Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 46 (2/2)
_On the contrary,_ The commandments of the decalogue contain a special precept about the honor due to our parents (Ex. 20:12).
Therefore we ought to love more specially those who are united to us by ties of blood.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 7), we ought out of charity to love those who are more closely united to us more, both because our love for them is more intense, and because there are more reasons for loving them. Now intensity of love arises from the union of lover and beloved: and therefore we should measure the love of different persons according to the different kinds of union, so that a man is more loved in matters touching that particular union in respect of which he is loved. And, again, in comparing love to love we should compare one union with another. Accordingly we must say that friends.h.i.+p among blood relations is based upon their connection by natural origin, the friends.h.i.+p of fellow-citizens on their civic fellows.h.i.+p, and the friends.h.i.+p of those who are fighting side by side on the comrades.h.i.+p of battle. Wherefore in matters pertaining to nature we should love our kindred most, in matters concerning relations between citizens, we should prefer our fellow-citizens, and on the battlefield our fellow-soldiers. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 2) that ”it is our duty to render to each cla.s.s of people such respect as is natural and appropriate. This is in fact the principle upon which we seem to act, for we invite our relations to a wedding ... It would seem to be a special duty to afford our parents the means of living ... and to honor them.”
The same applies to other kinds of friends.h.i.+p.
If however we compare union with union, it is evident that the union arising from natural origin is prior to, and more stable than, all others, because it is something affecting the very substance, whereas other unions supervene and may cease altogether. Therefore the friends.h.i.+p of kindred is more stable, while other friends.h.i.+ps may be stronger in respect of that which is proper to each of them.
Reply Obj. 1: In as much as the friends.h.i.+p of comrades originates through their own choice, love of this kind takes precedence of the love of kindred in matters where we are free to do as we choose, for instance in matters of action. Yet the friends.h.i.+p of kindred is more stable, since it is more natural, and preponderates over others in matters touching nature: consequently we are more beholden to them in the providing of necessaries.
Reply Obj. 2: Ambrose is speaking of love with regard to favors respecting the fellows.h.i.+p of grace, namely, moral instruction. For in this matter, a man ought to provide for his spiritual children whom he has begotten spiritually, more than for the sons of his body, whom he is bound to support in bodily sustenance.
Reply Obj. 3: The fact that in the battle a man obeys his officer rather than his father proves, that he loves his father less, not simply [but] relatively, i.e. as regards the love which is based on fellows.h.i.+p in battle.
_______________________
NINTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 26, Art. 9]
Whether a Man Ought, Out of Charity, to Love His Children More Than His Father?
Objection 1: It seems that a man ought, out of charity, to love his children more than his father. For we ought to love those more to whom we are more bound to do good. Now we are more bound to do good to our children than to our parents, since the Apostle says (2 Cor.
12:14): ”Neither ought the children to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.” Therefore a man ought to love his children more than his parents.
Obj. 2: Further, grace perfects nature. But parents naturally love their children more than these love them, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 12). Therefore a man ought to love his children more than his parents.
Obj. 3: Further, man's affections are conformed to G.o.d by charity.
But G.o.d loves His children more than they love Him. Therefore we also ought to love our children more than our parents.
_On the contrary,_ Ambrose [*Origen, Hom. ii in Cant.] says: ”We ought to love G.o.d first, then our parents, then our children, and lastly those of our household.”
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 4, ad 1; A. 7), the degrees of love may be measured from two standpoints. First, from that of the object. In this respect the better a thing is, and the more like to G.o.d, the more is it to be loved: and in this way a man ought to love his father more than his children, because, to wit, he loves his father as his principle, in which respect he is a more exalted good and more like G.o.d.
Secondly, the degrees of love may be measured from the standpoint of the lover, and in this respect a man loves more that which is more closely connected with him, in which way a man's children are more lovable to him than his father, as the Philosopher states (Ethic.
viii). First, because parents love their children as being part of themselves, whereas the father is not part of his son, so that the love of a father for his children, is more like a man's love for himself. Secondly, because parents know better that so and so is their child than vice versa. Thirdly, because children are nearer to their parents, as being part of them, than their parents are to them to whom they stand in the relation of a principle. Fourthly, because parents have loved longer, for the father begins to love his child at once, whereas the child begins to love his father after a lapse of time; and the longer love lasts, the stronger it is, according to Ecclus. 9:14: ”Forsake not an old friend, for the new will not be like to him.”
Reply Obj. 1: The debt due to a principle is submission of respect and honor, whereas that due to the effect is one of influence and care. Hence the duty of children to their parents consists chiefly in honor: while that of parents to their children is especially one of care.
Reply Obj. 2: It is natural for a man as father to love his children more, if we consider them as closely connected with him: but if we consider which is the more exalted good, the son naturally loves his father more.
Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 32), G.o.d loves us for our good and for His honor. Wherefore since our father is related to us as principle, even as G.o.d is, it belongs properly to the father to receive honor from his children, and to the children to be provided by their parents with what is good for them. Nevertheless in cases of necessity the child is bound out of the favors received to provide for his parents before all.
_______________________
TENTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 26, Art. 10]
Whether a Man Ought to Love His Mother More Than His Father?
Objection 1: It would seem that a man ought to love his mother more than his father. For, as the Philosopher says (De Gener. Animal. i, 20), ”the female produces the body in generation.” Now man receives his soul, not from his father, but from G.o.d by creation, as stated in the First Part (Q. 90, A. 2; Q. 118). Therefore a man receives more from his mother than from his father: and consequently he ought to love her more than him.
<script>