Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 45 (2/2)
Reply Obj. 1: The love of charity takes its quant.i.ty not only from its object which is G.o.d, but also from the lover, who is the man that has charity, even as the quant.i.ty of any action depends in some way on the subject. Wherefore, though a better neighbor is nearer to G.o.d, yet because he is not as near to the man who has charity, as this man is to himself, it does not follow that a man is bound to love his neighbor more than himself.
Reply Obj. 2: A man ought to bear bodily injury for his friend's sake, and precisely in so doing he loves himself more as regards his spiritual mind, because it pertains to the perfection of virtue, which is a good of the mind. In spiritual matters, however, man ought not to suffer injury by sinning, in order to free his neighbor from sin, as stated above.
Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says in his Rule (Ep. ccxi), the saying, ”'charity seeks not her own,' means that it prefers the common to the private good.” Now the common good is always more lovable to the individual than his private good, even as the good of the whole is more lovable to the part, than the latter's own partial good, as stated above (A. 3).
_______________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 26, Art. 5]
Whether a Man Ought to Love His Neighbor More Than His Own Body?
Objection 1: It would seem that a man is not bound to love his neighbor more than his own body. For his neighbor includes his neighbor's body. If therefore a man ought to love his neighbor more than his own body, it follows that he ought to love his neighbor's body more than his own.
Obj. 2: Further, a man ought to love his own soul more than his neighbor's, as stated above (A. 4). Now a man's own body is nearer to his soul than his neighbor. Therefore we ought to love our body more than our neighbor.
Obj. 3: Further, a man imperils that which he loves less for the sake of what he loves more. Now every man is not bound to imperil his own body for his neighbor's safety: this belongs to the perfect, according to John 15:13: ”Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Therefore a man is not bound, out of charity, to love his neighbor more than his own body.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 27) that ”we ought to love our neighbor more than our own body.”
_I answer that,_ Out of charity we ought to love more that which has more fully the reason for being loved out of charity, as stated above (A. 2; Q. 25, A. 12). Now fellows.h.i.+p in the full partic.i.p.ation of happiness which is the reason for loving one's neighbor, is a greater reason for loving, than the partic.i.p.ation of happiness by way of overflow, which is the reason for loving one's own body. Therefore, as regards the welfare of the soul we ought to love our neighbor more than our own body.
Reply Obj. 1: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. ix, 8) a thing seems to be that which is predominant in it: so that when we say that we ought to love our neighbor more than our own body, this refers to his soul, which is his predominant part.
Reply Obj. 2: Our body is nearer to our soul than our neighbor, as regards the const.i.tution of our own nature: but as regards the partic.i.p.ation of happiness, our neighbor's soul is more closely a.s.sociated with our own soul, than even our own body is.
Reply Obj. 3: Every man is immediately concerned with the care of his own body, but not with his neighbor's welfare, except perhaps in cases of urgency: wherefore charity does not necessarily require a man to imperil his own body for his neighbor's welfare, except in a case where he is under obligation to do so; and if a man of his own accord offer himself for that purpose, this belongs to the perfection of charity.
_______________________
SIXTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 26, Art. 6]
Whether We Ought to Love One Neighbor More Than Another?
Objection 1: It would seem that we ought not to love one neighbor more than another. For Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 28): ”One ought to love all men equally. Since, however, one cannot do good to all, we ought to consider those chiefly who by reason of place, time or any other circ.u.mstance, by a kind of chance, are more closely united to us.” Therefore one neighbor ought not to be loved more than another.
Obj. 2: Further, where there is one and the same reason for loving several, there should be no inequality of love. Now there is one and the same reason for loving all one's neighbors, which reason is G.o.d, as Augustine states (De Doctr. Christ. i, 27). Therefore we ought to love all our neighbors equally.
Obj. 3: Further, to love a man is to wish him good things, as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii, 4). Now to all our neighbors we wish an equal good, viz. everlasting life. Therefore we ought to love all our neighbors equally.
_On the contrary,_ One's obligation to love a person is proportionate to the gravity of the sin one commits in acting against that love.
Now it is a more grievous sin to act against the love of certain neighbors, than against the love of others. Hence the commandment (Lev. 10:9), ”He that curseth his father or mother, dying let him die,” which does not apply to those who cursed others than the above.
Therefore we ought to love some neighbors more than others.
_I answer that,_ There have been two opinions on this question: for some have said that we ought, out of charity, to love all our neighbors equally, as regards our affection, but not as regards the outward effect. They held that the order of love is to be understood as applying to outward favors, which we ought to confer on those who are connected with us in preference to those who are unconnected, and not to the inward affection, which ought to be given equally to all including our enemies.
But this is unreasonable. For the affection of charity, which is the inclination of grace, is not less orderly than the natural appet.i.te, which is the inclination of nature, for both inclinations flow from Divine wisdom. Now we observe in the physical order that the natural inclination in each thing is proportionate to the act or movement that is becoming to the nature of that thing: thus in earth the inclination of gravity is greater than in water, because it is becoming to earth to be beneath water. Consequently the inclination also of grace which is the effect of charity, must needs be proportionate to those actions which have to be performed outwardly, so that, to wit, the affection of our charity be more intense towards those to whom we ought to behave with greater kindness.
We must, therefore, say that, even as regards the affection we ought to love one neighbor more than another. The reason is that, since the principle of love is G.o.d, and the person who loves, it must needs be that the affection of love increases in proportion to the nearness to one or the other of those principles. For as we stated above (A. 1), wherever we find a principle, order depends on relation to that principle.
Reply Obj. 1: Love can be unequal in two ways: first on the part of the good we wish our friend. In this respect we love all men equally out of charity: because we wish them all one same generic good, namely everlasting happiness. Secondly love is said to be greater through its action being more intense: and in this way we ought not to love all equally.
<script>