Charity admits degrees (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas in *On Love and Charity* and *Summa Theologica* II-II q. 24 a. 4 - a. 10 ). Has any theologian explained if it is possible to measure one's degree of charity? If so, how can it be measured?

> [**1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (KJV)**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013:1-3&version=KJV) > > 1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. > 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. > 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Those verses are commonly interpreted to mean that charity is also necessary for salvation, even "though I have all faith." That interpretation opposes the doctrine of Sola Fide. How then do Sola Fide adherents interpret this passage?

According to Catholic theologians, can the unbaptized have charity ? Charity is >The infused supernatural virtue by which a person loves God above all things for His own sake, and loves others for God's sake. In other words, can charity coexist with or even drive out sin (original or actual)?

Matthew 19:29 : >And every one that hath left **house**, or **brethren**, or **sisters**, or **father**, or **mother**, or **wife**, or **children**, or **lands** for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. Mark 10:29-30 : >Jesus answering, said: Amen I say to you, there is no man who hath left **house** or **brethren**, or **sisters**, or **father**, or **mother**, or **children**, or **lands**, for my sake and for the gospel who shall not receive an hundred times as much, now in this time; **houses**, and **brethren**, and **sisters**, [Is the omission of "fathers" here significant?] and **mothers**, and **children**, and **lands**, with persecutions: and in the world to come life everlasting. It seems the ordering is from most long-living to least long-living ties. A household (οἰκία) lasts the longest, many centuries. Brothers and sisters are longer-lasting ties than parental ties because siblings are coeval with each other; such ties are lifelong. Children are with their parents longer than with their wives. Lands are the least long-lasting ties, as some people are migratory. Or perhaps the ordering relates to the order of charity ? Have any commentators interpreted the meaning of the ordering of these things? And what about the omission of "wife" or "fathers" in St. Mark's account? cross-posted on Biblical Hermeneutics StackExchange

According Paul Wadell's book *The Primacy of Love: An Introduction to the Ethics of Thomas Aquinas*, Aquinas defends that Charity is the mother of all virtues, and also how they can be perfected into 'gifts' of the Holy Spirit. It is exactly this part of how charity perfects them into gifts that I do not understand. It says that charity, when faced with its human limit, with its limit as a virtue, it is transformed by God into the Spirit, taking the virtue to its plenitude. How does this transformation happen? Or is it a mystery?

In Francois Trochu's biography of St. John Vianney, ``*The Cure of Ars*,'' the Little Sisters of the Poor is mentioned by the Saint to a young girl who wishes to enter that Order at Lyons: > "Yes, my child, you will be a Little Sister of the Poor," M. Vianney one day said to Mlle. Ernestine Durand, a girl of Lyons, then eighteen years of age; "yes, yes, you will be a Little Sister.... But after having joined the community you will be obliged to leave it again." "Oh, in that case, Father, I prefer---" "No, no, enter, enter! Three days after your departure from the convent your mother will take you back to it herself." Ernestine obeyed blindly. Having obtained---with much difficulty, it must be admitted---the consent of her parents, she entered as a postulant with the Little Sisters of the Poor of Lyons. She whole-heartedly took up her new life. Presently letters came from her family, full of regrets and even threats: the girl was not yet of age; she had extorted her mother's consent; if need be, recourse would be had to the intervention of the law. As a matter of fact, her brother came to the convent accompanied by a policeman. The postulant was compelled to return home. She was broken-hearted and lost both appetite and sleep. At the end of three days her mother said to her: ``Oh, I do not mean to bring about your death; I shall take you back to your beloved companions!'' Thus, as the Cure d'Ars had foretold, the child was restored to the convent by her own mother, who, if she were not yet wholly resigned, at least no longer withheld her consent. Another similar case is also provided by the author Throchu: > Soeur Marie de Jesus, a little novice, saw her profession put off by reason of her extreme youth. In her distress she was allowed to make a pilgrimage to Ars, where she made a general confession. "O my little one, how happy you are!" the saint exclaimed, as she finished her accusation. "True, Father, I am happy, but I have grievously offended God before I entered religion." "My child, in the world you would have committed so many sins that you would have ended by losing your soul. Be true to your vocation." He wished to see her again before her departure. "O my little sister," he said, "your soul is white, perfectly white. And now, go and make your profession." "But, Father, you know very well that I am supposed to be too young...." "Everything is ready, my child: your cross is made. Go!" > Now, at the very moment when Soeur Marie de Jesus crossed the threshold of the Hospice of Lyons, where she had a commission to execute for her superior, the portress handed her a small parcel. "This is for you, Sister." "May I open it?" "Of course." What was the Sister's emotion when, on undoing the parcel, she found a cross, on the back of which were engraved her name and a date; it was the crucifix of her profession. Urged by a mysterious impulse, the superior had suddenly decided to admit to her first vows the novice who had been condemned to a delay of three years. This was the meaning of the words of the Cure d'Ars: *"Your cross is made. Go!"* Mgr. Trochu also wrote a full-length biography of Jeanne Jugan (published 1950 or so) prior to her beautification by Pope John Paul II in 1982 and canonization by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009. St. Jeanne Jugan's *The Little Sisters of the Poor* had its beginning in 1839 at Saint-Servan in Brittany and expanded to other parts of France within 10 years. St. John Vianney was assigned as a parish priest to Ars in 1819 (or thereabouts) and died there in 1859. Ars is over 800 kilometres from Brittany; however, Lyons is some 35 kilometres (approx. 21.7 mi) from Ars. In light of his work at Ars and his three reported absences from Ars, it seems impossible that St. John Vianney ever visited Brittany as the Cure of Ars. However, he had certainly been to Lyons on multiple occasions, and perhaps (likely) St. Jeanne Jugan (who founded Little Sisters of the Poor in 1839) had also been to Lyons---as an affiliate of the Little Sisters of the Poor was established there while St. John Vianney was the Cure of Ars. Also Note: St. Jeanne Jugan outlived St. John Vianney. It is also to be observed that the charity of St. Jeanne Jugan and St. John Vianney towards the poor are strikingly similar (especially between St. Jeanne's *House of the Cross* and St. John's *Providence*); thus, I would like, if possible, to identify an encounter between these two champions of the poor, provided that if one exists. So I ask: Does anyone know with some degree of certainty if St. Jeanne Jugan ever met the Cure of Ars; and if so, what were the circumstances? Thank you.

These are some verses where Jesus says that giving all your earthly riches, you will earn eternal life:
Matthew 19:16-30: When the rich man asks about the eternal life and Jesus replies with Moses' commandments and the rich man says that he obeyed the commandments very carefully and Jesus told that to achive eternal life the man must sell everything and give to poor people and then follow Jesus.

Luke 12:13-21: The parable of the rich fool: But God said to him, "You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?"

Luke 19:7: Zacchaeus promises Jesus that he will give half of the riches to poor people and Jesus says that the Salvation entered Zacchaeus's house.

A few questions related to those verses:

**Why Jesus told the rich man he needs to give *all* he has, and Zacchaeus can earn the eternal life by giving only *half*?**

**What if someone wants to give all the riches to the poor people, but he has kids. Does Jesus want us to leave our sons and daughters without anything? The parable of the fool rich man says that God asked the man whom are your riches to after you die. Maybe he wanted to ensure a wealthy life for his descendents?**

**Does God really wants us to give all our earnings to poor people? For instance, someone with salary should give all the money he receives after a month of work to poor people?** I don't ask these questions to blame Jesus, I'm trying to understand what Jesus meant, because I'm 100% sure that He doesn't want us to starve to death and give everything to poor people.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, which is greater, to know God or to love Him? It seems knowledge of God is greater, because John 17:3 says: >Now this is eternal life: That they may **know** thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Our goal is everlasting life (heaven, beholding the Beatific Vision of God). However, in this life we cannot know God as well as we will be able to in heaven, because of the hindrance of our body (cf. 2 Cor. 12:2 ): >1 Cor. 13:12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner: but then face to face. Now I know in part: but then I shall know even as I am known. So perhaps in this life we are more capable of loving Him than knowing him.

In his second letter to the Corinthians (16:3), the anonymous church father, believed to be Clement of Rome, wrote: > "Fasting is better than prayer, and charity than both". **What did he mean by that?** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The line in question is from the below passage, which in turn comes from this link > So, brothers, since we have been given no small opportunity to repent, let us take the occasion to turn to God who has called us, while we still have One to accept us. For if we renounce these pleasures and master our souls by avoiding their evil lusts, we shall share in Jesus’ mercy. Understand that "the day" of judgment is already "on its way like a furnace ablaze," and "the powers of heaven will dissolve" and the whole earth will be like lead melting in fire. Then men's secret and overt actions will be made clear. Charity, then, like repentance from sin, is a good thing. But **fasting is better than prayer, and charity than both.** “Love covers a multitude of sins," and prayer, arising from a good conscience, "rescues from death." Blessed is everyone who abounds in these things, for charity lightens sin.

LDS has a policy of not taking gambling winnings including lottery money as donations. Over the years several other churches have refused as well. Is there an official policy in Catholic Church about the donation of money won in lottery?

In 1 Timothy there is a passage that talks about widows receiving a pension from the church: 1 Timothy 5:9-16 > A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty > years old, having been the wife of one man, 10 having a reputation for > good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown > hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she > has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to > every good work. 11 But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for > when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to > get married, 12 thus incurring condemnation, because they have set > aside their previous pledge. 13 At the same time they also learn to be > idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but > also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to > mention. 14 Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear > children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; > 15 for some have already turned aside to follow Satan. 16 If any woman > who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the > church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are > widows indeed Is there a historical record of this practice in the church and do any modern churches still have a similar practice?

My country is full of beggars asking for money, sometimes it's kinda family controlled business, the parents ask their children to beg for money and then steal the money from them, some beggars are really poor, others are just scammers. But you don't have anyway of telling, the vast majority of people either yell at them or ignore them or tell them to go away or act as if they never saw them. I don't imagine that one could pay each and every beggar he sees on a daily basis, and the people in my country aren't rich and there are too many beggars out there. From a roman catholic point of view, how should common people treat beggars? Is ignoring them a sin? What does the church and saints have to say about that?

I would prefer actual numbers comparing it to other organizations. In addition, bonus points if you can demonstrate that the catholic church effectively does the most good or essentially highly efficient with how they spend their money. It is quite irrelevant if someone receives lots of donations but does not spend the money well. None of the links in the following question seemed to work or seemed highly speculative to me (the economist answer). [This question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6623/approximate-amount-of-money-per-year-the-catholic-church-spends-for-charity) is related. [This is](https://web.archive.org/web/20081227021108/http://www.catholicscomehome.org/epic/Epic_%20proof.pdf) is a source I found online; I'm not sure what to think of it though.

I know saints are exceptional, but I wonder how they could bear some people who are everything they are not. Could someone be a saint while being asocial, or a bit misanthropic? I know some saints were hermits or prefered to be alone, but to what extent could they do this without contradicting the Gospel and its teaching? My question is mainly about: Are there some examples of these kind of saints in the history of the Catholic Church?

I'm curious of how much money the Catholic Church spends globally for charity per year. I could not find the information I wanted by a simple Google search, and even on Wikipedia, I could only find some figures for the USA. I'm not interested in a debate about who gives more or who gives less, or whether it's too little or too much. I'm only interested in the cold hard sum expressed in a notable currency, with a source where the information or approximations comes from. For the sake of simplicity, I do not include Catholic persons who privately give to charity, I'm only interested in Church-owned funds. **Edit**: some comments pointed out, that the word "charity" is too ambiguous. I used it in a sense like charity outside of supporting the upkeep of the Church, but charity in the sense of giving to poor people, starving children, etc. (and schools, sanitation and hospitals in poor countries) What's the best word for "charity" in this sense? "External charity" seems odd to me and even more prone to be misunderstood. Or should I say Vatican, not Catholic Church? I'm not Catholic myself, so my understanding of Catholic organization and structure might be flawed.

There was another thread in Mi Yodeya where a Jewish individual played a "prank" on a Christian in order to get his money ($20) since he figured the Christian was obligated to give it to him if he asked, according to his understanding of Luke 6:30 . Needless to say, this Jewish individual, since he admitted it was a "prank," didn't have a genuine need for the money. I have been approached many times by people who were scamming for money. For example, I am approached by a man/ woman outside a grocery store, as many people are. He/ she says, "My truck broke down and I need to call a taxi." I tell him/ her I don't have any money on me, which is the truth. I rarely ever do. I go into the store, and as I walk out, I witness the same individual driving down the street in his/ her car. It was a scam. What were they scamming for? Likely narcotics or alcohol. If I had given this individual money, they would have likely used it to buy narcotics or alcohol. Essentially, I would be contributing to and enabling their lifestyle --- a lifestlye which is by no means beneficial for them. In fact, if they bought narcotics with my money, they could very well overdose and die. A culture of drug abuse didn't exist in the time of Jesus. But, it does today. Hence, my question. Should a Christian indiscriminately give or lend his money (if indeed he has the money on his person) to everyone who asks him? Should a Christian discriminate who and who he does not give his money to? If so, what are some things that could assist a Christian in this situation?

I'm doing a research project that has involved a lot of different types of survey of the Gospels. Having noticed a surprising number of rich people in Jesus' sayings, I surveyed for verses with elements that pertain to socioeconomic status. That is, verses where Jesus uses examples or stories that involve *having something* (food, clothes, a home, a job, cash, storerooms, livestock, farms, storehouses, real estate, investment property, servants, slaves, hired hands, etc.) or *not having anything* (for example, being a beggar). I found such elements in about 28% of his 1300-ish speaking verses. Rather glaringly, after a handful of comments on the needy (about 30 verses) and a handful of warnings to the rich (about 30 verses again), Jesus speaks some 300 verses of unrelated parables and examples full of detailed descriptions of people who *have something*--often very, very rich people. (Note that I allowed for narrative overlap among the four Gospels in arriving at these figures.) I tried googling around for explanations, but I can't find anyone who talks about the preponderance of *haves* as opposed to the precisely **one** *have-not* in his teachings. (And to clarify, I mean the only *have-not* who gets to be the protagonist. Jesus does tell a few stories about slaves, but he makes them the villains, in the end having them tortured for an unfathomably long time or summarily and brutally executed for their wickedness, so you can see why I didn't count them). So here I am, naively asking: why does Jesus spend 60-ish verses promoting charity and warning the rich, and 300-ish verses on unrelated sayings and stories with detailed descriptions of people who have something--often the very rich? Or another way of asking the question: it seems to me that any of the points he makes in these 300 verses could be made with stories about beggars and seriously needy people, but he never uses them, preferring the rich instead. Have any scholars, Church fathers, prominent theologians, or even obscure pundits noticed and commented on this? ***Edit:*** You guys, I am deeply sorry to have offended anyone. I did not realize this would be inflammatory. All I did was read the Gospels, and I was just asking a question that I thought would have an obvious answer. I am very sorry. I am confused about the complaint that I have misused the word "rich". I must point out that no matter where you draw the line between rich and poor in Jesus' words, the needy are always the furthest away from it and on the wrong side. I just figured someone would have written a book about the stark contrast between the popular, modern conception of Jesus and the character actually presented in the Gospels.

I've been researching Jesus' thoughts on poverty and the needy, and I've noticed that Luke's Jesus makes many more pronouncements concerning the poor than the others. What, if anything, do scholars say about this? ***Edit:*** I'm interested in knowing what ___any___ scholar has to say about the preponderance of mentions in Luke. If you know of any scholar who is saying anything about it, please let me know.

Context: Proverbs 19:17 > He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again. Luke 12:33 > Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth. ... and plenty of more examples ... In the Bible, when the Bible speaks of giving to / helping the poor, is the poor referred to as: (1) any poor person or (2) a poor person that identifies him/herself as Christian I.e. according to the Bible, should Christians give to poor non-Christians?

>Matthew 23:23 KJV Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. I was intrigued by Jesus saying that they were fastidious in their tithes, but omitting judgment, mercy, and faith. So I looked up the meaning of both tithe, and alms in Webster's dictionary. TITHE The tenth part of any thing; but appropriately, the tenth part of the increase annually arising from the profits of land and stock, allotted to the clergy for their support. Tithes are personal, predial, or mixed; personal, when accruing from labor, art, trade and navigation; predial, when issuing from the earth, as hay, wood and fruit; and mixed, when accruing from beasts, which are fed from the ground. ALMS Any thing given gratuitously to relieve the poor, as money, food, or clothing, otherwise called charity. I also ran across the following verses: >Luke 6:38 KJV Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again. > >Luke 12:34 KJV For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. I have taken those to say that Christians have a bigger obligation, than just giving a tenth to the Church. I have checked for similar questions on the site, but found that none specifically answer my question.