Still mercy-blogging. I want to riff further on a paragraph from a few posts ago. Writing about inappropriate exercise of the duty to "instruct the ignorant" and "admonish the sinner," which are two of the seven spiritual works of mercy:
I look back at the corporal works of mercy, which are so much easier to understand. Feeding the hungry is a work of mercy; but force-feeding even the dangerously malnourished is a work of cruelty. Giving drink to a thirsty man is a work of mercy; waterboarding him is not. Visiting the sick is merciful; barging in on one who needs privacy and quiet is not.
I was trying to get at the idea that when we go out to reach people, we're in the business of issuing invitations to mercy---offering gifts, without strings attached---and making good on them when they're answered.
+ + +
I'm not the first to suggest that there are limitations on the duties implied by the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.
The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia (that venerable online resource) refers limitations on the corporal works of mercy to the article on Alms and Almsgiving, which gives a sort of survey of different ideas theologians have had about alms. Such as: Two categories of your surplus material goods*, three categories of poverty**, and two kinds of almsgiving***, and some different ideas to combine them to figure out whether you have satisfied your duty to "give to all who asks." It's not definitive, but it's a good start for thinking about it if you are struggling with guilt and fear over the details: whether you give enough, whether you may say "no" to any solicitation, how many of your material advantages you may permissibly enjoy.
Without forgetting that many of the saints displayed and taught radically generous charity, a systematic analysis of principles seem to soundly establish limits. Our binding duty is, like the examples of the saints, boundless in theory (we may be called upon, unexpectedly, to give everything); in day-to-day living, it normally calls for prudence and discernment.
In short, that article recognizes a right to own and to use property: as long as you do not stand by while you know someone else to lack vital necessities, you have the right to use your material advantages. You may keep enough to maintain your own bodily needs and even enough to maintain your social status and carry out purely social duties. You are not obliged to donate yourself into poverty or even into a different social stratum.
These are limits on what one must do. In current terms, we might say: It's an affirmation that you may set boundaries.
+ + +
Limitations on the duties outlined in the spiritual works of mercy fall into a different category. You might call it "limits of competency." Where the first set involves setting reasonable boundaries so as not to imprudently exhaust your powers, the second set involves recognizing the boundaries of your own qualifications. At the risk of repeating myself, here is the money quote from the relevant CE article:
Likewise the law imposing spiritual works of mercy is subject in individual instances to important reservations.
For example, it may easily happen that an altogether special measure of tact and prudence or, at any rate, some definite superiority is required for the discharge of the oftentimes difficult task of fraternal correction [i.e., "to admonish the sinner"].
Similarly to instruct the ignorant, counsel the doubtful, and console the sorrowing is not always within the competency of every one.
By reason of our relationship with the person and the specifics of a situation, we can find ourselves under the obligation to do the best we can regardless of whether we think we can do a good job; but much of the time if we lack special competency, it's okay and quite possibly better not to step in and possibly make things worse.
Or you could say that special relationship---a relationship of trust or of place in a hierarchy---is its own kind of competency.
Or yet again you could make a sort of four-way matrix:
- If you have competency and relationship: You have a duty to offer these works, and the recipient may have a duty to accept your offer.
- If you have a relationship, but no competency: You may have a duty to offer to connect the recipient with someone who is competent.
- If you have competency, but no relationship: You may have a duty to invite the recipient to enter into relationship with you, either before accepting your works or by accepting it.
- If you have neither competency nor relationship: The obligation to offer help may not exist, and should be undertaken only with considerable prudence.
In contrast with the four "competency-based" works of mercy, the CE goes on to remind us that we don't need any kind of special competency "to bear wrongs patiently, to forgive offenses willingly, and to pray for the living and the dead." These works, the silent works, the universal works, bear fruit silently as well. They cannot impose on anyone else because they happen within oneself and are brought to fruit only by the action of grace.
But about all the works of mercy this additional caveat holds:
It must not be forgotten that the works of mercy demand more than a humanitarian basis if they are to serve as instruments in bringing about our eternal salvation. The proper motive is indispensable and this must be one drawn from the supernatural order.
Which is to say, that in the realm of Christian duty (as opposed to merely humanitarian duty that any moral person ought to try to carry out in order to help their neighbors), improper motives may make these "services" not worth performing. If you perform the acts associated with mercy in order to look good in the eyes of others, or to make yourself feel superior, or (heavens) in order to shame someone, then perhaps it would be better for everyone if you didn't.
+ + +
So I want to suggest another potential limitation on the manner of performing works of mercy: that they ought to be everywhere and always offered by way of an invitation (or a response to a request), never an imposition.
The human person is a being with knowledge and will, and that agency needs to be respected.
So, let's take a look at (most of) the corporal works of mercy in the form of invitations: almsgiving and friendship.
- Would you like something to eat?
- Would you like something to drink?
- Would you like help getting clothing, bedding, outdoor gear, shoes?
- Would you like help finding a place to stay?
- Would you like me to stop by for a visit, or to bring a meal, or to help out somehow?
- Would you like some company?
(Burying the dead is a little bit odd as we aren't generally able to secure their permission except in advance. But we can extend invitations to the bereaved:)
- I am sorry for your loss. Would you like help and company in your grief?
+ + +
The competency-based spiritual works of mercy in the form of invitations:
- Would you like more information?
- Would you like some advice, or suggestions?
- Would you like a heads-up, or a word of warning?
- Would you like someone to come sit with you?
The silent works of mercy do not require invitations. No one needs permission to be patient, to forgive someone, or to pray for someone. But it may be worthwhile to resist the temptation to announce your intention via an assertion. "I forgive you" and "I'll pray for you" can have a distinctly non-comforting effect if deployed indiscriminately.
- Bearing wrongs patiently is something you show, not tell. (And be careful with this one: It's not the same as allowing someone to abuse you.)
- Forgiveness is something to be offered freely for the asking; but if no one ever asks for it, it can remain in your own heart.
- "Would you like me to pray for you?" is at least as kind as "I'll pray for you." And often, more so.
In any case: there need be no outer sign of these works of mercy at all. As with all the works of mercy, you must send them into the world trusting that the outcome is essentially out of your hands.
+ + +
Related: This recent piece by Simcha Fisher.
_______
*The two categories of surplus material goods: Those that are over and above your vital necessities, and those that are over and above what you need to maintain a standard of living appropriate to your social class. It is an interesting exercise to consider what is meant by the latter in one's particular case.
**The three categories of poverty: Extreme (without vital necessities), pressing (experiencing a sudden reversal of fortune or crisis), and ordinary (having regular difficulties in the quest to meet the basic needs of life).
***Types of almsgiving: Transitory (help offered in response to an individual, whether it's a stranger asking for money or a family member in need); organized (help offered to an organization that provides services to the poor).
Recent Comments