POOR
237
POOR
while ecclesiastical relief, although also prophylactic,
is mainly curative, since it relieves and, as far as
possible, removes existing need. Both ecclesiastical
relief-work and social pohtics are indispensable for
society; they act and react on each other. Justice
without charity would lead to rigidity, and leave the
bitterest cases of need uncared for; charity without
justice would allow thousands to suffer destitution,
and save but a few. The man who is capable of
earning liis own hvelihood needs not alms, but work
and just wages.
Between State provision for the poor and ecclesias- tical reUef the relation is as follows: the State should by its social politics prepare the way for the develop- ment of voluntary poor-relief, and should put these politics into practice against lazy individuals; on the other hand, the provision for the really poor is in the first place the business of the private per.son and the Church, in the second place of the community, and in the last place also of the State. Liberal economics as represented by Adam Smith, Richard Malthus, and Da^^d Ricardo, is based on the ancient Roman view of life, and claims exclusively for the State the task of relieving the poor, since this relief does not lessen but rather increa.ses the amount of povertj', imposes huge expenditure on the State, and inclines the lower classes to laziness. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the State should support the unahenable human rights of the helpless, and promote the common weal by uplifting the needy classes. It is therefore bound not only to interest itself in the politics of pauperism (i. e. to wage war on professional beggars and all malevolent exploi- tation of charity) , but also in the private care of the poor, especially to-day, when the voluntary ecclesiastical and private relief of the poor cannot possibly satisfy all the demands made upon it. The Church has in- deed at all times emphasized the duties of the State in promoting the welfare of the people. Leo Xlll'a Encj'chcal on the question of the working man (1891) assigns to the State tasks which come under the pro- gramme of poor-relief. The part, played by the State should however be only subsidiary; the chief role should be regularly filled by voluntary relief and neighbourly charity, since thus alone will the prin- ciple of spontaneous generosity and individuality be retained, inasmuch as State relief rests on com- pulsory taxation and always remains bureaucratic. The Church tliorefore asserts her innate right to care for the poor together and in conjunction with the State, and condemns the agitation for a state mo- nopoly of poor-relief as a violation of a principle of justice. The political side of pauperism does indeed pertain to the State; in the actual relief of the poor, however. Church and community should co-operate. While the institutions founded by the Church are to be administered by the ecclesiastical authorities the Church must be allowed to exercise also in State in- sututions her educative and moral influence. Close co-operation between ecclesiastical, public, and private poor-relief effectually prevents its ex-ploitation by un- worthy individuals.
C. Ecclesiastical relief of the poor is condemned by Protestants (e. g. in recent times by Dr. Uhlhorn), who assert that it is unmethodical, imcritical, and without organization, and consequently fosters beg- ging and exercises a harmful influence. To this we may reply: Christianity disapproves of everything irrational, and therefore also a priori of disorganized and uncritical care of the poor. But the surveil- lance must not be injurious or degrading to the poor. Without transgressing the boundaries of charity and respect for the dignity of man, the New Testament distinctly demands discretion in the giving of alms, and condemns professional begging (I Thess., iv, 11; I Tim., V. 13 sqq.). The whole range of ec- clesiastical literature and even the greatest friends of
the poor among the teachers of the Church peremp-
torily insist upon order and distinction being em-
ployed in relieving the poor, warn against the en-
couragement of lazy beggars, and declare that one
may as Uttle support laziness as immorality; un-
justly received poor-relief must be restored. Ec-
clesiastical relief of the poor has from the very
beginning been very well organized, the organization
being changed in every century to suit the changing
conditions of the times. Not in those places where
the Church has controlled poor-relief, but in those
where the State or other powers have interfered with
its administration, have disorder and a want of dis-
crimination been apparent.
The latest opponents of ecclesiastical poor-relief are the extreme Individualists and Socialists. Denying a future existence, professing an extreme Evolu- tionism and Relativism, upholding in the moral sphere the autonomy of the individual, and pro- claiming war on rank (i. e. a class war), they condemn all benefactions as prejudicial to the dignity of man and to the welfare of the community. Friedrich Nietzsche, as an extreme Individualist, sees in bound- less competition — a battle of all against all, which necessarily means the downfall of the weak and the poor — the means of securing the greatest possible personal welfare. Socialism, as represented by Carl Marx and Carl Kautsky, proclaims a war of the propertyless against the propertied classes, a war whose energy is paralyzed and impaired (they assert) by charitable activity. In a criticism of Nietzsche's teaching, it must be emphasized that the superman is a mere phantasy without any philosophical or his- torical foundation whatever. Even the strongest man is dependent on the civilization of the past and present, and on the social organization. Against the forces of nature, against the accumulated treasures of civilization, against the combination of adverse circumstances, he is powerless. Even the strongest- willed man may be in the next moment the most piteous mortal in extreme need of charity. If a man make himself the centre of all his objects, he challenges all men to battle. The theory of the rights of the strong has as its final consequence the reduc- tion of mankind to a horde of warring barbarians. Christian morality, on the other hand, distinguishes between just love of self, which includes love of neighbour, and the self-love which it combats and condemns. In appraising the value of the socialistic theory which declares poor-relief a disgrace alike to society and the receiver of alms, we may observe: Even if we were disposed to grant that in the socialis- tic state of the future all moral defects and their consequences will be removed (for which there is not the least proof), the physical causes of poverty would be still present. Even in the future there will be orphans, invalids, and the helpless aged; to these no bureaucratic central authority, but sympathetic charity can afford a sufficient help. The acceptance of alms on the part of the guiltless poor is indeed for these a certain mortification, but in no way a dis- grace. Otherwise it would be a disgrace to accept the gifts of nature and civilization, which we our- selves have not earned, and which form the greater part of our material and spiritual possessions. It is however a shame and bitter injustice to replace just wages by alms. This is so far from being the object of Christian relief of the poor, that Christian morality expressly condemns it as a sin against dis- tributive justice. But all objections against ec- clesiastical poor-relief will be most easily met by a glance at its history.
D. The history of ecclesiastical poor-relief is dif- fii^ult, because, in accordance with the command of Christ (Matt., vi, 3), it for the most part avoids publicity, deals with individuals, and is to a great extent influenced by social institutions. Wc will con-
