Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 3.djvu/655

 CHARITY

593

CHARITY

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 the ad of charity. Such an act will be supernatural if it proceeds from the infused virtue of charity, and if its motive (God lovable because of His infinite perfections) is appre- hended through revelation; if either of these condi- tions is wanting the act is only natural. Thus, when a person with the virtue of charity in his soul assists a needy neighbour on account of the words of Christ, " as long as you did it to one of these my least breth- ren, you did it to me", or simply because his Christian training tells him that the one in need is a child of God, the act is one of supernatural charity. It is likewise meritorious of eternal life. The same act performed by one who had never heard of the Chris- tian revelation, and from the same motive of love of God, would be one of natural charity. When charity towards the neighbour is based upon love of God, it belongs to the same virtue (natural or supernatural, according to circumstances) as charity towards God. However, it is not necessary that acts of brotherly love should rest upon this high motive in order to deserve a place under the head of charity. It is enough that they lie prompted by consideration of the individual's dignity, qualities, or needs. Even when motived by some purely extrinsic end, as popu- lar 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 of Catholic religious and ethical treatises. In current speech and literature the term is restricted to love 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. 'See Aims and Almsgiving.)

The obligation 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 shalt love 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. Matthew (xxv) of the separation of the good from the bad at the Final Judgment. Reason tells us that we ought to love our neighbours, since they are children of God ; since they are our brothers, members of the same human family; and since they have the same nature, dignity, destiny, and needs as ourseh es This love, or charity, should be both internal and external. The former wishes the neighbour well, and rejoices in his good fortune; the latter com- prises all those actions by which any of his needs are supplied. Charity differs from justice, inasmuch as it conceives its object, i. e. the neighbour, as a brother, and is based on the union existing between man and man: whereas justice regards him as a separate in- dividual, and is based on his independent personal dignity and rights. The spirit of the Gospel as re- gards charity is far superior to that of any of the other greal religions. Its excellence appears in the following points: love of the neighbour is akin to love of Sod ; the neighbour is to be loved even as the self; men are brothers, members of tin same family; the law of charity extends to the whole human race, thus making all persons equal; men are obliged to love even their enemies; the neighbour is not merely a rational creature made in the image and likeness of God, but also the supernaturally adopted son of the Father, and the brother of the Father's Only- Begotten Son; finally, the Gospel presents the su- preme exemplification of brotherly love 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 by Judaism is of a very high order, but it falls considerably below that of the New Testament. Although both love of the III.— 38

neighbour as one's self (Lev., xix, IS) and care of the poor (Deut., xv, 4, 11) are strictly commanded in the Pentateuch as duties to God, the neighbour meant only the Jews and the strangers dwelling within their gates. It did not embrace all mankind. The writers of the "imprecatory" Psalms, for example xvi and liii, rejoice in their enemies' misfortune. Indeed, hatred of enemies was so generally regarded as law- ful that Christ proclaimed His injunction of love of enemies as something new and unfamiliar. While the Jewish religion taught and still teaches the Father- hood of Ciod, this doctrine is much less attractive than the Christian conception of the same truth. Besides, it embraces only the children of Israel. The Hebrew idea of the brotherhood of man is corres- pondingly restricted. Among the other religions, Buddhism probably has the highest form of caritative doctrine, but the motives of its charity are cold, utilitarian, and selfish. It does not command its fol- lowers to love their enemies, but merely to refrain from hating them.

The charitable achievements of the non-Christian religions have exhibited all the limitations of their defective first principles. Among the Creeks and the Romans the human person had no inherent worth. He was of importance only as a citizen. The major- ity of the subjects of these two great powers, being slaves, were without any legal rights. The poor, whether slaves or freemen, were treated by even the noblest and wisest of the Checks and Romans with contempt, or at most with that pity which is akin to contempt. Owing to its doctrine that the emotions should be suppressed anil 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 wretched- ness was regarded as a minor evil or as no evil at all. Gifts to beggars were few, and usually from motives entirely selfish. Although the assertion is sometimes made that Athens and Rome possessed hospitals, 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 of Rome 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 influ- ence 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 motived by obedience to God and genuine pity fol I In' unfortunate. One of its ideals was thus expressed in the words of Jehovah : "there shall be no poor or beggar among you". Owners were warned that their possessions were from God, and that they were but stewards. The widow, the orphan, the blind, and the lame, were objects, of spi cial t ompassion 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 thi Sabbath. Those who lent money were forbidden to take inter- est from their fellow-Hebrews or from the rti within their land. The fact that labour was held in honour went far towards making the condition oi the lowly much less hard than among the heathen peoples. Nevertheless, Jewish charity was essentially national, for it took no account of the alien dwelling without, Interest, and frequently exorbitant interest, was ex- acted 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 tin- spirit of their excellent legislation on behalf of the poor.