Question XXV: Whether we are bound to show the effects of charity toward enemies, and which

IT IS TO BE ASSERTED that it is a precept to love the enemy not only in affect, but also in effects.

It is PROVED by D. Bonaventure, first from the old testament, Exodi 23: If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lie under a burden, thou shalt not pass by, but shalt lift him up with him. Prouerb. 25: If thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat: if he thirst, give him drink. But these commandments were given to all the Israelites.

It is PROVED secondly by S. Thomas, and S. Thom. from 5. Matth., where by the same precept it is enjoined: Love your enemies, and do good to them that hate you; and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you, Where the Gloss: The Church does three things: she loves, benefits, and prays: Therefore he who does not benefit enemies, and does not pray for them, is not a living member of the Church.

It is PROVED thirdly by S. Thomas. Where there is true Charity, there are its effects, just as where there is fire, there is the heating of the matter applied to it; but the effects of Charity are works shown forth for good, as is said in Ioan. 15: You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you, where Gregory, homil. 30. in Euang.: The proof of love is the showing forth of the work: Therefore; otherwise the love will be feigned.

It is PROVED fourthly by S. Thomas: Our flesh is more an enemy to us than any enemy whatsoever; but we are bound to preserve it, as is said in Ephes. 5. Therefore.

It is PROVED fifthly: To withhold the effects of Charity is an effect of hatred and of vengeance, which is contrary to Charity; but we are bound not to take vengeance, Leuit. 19. Rom. 12. Therefore we are bound not to withhold the effects of Charity.

But S. Thomas OBSERVES in corpore that this precept presses in the necessity of the enemy, which he proves with that, prima Ioan. 3: He that shall see his brother in necessity, and shall shut up his bowels from him: how doth the Charity of God abide in him? And he closes: My little children, let us not love in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth.

THEREFORE it is a precept in case of necessity to succor the enemy, especially in spiritual things, as I showed in the preceding quaest., from D. Augustine.

BECAUSE, however, here there is a twofold precept — one negative, not to hear, nor deny, the signs of love; the other affirmative, to show these signs — you must know that the negative, of not hating, etc., binds always. Therefore in Matth. 18. he is delivered to the tormentor who has not forgiven the injury. So Nauar. cap. 14. num. 25. Lorca 2.2. sect. 3. disp. 25. num. 33. Valencia disp. 3. quaest. 3. punct. 2. Suarez disp. 5. sect. 5 num. 9. Tannerus disp. 2. quaest. 3. dub. 1. Coninchez disp. 24. dub. 6. num. 82. Caspensis disp 3 sect. 2. Fagundez on the first precept of the Decalogue Lib. 1. cap 28. num. 9. with D. Bonaventure here, and in the preceding quaest. But insofar as it is affirmative, although it may seem not to bind to eliciting any internal act of love, nevertheless per accidens it often binds by reason of avoiding scandal. Whence you ought to bear yourself toward the enemy so as not to show signs of enmity, which is left to the judgment of the prudent to determine; yet some rules are handed down.

FIRST, when you pour out general prayers, do not exclude the enemy; for otherwise you do not bear yourself rightly in the Church, and you show yourself a dead member of the Church, which prays for all, as S. Thomas has it, fundamento secundo.

WHEN you bestow alms on a needy community, you ought not to exclude a needy enemy. So Syluester V. Charitas, num. 3. §. 5. Toletus Lib. 4. summa, cap. 10. Nauar. summa Latina, cap. 25. Fagundez numero 10.

SIMILARLY, when you stand in the circle, you ought to address the enemy in common, and to salute him who greets you as he meets you. Hence S. Thomas, de profectu religiosi, cap. 28. says: let them examine how they would minister food to a hungry enemy, if they deny salutation, especially if he seeks it. Whence he gathers that such a one will not keep that: Rom. 12. and prouerb. 25: If thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat. So also D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 25. art. 9. and the expositors, and Suarez disp. 5. de Charitate, sect. 5. n. 7. Valencia disp. 3. quaest. 3. puncto 3 toward the end, vers. 3. Coninch. disp. 24. dub. 6. from num. 85. Fagundez loco cit. who gathers two things from this: The first is, that it is mortal to deny these signs of Charity. So also Suarez num. 7. The second, that it is then a sin of scandal when alms and the other things are altogether public; for then necessity presses. But you are not bound per se to be the first to salute; not to return a salutation, however, is per se only venial, as Caspensis says, num. 15., unless scandal be present. Bassaeus adds, V. Charitas, num. 14., and notable contempt, where he says the circumstances are to be observed, especially if the condition be gravely unequal, and he does not so quickly condemn it as mortal. So Diana part. 2. tract. 1. resol. 62.

But the SIGNS of special love on any occasion of opportunity are only of perfection. So Fagundez num. 11. Coletus Lib. 4. summa, cap. 10. Caspensis loco citato, with D. Bonaventure in corpore. Nay, Nauar. adds, loco cit., and Caietanus, art 9., that even one reconciled with an enemy is not bound to show him first the services shown in the time of friendship; nay, it can even be necessary to abstain sometimes, if the familiarity is harmful, as Tannerus says, disp. 2. quaest. 3. dub. 1. num 9.

We are bound also under mortal sin, to enemies begging pardon, to remit the injury, as regards hatred, and as regards the fault committed against us; but not as regards the satisfaction due, nor as regards the action we have against them in judgment. So the Doctors commonly with D. Thom. here; so Caietanus and Aragon. ibi, Toletus Lib. 4. summae, cap. 10. Syluester V. Charitas, num. 4. §. 6. Angelus verbo iniuria, num. 6. Nauar. summa Latina, cap. 14. num. 25. Tannerus num. 8. So Lucae 17: If thy enemy return to thee, saying: It repenteth me: forgive him. Whence S. Thomas observes, in his commentary, from Bede in the Gloss, that it is not commanded to forgive the sinner indiscriminately, but the penitent. Therefore he adds: and if he sin against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day be converted unto thee, saying: It repenteth me; forgive him: But he shows this elegantly thus: We are commanded to love the enemy, and to spare him, that we may be merciful, as the heavenly Father is merciful, and so may be his sons regenerated. But he himself spares the penitent, not the obstinate, Ezech. 33: The wickedness of the wicked shall not hurt him, in what day soever he shall be converted. Whence the Gloss of Bede on this place of Luke: We are commanded to grant pardon otherwise to a brother asking, otherwise to an enemy persecuting: to the brother by granting remission we communicate, with the fellowship of Charity. To the persecutor wishing us evil, or, if he can, doing it, let us do with good will what we can, and this, by the example of Christ, Lucae 23: Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. By the example of David, Psalm. 7: If I have rendered to them that repaid me evils, etc. and Act. 7, the example of Stephen: Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. So S. Bonaventura.

Yet we are not bound to remit satisfaction; nay, Nauar. adds, in summa Latina, cap. 14. num. 25., that sometimes some cannot be remitted even if they wish, as is had in cap. Parochianos, de sent. excom. in verb. satisfaciant: such is a son of a family, a servant, etc. So also Tannerus num. 10. with others.

But when the injury is equal in time, gravity, and the other circumstances, let a mutual compensation be made, as Lessius says, Tom. 1. Lib. 1. cap. 11. dub. 25. num. 133., against Nauar. summa Latina, cap. 18. num 47. and Caietanum, 2. 2. quaest. 26. art. 2., who do not admit compensation, but wrongly; for it is given also in money and in other temporal goods: Therefore also in reputation. It is certain, indeed, that the one who offended first is bound to ask pardon first. But if one began, and the other gravely transgressed, the latter is bound to ask first. So Syluester in Rosa aurea, cap. 56.; yet always attend to the quality of the persons, as Fagundez notes, num. 13.

But the ARGUMENTS to the contrary are solved by D. Bonaventure with this distinction: to be bound in necessity, and with the conditions given above; but outside necessity, it is asserted to be of perfection by the Gloss on 5. Matth. and by D. Augustine, cap. 73. Enchir, who cap. 24. says: But whosoever does not forgive from the heart him that begs, and asks, or is penitent, let him by no means think that his sins are forgiven him by the Lord. So D. Bonavent. dist. 30.

He OBJECTS still. It is natural that the enemy not be loved, but assailed.

He answers, that nature indeed proceeds in necessary agents, as the hot against the cold; but enmity against men is against our nature; nay, even against the sociable nature of beasts of the same species. I will add: Grant that I am not bound to remit satisfaction in judgment, as I said, save where there is grave loss to the injured party; yet remission is to be urged, especially if he is to be punished by death, mutilation, etc., whence nothing accrues to the injured party. I do not refuse that, if the infamy must be washed away, satisfaction is to be sought, etc. Sylvest. verb. Charitas, quaest. 6. Malder. 2. 2. quaest. 25. art. 9. Filliuc. tract. 28. num. 25. Sylvius 2. 2. loc. cit. Laym. lib. 2. tract. 3. cap. 4. Tanner. himself, disp. 2. quaest. 3. dub. 1. num. 11. Bassaeus verb. Charitas, num. 16. who admonish us to beware of vengeance palliated by justice.