It is important to draw attention to the fact that liberalitas consists in making a good use of property, and not merely in distributing it to others, as a confusion with the English word ‘liberality’ might lead us to believe.  It is, as we said above, therefore certain that a wise and prudent saving of money for investment would be considered a course of conduct within the meaning of the word liberalitas, especially if the enterprise in which the money were invested were one which would benefit the community as a whole.  ’Modern industrial conditions demand that a man of wealth should distribute a part of his goods indirectly—­that is, by investing them in productive and labour-employing enterprises.’[1]

[Footnote 1:  Ryan, The Alleged Socialism of the Church Fathers, p. 20, and see Goyau, Le Pape et la Question Sociale, p. 79.]

The nature of the virtue of liberalitas may be more clearly understood by an explanation of the vices which stand opposed to it.  The first of these treated by Aquinas is avarice, which he defines as ‘superfluus amor habendi divitias.’  Avarice might be committed in two ways—­by harbouring an undue desire of acquiring wealth, or by an undue reluctance to part with it—­’primo autem superabundant in retinendo ... secundo ad avaritiam pertinet superabundare in accipiendo.’[1] These definitions are amplified in another part of the same section.  ’For in every action that is directed to the attainment of some end goodness consists in the observance of a certain measure.  The means to the end must be commensurate with the end, as medicine with health.  But exterior goods have the character of things needful to an end.  Hence human goodness in the matter of these goods must consist in the observance of a certain measure, as is done by a man seeking to have exterior riches in so far as they are necessary to his life according to his rank and condition.  And therefore sin consists in exceeding this measure and trying to acquire or retain riches beyond the due limit; and this is the proper nature of avarice, which is defined to be an immoderate love of having.’[2] ’Avarice may involve immoderation regarding exterior things in two ways; in one way immediately as to the receiving or keeping of them when one acquires or keeps beyond the due amount; and in this respect it is directly a sin against one’s neighbour, because in exterior things one man cannot have superabundance without another being in want, since temporal goods cannot be simultaneously possessed by many.  The other way in which avarice may involve immoderation is in interior affection....’  These words must not be taken to condemn the acquisition of large fortunes by capitalists, which is very often necessary in order that the natural resources of a country may be properly exploited.  One man’s possession of great wealth is at the present day frequently the means of opening up new sources of wealth and revenue to the entire community.  In other words, superabundance is a relative term.  This, like many other passages of St. Thomas, must be given a contemporanea expositio.  ’There were no capitalists in the thirteenth century, but only hoarders.’[3]