Question — Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V · from Schola Thomistica
Question XIV: Whether charity can be diminished
The holy Doctor answers, Charity is diminished as to fervor. And although by venial sin one disposes oneself to the ruin of Charity; yet God does not on that demerit, congruously, diminish charity; just as he increases it from the disposition of good acts, because God is more prone to show mercy than to punish. Hence the following objection is solved.
Respondet S. Doctor, minui Charitatem quoad fervorem. Quamvis autem per veniale peccatum se disponat ad ruinam Charitatis; tamen non minuit Deus ex hoc demerito congruo charitatem; sicut auget ex dispositione actuum bonorum, quia pronior est Deus ad miserendum, quam ad puniendum. Hinc solvitur sequens obiectio.
You object secondly. As man advances while profiting, so he falls back; but by progress Charity is increased: Therefore while he falls back, it is diminished.
Obiicies secundo. Sicut homo progreditur proficiens, ita retrocedit; sed per profectum augetur Charitas: Ergo dum retrocedit, minuitur.
The holy Doctor answers, from what has been said, that man in falling back is only weakened as to fervor, because Charity is not destroyed except by the mortal contrary; while he profits, he ascends as to the degrees of Charity meritoriously. Moreover God is more prone to bestow graces than to inflict punishments.
Respondet S. Doctor, ex dictis, hominem retrocedendo solum debilitari quoad fervorem, quia Charitas non destruitur, nisi a mortali contrario, dum autem proficit, ascendit quoad gradus Charitatis meritorie. Deinde pronior est Deus ad gratias, quam ad poenas immittendas.
You object thirdly. That which is the cause of its own weakening in the term is the cause of diminution in the way; but the will in aversion is the cause of the destruction of Charity: Therefore also in disposition it is the cause of diminution.
Obiicies tertio. Id, quod est causa suae debilitationis in termino, est causa diminutionis in via; sed arbitrium in aversione est causa destructionis Charitatis: Ergo et in dispositione est causa diminutionis.
The holy Doctor answers, by denying the Major: for a substantial form is destroyed only in the term, and no part of it in the time of the dispositions.
Respondet S. Doctor, negando Maiorem: forma enim substantialis destruitur solum in termino, et nulla pars eius in tempore dispositionum.
He answers secondly, that the Major is true when the disposition and the term are of the same rational character; but in our case the term is mortal sin; the disposition, however, is venial.
Respondet secundo, Maiorem esse veram, quando dispositio, et terminus sunt eiusdem rationis; at in casu nostro, terminus est peccatum mortale; dispositio autem est veniale.
He answers thirdly, that Charity depends on the Divine influence and acceptance; and thus God increases it, accepting the works; nor does he impute venial sins to this penalty.
Respondet tertio, Charitatem pendere a Divina influentia, et acceptatione; et ita auget, acceptans opera; neque venialia ad hanc poenam imputat.
You object fourthly. Opposites naturally come to be about the same thing; but charity is increased: Therefore it is also diminished.
Obiicies quarto. Opposita nata sunt fieri circa idem; sed charitas augetur: Ergo et minuitur.
The holy Doctor answers, granting the Major, unless one be present by nature and the other not: increase is in Charity by nature, with the acceptance of God added; but diminution comes only from our own will: Therefore.
Respondet S. Doctor, Maiorem veram, nisi alterum insit per naturam, alterum non sit: augmentum inest ex natura Charitati, addita Dei acceptatione; diminutio autem ex nostro arbitrio tantum venit: Ergo.
You object fifthly. Things that are separable can be separated; but the first degrees of Charity were without the degrees added by increase: Therefore.
Obiicies quinto. Quae sunt separabilia, possunt separari; sed primi gradus Charitatis erant sine gradibus additis per augmentum: Ergo.
The holy Doctor answers, that there is nothing to separate them, and therefore they cannot be separated; for neither can we do it, who do not physically influence the habit of Charity; nor yet God, who does not influence it except to destruction, and indeed with man first turning himself away.
Respondet S. Doctor, nihil esse quod eos separet, ideo nequeunt separari; non enim nos id possumus, qui non influimus physice in Charitatis habitum; neque etiam Deus, qui non influit nisi ad destructionem, et quidem homine se prius avertente.