Summa Theologica Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 43

EIGHTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 25, Art. 8]

Whether Charity Requires That We Should Love Our Enemies?

Objection 1: It would seem that charity does not require us to love our enemies. For Augustine says (Enchiridion lxxiii) that "this great good," namely, the love of our enemies, is "not so universal in its application, as the object of our pet.i.tion when we say: Forgive us our trespa.s.ses." Now no one is forgiven sin without he have charity, because, according to Prov. 10:12, "charity covereth all sins."

Therefore charity does not require that we should love our enemies.

Obj. 2: Further, charity does not do away with nature. Now everything, even an irrational being, naturally hates its contrary, as a lamb hates a wolf, and water fire. Therefore charity does not make us love our enemies.

Obj. 3: Further, charity "doth nothing perversely" (1 Cor. 13:4). Now it seems perverse to love one's enemies, as it would be to hate one's friends: hence Joab upbraided David by saying (2 Kings 19:6): "Thou lovest them that hate thee, and thou hatest them that love thee."

Therefore charity does not make us love our enemies.

_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (Matt. 4:44): "Love your enemies."

_I answer that,_ Love of one's enemies may be understood in three ways. First, as though we were to love our enemies as such: this is perverse, and contrary to charity, since it implies love of that which is evil in another.

Secondly love of one's enemies may mean that we love them as to their nature, but in general: and in this sense charity requires that we should love our enemies, namely, that in loving G.o.d and our neighbor, we should not exclude our enemies from the love given to our neighbor in general.

Thirdly, love of one's enemies may be considered as specially directed to them, namely, that we should have a special movement of love towards our enemies. Charity does not require this absolutely, because it does not require that we should have a special movement of love to every individual man, since this would be impossible.

Nevertheless charity does require this, in respect of our being prepared in mind, namely, that we should be ready to love our enemies individually, if the necessity were to occur. That man should actually do so, and love his enemy for G.o.d's sake, without it being necessary for him to do so, belongs to the perfection of charity. For since man loves his neighbor, out of charity, for G.o.d's sake, the more he loves G.o.d, the more does he put enmities aside and show love towards his neighbor: thus if we loved a certain man very much, we would love his children though they were unfriendly towards us. This is the sense in which Augustine speaks in the pa.s.sage quoted in the First Objection, the Reply to which is therefore evident.

Reply Obj. 2: Everything naturally hates its contrary as such. Now our enemies are contrary to us, as enemies, wherefore this itself should be hateful to us, for their enmity should displease us. They are not, however, contrary to us, as men and capable of happiness: and it is as such that we are bound to love them.

Reply Obj. 3: It is wrong to love one's enemies as such: charity does not do this, as stated above.

_______________________

NINTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 25, Art. 9]

Whether It Is Necessary for Salvation That We Should Show Our Enemies the Signs and Effects of Love?

Objection 1: It would seem that charity demands of a man to show his enemy the signs or effects of love. For it is written (1 John 3:18): "Let us not love in word nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth."

Now a man loves in deed by showing the one he loves signs and effects of love. Therefore charity requires that a man show his enemies such signs and effects of love.

Obj. 2: Further, Our Lord said in the same breath (Matt. 5:44): "Love your enemies," and, "Do good to them that hate you." Now charity demands that we love our enemies. Therefore it demands also that we should "do good to them."

Obj. 3: Further, not only G.o.d but also our neighbor is the object of charity. Now Gregory says in a homily for Pentecost (In Evang. x.x.x), that "love of G.o.d cannot be idle for wherever it is it does great things, and if it ceases to work, it is no longer love." Hence charity towards our neighbor cannot be without producing works. But charity requires us to love our neighbor without exception, though he be an enemy. Therefore charity requires us to show the signs and effects of love towards our enemies.

_On the contrary,_ A gloss on Matt. 5:44, "Do good to them that hate you," says: "To do good to one's enemies is the height of perfection"

[*Augustine, Enchiridion lxxiii]. Now charity does not require us to do that which belongs to its perfection. Therefore charity does not require us to show the signs and effects of love to our enemies.

_I answer that,_ The effects and signs of charity are the result of inward love, and are in proportion with it. Now it is absolutely necessary, for the fulfilment of the precept, that we should inwardly love our enemies in general, but not individually, except as regards the mind being prepared to do so, as explained above (A. 8).

We must accordingly apply this to the showing of the effects and signs of love. For some of the signs and favors of love are shown to our neighbors in general, as when we pray for all the faithful, or for a whole people, or when anyone bestows a favor on a whole community: and the fulfilment of the precept requires that we should show such like favors or signs of love towards our enemies. For if we did not so, it would be a proof of vengeful spite, and contrary to what is written (Lev. 19:18): "Seek not revenge, nor be mindful of the injury of thy citizens." But there are other favors or signs of love, which one shows to certain persons in particular: and it is not necessary for salvation that we show our enemies such like favors and signs of love, except as regards being ready in our minds, for instance to come to their a.s.sistance in a case of urgency, according to Prov. 25:21: "If thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him ... drink." Outside cases of urgency, to show such like favors to an enemy belongs to the perfection of charity, whereby we not only beware, as in duty bound, of being overcome by evil, but also wish to overcome evil by good [*Rom. 12:21], which belongs to perfection: for then we not only beware of being drawn into hatred on account of the hurt done to us, but purpose to induce our enemy to love us on account of our kindliness.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

_______________________

TENTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 25, Art. 10]

Whether We Ought to Love the Angels Out of Charity?

Objection 1: It would seem that we are not bound to love the angels out of charity. For, as Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i), charity is a twofold love: the love of G.o.d and of our neighbor. Now love of the angels is not contained in the love of G.o.d, since they are created substances; nor is it, seemingly, contained in the love of our neighbor, since they do not belong with us to a common species.

Therefore we are not bound to love them out of charity.

Obj. 2: Further, dumb animals have more in common with us than the angels have, since they belong to the same proximate genus as we do.

But we have not charity towards dumb animals, as stated above (A. 3).

Neither, therefore, have we towards the angels.

Obj. 3: Further, nothing is so proper to friends as companions.h.i.+p with one another (Ethic. viii, 5). But the angels are not our companions; we cannot even see them. Therefore we are unable to give them the friends.h.i.+p of charity.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 30): "If the name of neighbor is given either to those whom we pity, or to those who pity us, it is evident that the precept binding us to love our neighbor includes also the holy angels from whom we receive many merciful favors."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 23, A. 1), the friends.h.i.+p of charity is founded upon the fellows.h.i.+p of everlasting happiness, in which men share in common with the angels. For it is written (Matt.

22:30) that "in the resurrection ... men shall be as the angels of G.o.d in heaven." It is therefore evident that the friends.h.i.+p of charity extends also to the angels.

Reply Obj. 1: Our neighbor is not only one who is united to us in a common species, but also one who is united to us by sharing in the blessings pertaining to everlasting life, and it is on the latter fellows.h.i.+p that the friends.h.i.+p of charity is founded.

Reply Obj. 2: Dumb animals are united to us in the proximate genus, by reason of their sensitive nature; whereas we are partakers of everlasting happiness, by reason not of our sensitive nature but of our rational mind wherein we a.s.sociate with the angels.

Reply Obj. 3: The companions.h.i.+p of the angels does not consist in outward fellows.h.i.+p, which we have in respect of our sensitive nature; it consists in a fellows.h.i.+p of the mind, imperfect indeed in this life, but perfect in heaven, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 1, ad 1).

_______________________

ELEVENTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 25, Art. 11]

Whether We Are Bound to Love the Demons Out of Charity?

Objection 1: It would seem that we ought to love the demons out of charity. For the angels are our neighbors by reason of their fellows.h.i.+p with us in a rational mind. But the demons also share in our fellows.h.i.+p thus, since natural gifts, such as life and understanding, remain in them unimpaired, as Dionysius states (Div.

Nom. iv). Therefore we ought to love the demons out of charity.

Obj. 2: Further, the demons differ from the blessed angels in the matter of sin, even as sinners from just men. Now the just man loves the sinner out of charity. Therefore he ought to love the demons also out of charity.

Obj. 3: Further, we ought, out of charity, to love, as being our neighbors, those from whom we receive favors, as appears from the pa.s.sage of Augustine quoted above (A. 9). Now the demons are useful to us in many things, for "by tempting us they work crowns for us,"

as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 17). Therefore we ought to love the demons out of charity.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 28:18): "Your league with death shall be abolished, and your covenant with h.e.l.l shall not stand." Now the perfection of a peace and covenant is through charity. Therefore we ought not to have charity for the demons who live in h.e.l.l and compa.s.s death.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 6), in the sinner, we are bound, out of charity, to love his nature, but to hate his sin. But the name of demon is given to designate a nature deformed by sin, wherefore demons should not be loved out of charity. Without however laying stress on the word, the question as to whether the spirits called demons ought to be loved out of charity, must be answered in accordance with the statement made above (AA. 2, 3), that a thing may be loved out of charity in two ways. First, a thing may be loved as the person who is the object of friends.h.i.+p, and thus we cannot have the friends.h.i.+p of charity towards the demons. For it is an essential part of friends.h.i.+p that one should be a well-wisher towards one's friend; and it is impossible for us, out of charity, to desire the good of everlasting life, to which charity is referred, for those spirits whom G.o.d has condemned eternally, since this would be in opposition to our charity towards G.o.d whereby we approve of His justice.

Secondly, we love a thing as being that which we desire to be enduring as another's good. In this way we love irrational creatures out of charity, in as much as we wish them to endure, to give glory to G.o.d and be useful to man, as stated above (A. 3): and in this way too we can love the nature of the demons even out of charity, in as much as we desire those spirits to endure, as to their natural gifts, unto G.o.d's glory.

Reply Obj. 1: The possession of everlasting happiness is not impossible for the angelic mind as it is for the mind of a demon; consequently the friends.h.i.+p of charity which is based on the fellows.h.i.+p of everlasting life, rather than on the fellows.h.i.+p of nature, is possible towards the angels, but not towards the demons.

Reply Obj. 2: In this life, men who are in sin retain the possibility of obtaining everlasting happiness: not so those who are lost in h.e.l.l, who, in this respect, are in the same case as the demons.

Reply Obj. 3: That the demons are useful to us is due not to their intention but to the ordering of Divine providence; hence this leads us to be friends, not with them, but with G.o.d, Who turns their perverse intention to our profit.

_______________________

TWELFTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 25, Art. 12]