Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 41 (1/2)
(10) Whether we ought to love the angels out of charity?
(11) Whether we ought to love the demons?
(12) How to enumerate the things we are bound to love out of charity.
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 25, Art. 1]
Whether the Love of Charity Stops at G.o.d, or Extends to Our Neighbor?
Objection 1: It would seem that the love of charity stops at G.o.d and does not extend to our neighbor. For as we owe G.o.d love, so do we owe Him fear, according Deut. 10:12: ”And now Israel, what doth the Lord thy G.o.d require of thee, but that thou fear ... and love Him?” Now the fear with which we fear man, and which is called human fear, is distinct from the fear with which we fear G.o.d, and which is either servile or filial, as is evident from what has been stated above (Q.
10, A. 2). Therefore also the love with which we love G.o.d, is distinct from the love with which we love our neighbor.
Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 8) that ”to be loved is to be honored.” Now the honor due to G.o.d, which is known as _latria,_ is distinct from the honor due to a creature, and known as _dulia._ Therefore again the love wherewith we love G.o.d, is distinct from that with which we love our neighbor.
Obj. 3: Further, hope begets charity, as a gloss states on Matt. 1:2.
Now hope is so due to G.o.d that it is reprehensible to hope in man, according to Jer. 17:5: ”Cursed be the man that trusteth in man.”
Therefore charity is so due to G.o.d, as not to extend to our neighbor.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 John 4:21): ”This commandment we have from G.o.d, that he, who loveth G.o.d, love also his brother.”
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 17, A. 6; Q. 19, A. 3; I-II, Q.
54, A. 3) habits are not differentiated except their acts be of different species. For every act of the one species belongs to the same habit. Now since the species of an act is derived from its object, considered under its formal aspect, it follows of necessity that it is specifically the same act that tends to an aspect of the object, and that tends to the object under that aspect: thus it is specifically the same visual act whereby we see the light, and whereby we see the color under the aspect of light.
Now the aspect under which our neighbor is to be loved, is G.o.d, since what we ought to love in our neighbor is that he may be in G.o.d. Hence it is clear that it is specifically the same act whereby we love G.o.d, and whereby we love our neighbor. Consequently the habit of charity extends not only to the love of G.o.d, but also to the love of our neighbor.
Reply Obj. 1: We may fear our neighbor, even as we may love him, in two ways: first, on account of something that is proper to him, as when a man fears a tyrant on account of his cruelty, or loves him by reason of his own desire to get something from him. Such like human fear is distinct from the fear of G.o.d, and the same applies to love.
Secondly, we fear a man, or love him on account of what he has of G.o.d; as when we fear the secular power by reason of its exercising the ministry of G.o.d for the punishment of evildoers, and love it for its justice: such like fear of man is not distinct from fear of G.o.d, as neither is such like love.
Reply Obj. 2: Love regards good in general, whereas honor regards the honored person's own good, for it is given to a person in recognition of his own virtue. Hence love is not differentiated specifically on account of the various degrees of goodness in various persons, so long as it is referred to one good common to all, whereas honor is distinguished according to the good belonging to individuals.
Consequently we love all our neighbors with the same love of charity, in so far as they are referred to one good common to them all, which is G.o.d; whereas we give various honors to various people, according to each one's own virtue, and likewise to G.o.d we give the singular honor of latria on account of His singular virtue.
Reply Obj. 3: It is wrong to hope in man as though he were the princ.i.p.al author of salvation, but not, to hope in man as helping us ministerially under G.o.d. In like manner it would be wrong if a man loved his neighbor as though he were his last end, but not, if he loved him for G.o.d's sake; and this is what charity does.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 25, Art. 2]
Whether We Should Love Charity Out of Charity?
Objection 1: It would seem that charity need not be loved out of charity. For the things to be loved out of charity are contained in the two precepts of charity (Matt. 22:37-39): and neither of them includes charity, since charity is neither G.o.d nor our neighbor.
Therefore charity need not be loved out of charity.
Obj. 2: Further, charity is founded on the fellows.h.i.+p of happiness, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 1). But charity cannot partic.i.p.ate in happiness. Therefore charity need not be loved out of charity.
Obj. 3: Further, charity is a kind of friends.h.i.+p, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 1). But no man can have friends.h.i.+p for charity or for an accident, since such things cannot return love for love, which is essential to friends.h.i.+p, as stated in _Ethic._ viii. Therefore charity need not be loved out of charity.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. viii, 8): ”He that loves his neighbor, must, in consequence, love love itself.” But we love our neighbor out of charity. Therefore it follows that charity also is loved out of charity.
_I answer that,_ Charity is love. Now love, by reason of the nature of the power whose act it is, is capable of reflecting on itself; for since the object of the will is the universal good, whatever has the aspect of good, can be the object of an act of the will: and since to will is itself a good, man can will himself to will. Even so the intellect, whose object is the true, understands that it understands, because this again is something true. Love, however, even by reason of its own species, is capable of reflecting on itself, because it is a spontaneous movement of the lover towards the beloved, wherefore from the moment a man loves, he loves himself to love.