Question — Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V · from Schola Thomistica
Question XLVII: Whether it is more meritorious to love an enemy than a friend
English · Latin · BothHide topicsShow topics
The Seraphic Doctor admonishes that these two loves can be taken in two ways. First as they proceed from different habits, of which one renders one capable only of loving friends; the other, however, is extended also to enemies. In this way this second habit is more perfect, as Augustine says in the Enchiridion, chapter 73. But if we compare these acts, as proceeding from the same Charity, thus in a certain way they are equal as to substantial merit; as to the vigor of the acts, however, and the accidental reward, the motion of love toward friends exceeds the other as to fervor and frequency. As to difficulty, however, the motion of love toward enemies is purer and more difficult.
Utrum sit magis meritorium diligere inimicum, quam amicum.
Dupliciter sumi posse hos duos amores, admonet S. Doctor. Primo pro ut sunt a diversis habitibus, quorum alter habiles reddat solum ad amicos diligendos; alter vero extendatur etiam ad inimicos. Sic perfectior est habitus hic secundus, ut ait Augustinus in Enchir. cap. 73. Si vero comparemus istos actus, pro ut ab eadem Charitate procedunt, sic quodammodo sunt aequales quoad meritum substantiale; quoad vigorem vero actuum, et praemium accidentale motus dilectionis erga amicos, excedit alium quo ad fervorem, et frequentationem. Quoad difficultatem vero, motus dilectionis in inimicos est purior, et difficilior.
SIMPLY speaking, however, the motion of love toward friends is probably better, by reason of the object, which is better and more closely joined to oneself and to God; whence it is a greater sin to hate a friend, as D. Thomas also teaches, article 7, and the Theologians commonly, as Valencia relates, disp. 3, question 5, point 3, against Durandus, disp. 30, question 2.
SIMPLICITER tamen motus dilectionis in amicos probabiliter est melior, ratione obiecti, quod est melius, et magis coniunctum sibi, et Deo; unde maius est peccatum odisse amicum, ut docet etiam D. Thom. art. 7. et communiter Theologi, ut refert Valentia disp. 3. quaest. 5. punct. 3. contra Durandum disp. 30. quaest. 2.
I ASSERT first, probably, with this opinion, that the love of friends is more perfect.
ASSERO primo probabiliter cum hac sententia, perfectiorem esse dilectionem amicorum.
IT IS PROVED by the Seraphic Doctor, first, from D. Ambrose, as related, question 30. He answers, however, that Ambrose is not speaking of degrees of perfection, but of obligation.
PROBATUR a S. Doctore, primo ex D. Ambrosio, relato quaest. 30. Respondet tamen, non servare Ambrosium gradus perfectionis; sed obligationis.
SECOND, because the love of friends is more like the love of God, who loves those who love him, as is had in Prov. 8. Nevertheless he answers that the Charity of God toward us is commended more [toward us] as enemies, Rom. 5.
SECUNDO, quia dilectio amicorum, est similior dilectioni Dei, qui diligit diligentes se, ut habetur. Proverb. 8. Attamen respondet, commendari Charitatem Dei magis in nos inimicos, Rom. 5.
THIRD, because it is more fervent and more frequent. He answers, however, that it is true, given an equality of difficulty.
TERTIO, quia est ferventior, et frequentior. Respondet tamen, verum esse, data paritate difficultatis
FOURTH, because it has more of equity. He answers, however, that it is more equitable by the exigency of merits, not on the part of the one loving.
QUARTO, quia plus habet de aequitate. Respondet tamen aequius esse ex meritorum exigentia, non ex parte diligentis.
FIFTH, because thus a man ought to exercise himself more in the love of an enemy, if this were more perfect. He answers, however, that this is true as to exercise, not by reason of duty.
QUINTO, quia sic deberet homo se in dilectione inimici magis exercere, si haec esset perfectior. Respondet tamen, id verum ad exercitium, non ratione debiti.
He asserts second, that it is probable that love of enemies is also more perfect.
Asserit secundo, probabile esse etiam amorem inimicorum esse perfectiorem.
IT IS PROVED by the Seraphic Doctor, first, from Matt.: If you love those who love you, what reward shall you have? He answers, however, that this is true with enemies excluded, who are commanded to be loved.
PROBATUR a S. Doctore, primo ex Matth. Si diligitis eos, qui vos diligunt, quam mercedem habebitis? Respondet tamen, id verum, exclusis inimicis, qui diligi praecipiuntur.
SECOND. To love enemies is a precept of the Gospel, Matt. 7: But I say to you: love your enemies: Therefore it is of greater perfection. He answers that this is true as to difficulty; by reason, however, of the good, it is better to love a friend.
SECUNDO. Diligere inimicos est praeceptum Evangelii, Matth. 7. Ego autem dico vobis: diligite inimicos vestros: Ergo maioris perfectionis. Respondet, id verum, quo ad difficultatem; ratione tamen, boni, melius esse diligere amicum.
THIRD, where there is greater victory, there is greater virtue, which is concerned with difficult things. He answers that this is true, other things being equal; but love of friends is better from the subject.
TERTIO ubi est maior victoria, ibi maior virtus, quae est circa difficilia. Respondet, id verum esse caeteris paribus; at amor amicorum est melior ex subiecto.
FOURTH: Where love is purer, separated from the flesh, there is greater perfection. The Seraphic Doctor answers in the same way, if other things are equal, which here they are not. From these things this opinion is left probable on either side.
QUARTO: Ubi amor purior a carne seiunctus, ibi maior perfectio. Respondet tamen S. Doctor eodem modo, si sint caetera paria, quae hic non sunt. Ex his probabilis utrinque relinquitur haec opinio.