On Charity: Article 11: Whether we are all obliged to possess complete charity
Article () Charity becomes complete not by growing in quantity, but by intensifying in quality. This intensiveness is not incompatible with the simple nature of charity.
() The object of the other, moral, virtues are human goods, which do not exceed human powers; for that reason we can attain them completely, in every sense, in this life. But the object of charity is an uncreated good, and this does exceed human powers. That is why the reasoning differs in the two cases.
Responses to arguments under 'But on the other hand'
()Itispossibletolivethislifewithoutmortalsin,butnotwithoutvenial.
The latter does not conflict with charity that is complete in relation to our journey, but only with that which is complete in relation to our homeland.
For there, complete charity means having one's mind always actively focused on God. However, venial sin does not remove the disposition of charity, but only hinders its activity.
() We cannot know God completely in this life in the sense of knowing about him what he is. We can, however, know what he is not, as Augustine says [Trin ..], and this is what counts as complete knowledge while we are on our journey. Similarly, in this life we cannot love God perfectly in the sense of always actively focusing on him; but we can in the sense of never having our minds focused on something contrary to him.
() In this life charity cannot be complete either (i) simply speaking or (ii) in relation to human nature, but only (iii) in relation to the stage of life. Whatever is complete in this way is still able to grow, as is clear from children. In this way, charity in this life is always able to grow.
()Completecharitycastsouttheslavishfearthatwehavetobeginwith; it does not, though, cast out chaste or filial fear, nor even natural fear.
Article : Whether we are all obliged to possess complete charity Objections It seems so, because:
() Everyone is obliged by something that counts as a precept. But complete charity does count as a precept, since Deuteronomy :says,
'YoushalllovetheLordyourGodwithallyourheart.'Thereforeeveryone is obliged to possess complete charity.
On Charity () It seems to be part of complete charity that we refer all our actions to God. But we are all obliged to do this, since Corinthians :says,
'Whether you eat or drink, or do anything else, do everything for the glory of God.' Therefore everyone is obliged to possess complete charity.
() Rejoinder: St Paul's precept entails that everything should be referred to God not actively, but rather by disposition. But on the other hand the precepts of the law deal with virtuous actions. Dispositions do not come under a precept. Therefore St Paul's precept should be taken to imply not a disposition that refers our actions to God, but the actions themselves.
()TheLordfulfilsthepreceptsoftheOldLaw,sayinginMatthew:, 'I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it.' Salvation requires the law to be fulfilled, as is clear from the words he adds, 'If your justice does notexceedthatofthescribesandPharisees,youwillnotenterthekingdom of heaven.' Everyone, though, is obliged to do whatever is required for salvation, and therefore to observe the fulfilment of the law in question.
But this fulfilment is part of being perfect; that is why the Lord ends by saying, 'Be perfect, as your father in heaven is perfect.' Therefore everyone is obliged to possess complete charity.
() It is only the counsels that do not oblige everyone. But completeness of life or of charity is not achieved through the counsels. For we have been given a counsel about poverty, but it does not follow that the poorer someone is, the more perfect. We have also been given a counsel about virginity, but there are many virgins who possess charity less completely than other people. It seems, then, that completeness of charity does not depend on the counsels. Therefore no one is excepted from the obligation to possess complete charity.
() The status of a bishop is more elevated than that of a member of a religious order; otherwise, no one would be able lawfully to be transferred from the life of a religious to that of a prelate. That is why Dionysius says that bishops are more elevated; monks, however, are more completely devoted to their virtues; he also says that monks ought to lift themselves up to the elevated level that they see in bishops. Bishops, however, are not obliged to observe the counsel of poverty and related matters. Therefore complete charity does not lie in these.
() The Lord imposed on the apostles many obligations that are part of a perfect life: not to carry two tunics, or sandals, or a staff, or anything of that sort. But what he urged on the apostles, he urged on us all, according
Article to Mark :, 'What I say to you, I say to everyone.' Therefore everyone is obliged to follow a perfect way of life.
() Anyone who possesses charity loves eternal life more than temporal life. But everyone is obliged to act with charity. Therefore everyone is obliged to put eternal life before bodily life. But, as Augustine tells us
[TEpJn.],whencharityhasattainedcompleteness,itsays,'Iamlonging to be dissolved and to be with Christ' [Phil :]. Therefore everyone is obliged to possess complete charity.
() Augustine says [TEpJn .] that complete charity means that someone will be ready even to die for his brother. But we are all obliged to this; for John :says, 'We know the charity of God in this, that he laid down his soul for us, and we ought to lay down our souls for our brothers.'
Therefore everyone is obliged to possess complete charity.
() Everyone is obliged to avoid sin. But everyone who is without sin is confident about the day of judgement. As John :says, 'Charity between God and us is complete in this, so that we can have confidence on the day of judgement.' Therefore we are all obliged to possess complete charity.
() Aristotle says [NE .., b], 'We cannot give back to God or to parents as much as we have received; it is enough that everyone gives them as much as he can.' But complete charity consists in one's doing what one can for God, for no one does more than he can. Therefore everyone is obliged to have complete charity.
() Members of religious orders make profession of a perfect way of life. Therefore they seem to be obliged to possess complete charity, and everything that is included in a perfect way of life.
But on the other hand We are not obliged to achieve something that is not in our power. But it is not in our power to possess complete charity: this comes from God.
Therefore it cannot come under a precept.
My reply We can take the solution to this question from our previous argument. For we have shown above (i) that there is a completeness that corresponds to charity as the type of thing that it is, inasmuch as it consists in taking away
On Charity any inclination that is contrary to charity. Again, (ii) there is a second sort of completeness without which charity can still exist, but which is part of its existing well, and this consists in getting rid of worldly engagements, whichhinderhumanfeelingsfrommovingfreelytowardsGod.(iii)There is a third type of completeness of charity, which is not possible for human beings in this life, and (iv) a fourth, which in fact no created nature can ever achieve, as is clear from my earlier argument.
It is clear, moreover, that we say that everyone is obliged to do whatever is needed for achieving salvation. No one can reach eternal life without charity, and if we have it, we will come to eternal salvation. Consequently, we are all obliged to possess complete charity in sense (i), as we are obliged to possess charity itself. We are not obliged to possess complete charity in sense(ii),forwithoutitwecanstillpossesscharity,andcharityofanysortis sufficientforsalvation.Muchlessareweobligedtopossesscompletecharityinsenses(iii)or(iv),sincenooneisobligedtodosomethingimpossible.
Replies to objections () That 'wholeness', insofar as it comes under the precept about charity, relates to that completeness {cf. (i)} without which charity cannot exist.
() It is not possible in this life actively to refer everything to God, just as it is not possible always to be thinking about God. For this belongs to the completeness proper to our homeland. But as for effectivelyreferring everything to God, that belongs to complete charity in sense (i), which we are all obliged to possess.
To show this, we need to consider that, just as with efficient causes the power of the primary cause remains in all the subsequent causes, so too the aim of the primary end remains effective in all the secondary ends.
That is why whenever anyone is actively aiming at some secondary end, effectively he is aiming at the primary end. For example, a doctor while he is collecting herbs is actively aiming at making a medicine, and he may not be thinking at all about health; effectively, however, he is aiming at the health for which he is making the medicine. In this way, when one orders oneself towards God as one's end, the aim of the ultimate end – that is,
In this and the next reply, Aquinas distinguishes between actu, 'actively', virtute, 'effectively' and habitu, 'dispositionally'.
Article God – remains effective in everything that one does for his sake. That is why, if we possess charity, anything we do can deserve reward. That is the sense in which St Paul instructs us to refer everything to the glory of God.
() Referring things to God (i) effectively is a different thing from referring them (ii) dispositionally. (ii) You can refer something to God dispositionally even when you are neither doing anything nor actively aiming to do anything, as when you are asleep. (i) Referring something to God effectively, though, means that you act for an end that is ordered towards God. Therefore to refer things to God dispositionally does not come under a precept, but to refer everything to God effectively does come under the precept of charity, since this is nothing other than having
God as our ultimate end.
() The words 'be perfect' seem to need referring to love of our enemies, which is governed in one way by the fullness of a counsel, and in another by the necessity of a precept, as I have said above.
() A perfect life consists (i) in some things principally and per se, and (ii) in others secondarily and per accidens. (i) Principally and per se it consists in things that pertain to one's inner tendency of mind, and especially in active charity, which is the root of all the virtues. (ii) Secondarily, though, and per accidens, it consists also in exterior things, for example, in virginity, poverty, and similar matters. These are said to be a part of perfection in three ways:
(a) In that they remove from us those occupations that hinder us, such that when they are removed, our mind can be drawn more freely to God.
That is why when the Lord says in Matthew :'If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give to the poor,' he then adds, 'And come, follow me' to show that poverty is only connected with perfection insofar as it disposes us to follow Christ; and we follow him not with the experiences of our bodies, but with the feelings of our minds. In the same way, St Paul in Corinthians :gives the counsel about not marrying, because someone who is a virgin 'thinks about the things of God, about how to please God'. The reasoning is the same for the other similar matters.
(b) In the sense that they can be the effects of charity. For those who love God completely withdraw themselves from whatever might distract them from being free for God.
(c) In the sense of completeness of repentance, because no other compensation for sin can be as adequate as religious vows; through these,
On Charity people consecrate themselves to God: their soul through the vow of obedience, their body through the vow of celibacy, and their possessions through the vow of poverty.
In the light of all this, {cf. (i)} in things that are connected with perfection principally and per se, it follows that the perfection is greater where these are more to be found; thus someone who possesses greater charity is more perfect. However, {cf. (ii)} in things that are connected with perfection because of their consequences and per accidens, so to speak, it does not follow that where they are more to be found, there will be greater perfection, simply speaking. That is why it does not follow that the poorer someone is, the more perfect. Perfection in such matters needs to be measured by its relation to the things that constitute charity simply speaking. So, for example, one can be called more perfect when one's poverty takes one away from earthly business and makes one more freely available for God.
() The difference between the honourable and pleasurable types of friendship is that in the second a friend is loved for the sake of pleasure; in thefirst,afriendislovedforhimself,butpleasurefollowsasaconsequence.
A perfect honourable friendship includes one's having from time to time, for the friend's sake, even to go without the pleasure that one has in his company, because one is busy doing something to help him. In this type of friendship, it shows greater love to be apart from the friend for his sake than to be unwilling to give up his company even for his sake. But if one willingly and easily separates oneself from the friend's company and takes more pleasure in other things, then it is evident that one loves him hardly or not at all.
We can consider the following three levels within charity towards God, who is most of all to be loved for himself. (i) Some people willingly and without any great difficulty separate themselves from their leisure for contemplating God, so that they can involve themselves in worldly business. They appear to have little or no charity. (ii) Others take so much pleasure in the leisure they have for contemplating God that they are unwilling to give it up even to devote themselves to God's service for the salvation of their neighbours. (iii) Others have reached such a peak of charity that they will abstain even from contemplating God, although that brings them the very greatest pleasure, in order to serve God in the salvationoftheirneighbours.ThisdegreeofperfectionisfoundinStPaul, who says in Romans :, 'I was willing to be cut off' (i.e. separated) 'from Christ for my brothers', and in Philippians :–, 'I am longing to be
Article dissolved and to be with Christ, but it is necessary to remain in the flesh for your sake.'
This third level of perfection is the one that belongs in a distinctive way to prelates and preachers and anyone else who is engaged in securing the salvation of others. That is why Jacob's ladder symbolises them by means of the angels who ascend in order to contemplate and descend in order to care for their neighbours' salvation.It takes nothing away from the elevated status of the prelate if some abuse this, and seek the position for the sake of temporal goods, as though they are not attracted by the sweetness of contemplation. Similarly, as Romans :–tells us, the unbelief of the majority does not nullify the faith of God.
() In the teaching of the gospels (i) some things are said to the apostles as representing all the faithful, and these are part of what is necessary for salvation. That is why Mark :says, 'What I say to you, I say to everyone: stay awake.' For 'wakefulness' there means the concern that everyone ought to have not to be found by Christ unprepared. (ii) Other things are said to the apostles that are connected to a perfect way of life or to the duties of a prelate, and the words 'What I say to you, I say to everyone' cannot be applied to those words.
We need to know, though, that the Lord's words to the disciples in Luke [:, cf. :] 'Take nothing on the journey', and so on, are not connected with a perfect way of life, as Augustine explains. Rather, they are connected with the authority that belongs to their standing as apostles.
This enabled them to carry nothing with them and live by being served by those to whom they were preaching the Gospel. That is why it says in the same passage that a workman is worthy of his hire, or his food
[Luke :]. This, then, was neither a precept nor a counsel, but a concession. Because of this, St Paul, who carried what he needed with him, and did not make use of the concession, was being extra generous, like a soldier who fights at his own expense, as Corinthians :–makes clear.
() Human beings possess two types of feeling: (i) that of charity, which makes the soul long to be with Christ, and (ii) that which is natural, which makes the soul shrink from being separated from the body. The second is so much part of our nature that not even old age took it away from Peter, as Augustine says [TGJn .].
Aquinas here defends the mixed life of the friars, including his own Dominican order, as superior both to the purely active and to the purely contemplative life.
On Charity The combination of these two means that the soul would like to be joined with God without being separated from the body, in keeping with St Paul's words in Corinthians :, 'We do not want to be stripped, but to put on another garment, so that what is mortal will be absorbed by life.' But because this is impossible – 'for as long as we are in the body we are pilgrims away from the Lord' [Cor :] – a certain conflict arises between the feelings in question. The more complete that charity is, the more perceptibly the feeling of charity overwhelms the natural feelings; this is part of complete charity. That is why St Paul adds in Corinthians :, 'However, we are confident and we have a good will, more to be pilgrims apart from the body, and to be in the presence of the Lord.'
With those who possess charity in an incomplete way, even if the feeling of charity wins out, the conflict with natural feeling will mean that the victory of charity is not felt. Therefore it belongs to complete charity to say openly, without hesitation, and with confidence (as St Paul puts it) 'I am longing to be dissolved and to be with Christ' [Phil :]. The basic necessity for charity is that the soul should in some way prefer enjoying
God to being united with the body, even if this is not felt.
() To lay down one's 'soul', i.e. the present life, for one's brothers is a part in one way (i) of what is necessary for charity and in another (ii) of what makes charity complete. (i) For we are bound to love our neighbours more than our own body; that is why in a situation where we are obliged to care for our neighbour's safety, we are also obliged to expose our bodily lives to danger for the sake of that. (ii) But it is part of complete charity to expose our bodily lives to danger for our neighbours even in cases where we are not obliged to them.
()Althougheveryoneisobligedtobewithoutmortalsin,noteveryone is able to feel safe in this respect, but only the perfect, who have their sins entirely under control.
() We are obliged wholly to repay our parents, and much more God, insofar as we can; that, though, means in the way usual within human life.
Someone can indeed sometimes be more generous than that; however, we are not obliged to be so by the necessity of a precept.
() No one makes profession of perfect charity. But some people make profession of a perfect state of life, which consists of elements like poverty and fasting that are ordered instrumentally towards perfect charity. One