Bede Jarrett on the rules for giving to the poor
We have private property only under conditions
The first member of the Dominicans since the Reformation to study at Oxford, Father Bede Jarrett was made the English provincial in 1916 at the early age of 35. The subjects of his many books ranged from the Holy Spirit to medieval social thought to the history of Europe to Our Lady of Lourdes. He died in 1934 at 53. This is taken from the last chapter of his Medieval Socialism, “The Theory of Almsgiving.”
Almsgiving was for them [the medieval Scholastics] a necessary corollary to their theories of private possession. . . . Private property is allowed — is, in fact, necessary for human life — but on certain conditions.
These imply that the possession of property belongs to the individual, but also that the use of it is not limited to him. The property is private, the use should be common. Indeed, it is only this common enjoyment which at all justifies private possession. . . .
After a long exposition of St. Thomas’s understanding of the matter, Jarrett concludes that
they held to be the duty of the individual in each case that came to his notice. To give out of a man's superfluities to the needy was, they held, undoubtedly a bounden duty. But they could make no attempt to apprize in definite language what in the receiver was meant by need, and in the giver by superfluity.
They made no pretence to do this, and thereby showed their wisdom, for obviously the thing cannot be done. Yet we must note, last of all, that they drew up a list of principles which shall here be set down, because they sum up in a few sentences the wit of mediaeval economists, their spirit of orderly arrangement, and their unanimous opinion on man's moral obligations.
(I) A man is obliged to help another in his extreme need even at the risk of grave inconvenience to himself.
(II) A man is obliged to help another who, though not in extreme need, is yet in considerable distress, but not at the risk of grave inconvenience to himself.
(III) A man is not obliged to help another whose necessity is slight, even though the risk to himself should be quite trifling. . . .
In other words, the need of his fellow must be adjusted against the inconvenience to himself. Where the need of the one is great, the inconvenience to the other must at least be as great, if it is to excuse him from the just debt of his alms.
His possession of superfluities does not compel him to part with them unless there is some real want which they can be expected to supply. In fine, the mediaevalists would contend that almsgiving, to be necessary, implies two conditions, both concomitant:
(a) That the giver should possess superfluities.
(b) That the receiver should be in need.
Where both these suppositions are fulfilled, the duty of almsgiving becomes a matter not of charity, but of justice.
Previous: Dorothy Day on the masses vs. the people.
Next: Hilaire Belloc on not being optimistic.