Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 44 (1/2)

Whether Four Things Are Rightly Reckoned As to Be Loved Out of Charity, Viz. G.o.d, Our Neighbor, Our Body and Ourselves?

Objection 1: It would seem that these four things are not rightly reckoned as to be loved out of charity, to wit: G.o.d, our neighbor, our body, and ourselves. For, as Augustine states (Tract. super Joan.

lx.x.xiii), ”he that loveth not G.o.d, loveth not himself.” Hence love of oneself is included in the love of G.o.d. Therefore love of oneself is not distinct from the love of G.o.d.

Obj. 2: Further, a part ought not to be condivided with the whole.

But our body is part of ourselves. Therefore it ought not to be condivided with ourselves as a distinct object of love.

Obj. 3: Further, just as a man has a body, so has his neighbor. Since then the love with which a man loves his neighbor, is distinct from the love with which a man loves himself, so the love with which a man loves his neighbor's body, ought to be distinct from the love with which he loves his own body. Therefore these four things are not rightly distinguished as objects to be loved out of charity.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 23): ”There are four things to be loved; one which is above us,” namely G.o.d, ”another, which is ourselves, a third which is nigh to us,” namely our neighbor, ”and a fourth which is beneath us,” namely our own body.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 23, AA. 1, 5), the friends.h.i.+p of charity is based on the fellows.h.i.+p of happiness. Now, in this fellows.h.i.+p, one thing is considered as the principle from which happiness flows, namely G.o.d; a second is that which directly partakes of happiness, namely men and angels; a third is a thing to which happiness comes by a kind of overflow, namely the human body.

Now the source from which happiness flows is lovable by reason of its being the cause of happiness: that which is a partaker of happiness, can be an object of love for two reasons, either through being identified with ourselves, or through being a.s.sociated with us in partaking of happiness, and in this respect, there are two things to be loved out of charity, in as much as man loves both himself and his neighbor.

Reply Obj. 1: The different relations between a lover and the various things loved make a different kind of lovableness. Accordingly, since the relation between the human lover and G.o.d is different from his relation to himself, these two are reckoned as distinct objects of love, for the love of the one is the cause of the love of the other, so that the former love being removed the latter is taken away.

Reply Obj. 2: The subject of charity is the rational mind that can be capable of obtaining happiness, to which the body does not reach directly, but only by a kind of overflow. Hence, by his reasonable mind which holds the first place in him, man, out of charity, loves himself in one way, and his own body in another.

Reply Obj. 3: Man loves his neighbor, both as to his soul and as to his body, by reason of a certain fellows.h.i.+p in happiness. Wherefore, on the part of his neighbor, there is only one reason for loving him; and our neighbor's body is not reckoned as a special object of love.

_______________________

QUESTION 26

OF THE ORDER OF CHARITY (In Thirteen Articles)

We must now consider the order of charity, under which head there are thirteen points of inquiry:

(1) Whether there is an order in charity?

(2) Whether man ought to love G.o.d more than his neighbor?

(3) Whether more than himself?

(4) Whether he ought to love himself more than his neighbor?

(5) Whether man ought to love his neighbor more than his own body?

(6) Whether he ought to love one neighbor more than another?

(7) Whether he ought to love more, a neighbor who is better, or one who is more closely united to him?

(8) Whether he ought to love more, one who is akin to him by blood, or one who is united to him by other ties?

(9) Whether, out of charity, a man ought to love his son more than his father?

(10) Whether he ought to love his mother more than his father?

(11) Whether he ought to love his wife more than his father or mother?

(12) Whether we ought to love those who are kind to us more than those whom we are kind to?