Article — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Article Fourth. On the Love of Enemies
81. Declarations. 1. By the name of enemy are signified those who pursue us with hatred or have affected us with offense or injury. The doctrine concerning love of enemies is to be extended a fortiori to those whom for any motive whatever we naturally turn away from.
Offense is defined as a wound to the will of another; therefore through offense something is done which displeases another and therefore excites his indignation and aversion. Injury is defined as a wound to the right of another; through injury, something is done not only against the will but also against the right of another. Finally, if the injury inflicted is joined with damage of another, it is called damaging. Offense is compensated by friendly reconciliation; injury is compensated by satisfaction, by the fact that the offender undergoes something troublesome so that the wounded person may be reconciled to him; damaging is compensated by restitution, by the fact that the damage inflicted is repaired for the wounded person.
- Common signs of love are called those which men of a certain condition and relation are accustomed to exhibit to one another to signify mutual love. But special signs are called those which, beyond the common signs, some men are accustomed to exhibit to one another to signify the friendship and familiarity flourishing between them.
a. These are generally reckoned common signs: to return greeting to one who greets, to respond to one asking or writing, to sell exposed merchandise to one wishing to buy, not to exclude from common prayers or alms, to provide common services, to avert damage threatening another if this can conveniently be done, etc. To common signs belong also those which are freely exhibited to some multitude, as if someone were to distribute alms to all the poor of some place. Special signs are generally reckoned these: to receive as a guest, to invite to a banquet, to console one who is sad, to visit the sick, to speak familiarly, to foster frequent exchange of letters, to greet first someone encountered, etc.
b. From this definition it is clear that these signs must be determined not absolutely, but relatively, namely with account taken of determinate state and condition, determinate relation, and also determinate region: for the common signs of love which cultivated men, and those which unformed men, brothers and sisters, more remote blood relatives, fellow citizens, or the altogether unknown exhibit to one another are different.
1 M. Waldmann, Die Feindesliebe in der antiken Welt und im Christentume, Vienna: Mayer, 1902.
82. Precept. 1. There exists a special precept of charity of loving enemies: for although love of enemies is already implicitly contained in the general precept of charity toward the neighbor, nevertheless Christ the Lord added an explicit command both because of its great difficulty, and because of its eminent perfection, and finally because in the Old Testament this precept is not clearly contained in its whole amplitude and, besides this, had been obscured by the interpretation of the Pharisees: Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you, and pray for those persecuting and calumniating you.1
a. The obligation of loving enemies is already contained in natural law: for an enemy also is our neighbor, whom the law of nature commands to be loved. Nevertheless ancient philosophers before Christ did not arrive at knowledge of the precept of loving enemies, although they praised the same love in certain cases. Finally, in the Christian age later Stoics, not without the influence of revealed truth, teach that enemies are to be loved.2 In the Old Testament love of enemies was prescribed: You shall not hate your brother in your heart ... You shall not seek revenge nor remember the injury of citizens.3 If your enemy shall hunger, feed him; if he shall thirst, give him water to drink: for you shall heap coals upon his head, and the Lord will repay you.4 Although the Israelites taught that an enemy was to be loved as a neighbor, nevertheless they did not extend this love of enemy to all, but restricted it to enemies of their own race; indeed they pursued with hatred those whom they knew as adversaries of their nation and ancestral religion. Finally Christ clearly pronounces perfect love of enemies.5
b. This precept does not impose a special obligation distinct from the obligation of loving the neighbor. Insofar as it is negative, it prohibits us from ever having hatred for our enemies or fostering revenge or anger against them; but insofar as it is affirmative, it prescribes that we pursue even enemies with both internal and external love. The internal love owed to enemies does not require a special act of charity toward the person of the enemy, but only this, that we not exclude the enemy from the general love of neighbors, and that we have a ready will of assisting even enemies in necessity. Yet two things must be declared in particular: the obligation of exhibiting signs of love and the obligation of reconciling oneself with the offender.
- From the precept of charity we are bound of itself to exhibit even to enemies common signs of love, but not special signs, unless accidentally.
The reason of the first is both because these signs are signs of general love, which is owed to all who are neighbors to us, therefore even to enemies; and because their omission is a sign of hatred, and therefore would confirm enemies in enmity. The reason of the second is both because these signs are signs of special friendship, which is owed to no one, therefore neither to an enemy, and because from their omission the enemy cannot presume an affection of hatred and revenge, but only lack of friendship and familiarity, which is not owed to him.
- From a reasonable cause, even common signs of love can be denied to an enemy for a time, hatred nevertheless always being excluded; in like manner it can accidentally happen that sometimes even special signs are owed to him.
a. We are not bound to exhibit common signs of love to an enemy for a time in a threefold case: a. if there is hope that the enemy will thereby be corrected, or that his audacity and insolence will be blunted; b. for just punishment, as if a superior has been offended by an inferior; c. to show grief and displeasure concerning the injury inflicted upon us, especially if it was atrocious.
b. But special signs must be exhibited to an enemy: a. if their omission, since previously they were accustomed to be given, would be in others a cause of scandal, because from charity we are bound to prevent the neighbor from taking damage from our manner of acting, though not with grave inconvenience; b. if from these signs reconciliation of the enemy can be hoped for, because from charity we are bound to draw the neighbor back from sin if it can easily be done; c. if their denial would be a special sign of hatred and enmity, as if an enemy seeking reconciliation exhibited special signs of charity by greeting, speaking, etc., not to return these would be a sign of hatred.
1 Matt. 5:43 ff. Cf. Luke 6:27 ff.
2 Cf. Waldmann, loc. cit., p. 19 ff.
3 Lev. 19:17 s.
5 Matt. 5:44. The source prints "Matth. 35, 4."
83. Denial of common signs of charity can be a grave sin. a. For measuring the gravity of the sin which is committed by omission of signs of charity, attention must be paid to: a. whether the omission of these signs proceeds from internal hatred; b. whether it is a cause of offense with respect to the enemy or of scandal with respect to others. If neither has place, it is only venial sin.
b. To discern whether denial of the signs of charity proceeds from hatred, attention must be paid to the cause because of which they are omitted: for if it is grave, the omission of signs is judged to proceed from hatred.
a. He who, lest he meet an enemy, turns aside elsewhere, even without internal hatred, sins gravely if the enemy adverts that this is done on his account and therefore is gravely offended; it is no sin or only venial if he does not advert this or does not care, and if it happens from a reasonable cause.
b. Omission of greeting is not a sin unless from the circumstances it is a sign of internal hatred, as if previously greeting between them was accustomed as a common sign, or if among several who are greeted, the enemy alone is passed over.
c. A mistress does not sin who for a time neither looks at nor speaks to a maid discharged from service because of a grave injury, nor returns greeting to her when she meets her in the road and is greeted by her, provided these things are not done from hatred but from some honorable motive: from abhorrence of the offense, to show the gravity of the injury inflicted upon herself, or for just punishment. Yet she cannot for a longer time deny common signs of charity to her, but is bound to return greeting to one greeting, so that by an external sign she may show that she has already remitted the offense.1
d. He who breaks off all dealings with another by whom he has been offended and neither wishes to speak with him nor greet him: a. does not sin if he does this for a few days in order to manifest just sadness or abhorrence against the depraved manner of acting of the other, or to correct the other; b. commits a light sin where the matter concerns persons among whom speech, greeting, exhibition of services, and things of this kind pertain to common signs, as when two neighbors of the same village or two pupils of the same seminary or two nuns do not wish to speak with one another nor greet one another, and if the cause of enmity is light, even if dealings were avoided and common signs denied for some time; c. commits a grave sin if those things proceed from hatred, as when a grave quarrel had preceded, or if they provoke hatred or offer scandal to others.2
1 Cf. Ethel-Bierbaum, Theologia moralis, Paderborn: Typographia Bonifaciana, 1894, I, pars 2, n. 249 ff.
2 Ballerini-Palmieri, II, n. 179.
84. On reconciliation. He who has been wounded in any way whatever is bound by the precept of charity to reconcile himself with an enemy seeking reconciliation. Therefore he is bound to remit offense or injury to the enemy and to show external signs of remission; yet not immediately after the offense has been inflicted. But he is not bound to remit reparation of injury or the damage inflicted, nor to restore the more intimate familiarity which perhaps had existed before.
a. To remit offense or injury, or to give pardon, is nothing other than to lay aside hatred and affection of revenge; but this is prescribed by divine law, as is established from the general precept of charity and from several places of Sacred Scripture, for example, if you do not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive your sins.1
b. That remission ought to be manifested outwardly is gathered from the general precept of exhibiting common signs of charity even to an enemy. Not immediately: for it surpasses human frailty that the wounded person, immediately, while internal disturbance has not yet been quieted, be compelled to exhibit signs of reconciliation. Hence it suffices that meanwhile the internal affection of hatred and revenge be laid aside.
The offended person of himself is not bound to seek reconciliation; but accidentally he is sometimes bound to this, if it can easily be done, where namely the offender would otherwise persevere in the state of sin, or if scandal would arise because the cause is unknown on account of which common signs are denied.
Reconciliation, and therefore common signs of charity, can for a time be denied even to one seeking peace, with hatred and revenge laid aside, as a sign of sorrow; but scandal can easily be absent if the cause is known on account of which common signs are denied. But if they were denied for a longer time, even to one not seeking peace, their denial would rightly be judged a sign of enmity and revenge, and therefore would be a sin, except in the case in which the enemy would not respond to signs exhibited.
c. No one is bound of himself to remit to the neighbor a good owed to him; but satisfaction for injury and restitution for damage is a good which is owed to him who has suffered injury or damage. Therefore each one can of himself will that, the affection of hatred and revenge nevertheless being laid aside.
Wherefore, if the offender should refuse to compensate the debt, it is permitted to seek before a judge not only restitution for the damage inflicted, but also satisfaction for the injury done: for each one can demand what is justly owed to him.
Indeed, strictly speaking, even if the offender asks pardon, it is still permitted before a judge to demand vindication for the injury done, so that justice may be satisfied or that others may be restrained, with every malicious affection against the neighbor nevertheless laid aside. But in practice this must altogether be dissuaded, because it is very difficult to demand punishment of an enemy with every depraved affection of hatred and revenge excluded.
Yet accidentally it can happen that the wounded person is bound from charity also to forgive the enemy the reparation of injury, where namely he would have to undergo too great an inconvenience to repair the injury in comparison with the good which would come to the wounded person from it.
d. Once peace has been restored, more intimate familiarity is not owed to him who before was a friend. Therefore even all signs of friendship, except those which, considering the natural relation of blood relationship, living together, identity of state, etc., are common, can be omitted without sin.
1 Matt. 6:15. Cf. Lev. 19:17.
85. On the manner of reconciliation. 1. He who offends another in any way whatever is bound, as soon as he morally can, to seek reconciliation with him, and indeed, if another means of reconciliation is not available, through petition of pardon: for he who has wounded charity is bound to repair it in that manner which is morally possible for him; but reparation of charity is ordinarily made through reconciliation. Whence Christ prescribes: if therefore you offer your gift ... go first to be reconciled to your brother.1
Whether the offender ought to ask pardon. The petition of pardon is a means for obtaining the end of reconciliation; therefore when it is the only means, it must be called necessary, which generally happens if the offended person is a father, master, superior, etc. Accidentally it can be necessary if a superior or judge enjoins it. But ordinarily it is not necessary, since peace among enemies can also be restored by other means, through special signs of friendship, through services exhibited, through the intercession of friends, etc.
- Of two persons who have mutually offended one another and have mutually become enemies, he who has offended the other more gravely ought first to procure reconciliation; and if the mutual offense is nearly equal, he who first offended. But in practice each should be persuaded that either by himself or through another he seek reconciliation.