TREATISE IX
Theological Charity and Contrary Vices
This treatise is divided into three chapters : 1. charity towards God ; 2. charity to self; 3. charity to the neighbour.
CHAPTER I. CHARITY TOWARDS GOD
In this chapter we shall consider : I. the nature and properties of charity ; 2. the necessity of charity ; 3. vices contrary to charity.
Art. 1. Nature and Properties of Charity
- Definition. Charity is a virtue infused by God enabling man to love God for His own sake as the supreme good and himself and his neighbour for God’s sake.
The formal object of charity is the divine goodness.
The material object of charity are all men and angels, but not the damned and the devil since they are incapable of divine friendship. The motive of charity is God who is so lovable in Himself and for His own sake. Theological charity is a perfect love of benevolence and of friendship for God.
The efficacy of charity follows from its very nature as friendship with God. Consequently charity destroys mortal sin and confers justification on the sinner. But it is God’s will in instituting the sacraments of the dead for the remission of sin that the sinner when eliciting an act of perfect charity through the help of actual grace must have at least an implicit desire of receiving these sacraments.
- The properties of charity. Charity must be supernatural, efficacious, and appreciate God above everything.
- Charity is supernatural in every respect, both in its object and in its source — supernatural grace.
- Charity must be effective, and therefore the mere affection of charity (affective charity) is not sufficient. Thus we are warned : “ Let us show our love by the true test of action, not by taking phrases on our lips ” (1 John iii, 18).
- Charity must show the highest appreciation for God (not necessarily the highest intensity) — that is to say, we must prize God more highly than all creatures, so that we are prepared to lose the whole world rather than the friendship of God.
- Scholium. The excellence of charity. Charity excels all the other virtues and the gifts : 1. charity alone remits all mortal sins ; 2. charity alone establishes true friendship between God and man ; 3. charity alone is the form of all the virtues — all the virtues arc subservient to charity and their acts are meritorious because they have their origin in charity.
Art. 2. Necessity of Charity
- First Principle. The habit of charity is a necessary means of salvation for all men, the act of charity for all who have come to the use of reason.
The habit of charity is necessary, since no one can be saved without sanctifying grace and friendship with God which cannot be separated from charity.
Since everyone who has come to the use of reason must strive for union with God and it is charity which unites man to God, therefore such persons are bound to elicit the act of charity.
Second Principle. Both from the nature of charity and incidentally for other reasons all men enjoying the use of reason are obliged by divine precept to elicit an act of charity.
The divine precept of charity is called by Christ : “ the greatest of the commandments and the first ” (Mt. xxii, 38). The following proposition was condemned by Innocent XI, 1679 : “ It is probable that the precept of charity towards God is not in itself of obligation even once every five years.”
Of Its very nature an act of charity must be elicited :
- at the outset of man’s moral life ;
- at the hour of death ;
- sometimes during life (at least more frequently than every five years).
Incidentally the obligation arises :
- in danger of sin when temptation cannot otherwise be removed except by making an act of charity ;
- whenever a person who is in the state of mortal sin and unable to obtain confession must recover the state of grace.
Art. 3. Vices Contrary to Charity towards God
- In a general way every mortal sin is contrary to the virtue of charity towards God inasmuch as they destroy the soul’s friendship with God, but sins particularly opposed to charity are : a) the omission of an act of charity which ought to be made (sins of omission), cf. the preceding article ; b ) hatred of God and sloth (sins of commission ).
- Hatred of God is a mortal sin ; if it is the hatred of enmity, then it is the most grievous of all sins which nevertheless allows of slight matter. Hatred of God exists in one of two forms. There is the hatred of disgust whereby a person detests God inasmuch as He punishes sinners, and this type of hatred since it is contrary to the justice of God, is a mortal sin which admits of parvity of matter. Another form of hatred is that of enmity whereby man wishes evil to God. Such hatred is of its nature diabolical and is the most grievous of all sins since no other sin so grievously offends God.
- Sloth is a state of weariness and dejection because of the difficulty experienced in obtaining and using the means of salvation. It is thus opposed to charity which delights in the means of union with God. Cf. n. 178.
CHAPTER II. CHARITY TO SELF
- The obligation to possess a true love for ourselves is presupposed in the precept commanding us to love our neighbour as ourselves. Furthermore, charity must include ah those capable of attaining eternal glory, and not only our soul but also our body was created for this purpose.
Sins opposed to charity to self are all the injuries which we deliberately inflict on our soul or body, such as mortal sin which causes the death of the soul, the dangers to which we expose body and soul, suicide, etc. — Inordinate self-love, the root of many sins, is contrary to this form of charity.
CHAPTER III. CHARITY TO THE NEIGHBOUR
This chapter is divided into three articles : 1. existence, extent, and order of the precept of charity to the neighbour ; 2. external acts of charity ; 3. sins contrary to this virtue.
Art. 1. Existence, Extent, and Order of the Precept of Charity to the Neighbour.
This article contains two paragraphs : 1. existence and extent of the precept of charity to the neighbour ; 2. the order of charity.
- 1 . Existence and Extent of this Precept of Charity
- i. The existence of a special precept of loving our neighbour with a supernatural love which is both affective and effective is evident :
- a) from Sacred Scripture : “ And the second (commandment), its like, is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Mt. xxii, 39).
- b) from the propositions condemned by Innocent XI : “ We are not obliged to love our neighbour with an internal and formal act of love.” “External acts alone are sufficient for satisfying the commandment to love the neighbour.”
- c) from reason, since even our neighbour is capable of eternal glory. Internal acts of charity to the neighbour are : i. delight at his prosperity, sorrow in his adversity ; 2. a sincere desire for his good.
External acts of charity are those acts of beneficence which we show to our neighbour in the performance of the seven spiritual and corporeal works of mercy.
- Its extent. The precept of charity extends to all men (capable of eternal happiness) and even to our enemies. We are bound to love our enemies not as enemies but as men. Thus by divine positive precept which is founded on Natural law Christ commands : “ Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who persecute and insult you ” (Mt. v, 44). But we are not obliged to love our enemies because they are our enemies but in spite of their enmity.
Therefore we must :
- avoid the hatred of enmity and all desire of revenge ;
- offer our enemy at least the ordinary signs of love
- seek reconciliation in so far as that is within our power.
- 2. The Order of Charity
- There is an order to be observed in the practice of charity : 1. between the persons loved ; 2. between the goods which are loved in them.
- In our love of persons the order to be observed is the following : a) We are bound to love God above all else, then ourselves, and our neighbour in the third place. That God must be loved above all else is evident from the fact that our love of Him must reveal the highest appreciation. That a man must love himself more than his neighbour follows from Christ’s precept commanding us to love our neighbour as ourselves. Therefore true love of self is the standard and measure of the love of our neighbour. b) We arc not bound to love our neighbours equally but in proportion to their proximity to God and to ourselves.
Charity derives from two sources — God and ourselves. The nearer anything is to either of these principles, so much the greater must be our love of it. Thus those who are better and more perfect in the sight of God are deserving of greater love than those who are less perfect,
The ordinary signs of affection are those which we usually use for all men in similar circumstances since they are more like to God. This refers to our reverence for and appreciation of such persons, not necessarily to our feelings towards them. Thus a son must have a greater regard for a saintly person than for his own wicked father, but it is not necessary that he possess greater feelings of love for that person. In our charity towards our relatives and friends the order to be observed — in normal circumstances — is the following : wife (or husband), children, parents, brothers and sisters, other relatives, friends and benefactors. This order may be changed for a sufficient reason.
- Between the objects loved the following order exists : a) one’s own spiritual welfare ; b) the spiritual welfare of our neighbour ; c) one’s own bodily welfare ; d) bodily welfare of the neighbour ; e) external goods.
First Rule. In another’s extreme spiritual necessity 2 we are obliged to help him even at grave risk to our own bodily life, provided that there is a reasonable hope of saving him and no serious public harm results. Our neighbour’s everlasting life is a far more excellent good than the life of our own body.
Second Rule. Except when another is in extreme spiritual necessity there is no strict obligation of helping him at the risk of serious bodily harm.
This follows from the fact that we are not obliged to safeguard even our own life where there is risk of serious harm.
Third Rule. In another’s grave need (whether spiritual or temporal) we must help him if we can do so without serious inconvenience, unless justice, piety, or our office make greater claims on us.
Fourth Rule. In common or slight necessity we must be prepared to suffer some slight inconvenience in helping our neighbour.
Art. 2. External Acts of Charity to the Neighbour
- It is customary to distinguish external acts of charity into seven spiritual and seven corporal works of mercy. The seven spiritual works of mercy are to convert the sinner, to instruct the ignorant, to advise the doubtful, to comfort the sorrowful, to bear wrongs patiently, to forgive injuries, to pray for all. The seven corporal works of mercy are
*It is customary to speak of three types of necessity : extreme, grave, common.
A person is said to be in extreme necessity when he is in immediate danger of losing either his bodily or spiritual life. In the first instance, v.g., in danger of drowning, the extreme necessity is temporal ; in the second he is in extreme spiritual necessity. He is in grave necessity when he is unable to avoid grave harm to body or soul without the help of another. Common or slight necessity is said to exist when a person is in difficulties but is able to help himself.
to feed the hungry, to give drink to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to harbour the harbourless, to visit the sick, to visit the imprisoned, and to bury the dead. For the sake of brevity only the two principal acts of charity are considered here : almsgiving and fraternal correction.
- 1. Almsgiving
- Definition. Almsgiving is a work of mercy whereby we give something to the needy for the sake of God.
Therefore almsgiving in its strict sense does not refer to the thing given but to the action of giving which is elicited by mercy and commanded by charity.
First Principle. The giving of alms to the poor is commanded by Natural law and divine positive law.
The Natural law ordains that we should show not merely affective love but also effective love for our neighbour. But it is impossible to show such effective love for the poor without giving alms to them. Moreover, the Natural law requires the preservation of peace in society which would undoubtedly be disturbed if the poor were denied alms. Therefore almsgiving is demanded both by charity and by legal justice, not, however, by commutative justice so that the poor who are denied alms cannot claim occult compensation.
Second Principle. In individual cases the duty of almsgiving must be determined : a) by the neighbour’s need, b ) by the donor’s resources. Consequently the greater the need of the neighbour and the more abundant the resources of the donor, so much the greater is the latter’s obligation of giving alms. On the other hand the less severe the neighbour’s need and the smaller the resources of the donor, so much the less urgent is the latter’s obligation. Therefore in common need — the state of the ordinary poor — there is a grave obligation of giving alms on some occasions from one’s superfluous wealth, but there is no obligation of giving alms to any individual poor person.
The amount of alms camiot be accurately determined. According to St. Alphonsus it is sufficient to give each year two per cent of one’s superfluous wealth.
- Scholium. The fraudulent poor. Persons who are not in genuine need and yet obtain alms by feigning great hardship commit sin in three ways : a) against truth, since their mode of behaviour is a detestable deceit ; b ) against charity, because they deprive other poor persons of alms which they would otherwise have received ; c ) against commutative justice, since they deceive by guile those who are naturally displeased at being forcibly despoiled of these alms. Therefore these frauds are bound to restore the alms they have obtained in this way. However, in practice such restitution is often impossible since such frauds quickly dispose of the money they obtain and thus have nothing left to make restitution.
- 2. Fraternal Correction
- Definition. Fraternal correction is a private admonition given to another out of charity in an endeavour to withdraw him from sin or from danger of sin.
The obligation of such correction arises both from Natural law and from divine positive law : a) from divine positive law : “ Confront thy friend with his fault ; it may be that he knows nothing of the matter, and can clear himself ; if not, there is hope he will amend ” (Eccles. xix, 13) ; b) from Natural law, since fraternal correction is a spiritual form of almsgiving which is commanded by Natural law, as already stated.
Two conditions must be verified before there exists an obligation to correct another — that is to say, there is no grave obligation to give fraternal correction unless a ) one is certain of the grave spiritual need of another from which it does not seem he can be rescued except by such correction ; b ) this correction can be given without serious inconvenience to him who corrects.
There is a method to be observed in giving fraternal correction ; the correction must be guided by kindness and love, and, if given to persons enjoying some authority, by reverence and humility. Moreover, Christ commands that it be first given secretly : “ Go at once and tax him with it (the wrong), as a private matter between thee and him ” (Mt. xviii, 15). If private correction is of no avail, one should have recourse to two or three witnesses, and finally, if the culprit is not yet won over, he must be denounced to the legitimate superior. There are occasions when private correction can and should be omitted and the culprit denounced immediately to the superior, namely, if : a) the sin of another is publicly known ; b) if the sin is likely to cause harm to others and it is impossible to make sufficient safeguard against such harm without denunciation ; c ) if the culprit has renounced his right to private correction.
Art. 3. Sins against Charity to the Neighbour
- Introductory. Since the precept of charity to the neighbour is both positive (inasmuch as it commands certain acts to be done) and negative (inasmuch as it forbids other acts), it is possible to sin against this precept either by omitting the prescribed acts (of which we have already spoken in the previous article) or by committing other acts, such as acts of hatred, emnity, envy, dissension, quarrelling, scandal, co-operation in sin. Sufficient has been said already about the majority of these acts, so we limit our attention to scandal and co-operation.
- 1. Scandal
- Definition. Scandal is some word or deed (whether of omission or commission) that is itself evil or has the appearance of evil and provides an occasion of sin to another.
Kinds, l. Active scandal is the act itself which is the occasion of sin for another ; passive scandal is the sin occasioned by another’s act.
- Active scandal is direct if the sin of another is intended ; it is indirect if the sin is not intended but is foreseen.
- Direct scandal is diabolical (or formal) if through hatred of God or the neighbour the sin of another is intended precisely as sin ; it is simply direct when the neighbour’s sin is intended for some other purpose, such as pleasure or revenge, etc.
- Passive scandal is given when it is actually produced by the evil action of another ; it is taken when it results not from an evil action but from a good action which is accepted by another either through ignorance (scandal of the weak) or through malice (pharisaic scandal) as an occasion of sin.
- The sinfulness of scandal : a) Direct scandal is a mortal sin both against charity and against that virtue which the neighbour is encouraged to violate, but it admits of slight matter ; b ) indirect scandal is a sin, probably against charity only.
- a) That all scandal is grievously sinful is evident from the severe words used by Christ in His threat : “ It must needs be that such hurt should come, but woe to the man through whom it comes ” (Mt. xviii, 7). It is clear that direct scandal is a sin against charity and against the virtue which the neighbour is encouraged to transgress, since it is intended that the neighbour should suffer harm and that a definite virtue should be violated. Thus, for instance, if a man speaks immodestly to a girl in order to seduce her, he commits three mortal sins if the girl consents to listen: i) he himself commits a grave sin against chastity; ii) he intends that the girl also should sin against chastity ; iii) he intends the spiritual harm of the girl. Direct scandal is a venial sin if the act is imperfect or if the matter is slight.
- b) Since in indirect scandal the violation of a virtue by the person taking scandal is foreseen but not desired, it is more probable that the sin is contrary to charity only and not to the virtue whose violation is not desired. There are some, however, who maintain the contrary view, e.g. St. Alphonsus.
Practical Direction. The gravity of the sinfulness of scandal increases, a) the more one desires the sin of another ; b) the greater the influence which the action exercises on the sin of another ; c) the more serious the sin committed by the neighbour.
On the other hand the gravity of the sin decreases, a) the less perfect the deliberation ; b) the less influence exerted by the action on the sin of another ; c) the less serious the sin which the neighbour is induced to commit.
- The obligation of avoiding scandal.
- There is no obligation to avoid pharisaic scandal, provided there is some reasonable cause for the action causing it.
This follows from the fact that pharisaic scandal is caused by the malice of the person taking scandal.
- Scandal of the weak must be avoided, if this can be done without grave inconvenience.
Charity demands that we prevent an innocent neighbour suffering harm, so far as this is morally possible. Thus, for example, a priest who inadvertently has taken food or drink may nevertheless say Mass, if otherwise great scandal would arise amongst his people.
- For a just cause it is lawful to permit and even to provide the occasion of another’s sin.
In such circumstances the neighbour’s sin is not intended, and even God himself permits the occasions of sin.
Reparation for scandal given is necessary since it is frequently an offence against the public good and not merely against charity ; commutative justice is also affected if the neighbour is induced to sin by threats, force, deceit, etc. — Reparation is made either publicly or secretly according as the scandal was public or secret.
- 2. Co-operation in Evil
- Definition and Kinds. Co-operation in evil is concurrence in another’s sinful act. Consequently co-operation differs from scandal in so far as the latter causes the evil will of the sinner (by advice, command, or example), whereas co-operation presupposes the evil will of the sinner and is a means of bringing this evil will to completion in an externa! act.
- Co-operation is immediate if it is co-operation in the actual sinful act of another (as in the practice of onanism) ; it is mediate if it provides other acts or objects which are not so intimately connected with the sin of the agent.
Mediate co-operation is proximate if the help given is immediately connected with the sin of another, such as selling poison to a murderer ; it is remote when the help is not so immediately connected with the other’s act, such as selling a field to a Jew who may build a synagogue in it.
- Co-operation is formal if help is given to another to commit sin as a sin ; it is material if one co-operates in the physical action only. Consequently formal co-operation is an act which is evil in itself both because of its object and because of the intention of the agent. Material co-operation is in itself a good act which is abused by another in order to commit sin.
- Principle. Formal co-operation in the sin of another is always sinful ; material co-operation is sometimes permitted.
Formal co-operation includes consent to another’s sin. Accordingly it is an offence not only against charity but also against the virtue violated by the sin in which one co-operates.
The second part of the principle is derived from the fact that material co-operation is in itself a good act which is abused by another through his own malice. Therefore everything which has been said about acts that are indirectly voluntary in n. 23 can be applied here and is used to solve cases that frequently arise on different matters relating to the co-operation of servants, workers, shopkeepers, traders, etc., cf. the author’s Man. Theol. mor. I, 620 sq.