Section — Koch–Preuss
Section 4: Sins Against Charity
Mortal sin, both as an act and as a state, is diametrically opposed to the theological virtue of charity, which spells union with God, whereas mortal sin involves separation from Him.1
1 Cfr. Prov. X, 12; Luke VII, 47; 1 Pet. IV, 8.—St. Augustine, Tr. in Ioan., I, n. 6: “Pride extinguishes charity; therefore humility strengthens charity; charity extinguishes sins.” (Migne, P. L., XXXV, 1982).—IDEM, De Doctr. Christ., III, c. 10, n. 16: “The more the kingdom of cupidity is destroyed, the more charity is increased.” (P. L., XXXIV, 72).—IDEM, Enchiridion, c. 117: “Carnal cupidity reigns where there is no charity of God.” (P. L., XL, 287).—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 24, art. 10: “Every mortal sin is contrary to charity.”—IDEM, ibid., art. 12: “Every act of mortal sin is contrary to charity according to its proper nature, which consists in this, that God be loved above all things.”—Cfr. this Handbook, Vol. II, pp. 16 sqq.—P. O’Neill, Divine Charity, pp. 14 sqq.
As charity has various degrees, so mortal sin, which is its antithesis, may be more or less grievous.
- HATRED AND CONTEMPT OF GOD.—Most directly opposed to charity is hatred and contempt of God.2
2 John XV, 18–25.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 34, art. 1: “God can be apprehended by man in two ways: in one way according to Himself, for example, when He is seen through His essence; in another way through His effects [Rom. I, 20]. But God through His essence is goodness itself, which no one can hate, because it belongs to the nature of the good that it be loved; and therefore it is impossible that anyone seeing God through His essence should hate Him. But some of His effects are such that they can in no way be contrary to the human will, because to be, to live, and to understand are both desirable and lovable to all, and these are certain effects of God. Hence also, inasmuch as God is apprehended as the author of these effects, He cannot be hated. But there are certain effects of God which are repugnant to a disordered will, such as the infliction of punishment and also the restraint of sinners by divine law, which are repugnant to the will depraved by sin; and with respect to the consideration of such effects, God can be hated by some, insofar, namely, as He is apprehended as the prohibitor of sins and the inflictor of punishments.”
Hatred of God (odium Dei), in its fully developed form, is the sin of the demons. In men, as a rule, it results only from an immoral life. “To hate God, the giver of all good things,” says St. Thomas Aquinas, “is to sin deliberately, and this is a sin against the Holy Ghost. Hence it is evident that hatred of God is chiefly a sin against the Holy Ghost, in so far as the sin against the Holy Ghost denotes a special kind of sin: and yet it is not reckoned among the kinds of sin against the Holy Ghost, because it is universally found in every species of that sin.”3
3 Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 34, art. 2, ad 1: “Hatred of God is especially a sin against the Holy Spirit, insofar as sin against the Holy Spirit names a certain special kind of sin; yet it is not numbered among the species of sin against the Holy Spirit, because it is found generally in every species of sin against the Holy Spirit.”—Ibid., art. 5: “Hatred which is opposed to this love is not first in the destruction of virtue, which occurs through vices, but last; and therefore hatred is not a capital vice.”
Contempt of God may be direct or indirect. Direct contempt (contemptus formalis) amounts to the same thing as hatred of God, whereas indirect contempt (contemptus practicus) is, strictly speaking, contained in every sin, because every transgression of the divine law implies a preferring of the creature to God.
- MORAL INDOLENCE.—Opposed to the love that produces good works (amor effectivus) is sloth or indolence (acedia), which we have defined in a previous volume of this Handbook4 as a sluggishness of the soul that makes it dread physical and mental labor in the exercise of virtue. This fault may manifest itself in neglect of prayer and other religious exercises, lukewarmness in matters pertaining to salvation, indifference to virtue and spiritual things (desidia, inertia), distraction and neglect of duty, libertinism, aversion to revealed truth, disgust for religion, ingratitude towards God, and lack of zeal for His holy cause.5
4 Vol. II, p. 83.
5 Matt. XIII, 19; XXIV, 38; 2 Cor. VII, 10.—Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 35, art. 1–4.
- ZELOTRY AND BLIND FANATICISM.—Opposed to charity from still another point of view is false zeal, which employs this virtue as a cloak to hide its egotistic aims. We have in mind particularly the fanaticism of unenlightened even though well-meaning Christians, which so often hinders good causes. It is wrong to pursue selfish aims under the pretext of seeking the glory of God. Those who are guilty of such conduct may believe themselves to be actuated by genuine zeal, but they lack enlightenment and prudence.
Religious fanaticism sometimes develops into disrespect for God and hatred of those who venture to disagree with the misguided zealot. “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees,” said our Divine Lord, “hypocrites, because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.”6 He prophesied to His disciples: “They will put you out of the synagogues, yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doth a service to God.”7 We are not permitted to hate any person in the name of religion, though we may and should hate sin, iniquity, and error. “Let love be without dissimulation,” says St. Paul, “hating that which is evil, cleaving to that which is good.”8 Therefore every species of pseudo-religious zeal which springs from hypocrisy, selfishness, jealousy, error, or superstition, is wrong and damnable.9 Only he who is animated by a pure and an ardent desire for the glory of God and the welfare of his fellowmen, can truthfully say with the Psalmist: “The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up.”10
7 John XVI, 2 sq.; Rom. X, 2; Gal. I, 13 sq.; Acts VIII, 3; IX, 1; XXIII, 21; XXVI, 9; Phil. I, 15–17; 2 Tim. I, 3.
8 Rom. XII, 9; cfr. Luke IX, 51–56.
9 Cfr. Matt. VII, 3–5; XXIII, 13; Luke VI, 41 sq.; John XVI, 2; Rom. X, 2; Phil. I, 15, 17.
10 Ps. LXVIII, 10; cfr. John II, 17.
We sometimes hear it said that one who cannot hate is incapable of loving. There is truth in this adage. Ardent enthusiasm for what is good usually inspires implacable hatred of evil. We may and should hate evil, but we are never allowed to hate the evil-doer. The Gospel shows us Christ inveighing with holy anger against the Pharisees because they degraded God’s sacred temple for their selfish purposes; but His anger is directed against their evil deeds, not against their persons as such. Thus, too, our hatred of evil should be free from personal bitterness. No matter how cordially we detest sin, we must treat those who commit it with kindness and forbearance. Moreover, it is not always easy to distinguish between good and evil tendencies; much that appears wicked in the actions of men is at bottom only immaturity or thoughtlessness.
READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 34–35.—Sporer-Bierbaum, Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 382 sqq.—Elbel-Bierbaum, Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 3rd ed., pp. 383 sqq.—Chr. Pesch, S.J., Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. VII, 2nd ed., pp. 291 sqq.—F. A. Göpfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. I, 4th ed., pp. 373 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, 11th ed., pp. 70 sq.—E. Müller, Theol. Mor., Vol. II, 5th ed., pp. 82 sqq.—Suarez, Tract. de Caritate, disp. VI, sect. 1.—Amort, Theol. Mor., tr. IX, § VIII.