the poor.

Hospitality to strangers, care for abandoned sick and shamefaced poor were ministries willingly practiced by noble families, and even by the imperial family itself (cf. Eusebius, Vita Constantini, I, 43; II, 13; III, 44; IV, 2). Placilla, wife of Theodosius the Great, personally tended the maimed and the weak, visited the hovels of the poor, founded monasteries and xenodochia, and at her death left her possessions to the poor (cf. Theodoret, Hist. eccl., V, 18). Saint Jerome noted the spirit of sacrifice among the noble Roman women, reared in great affluence, and in particular the example of the senator Pannachius and his wife Paulina, who died in 396. “The precious stones that once adorned her neck now served to feed the poor” (Ep., 66; PL 22, 641). “If your senators [or Rome]—wrote Paulinus of Nola (Ep., 13, ad Pann., 15; PL 61, 216)—give no other spectacles than these of beneficence and charity, then you may rejoice in going unscathed [from the blows that threaten you].” Moreover, Paulinus himself, already bishop from 400, had built, attached to his episcopal residence, a series of cellae hospitales (Ep., 29, ad Severum; PL 61, 329) and distributed his goods little by little ut facilius pauperes aleret (cf. Vita; PL 61, 31 ff.).

Of the merits of Paulina, daughter of Paula, Saint Jerome says that no poor person died without having been clothed in her garments, no sick person without having been cared for at her expense (cf. Ep., 108). Particularly warm is the tone with which he recalls a scion of the Papii: Fabiola (d. 400; Ep., 77; PL 22, 690), who, after founding a hospital, wished to serve the poor herself. Even more eloquent is the example set by relatives of Paulinus of Nola, Melania and her husband Pinian, who renounced their immense fortune, valued in pre-war currency at over 100 million francs, to succor the needs of the poor. Paulinus of Nola called the former a manly Christian (Ep., 29; CSEL, XXIX, 251; cf. M. Rampolla, S. Melania Giuniore, Rome 1905).

4. The ancient Popes and charity — In Rome the exercise of charity always held a preeminent place thanks to the vigilant activity of the Popes, who, as the patrimony of Peter grew, expanded their care for persecuted churches to an apex under Gregory the Great, leaving an unforgettable mark on history. How the overall charitable assistance functioned is described by Eusebius, who, referring to the time of Pope Cornelius (c. 250), mentions 150 members of the clergy and 1,500 poor who were the objects of the Church of Rome’s care (Hist. eccl., VI, 43, 11). Also noteworthy is what Dionysius of Corinth wrote around 170 to the community of Rome (Hist. eccl., IV, 23).

The Romans remained faithful to these traditions in later times, especially after the conquest of freedom, which allowed the Church to take into its hands, along with the entire system of state distributions to the needy, the official care of them. Thus the squares and porticoes of the ancient frumentatio became designated places for the distribution of the Pope’s alms (cf. H. Grisar, Roma alla fine del mondo antico, I, 2nd ed., Rome 1930, pp. 344–345). The Pope, as father of the poor, comes before us in the persons of Leo the Great and Pope Gelasius. Of Symmachus, the Liber Pontificalis (I, p. 263) records the founding of three houses for the poor; Pelagius I took care that the patrimony of the Church should always be in a condition to aid the needy (cf. Jaffé-Wattenbach, 684–685), while his successor transformed his own house into an almshouse (Liber Pontificalis, I, p. 306).

At this time the patrimony of the Church had reached great extent. An orderly administration was undertaken by Gregory the Great, whose letters provide important details in this regard. In them the habitual theme is that the patrimony must serve the poor (utilitates pauperum). The word pauperes recurs continually in Gregory’s register, and he not only exhorted others but was himself the first to set an example of a virtue rarely practiced to the degree in which he lived II.

II. IN THE MIDDLE AGES

After the pontificate of St. Gregory I, the first major event important for the history of charity was the crisis encountered under the last Merovingians in France. The situation became particularly grave under Charles Martel, who, in order to secure vassals, forced churches to cede their goods, which were then constituted as lay benefices and thus squandered.

Following the example of the sovereign, the vassals trafficked in ecclesiastical goods, no longer caring about the bishop who was their trustee. With the impoverishment of the churches and the general demoralization of the clergy that followed, the poor were forgotten and the charitable institutions of the preceding age in part disappeared, in part were applied to other uses. The monasteries, which in the early period of Merovingian rule had fulfilled their task well, ultimately suffered from the general disorder caused by secularization.

One of the tasks of the apostle of Germany, St. Boniface, was precisely to bring improvements in this field; he succeeded in obtaining recognition of the Church’s ultimate ownership of these goods and in securing for it an annual census from those who held them (Synod of Lestines, 745). However, after the retirement of Carloman, the work of the mid-8th-century councils was rendered vain; Pepin, left alone, changed his policy, and ecclesiastical goods were again secularized. Such a policy was also followed by Charlemagne, his successor, who believed he could dispose of Church goods with complete freedom. Yet he knew how to curb abuses, and through wise legislation, far from harming it, allowed the work of the Church in favor of the weak and destitute to expand ever more, setting an example of social activity hitherto unseen. In practice, he showed that he did not take lightly what he had promised in a capitulary, namely, to be the protector and refuge of the weak (cf. MGH, Capitularia Regum Franc., I, 93).

Although economic vicissitudes had greatly restricted the Church’s ability to intervene on behalf of the poor, it nevertheless continued—and often admirably—this work, encouraged by Charlemagne.

Charity was exercised not only in the ancient xenodochia and hospices that had survived intact in the old Italian cities and the episcopal sees of western France, but above all by adapting to rural customs. Churches and monasteries distributed aid to the poor according to their material means; thus the monastery of St. Riquier gave alms daily to 300 poor and 150 widows. The great abbeys generally had a refuge for strangers and often also a hospital. Here and there, leper hospitals were also found in secluded places: the abbey of St. Gall, for example, had one. Nor were refuges lacking in places of difficult access, such as that of the church of Chur on the Septimer. Charlemagne closely followed such social works, and numerous ordinances of his were intended to promote, or to suggest prudent measures, or to correct abuses.

The capitulary of Nijmegen (806) contains important decisions against begging and fixes the duties of lords toward the poor on their estates. It ordered those who, through previous secularizations, had inherited xenodochia to maintain and administer them according to the intentions of their founders (cf. Capit. 46, 9 in MGH, Capit. Reg. Franc., I, 132). In a similar manner, numerous synods of the time expressed themselves: that of Reisbach (800) insists on almsgiving to the poor four times a year, public almsgiving, from which every thought of vainglory must be excluded (can. 4); tithes must be divided into four parts, one of which is to be destined for the poor (can. 13); widows, the blind, orphans, and the paralyzed must be aided, according to the expressed will of the king (MGH, Concilia Karolini Aevi, can. 14). The same prescriptions appear in that of Aachen (801–802: chaps. 7 and 27). The Council of Mainz of June 813 obliges the Church (cap. 6) to lend its support to orphans deprived of their inheritance in order to recover it, while that of Châlons of the same year forbids ecclesiastics from capitalizing the surplus of agricultural produce, to be destined for the poor in times of famine (cap. 8). With the aim of defending the poor against usury, the Church renewed the prescriptions of the Gallic councils of the 6th century, which forbade ecclesiastics from making interest-bearing loans (for the texts of the canons of these councils cf. MGH, Concilia Karolini Aevi, vols. I and II). The list could be extended for the period following Charlemagne’s death. It suffices to mention only the great synodal diets of Aachen (817) under Louis the Pious, which gave strong impetus to ecclesiastical care for the poor. Every bishop was to erect a hospital for the poor and strangers and, at his own expense, provide it with what was necessary. A regular canon worthy of the post was to be placed in charge of the hospital. Ecclesiastics were then obliged to give the tithe of their income for the maintenance of the hospital and to wash the feet of the poor during Lent in the hospitals (op. cit., I, 1, p. 416).

A great impetus to charitable activity was given by penitential doctrine. The Church did not make money from the sins of the faithful, but allowed them to make up for canonical penalties due for certain grave offenses through prayer, almsgiving, and the total or partial cession, in favor of the poor, of the goods of the guilty.

Such public examples were highly moralizing and in harmony with the doctrine of primitive Christianity (1 Pt. 4:8).

The teaching on charity during this period essentially connects with that of the Fathers of the Church, often quoted verbatim. Among others, it suffices to mention Haimo of Halberstadt, Rabanus Maurus, and Ratherius of Verona. The doctrine that all superfluous goods must be employed for the benefit of the poor was taught by representative men of the time, such as St. Bede and Alcuin. Bishops and Christian doctors of the time often insisted and reminded princes, kings, and magnates of the world that all power comes from God and that their subjects are brothers in Christ.

After Charlemagne, charitable organizations declined; feudalism, arrogance, almost continuous warfare, lack of scruples, and the prevalence of force over law demoralized both civil and ecclesiastical order. The general situation of Europe in the 9th and 10th centuries worsened: oppressed in the north by the invasions of the Normans, who laid waste the regions they invaded; in the south by the Saracens; and in the east by the Magyars, who pushed into the Danube valley. Other conflicts increased the ruin in England (Danish invasion), in Germany (rivalries among the successors of Charlemagne), and in Spain (Moorish invasion and competitions among the Iberian kingdoms). The lack of strong central power led to a lack of order and a habit of cruelty. Especially the petty feudal lords were harsh toward the common people. Although the spiritual leaders of the people in this chaos had become worldly, ignorant, and avaricious; although ecclesiastics as well as nobles often exploited their dependents while neglecting the poor, the Church nevertheless did not remain insensitive, and its will to put an end to the sufferings of the humble found an echo in the lamentations of the councils repeated until the 11th century.

Continuous efforts were made in favor of peace, often accompanied by threats of severe penalties against oppressors. From the end of the 10th century, councils strove to protect from violence clerics, artisans, their tools of work, women, merchants, travelers, sacred buildings, and livestock. The obligatory truces imposed by the Church were not ineffective measures for the society of the time, to which later Franciscan preaching was to give a further contribution, tending to change the existing social order to the advantage of the weak.

To social disorder must be added, in order to form an idea of the difficulties encountered by Christian charity in the Middle Ages, famines and epidemics. Primitive agriculture, frequent devastations, lack of security, and the difficulty of transportation explain the terrible famines to which that era was often subject. Along with hunger came epidemics, which spread rapidly due to swamps, narrow streets, unhealthy dwellings, and unhygienic burials in cities. Diseases, which medieval chronicles designated under the generic name of "plague," reigned unchallenged from the 10th century onward, especially in maritime cities that had regular trade with the East. From time to time the scourge would distinguish itself by the clarity of its symptoms and its violence, such as ignis sacer or "St. Anthony’s fire," the "black death" or "dense death," swift in its attacks and deadly in its effects, and the sudor anglicus.

Under these conditions, institutions of charity, especially hospitals, flourished and developed.

Decline does not mean absolute collapse; therefore it is no surprise that even at the end of the 9th century, around the bishop’s house, the poor, the sick, lepers, and travelers gathered. The xenodochium was the usual form in which the multiple functions of charity were exercised. Bishops presided over these organizations, and many were equal to their task, despite the shadows of that period. Cathedrals continued to have, along with the main parish churches, their hospital, and similar beneficent institutions continued to spread across Europe as peoples entered the Christian family. This was the case in Poland at the end of the 10th century.

However, beneficent assistance tended to become established in monasteries more than in the diocesan clergy. The transfer to monasteries of tithes previously devolved to parish clergy, the more humane treatment accorded by monks to their dependents, and the practice of leaving bequests to monasteries—above all, the fact that Christian life increasingly centered around religious houses—were factors contributing to this transformation. The Middle Ages are marked by this gravitation of healthy energies around monasteries. They arose in every district, organized the religious life of the neighborhood, founded schools, were models in agriculture, supported the work of artisans, relieved the poor, aided the sick, and provided for all forms of corporal and spiritual infirmity. The charitable concerns already alive in ancient cenobitic houses of contemplative life (cf. in this regard the prescriptions of St. Anthony the Abbot: PL 103, 423 ff.) are evident in the Benedictine Rule, one of whose most characteristic aspects is hospitality, which led to the creation of hospices attached to monasteries. The statutes, customs, and cartularies of the great abbeys often speak of infirmarii.
CHARITY — C. Painting by Piero del Pollaiolo (1469–70). Florence, Uffizi Gallery.

Hospitaturii, magistri infirmorum, xii elemosinarii directed the sick wards in monasteries and hospitals and handled all alms distributed by the abbey to the poor. Often this office fell to the porter, who in many monasteries administered funds and legacies from which he supplied the needy. Great merit accrued to the Cistercians, who revived the spirit of the ancient Benedictine Rule in teaching and practicing C. (cf. the testimony of the Cistercian abbot Gunther: PL 212, 98 ff.).

For St Bernard the wealth of his abbey was the patrimony of the poor, the elderly, the sick and wayfarers. Almsgiving took every form; besides regular distributions, extraordinary ones were added when circumstances demanded. During a year of famine in Burgundy (1125) St Bernard fed up to two thousand poor at his own expense. All Cistercian abbeys likewise maintained guesthouses where pilgrims, travelers and the sick received lodging and, if necessary, medical care. The traveler was greeted by the porter with the customary salutation “Deo gratias,” and the abbot would kneel at his feet to welcome him. Hospitality was thus elevated to the level of a religious act (cf. E. Vacandard, Vie de s. Bernard, 4th ed., I, Paris 1910, pp. 454 ff.). Other foundations acted in the same spirit, such as the monastery of Heisterbach, which daily in 1197 distributed 1,500 rations of food to the needy; the abbey of Comp in the Lower Rhine, which in the 13th century had annexed a hospital for the poor. Fine pages on the history of charity were also written by the Premonstratensians, among whom, besides the founder St Norbert, St Godfrey, abbot of Kappenberg, and the saintly bishop Adalgott distinguished themselves.

The influence exerted by the Franciscan movement on the spirit of the 13th century is well known; it is also of great importance for the history of C. The teaching and example of St Francis and his companions regarding poverty had the power to turn many souls from selfishness and avarice to the simple and wholesome ideals of Christian life, thereby spurring the charitable activity of the people and contributing even to the abolition of serfdom.

What monasteries had accomplished during the feudal period, the Franciscans and, in general, the mendicant orders accomplished in the renewed communal climate. Through preaching they tirelessly exhorted and demonstrated by deeds their faith, and it must be said that such exhortations did not fall on deaf ears. From the crises that led to urban autonomies, religious sentiment did not suffer greatly. Indeed, one may affirm that in few historical periods was charity toward the poor, the sick—in a word, toward every form of need—so great as in this age of the communes. The poor were called “the friends of God,” and the number of donations made for this purpose in the 13th century was enormous. Rarely were the humble forgotten in wills. Popes, princes and kings, prelates, burghers and cities vied in founding charities of every kind, all the more commendable because the state was still too weakly organized, especially in economic matters, to intervene across the broad field of social assistance. Religion had deep roots, and it must not be forgotten that the new society was largely built upon those guilds of arts and crafts which bore a religious stamp, ensuring the true spirit of C., the foundation and mainstay of its greatest strength: solidarity and mutual aid.

At the beginning of the Middle Ages, as has been seen, this work of social assistance was carried out by bishops and monasteries, who in their xenodochia combined hospitality with care for the sick and other temporal works of C. Soon, however, especially in Italy, similar civic institutions began to appear as early as the 8th century, offering a wider range of services. Many are found in Lucca, in Milan (787) for foundlings, in Siena (898), in Verona and especially in Rome, where there were also xenodochia, hospices and national foundations called scholae. Yet in the general decline of the Church, works of beneficence were deeply impaired. It should be noted, however, that all these institutions were private foundations, even when their founders included bishops or other churchmen. The Church nevertheless intervened to ensure the execution of the founders’ wills, transforming the entity into an ecclesiastical institution or at least a locus religiosus. In any case, the hospital entity, by its very purpose, was placed under the high protection and oversight of the bishop, who appointed its representatives or at least confirmed them if the founder had reserved the right of patronage with the related powers of appointment. In general, before the 12th century, charitable institutions often appear attached to other major ecclesiastical entities such as cathedrals or monasteries (cf. L. Prosdocimi, Il diritto ecclesiastico nello Stato di Milano, Milan 1941, p. 205).

A prodigious numerical and organizational growth of hospital institutions occurred with the dawn of the 12th century, partly due to causes common to those that gave rise to communal life, partly linked to the religious revival that also produced the crusades and the emergence of new monastic orders. An important evolution is marked by the appearance of numerous lay religious communities dedicated to nursing the sick and to hospitality, some organized as true religious orders, others