WEARMOUTH
572
WEATHERS
fied simply with the entire store of a rich man's
belongings, then the only sufficient defence of indi-
vidual ownership fails by proclaiming it to be unre-
stricted. The beneficiaries in part, at any rate, of
that trust are the poor. The command to bestow
alms appUes with special emphasis to those who have
an abundance of tlus world's goods.
In attempting in general to define the vahdity and quantity of this obhgation theologians have recourse to many distinctions. They separate carefully the various degrees of distress to be reheved, and put stress upon the actual financial standing of those who are to afford the succour. Thus the differences are noted between extreme, grave, and ordinary necessity. Likewise, in the condition of those whose duty to give aid is to be ascertained discrimination is made between: those who have only what is barely required to maintain themselves and family; those who over and above the mere necessaries of life are provided with what is needed to keep their present social status but nothing more: those who have a real surplus. The wealthy may be deemed to belong to this third class. It is a pagan and selfish view that all of a rich man's income or holdings is demanded for the upkeep or betterment of his social position and that thus he cannot be said to ever have anything beyond his needs. The accepted Catholic teaching is that those who have a real superfluity of goods (as many other than multi-millionaires have) are bound to help those in want, whatever be their grade of misery. So much at least seems plain from the words of Christ (Matt., XXV, 41-46). It is not so easy to define precisely when this obhgation is a grave one. Some hold that it is only so in cases of extreme necessity, i. e. when a person is so situated as to be unable to escape death or some equivalent evil without assistance from others. However, Christ threatens eternal damnation (Matt., la. cit.) for the neglect to succour needs such as those which constantly exist in human society. St. John (I Epist., iii, 17) asks the pertinent question: "He that hath the substance of this world, and shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from him: how doth the charity of God abide in him?"
The more probable opinion seems to be that a wealthy man is bound under pain of grievous sin to help those in want, whether the need be grave, i. e. such as would compel descent from one's actual social condition, or merely of the ordinary type, such as is experienced by the general run of the poor. A rich man does not, however, incur the guilt of grievous sin through failure to render aid in each and evciy instance, but only by habitually refusing to answer the appeals of the unfortunate. The Fathers, such as Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, and Augustine, characterize such persons as false to their trust and robbers of what has been given to them to distribute. The judgment of theologians is, however, not unani- mous in this matter. Hence, the confessor could not impose a strict obhgation as binding under pain of grievous sin, nor could he consequently refuse absolu- tion because of unwiUingness to fulfil this duty.
Slater, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); Ryan, A Living Wage (New York, 1906) ; Garbiguet, La proprifU privie (Paris, 1900): Devas. Political Economy (London, 1910); G^NicOT, Theologiw moralis inslitutiones (Louvain, 1898); Ballerini, Opu3 theologicum morale (Prato, 1899); Kelleher, Private Ownership: its basis and equitable conditions (Dublin,
1911). Joseph V. Delant.
Weannouth Abbey, on the river Wear, in Dur- ham, England; a Honedictine monastery founded in 674 by St. Benedict Biscop on hind given by Egfrid, King of Northumbria. Benedict dedicated it to St. Peter, and ten years later founded (he sister house at Jarrow, on the Tyne, in honour of St. I'aul. These two monasteries were so closely connected in their early history that they are often spoken of as one; but they were really six or seven miles apart. The founder brought workmen from France to build his
church at Weannouth in the Roman fashion and
furnished it with glass windows (hitherto unknown in
England), pictures, and service-bocks. The abbey
was thus the cradle (as Bishop Hedley has said) not
only of English art but of Engh.sh hterature, for the
Venerable Bede received his early education there.
Benedict himself was the first abbot, and the monas-
tery flourished imder him and his successors Easter-
win, St. Ceolfrid, and others, for two hundred years.
It suffered greatly from the Danes about 860, and
again, after the Conquest, at the hands of Malcolm
of Scotland. Jarrow was destroyed about the same
time, but both monasteries were restored, though not
to their former independence. They became cells
subordinate to the great cathedral priory of Durham,
and were thenceforward occupied by a very small
number of monks. The names of only two of the
superiors (known as magistri) have been preserved —
those of Alexander Larnesley and John Norton.
In 1.54,5 "all the house and scite of the late cell of Wearmouth", valued at about £26 yearly, were granted by Henry VIII to Thomas Wiitehead, a relative of Prior Whitehead of Durham, who resigned that monastery in 1540 and became the first Protes- tant dean. Wearmouth passed afterwards to the Widdrington family, then to that of Fenwick. The remains of the monastic buildings were incorporated in a private mansion built in James I's reign; but this was burned down in 1790, and no trace is now visible of the monastery associated with the venerable names of Benedict Biscop, Ceolfrid, and Bede. The present parish church occupies the site of the ancient priory church. The tower dates from Norman times, and doubtless formed part of the building as restored after the Conquest.
DcGDALE, Monasl. anglic, I (London, 1813), SOl-4; Ven. Bede, Vila: ss. abbalum monaslerii in Wiramulha in P. L., XCIV, 714-30; Tanner, Notitia monastica: Durham (London, 1787), xvi; Hedlet. Monhwearmouth in Ampleforth Journal (Dec, 1901). 107-21; Zettinoer, Weremulh-Jarrow und Rom; im 7. Jahrhunderl in Der Kalholik (Sept., 1901).
D. O. Hunter-Blair.
Weathers, William, titular Bishop of Amycla, b. 12 Nov., 1814; d. at Isleworth, Middlese.x, 4 Mar., 1895. His parents were Welsh Protestants; the mother and children were converted after the father's death. He was educated at the Franciscan school, Baddesley (1823-28), and at Old Hall, where he re- mained for forty years, and held in turn every office. Before his ordination (1838) he was already a master (1835). He was prefect of discipline 1840-43, vice- president and procurator 1843-51, prefect of studies for some years, and president 1851-68. His presi- dency forms a memorable epoch in the history of the college and of Cathohcism in southern Engl.and. The years succeeding the restoration of the Hierarchy saw a readjustment of standards. With a view to invig- orate the future secular clergy. Manning thought it neces.sary that the control of the seminary should be in the hands of his newly-formed congregation, the Oblates of St. Charles; and, imder his influence. Cardi- nal Wiseman appointed a statT at .St. Edmund's who were neither desired nor welcomed by the president (185.5-56). The result was an attempt to mjinage the college without the president's co-opiTation. The West minst er Chapt er t ook up t he ma 1 1 er. a nd , aft er an appeal to Rome, the Oblates were withdrawn in 1861. Dr. Weathors's own ajjpreciatinn of higher ideals is indicated by the remodelling of the college rules during his presidency, and by the invitation and firm sup- liort given to Dr. Ward, a convert and a layman, as lecturer in theology (1S.52-.5S). When Archbi.shop Manning removed the divines to Hammersmith in 1,869, he appointed Weathers rector of that semin.iry, which position Weathers held until the seminary w;v8 closed by Cardinal \'aughan in 1S92. .\t liisown choice, he then became chaplain to the Sisters of Nazareth at Isleworth, He had been created D.D. in 1845,
