Chapter IV — On the love of enemies

I. Question I. Did the precept of loving enemies press in the old law? Answer. St. Thomas affirms it, on the third book, distinction 30 [recte], question 1, article 1; and before St. Thomas, St. Augustine, book 19 against Faustus, chapter 24. Wherefore Maldonatus blurted out too inconsiderately that the following interpretation of the Angelic Doctor came forth from the workshop of the Heretics. The Angelic Doctor says, then: In the old law also men were bound to the love of enemies, as is plain from the authority. Whence what is said — Thou shalt hate thy enemy — was not taken from the law, because this is nowhere found in the letter; but was added from the depraved interpretation of the Jews, who, from the fact that the love of the neighbor was commanded, concluded that enemies were to be hated. The very law of nature, still more the divine positive law, commands this mutual love.

II. This precept Christ the Lord set forth more luminously in the Gospel, saying: But I say to you: Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you, that you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven: Matthew 5. These are the reasons of that love: the necessity of society, which cannot subsist without mutual love; the authority of God, supreme Lord, Benefactor, Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, Father, and Master, who commands it; the reward of the remission of faults, of divine sonship, of an eternal inheritance.

III. Enemies are to be loved with a love both affective and effective. Do good to them that hate you. The precept is twofold: the negative prohibits hatred and vengeance, and this presses always and for always; the affirmative commands interior love and exterior beneficence. The love of enemies is included in the universal love by which we are bound to love our Neighbor for God's sake. For from this universal love it is not lawful to exclude an enemy. Then a promptitude of soul is necessary for loving an enemy in particular, when grave necessity presses.

IV. Question II. What signs of benevolence are to be exhibited to enemies? Answer. Of two kinds. Some are general, which are exhibited to all, and these are always due by force of the precept. Others are special, which do not always, but only sometimes, fall under the precept. To greet an enemy met on the way, where the custom of greeting prevails, falls under the precept. Wherefore, if before the enmities and dissensions a greeting passed between them, after the quarrel or the enmities the common signs of benevolence ought to persevere. And although in some places greeting and address are not common signs of benevolence, they are nevertheless such among friends, kinsmen, blood-relations, companions, and associates of the same body, college, and community. And then, if enmity arises, the said common signs are not to be suspended. Yet those who omit these signs are not straightway to be condemned of grave fault; but the circumstances must be regarded, especially if scandal arise from it, and if the omission of the signs proceed from internal hatred. For often greeting and other signs of benevolence are omitted not for the sake of hatred, but from a certain shamefacedness or from meanness of spirit. Sometimes neither party has that fortitude of soul as to be willing to be the first to exhibit such signs. These signs fall under the precept when they are opportune for placating an enemy and reconciling minds boiling with hatred. To return the greeting of one who greets you is a duty, which cannot be neglected with deliberate mind without grave fault. Everyone desirous of his own salvation ought to be liberal in rendering these signs. Never is the omission of greeting and of address licit for the sake of hatred. But that such signs can be omitted by a Superior for the sake of punishment, the Theologians commonly teach — when such an omission is judged opportune for the amendment of the enemy, or when the offense is public and very enormous, as a sign of detestation. Fathers, Superiors, and masters can rightly suspend these signs in punishment of offending members of their household, provided hatred be absent. Many circumstances also excuse from grave fault the omission of such signs — for instance, inadvertence, brevity of time, parvity of matter, gravity of grief, and things of that sort. Hence they excuse a noble Matron if she does not return the greeting of her husband's murderer, on account of the bitterness of her grief. Yet the circumstances must be regarded.

V. Question III. Is one who has been offended bound to exhibit signs of love to the offender who asks for peace? Answer. A Christian man cannot deny signs of love to an offender asking pardon — common signs, I say; but special signs of benevolence, just as no one is bound to exhibit them even to those who are not enemies, much less does he owe them to enemies. The circumstances must nevertheless be regarded — of avoiding scandal, or of procuring spiritual salvation, or of laying aside hatred: for if these testimonies of benevolence were fitting means for gaining a brother's soul, then they would have to be exhibited.

VI. He who has unjustly injured another is bound, by the title of justice, to ask pardon and to exhibit satisfaction to the one offended. A manner, however, must be observed. When a quarrel and dissension happen between two equals, he who injured first ought first to ask pardon and to offer signs of reconciliation. If they be of unequal condition, there is need of prudence. Sometimes the reconciliation can be deferred — namely, when the offended party, stricken with excessive grief, is foreseen to be less apt for granting pardon. Sometimes also the reconciliation must be deferred until the fury cools; sometimes, finally, it must be solicited — the diversity of persons and circumstances being regarded.

VII. Question IV. Is the offended party bound not only to lay aside hatred, but also to remit satisfaction and compensation? Answer. Hatred must be laid aside forthwith — nay, must be repressed before it is kindled. But temporal damage inflicted by the offender the offended party is not bound to remit without compensation. The matter is nevertheless full of danger. Under the title of just recompense the appetite of vengeance often lies hidden. Absolutely, it is wiser to remit all things. Yet cases can occur in which it would by no means be expedient to condone satisfaction: as if the offended party be poor and suffer grave detriment; if he be a member of a community or of a family whose temporal losses cannot be repaired unless the guilty party make satisfaction; if the offender be hostile to the community. If the offender spontaneously exhibits fitting satisfaction, the offended party cannot reject it in order to exact it before a judge, as not a few contend: since, the injury being repaired and the damage compensated by the offender himself, full satisfaction has been made to all justice. Therefore, when the offended party appeals to the tribunal, he does not seek to have his injured right repaired, but to indulge vengeance and hatred.

VIII. Question V. Is it licit to rejoice over the evil of our neighbor on account of the good which thence accrues to us? Answer. Castropalao, Tamburini, Moya, and others affirm it; whose opinion has been condemned by the Church. Fr. Viva, in his commentaries on thesis 13 of Innocent XI, whittles down the proscription of the condemnation more laxly than is fair, as it seems to me. Read Tome I on the Decalogue, book 1, dissertation 5, chapter 8, number 6. Never, then, is it licit either to rejoice over, or to wish, evil to one's neighbor — and much less to oneself. Wherefore false is the doctrine of Juan de la Cruz and of Tamburini, who teach that anyone can wish death for himself, that he may escape the hardships of this life. But to sinners it is licit to desire some temporal evil, that they may come to their senses from their sins, as St. Thomas teaches on the third book, distinction 30, article 1, ad 4. Which doctrine the holy Scriptures confirm: Let all my enemies be ashamed, and be very much troubled: let them be converted and be ashamed very speedily. Psalm 6. Care must nevertheless be taken lest hatred lie hidden, and lest, under the pretext of the conversion of sinners, vengeance be fostered.