On Charity: Article 12: Whether charity once possessed can be lost
Article is not obliged to engage in all of these, but only those which one professes.
However, perfect charity does not come under the vow such people take, but is rather their end, which they are trying to attain through the vows they have made.
Article : Whether charity once possessed can be lost Objections It seems not, because:
() John :says, 'All those who are born of God do not commit sin, since God's seed remains in them. And they cannot sin because they are bornofGod.'ButonlythechildrenofGodpossesscharity,forthatiswhat differentiates the children of the kingdom from the children of perdition, as Augustine says [Trin ..]. Therefore no one who possesses charity can lose it by sinning.
() Every virtue that is lost by sinning also withers through sin. But, as Augustine says [TEpJn .], 'Charity is an invisible anointing, which will be the root of anything in which it is found, which cannot wither, is fed by the heat of the sun and does not wither.' Therefore charity cannot be lost through sin.
() Augustine says [Trin ..] that if love is not truly love it should not be called love. But he also says, 'Charity which can be lost was never truly charity.'Therefore it was not charity at all. Therefore anyone who possesses charity cannot lose it by sinning.
() Prosper says [ContLife .], 'Charity is right will, inseparably joined to God, without stain, innocent of corruption, liable to no flaw of changeability; with it no one ever was or will be able to sin.' Therefore charity once possessed cannot be lost through sin.
() Gregory says [HomGosp .], 'The love of God does great things, if it is present.' But no one can lose charity by doing great things. Therefore if charity is in someone it cannot be lost.
() We love God through charity more than we love ourselves through natural love. But we never lose love of ourselves by sinning. Therefore neither do we lose charity.
The quotation is actually from De salutaribus documentis ad quemdam comitem, , by Paul of Friuli
(Paul the Deacon), a monk of Monte Cassino.
On Charity () Free judgement does not tend towards sin except through some othermotivationtosin.However,themotivationofallsinisloveofoneself, which, as Augustine says [CG .], 'makes the city of Babylon'. But charity excludes this, because, as Dionysius says [DivNames .], 'Divine love causes ecstasy, and does not allow you to love yourself.' Similarly, greed is held to be the root of all evils, as St Paul says [Tim :].
But charity also excludes greed, as Augustine says [DQ.]. Therefore someone who possesses charity cannot lose it by sinning.
() Anyone who has charity is led by the Spirit of God, according to Galatians :, 'If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.'
But the Holy Spirit, since it has infinite power, cannot fail in its activity.
Therefore it seems that someone who possesses charity cannot sin.
() One cannot sin in contradiction of a disposition which has its being in what it does: for Aristotle says [NE .., b] that we cannot sin against active knowledge but only against dispositional knowledge. But charity always consists in doing something; for Gregory says
[HomGosp .], 'The love of God is never at rest.' Therefore no one can sin against charity so as to be able to lose it through sin.
() If anyone loses charity, he loses it either while he has it or while he does not have it. But he cannot lose it through sin while he has it, because if that were the case, sin could coexist with charity. Nor, though, can he lose it while he has not got it, because someone cannot lose what he does not have. Therefore there is no way that someone can lose charity.
() Charity exists in the soul as an accidental quality. An accidental quality can be lost in four ways:
(i) because the subject is destroyed; charity cannot be lost in this sense, because the human soul, the subject of charity, is indestructible;
(ii) because its cause fails, as when the air lacks light because there is no sun. But charity cannot be lost in this way because its cause, i.e. God, never fails; (iii) because its object fails, as when the death of a son makes someone ceasetobeafather.Butcharitycannotbelostinthisway,becauseitsobject is eternal goodness, i.e. God; (iv) through the action of something contrary to it, as when water loses its coldness because of the action of heat upon it. But charity cannot be lost in this way either, since it is stronger than sin, which, it seems, is what acts in a way contrary to it; as Song of Solomon :–puts it, 'Love is as strong as death', and again, 'Many waters cannot extinguish charity.'
Article Therefore charity cannot fail in any of these ways in someone who possesses it.
() Sin is a sort of rational evil. But evil is active only in virtue of something good, as Dionysius says [DivNames .–]. However, good is not contrary to good, as Aristotle tells us [Cat , b]; and so good cannot destroy good, since each thing is destroyed by its contrary. Charity, then, cannot be destroyed through sin.
() If charity is lost through sin, it must be through a sin that either (i) exists or (ii) does not exist. (i) But it is not lost through an existing sin, because mortal sin cannot coexist with charity; (ii) nor again through a sin that does not exist, since something non-existent cannot do anything.
Therefore there is no way that charity can be lost through sin.
() If charity is lost through sin, then charity and sin both exist in the soul either (i) at the same instant or (ii) at different ones. (i) But not at the same instant, because then they would coexist. (ii) Nor, though, at different ones, because then there would have to be some time between, in which the person would possess neither sin nor charity. That cannot be right. Therefore charity cannot be lost through sin.
() Peter Lombard says [Sent ...], that complete charity cannot be lost through sin. But complete and incomplete charity share the same type. Therefore incomplete charity cannot be lost through sin.
() The intelligence stands to knowing the truth in the same way as the will does to loving the good. But the intelligence, by knowing somethingtrue,knowsthefirsttruth;thereforebylovingsomethinggood, it loves supreme goodness. But no one sinsexcept by turning in love to a changeable good. Therefore in every sin the person loves the supreme goodandloveofthisischarity.Charity,then,canneverbelostthroughsin.
() Just as in the class of efficient cause an agent can be either universal orparticular,soalsointheclassoffinalcause.Butaparticularagentalways acts by virtue of the universal agent. Therefore a particular end always moves the will by virtue of the ultimate and common end, which is God.
Thus the conclusion is the same as in ().
() Charity is a sign that someone is a true disciple of Christ, according to John :, 'In this they will all know that you are my disciples, because you have love for one another.' But you can only be a true disciple of Christ if you are always his disciple. That is why Augustine says [TGJn .],
Omitting qui amat.
On Charity whenexplainingJohn:,'Manyofhisdiscipleslefthimandwentaway', that these people were not true disciples of Christ. Also, the Lord says in John :, 'If you abide by my words, you will be true disciples of mine.'
Therefore someone who does not always abide in love never possessed charity in the first place.
() Every movement follows the pressure of whatever is in control.
But in the heart of someone who possesses charity, charity is in control, because it takes hold of the whole heart, according to the command in Deuteronomy :, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart.' Therefore every movement of someone who possesses charity is in accordance with charity. Therefore charity cannot be lost through sin.
() Differentiating features of a class or a type cannot qualify numerically the same thing. But 'destructible' and 'indestructible' make a difference of type, as Aristotle says [Met ., b]. Since, then, charity on our journey and charity in our homeland are numerically the same, it seems that since charity in our homeland cannot be destroyed, then neither can charity on our journey.
() If charity is destroyed, it turns either (i) into something else, or (ii) into nothing. (i) But not into something else, because this only happens to those forms that are drawn out of the capacity possessed by matter.
(ii) Nor, however, can charity be reduced to nothing, because God never destroys charity, and God alone can make nothing from something, just as God alone can make something from nothing; for there is the same distance between the two in each case. Therefore it seems that charity cannot be destroyed.
() Something through which sin is removed cannot be destroyed by sin. But sin is removed through charity, according to Peter :, 'Charity blots out a multitude of sins.' Therefore charity cannot be lost through sin.
() The gloss, quoting Augustine, comments on Psalm :, 'While evil men seize me to devour my flesh', as follows: 'If the gift is removed, the giver is defeated.' But God, who is the giver of charity, cannot be defeated. Therefore charity cannot be removed through sin.
() The soul is united to God through charity as a bride, in a sort of spiritual marriage. But physical marriage cannot be dissolved just because disagreement afflicts the marriage. Therefore charity cannot be removed through sin, which makes the mind disagree with the things of God.
Article But on the other hand () Revelation :: 'I have a few things against you, because you have abandoned the charity you first had.'
()Gregorysays[HomGosp.],'Godcomesintosomepeople'shearts but does not make his dwelling there, because while through remorse they pay regard to God, then in the time of temptation they return to committing sins as if they hardly deplored them.' But God does not come into the hearts of the faithful except through charity. Therefore someone can lose charity after possessing it, through subsequent sin.
() Samuel :says of David that the Lord was with him. But afterwards he sinned mortally by committing both adultery and murder.
God, though, is with a person through charity. Therefore someone can sin mortally after possessing charity.
() Charity is the life of the soul, according to John :, 'We know that we have been carried from death to life, because we love our brothers.'
But natural life can be lost through natural death. Therefore the life of charity can be lost through the death of mortal sin.
My reply Peter Lombard holds [Sent ...] that charity in us is the Holy Spirit.
He did not mean, however, that the activity of our love is the Holy Spirit, but that the Holy Spirit moves our soul to love God and neighbour, just as itmovesittoothervirtuousactivity.Butitmovesthesoultoothervirtuous activity by means of certain dispositions of infused virtues; while in his view it moves us to the action of loving God and neighbour without any intermediary disposition.
Peter Lombard's opinion was true, then, in as far as he held that the soul is moved by the Holy Spirit to love God and neighbour; but it was incomplete in that he did not hold that we have in us a disposition, something created, which completes the human will so that it can act with love of this sort. For, as I argued above [in article ], we should hold that there is such a disposition in the soul.
We can, then, consider charity in four ways:
(i) from the side of the Holy Spirit, which moves the soul to love God and neighbour; here we have to say that the movement of the Holy Spirit always effects whatever it intends to. 'For the Holy Spirit works in the
On Charity soul, distributing to individuals as it wishes', as Corinthians :puts it. (a) That is why when the Holy Spirit, as it judges best, wishes to give to certain people an enduring movement of love towards God, it is not possible for them to have in them any sin that would exclude charity.
(I mean, not possible from the side of the moving power. It could be possible, though, from the side of free judgement, which can change.)
Such things are 'the gifts of God, by which, without doubt, those who are set free are set free', as Augustine says [GPers .]. (b) The Spirit may also as it judges best, grant to other people to be moved temporarily by a movement of love towards God, but not grant them to persevere in this to the end, as is also clear from Augustine [AdGr .].
(ii) We can consider charity with reference to its power. From this point of view, no one who possesses charity can sin, that is, not by the power of the charity itself, as something that possesses a form x cannot act against x by the power of x. For example, something hot cannot cool anything, or be cold, by the power of being hot. However, it can lose its heat and then both cool down itself and cool other things. For this reason, Augustine can say [SermMount ..] the following, explaining Matthew :, 'A good tree cannot produce bad fruit': 'In the same way, something that was snow can stop being snow, but it cannot be warm snow. Similarly, someone who was bad can stop being bad, but it cannot happen that someone who is bad does things well.' The same reasoning holds concerning what is good in respect of any virtue, since no one can use a virtue badly.
(iii) We can consider charity from the side of the will, insofar as the will is the subject of charity as matter is of form. (a) Here we must notice that when a form fulfils the matter in question to the limits of its capacity, the matter will have no more capacity to possess further form. Hence it will possess the form in such a way that it cannot lose it, as is clear from the matter of the heavenly bodies. (b) Some forms do not, however, fulfil the matter's capacity to its limit, and then there remains some capacity to possess further form. Then that form is possessed in such a way that it can be lost, from the side of the matter or of the subject. This is clear with the forms of the elements.
Now charity fulfils the capacity of its subject by leading its subject to act with love. For this reason in our homeland, where rational creatures actively love God with their whole heart, and love nothing else except by actively referring it to God, charity is possessed in such a way that it cannot be lost {cf. (a)}. When we are on our journey, however, charity does
Article not fulfil the capacity of the soul to its limit {cf. (b)}, because the soul is not always actively moved towards God, referring everything to him with an active intention. For that reason, we possess charity on our journey in such a way that it can be lost, that is, from the side of the subject.
(iv) We can consider charity from the side of the subject insofar as it is, becauseofitstype,relatedtocharityasacapacityisrelatedtoadisposition.
We need to consider here that the disposition of a virtue makes us tend to act correctly insofar as it allows us to evaluate the end correctly, since, as Aristotle says [NE .., b], 'How the end appears to one will correspond to what one is like.' For just as with the taste of an object the judgement that our tastebuds make depends on whether their condition is good or bad, so with things valuable to us as human beings, we evaluate themasgoodinaccordancewiththeconditionofthedispositionsinherent in us, whether that is good or bad. What disagrees with that, we find bad and off-putting. Hence St Paul's words in Corinthians :, 'An unspiritual person does not grasp the things that belong to God's Spirit.'
However, it can happen sometimes that something can appear in a certain way to someone according to the inclination of his dispositions, but appear differently according to something else. For example, the pleasures of the flesh might seem good to someone who is lustful according to the inclination of his own disposition, but might seem bad to the same person according to rational reflection or the authority of scripture. For this reason, someone who possesses the disposition of lustfulness sometimes acts in a way contrary to it by evaluating something in this manner.
Conversely, someone who possesses a virtuous disposition sometimes acts against the inclination of his own disposition, when something appears differently to him in some other way, for example, through some emotion or other temptation.
Therefore, when no one is able to evaluate the end and the object of charity except in a way that accords with the inclination of charity, then no one will be able to act against the disposition of charity. This will be the case in our homeland, when we will see the very being of God, which is also the very being of goodness. Hence, just as no one can in this present life want anything except under the general character of goodness, and something that is good cannot, qua good, not be loved, similarly, then, no one will be unable to love the good that is God. For that reason, no one who sees God in his own being can act against charity. That is why charity in our homeland will not be able to be lost.
On Charity But now our mind cannot see the very being of divine goodness, but only some of its effects. These can seem good or not depending on how they are considered. For example, a spiritual good may not seem good to those who are affected by sensual desire for the pleasures of the flesh, insofar as it is incompatible with these. That is why charity on our journey can be lost through mortal sin.
Replies to objections () St John's words are to be understood according to the power of the Holy Spirit, which moves the soul and acts unfailingly as it wishes.
() Augustine is speaking there about charity according to the power of charity in itself. Of itself, it possesses enough for it never to wither. But sometimes it can be lost because of the changeability of its subject, as I have argued.
() True love of its own character is such that it is never lost. For if you love someone truly, you will aim in your mind never to lose that love. But sometimes your aim changes and then the love, which was true, disappears. However, if someone had the aim of ceasing to love at some point, then that would not be true love. From this it is clear that charity cannot be lost according to its own power, but can be lost according to the power of a changeable subject.
() The authoritative text from Prosper speaks about charity according to its own power and not according to the power of the subject.
() Charity as long as it exists has an inclination to do great things. It wants and aims at this according to the character of its own power. But sometimes it fails in this because of the changeability of the subject.
() Since human beings have a double nature, i.e. the intelligent, which is more fundamental, and the sensory, which is lesser, true love of oneself involves loving oneself for a rational good. If you love yourself for a sensory good contrary to a rational good, strictly speaking you are hating rather than loving yourself. As Psalm :puts it, 'Someone who loves wickednesshateshisownsoul.'Aristotlesaysthesame[NE..,b].
It follows that true love of oneself is lost through a sin that is contrary to it, as is the love of God.
() Charity, according to its aim, excludes all motivation to sin. For it is part of the character of charity that one does not want to have excessive sensual desire or love oneself in a disordered way. But the contrary
Article sometimes happens because our nature is changeable and damaged, in keeping with St Paul's words in Romans :, 'For I do not do the good that I want, but I do the evil that I hate.'
() As long as one follows the movement of the Holy Spirit, one does not sin. When one resists, then one sins.
() The being of charity does not always consist in doing things; if so, then those who were asleep would not possess charity. The words 'The love of God is never at rest', though, refer to the aim of charity, which is that one should give oneself wholly to God.
() Loss stands to the thing that is possessed as destruction to the thing that exists. Now destruction begins with something that exists and ends with its not existing, because there is a change from being to not being; in the same way, therefore, loss, since it is a change from possessing to not possessing, begins with possessing and ends with not possessing.
That is why the process of losing charity begins at a time when charity is possessed, and ends at a time when it is not possessed.
() Charity ceases to exist in the soul in all four different ways, as follows:
(i) Although the substance that is the subject of charity is indeed indestructible, that subject can become unfitted for this form through a contrary tendency to sin.
(ii) Again, although the cause of charity is indestructible, its influence can be hindered through sin, which separates us from God.
(iii) For the same reason, charity can fail on the side of the object, whenever the will turns away from the unchangeable good.
(iv) It can also disappear through the contrary motivation to sin, which, although strictly speaking it is weaker than charity, can in a specific situation be stronger, i.e. when charity is not actively at work and a sinful motive actively moves us to carry out some specific activity. Similarly,
Aristotle also shows [NE .., b] that knowledge can be overcome by emotion, even though it is very strong, when it is not actually active, but there as a disposition which emotion incapacitates. While knowledge is very strong in general, an emotion can be so in the case of a particular deed; similarly, charity is very strong as regards the ultimate end, but a sinful motive can be strong for some particular action.
() Aristotle says that the good of one virtue cannot be contrary to the good of another. This is what he means in the discussion in the Categories
[, b] and in the Ethics [.., b]. But in natural things one
On Charity good can be contrary to another, for each of two contraries is a sort of natural good. In this way, the good that moves the desire towards sin is contrary to the divine good, which is the object of charity in that the end of charity lies in this. In this way, there cannot be more than one ultimate end, just as, in a kingdom where there can only be one king, someone who makes himself king acts contrary to the king, as John :tells us:
'Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.'
() Sin does not act as an agent in driving out charity, but as a contrary.
That is the sense in which the arrival of sin means the departure of charity, just as the arrival of the light means the departure of darkness. For light drives out sin simply by coming into existence as itself. But the motive to sin drives out charity by pre-existing in the perception of the soul.
() When one consents to mortal sin, one does so with some rational deliberation; for it is not mortal sin if there is no deliberative consent.
However, deliberation is a sort of movement, and takes a measurable time; at the last instant of this period of time sin exists in the soul. But it is not possible to posit an instant directly preceding the final instant, when charity is there. This is because instants do not stand in a sequence; instead time is continuous. Therefore charity is in the soul during the whole preceding time that finishes with the final instant, and sin is there first at that final instant. Therefore we cannot give a final instant when charity is there, but only an ultimate time, as Aristotle makes clear [Phys
., b].
() If Peter Lombard is meaning complete charity, which is the charity of our homeland, it is true that it cannot be lost, for the reasons given above.
But if he is meaning charity on our journey, in whatever way it is complete, it is not true that it can become unlosable through the way that it inheres in its subject. It can, however, become unlosable through the Holy Spirit's power to effect change. That is how we can use the word 'confirmed' of those who have been confirmed in charity.
() When we know any true thing we know the first truth as the first exemplar, in its image or its traces. Similarly, when we love any good thing, we love the supreme good. But this love of the supreme good is not enough for the character of charity: that also requires the supreme good to be loved as the object of blessedness.
The good angels and the blessed dead are said to be 'confirmed' (confirmatus: literally, strengthened, resolute, proved) in goodness, so that they are incapable of sinning.
Article This also makes clear the answer to ().
() Augustine comments as follows when explaining John :, 'My sheep listen to my voice and do not listen to the voice of anyone else':
'Christ has a voice that is heard only by those who are his own sheep through predestination; it is his voice saying, "Whoever perseveres to the end will be saved." ' From this, he takes it that whoever does not remain in Christ's words is not truly his disciple, because he has not learnt effectively from him how to persevere. However, one can be a disciple temporarily, with a love of God and neighbour that is only of a temporal nature.
() As long as charity is actively in control in us, then we will not be moved by any contrary movement, but follow the movement of charity.
That is why the supreme remedy for sin is for one to return to one's heart, and turn that towards the love of God. But when one is not actively being moved according to charity, then sometimes the contrary movement of sin arises.
() Being destroyed and coming into existence, or becoming something,bothhappeninthestrictsensetothingsthathavebeing:Imeanonly things that subsist in themselves. Accidents, and forms that do not subsist inthemselves,arecalled'beings'notbecausetheydohavetheirownbeing, but because something else exists for them. That is why strictly speaking it is not accidents or forms that come into being and are destroyed, but their subjects. For example, when a body becomes white, that is just what it is for whiteness to 'become', just as when a body is white, that is just what it is for whiteness to 'be'. The same reasoning works for destruction. Hence, 'destructible' and 'indestructible' are attributed per se not to accidents, but to substances. That is why nothing prevents charity on our journey from being numerically the same as charity in our homeland, even though the former can be lost but the latter cannot.
() As I have just said, charity strictly speaking is not destroyed, but the subject ceases to share in it. Therefore one cannot say strictly that charity is reduced either to something or to nothing.
() Because of the changeability of the subject, just as charity that comes upon sin destroys it, so sin that comes upon charity drives it out.
For contraries drive each other out.
() If a gift were removed by violence, it would seem that the giver was defeated, because it is his role to preserve the gift for the person to whom he gave it. But if the receiver voluntarily throws it away, then the