Thomas Aquinas: Uncritical Leftist

Alan McCann at Via Fortunata takes issue with my post on St. Thomas and private property. He accuses me of “uncritical leftist thinking” in drawing the conclusion that Thomas would have endorsed a role for government in ameliorating the plight of the poor:

This is typical of a lot of uncritical, leftist thinking within and without the church: if something is morally right to do then it is ok for the government to force people to do it. This argument misses the point that forced behavior cannot, by definition, be moral behavior. At best, it is amoral.

Jesus didn’t force anyone to behave a certain way. He helped them to change their minds (metanoia) which would result in changed behavior. Christianity goes off the rails when it tries to enforce individual external moral behavior through the use of social or government force.



Now, I could take a cheap shot and say that this is typical of a lot of uncritical, rightist thinking within and without the church: that the church should not attempt to advance its moral precepts, especially those concerning economics, by means of public policy. But I won’t take that cheap shot.

What I will note is that, according to Thomas, caring for the poor is not a matter just of Christian charity, but on the contrary “whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor.” (emphasis mine) That is, care for the poor is a matter of justice, not charity.

The State is the institution in society charged with securing justice. And justice is giving to each what is their due by law, so if those in dire need are due the superabundance of what others have, then making sure they receive their due is a proper concern for the public authorities. Those of us who aren’t anarchists (which is to say most of us), recognize that securing justice will require coercion. Note that Thomas says that the poor may legitimately take what they need, not ask politely for a handout.

Now, I think what measures governments should take to help the poor is certainly a matter of legitimate debate. And the principle of subsidiarity would seem to imply that those more immediate institutions (families, churches, local communities) have the greater responsibility in caring for the poor. Nevertheless, the State has a proper role in ensuring that these smaller communities fulfill their duty, and to step in if need be.