The Commandment of Love of Self

The Commandment of Love of Self.—Love of self is understood in many senses. (a) According to its moral character, love of self is either sinful or virtuous, and virtuous self-love is either natural or supernatural (as was explained in 1136). (b) According to its physical character, love of self is either innate or elicited. Innate love of self is the tendency of nature to desire what pertains to the perfection of self, such as existence and its preservation (see 1108). Elicited love of self is the choice on the part of the reason and will of an ultimate happiness for self and of the means thereto.

Charity obliges each one capable of precept to an elicited supernatural love of self. The obligation is grave for the following reasons: (a) the love of God includes love of self, for we cannot love God truly unless we also love those things that are His, especially His rational creatures made to His image and destined for His society; (b) the love of neighbor supposes love of self, for the commandment of love (Matt., xxii. 39) offers love of self as the model for love of others.

The goods which the law of charity to self requires one to desire and seek after, are all those things that are necessary for the attainment of one’s happiness and due perfection.

(a) Thus, as to supernatural goods, one is bound to obtain for oneself things necessary for salvation. One is obliged, then, to acquire a sufficient knowledge of the faith; to enter into a state of life for which one is suited (e.g., matrimony or religion); to avoid sin and the occasions of sin; not to delay conversion for a notable length of time; to put oneself in the state of grace, especially at the hour of death. But one is not obliged to perform these duties with the motive of charity in mind, nor to elect for self works of supererogation or counsels of perfection.

(b) As to intellectual goods, one is bound to seek what is necessary for a proper fulfillment of the duties of one’s station in life. Thus, one owes it in charity to oneself to seek the education and training that are presupposed in one’s profession or occupation, and to bestow the necessary study and attention. See above, on the intellectual virtues (144 sqq.) and on the sin of ignorance (904 sqq.).

(c) As to corporal goods, one is obliged to use the ordinary means for preserving life and health (on the desire of death, see 1063). Hence, in matters of food, drink, clothing, and recreation, each one is in duty bound to follow the laws of hygiene.

(d) As to the external goods of person (i.e., honor and reputation), there is a strict duty of guarding them or of recovering them, as far as possible.

(e) As to external goods of fortune (i.e., wealth and possessions), one must aim to acquire as much as is necessary for one’s subsistence and the fulfillment of duties to others. Hence the duty of labor for those who do not possess the necessary means. But charity to self does not demand that one aspire to reach the top of the ladder in the financial world or to accumulate a very large surplus. One may indeed lawfully seek to become a millionaire, or to become so wealthy as to be able to retire with leisure, if one goes about this lawfully; but there is no obligation to strive after more than is reasonably necessary.

Man owes it to himself to put to good use the talents God has bestowed upon him for his self-improvement and self-development. It is a sin, therefore, greater or less according to circumstances, to neglect the care of the mind or of the mental culture one should possess.

(a) Thus, reason is the faculty that elevates man above the irrational world, and knowledge is the perfection and excellence of that faculty. What life or health is to the body, reason or knowledge is to the mind; and so, just as it is a sin against the body to neglect life or health, it is also a sin against the mind to neglect reason or knowledge. Persons predisposed to insanity who expose themselves to alienation of mind by the use of drugs or strong spirits or by practices or occupations that expose them to shocks (such as gambling), and others who value ignorance, scepticism, and error as if these infirmities were goods, sin against the mind, at least materially.

(b) Reason and knowledge are also necessary in numberless ways to man’s bodily, social, cultural, and religious life. Without the elements of a general education in reading, writing and arithmetic, one is very seriously handicapped in making a bare living; and without the education of the high school, college or university, one is frequently under a disadvantage in seeking to better oneself or improve one’s position. Besides these utilities for practical affairs, education has advantages of a loftier kind: it makes its possessor a more capable citizen, a more pleasant companion and friend, a more influential exponent of good causes, and a greater credit to the religion he practises; it gives enjoyment to leisure, comfort to rest, and dignity to success; the labor of acquiring it is a discipline of the will; the taste for higher things it imparts is a natural protection against much that is evil; the mental power and knowledge that are its gifts enable one to expose error and fallacy and to uphold the truth and the right. It is of precept, therefore, that one acquire the moral and mental training which one’s salvation and calling in life make necessary; it is of counsel—and the counsel is one that should be much urged in our times—that one who has the opportunity of attaining to a higher proficiency, to the advantage of self and society, should avail himself of that opportunity.

Examples of Sins Committed by Neglect of Necessary Education—(a) Directly, one sins against the duty of cultivation of the mind when through laziness or malice one slights the means of acquiring necessary knowledge—as when pupils absent themselves from school, or give no attention to the teacher or no preparation to their lessons; or when collegians sacrifice study to athletics and amusements.

(b) Indirectly one sins against the duty of knowledge, when one is responsible for habits that impede or prevent necessary concentration of mind, as when one goes about so much socially that the mind is always in a whirl, or reads so much light literature that everything serious becomes a bore, or overeats so much that the brain becomes sluggish, or pays no attention to the wise rule that a sound mind needs a sound body.

The proper care of the body and of health is not merely a thing next to godliness; it is a moral duty, and so a part of godliness. God Himself on Sinai gave to the Chosen People of old a sanitary code, and the faithful observance by orthodox Jews of those regulations has had much to do with the superior health and longevity of their race. Moral Theology, therefore, is not digressing from its proper subject-matter, if it gives some attention to rules of health. The duties owed to physical well-being can be reduced to the following: (a) to secure for the body the things needed for the maintenance and replenishment of its substance and vigor, such as food, air, sleep and exercise; (b) to ward off or remove those things that are injurious to or destructive of health, such as excessive heat or cold, waste matter, poisons, and disease; (c) to assist these physical means by psychical or spiritual ones, such as cheerfulness and the will to keep well and fit.

Food and drink are naturally a prime requisite for life, since they furnish the material from which the body is built and renewed. They should be used, however, in such a way as to serve their purpose.

(a) Thus, the quantity and quality have to be regulated according to the needs of the individual and circumstances, and so will vary with climate, age, health, and occupation. The distinction of clean and unclean foods does not exist in the New Law (Rom., xiv. 14; Matt., xv. 17-20), but it is clear that the same kinds or amounts of food and drink do not agree with all constitutions; that overeating, undereating, and want of variety in diet are not conducive to good health. Physicians recommend that something raw be eaten every day and something indigestible at every meal, and that a person watch his weight, keeping a little overweight up to middle life and a little underweight after that age.

(b) The manner of eating is of first-rate importance, since the digestion is harmed if one eats without appetite or with mental preoccupation on deep subjects, or bolts the food, or makes excessive use of relishes or condiments.

Fresh air, on which the production of pure blood and the continuance of vitality depend, is another necessity of life. Hence, we may well heed the following rules which hygienists lay down on this point: (a) let in fresh air and sunshine to the places where you live and work, and exclude dust and smoke; (b) wear light, loose and porous clothing, so that the skin may have air; (c) get out of doors in the open air part of the time every day, even though the weather is uninviting, for sunshine or natural light is also a requisite of good health; (d) breathe through the nose, and not through the mouth. Breathing should be deep, slow and regular, and one should take deep-breathing exercises several times a day; (e) sleep in a well-ventilated room, or out-of-doors if possible.

Rest and relaxation are needful for body and mind alike, that the burdens of life may not bear too heavily, and nature may be allowed to exercise her ministries of renewal and restoration. But here, as in other things, the guiding rule must be moderation.

(a) Through excess, some harm their health by indulging in too much repose. A strong, healthy individual who remains in bed from midnight till noon, or who gives most of the afternoon to a prolonged nap, is storing up more energy than he or she needs, and will feel the worse for it. Similarly, persons whose life is one round of vacations or diversions pay for their aimless existence in various kinds of mental or nervous disorders, to say nothing of the moral dangers to which they are exposed (Ecclus., xxxiii. 29).

(b) Through defect, on the other hand, some injure their health by depriving themselves of the sleep or rest they ought to take. The time that should be given to repose differs with the individual. The young, brain-workers and the feeble are in greater need than others; but there is no one who can dispense with his proper share of rest. It is sinful, therefore, to reduce needed sleep by late retiring or early rising, or to work unremittingly to such an extent that the bodily powers and resistance become unequal to the demands made on them and unfitted for duties. According to physicians, seven hours out of every twenty-four should be spent in bed, and the hours before midnight are much more precious for rest than the early morning hours. Some holidays and vacations are a necessity in these days of rapid and strenuous life.

Physical exercise is a factor of good health, for it stirs up the circulation of the blood, assists digestion, and rids the body of surplus weight. Moreover, it has great value for the mind (to which it gives diversion and refreshment) and for the soul (since it promotes temperance and chastity). If taken in the form of sports, physical exercise is a training in cooperation with others, in loyalty, discipline, and fairness. But health is impaired by excess as well as by defect in exercise.

(a) Examples of over-exercise are athletes who carry on endurance tests to the point of exhaustion, devotees of violent forms of contests or matches that overtax the heart, etc.

(b) Examples of under-exercise are ablebodied persons who prefer to lounge about the house all day rather than bestir themselves; also those who work indoors all day and who from choice ride rather than walk, no matter how short the distance they have to go, etc. Persons of sedentary life who can do so, should exercise every day, preferably out-of-doors, playing at some game like golf, taking a brisk walk of about five miles, or doing some manual labor, such as gardening or sawing wood. Regular gymnastics or setting-up exercises, and the habit of sitting, standing, and walking erect at all times are prescribed by experts on health as very important.

Under the head of preventive or curative measures that ought to be attended to for the sake of bodily well-being are the following:

(a) In time of health sickness has to be guarded against. Suitable clothing and shelter must be used as protection against injurious effects of heat or cold; cleanliness must be cultivated by such means as daily baths, frequent ablutions, washing of teeth, tongue and gums; infections must be avoided; drugs or stimulants hurtful to one’s health must not be indulged in, and attention must be given to daily, regular and natural elimination and to the exclusion of poisons from the system. According to authorities, one should drink at least six glasses of water a day, but warm water is often preferable to cold or hot.

(b) In time of sickness efforts must be made at restoration of health, if this is possible. It is of obligation to use the ordinary means to recover physical fitness, that is, to take remedies and medicines that are suitable, not on the advice of acquaintances or advertisements, but on the recommendation of a competent physician in whose knowledge and skill one has perfect confidence (Ecclus., xxxviii. 1 sqq.). But there is no obligation to have recourse to extraordinary means of recovery, such as a trip to a more balmy climate when one’s purse cannot afford it. Similarly, a very painful and uncertain operation or mutilation is not obligatory, unless one has dependents, and the danger to life from the operation is slight. In time of sickness, as well as in health, we should not omit to implore the divine aid.

The state of mind has very much to do with good or bad health. It is well known, for instance, that a happy, cheerful attitude helps digestion and sleep; whereas worry, fear, anger or other emotional stress will bring on dyspepsia, insomnia, disease, and perhaps insanity. We should not overlook, therefore, the importance of the mental factor in our efforts to maintain good health.

(a) Natural means of cultivating an even temper and a buoyant disposition are: some kind of labor or occupation, avoidance of hurry and worry in one’s affairs, cultivation of some interesting hobby or avocation that will vary the monotony of business or work, use of congenial recreations, whether of a more refined (e.g., conversation with friends, literature, music, art, the drama, travel to historic or beautiful scenes, etc.) or of a more material kind (e.g., reading tales of mystery or adventure, raising pet animals, witnessing baseball games, races, etc., playing billiards, cards, etc., smoking, attending banquets, picnics, etc.). A sense of humor and laughter in moderation are good for the health and not opposed to spirituality.

(b) Religious practices are all-important for cheerfulness of spirit. Christian Science, indeed, is in error when it holds that faith thinks or wills sorrow and disease and death out of existence, for evil is a reality; but virtue and a good conscience rid one of many enemies to peace, and there exist in the Church many supernatural and miraculous means that benefit body, mind and spirit.

Persons who give exaggerated attention to their health cannot justify themselves by the commandment of charity to self; for this commandment has to be interpreted according to the order of charity as explained above (see 1164 sqq.). The bodily good has to be cared for, but with due subordination to higher goods (Matt, vi. 25; Rom., xiv. 16).

(a) Thus, spiritual goods are more important than those of the body, and it is lawful to practise mortifications by fastings, vigils, hair-shirts, and the like, which, though afflictive to the flesh, are refreshing to the spirit, provided all be done according to holy prudence.

(b) Intellectual goods are better than those of the body, and it is not sinful to devote oneself to studies, researches and other mental occupations in preference to manual labor or athletic exercises which would improve one’s physique, but not one’s mind. It is even lawful for the sake of mental improvement to suffer some slight detriment to health.

(c) Public good is greater than private good, and hence it is not only lawful but laudable to expose health, or even life, for the advancement of science or the welfare of the community. Many men and women in daily life do this as part of the day’s work.

Does charity to self oblige one to desire honors, such as dignities, titles, positions or rank, precedence, testimonials, eulogies, medals, decorations, monuments, and the like?

(a) Charity to self demands that one strive to acquire the excellence that is expected of one, and so to be deserving of honor. For we must let our light shine before men (Matt., v. 16; Rom., xii. 17; II Cor., vii. 21).

(b) Charity to self does not require that one actually secure honors. For one cannot force another to declare one’s praises, since he may be prejudiced or ignorant, and it is not seemly to sing one’s own greatness or merit (II Cor., x. 18), except in self-defense (II Cor., xii. 11).

(c) Charity to self would require one to seek after an honor, if the honor were necessary and the manner of seeking it honorable. Thus, it is a duty to self to seek to obtain a diploma or certificate of good character or proficiency, if this document is needed to exercise the profession for which one has trained.

(d) Charity to self would forbid one to seek after an honor, if the honor would prove harmful, or if it could not be obtained in a respectable way. Thus, if an honor rightfully belonged to another, or if it were bestowed in recognition of evil done, or if it would impose obligations for which one knows oneself to be unsuited, or if it could not be attained except by dishonesty, charity to self would urge one to fly from the honor.

(e) Charity to self in other cases would permit one either to seek an honor (as when a dignity will be useful and will be employed for good, and is not sought out of vainglory or hypocrisy) or to forego it (as when it is not necessary and one is moved to shun it, not out of contempt, but out of some virtuous motive).

Does charity to self require one to desire a good name?

(a) Charity to self does require that one desire to be worthy of a good name, for one owes it to oneself as well as to others to be blameless (Phil., ii. 14-16) and to provide good things in the sight of men (Rom., xii. 17).

(b) Charity to self does require that one desire to have a good name. Spiritually, a good name is an advantage, for many a one is encouraged to continue in virtue by the good opinion which others have of him, while many another is discouraged from attempting or continuing a good life because he has a bad reputation. Temporally also, a good name is useful or necessary, for, if others do not trust us or respect us, we shall find it difficult to secure employment or position, or to exercise our office fruitfully. Hence, scripture admonishes: “Take care of a good name, for this shall continue with thee, more than a thousand treasures precious and great” (Ecclus., xli. 15).

(c) Charity to self does not require that one actually have a good name, since reputation may be lost through the work of detractors or through one’s own unintentional imprudence, or through circumstances over which one has no control.

(d) Charity to self ordinarily requires that one seek to acquire a good name, if it has not yet been earned, also to preserve it, when gained, to recover it, when lost; for, as a rule, there is no greater good for which the good of reputation should be sacrificed. The means to be employed, however, should not be evil, as when one uses hypocritical pretense in order to pass as a man of piety, or has recourse to lying or duelling, to undermining or attacking another in order to recover one’s reputation. A good name is built up by fidelity to the duties of one’s calling and the avoidance of what may be offensive or scandalous to others; it is preserved or rebuilt by good deeds, especially those one is known or supposed to have lacked, and in case of need by words of self-defense, vindicating one’s conduct, or refuting aspersions or false charges.

(e) Charity does not require one to seek after a good name, when this should or may be sacrificed for the sake of some higher good. St. Paul faithfully practised what he preached, that no dishonor might be reflected on the Gospel; and yet his enemies looked on him as a seducer and a nobody, as a melancholy and avaricious man. But the Apostle answered his traducers that neither honor nor dishonor, neither evil report nor good report, would move him from the exercise of his ministry (II Cor., vi. 4 sqq).

Sacrifice of reputation is not lawful, however, unless there is a proportionately grave reason and the means are good.

(a) The end must be good and relatively important, not only if compared with the good of personal reputation, but also if compared with the public good and the rights of third parties. Examples: It would not be right to allow oneself to be defamed in order to cover up the tracks of a rascal who deserved punishment, or to distract attention from an evil that is being done; for the purpose would then be the defeat of justice or the success of some sinful plan. In such cases the end would not be good. Neither would it be right to allow the sacrifice of a good name for the notoriety and money profits to be gained in stage or book royalties. The practice of many young men of accepting imputed faults, of which they are not guilty, in order to be popular, or interesting, or attractive, is also sinful. Money cannot buy back a lost reputation, and popularity with the thoughtless is no compensation for disgrace before the judicious and loss of self-respect. In these cases the end is not important, if compared with the advantage of a good name. And even when an end is good and more important than one’s fame, there will frequently be rights of others involved that forbid a sacrifice of reputation, as when a passive attitude in the face of calumny would give scandal or cast discredit on one’s profession, office, work, religion, family, or friends.

(b) The means must be good. Examples: Even if the ambition to be “a good fellow” is praiseworthy, drunkenness and profanity are not suitable ways of winning esteem, and the same applies to pretending wickedness or accusing oneself of imaginary escapades and vices to please a circle which admires wildness in youth. The means used in these cases (drunkenness, profanity, lying) are evil in themselves. Again, the wish to cultivate humility does not justify one in giving scandal by consorting with evildoers as intimates, or by conducting oneself in such a way as to lower the esteem or respect that is entertained for one’s position. The means used in those cases are at least evil-seeming and disedifying.

Is self-detraction, that is, the revelation of some real fault or defect, lawful?

(a) If there is question of faults or defects that are of a public nature and generally known, a disclosure made in a good spirit and in a proper manner, and from which beneficial and not harmful results can be foreseen, is lawful, and sometimes obligatory. Example: Balbus has calumniated his neighbors, and he now admits the fact, not to boast about or excuse it, but to make satisfaction; he does not repeat the details of his defamatory remarks, but merely states that he wishes to retract what he had no right to say; he has every reason to think that his present course will undo the harm caused by the defamation. Balbus does right in thus acknowledging his mistake.

(b) If there is question of faults or defects not generally known, the reasons for mentioning them should be more serious, unless the sins are of a trifling nature. Examples: Caius once served a term in jail for dishonesty, but he is now a decent citizen. His family would be scandalized and would feel disgraced, if they knew this. But Caius thinks it would be a suitable reparation to tell them of his former guilt. Caius is wrong. To speak of his past experience would only add the sin of scandal to the old one, and there are other ways in which he can do penance in further expiation of dishonesty. Claudius wishes to marry Sempronia, but the latter insists that there must be no secrets between husband and wife, and that he must give her complete and accurate answers on certain questions about his past career—for example, whether he has ever been drunk, whether he has ever wished to be drunk, whether he has ever had questionable relations with other women, etc. Claudius should not deceive Sempronia, nor leave her in ignorance of any serious objection to the marriage, even if she forgot to mention it in her questions; but he owes it to himself not to put himself in her power by giving her information which she would probably use against him then or later. Titus has stolen a considerable sum, and, for the sake of getting advice and direction on how to make restitution, he consults a prudent friend who will regard his communication as confidential, just as if he were a confessor. Titus does not act against his own reputation by telling his case to this friend.

Confession of Sins against Charity Owed to Self.—(a) It is not necessary to declare in confession that one has acted against the charity due to self, if there is question only of sins in which transgression of that charity was not directly intended; for to say that one has sinned against God by blasphemy, or against self by intemperance, or against the neighbor by injustice, is equivalent to saying that one has hurt one’s own soul by sin. (b) It is necessary to declare a want of charity to self, if one has expressly intended such a sin. Thus, if a person who has been admonished to have care for his own soul is so enraged thereat that he vows to deliver his soul over to evil, and thereupon proceeds to commit various kinds of sin, he does not declare his true state of conscience by merely mentioning these latter sins. A case of this kind, however, is not usual (see 1307).

S. Th. II-II, q. 25, aa. 4, 5, 7.

886. Man must love himself, both with natural love, which he also fulfills naturally, since each one naturally loves his own conservation and happiness (and thus to love is common to the good and the evil); - and with the supernatural love of charity, as is manifestly supposed in the precept of the Lord, namely, of loving neighbor as oneself. For although friendship properly so called cannot be had directly toward oneself, but something greater than friendship, nevertheless friendship can be had toward God, and consequently toward others (and ourselves) who are God's. Hence St. Thomas, q. 25, a. 4:

"Since charity is a certain friendship... we can speak of charity in two ways. In one way under the common aspect of friendship, and according to this it must be said that friendship is not had properly toward oneself, but something greater than friendship, because friendship imports a certain union... But to each one toward himself there is unity, which is greater than union toward another. Hence, just as unity is the principle of union, so the love by which someone loves himself is the form and root of friendship. For in this we have friendship toward others, because we have ourselves toward them as toward ourselves... In another way we can speak of charity according to its proper nature, insofar, namely, as it is principally the friendship of man toward God, and consequently toward those things which are God's: among which is also the very man who has charity; and thus among the other things which he loves from charity as pertaining to God, he also loves himself from charity."

887. How man must love himself. - By force of the divine precept man is bound, from charity toward himself, to love himself supernaturally, on account of God, not according to sensitive and corporeal nature considered in itself, and according to the corruption of the exterior man in those things which are repugnant to reason, but according to rational nature or the interior man, insofar as he can participate in divine beatitude according to soul and according to body. This is the most perfect reason and at the same time the sole norm and rule in love of ourselves: we ought to love ourselves, that is, soul and body, insofar as we pertain to God. And indeed:

1. Primarily the soul, which, created by God, through grace has been made a consort of the divine nature, redeemed by the blood of Christ, the temple of divinity, and capable of eternal beatitude.

Hence we are bound a) to prefer the salvation of the soul and sanctification before all things (Mt. VI, 33), and to employ the means necessary for salvation, b) to cultivate Christian virtues, c) to do good and meritorious works according to the example of Christ (Mt. VI, 19-20), d) to esteem grace and the means for preserving and increasing it more than all temporal helps, e) and to hate and fear the one thing, sin, which turns one away from God. But all goods of the soul, whether natural, such as erudition, knowledge, honor, reputation, glory, etc., or even supernatural, are not to be loved on account of themselves but on account of God.

2. Secondarily and subordinately we must also love the body, not on account of itself but on account of God, insofar as it is the instrument of the soul for offering honor to God and doing good (Rom. VI, 13, 19), and a temple of God sanctified by grace and in some way capable of beatitude, which redounds from the glory of the soul into the body (I Cor. VI, 19-20; XV, 42-43 [the original prints II Cor.]).

Hence a) we are bound to employ the ordinary means for conserving our own life, integrity of members, and health, by procuring for ourselves food, clothing, habitation, so that the body can be a suitable instrument for serving the soul and serving God; nevertheless b) in desiring the good of the body, for example health, pleasure, life, etc., we must seek all these things on account of God, unto the glory of God; c) we must restrain the concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires out of hatred of sin, and inflict reasonable mortification upon the body, which weighs down the soul and is prone to rebellion, namely, so that it may be subjected to the mind and to the service of God (Col. III, 5; I Cor. IX, 27); d) nevertheless, we must not afflict the body out of hatred of the body considered according to its nature (thus it is good), nor seek mortification on account of mortification itself (just as neither pleasure on account of pleasure), nor flee all delights and pleasures, but we can rejoice and enjoy even earthly delights, yet according to right reason.

888. They sin against charity toward themselves: a) More by excess, those who indulge disordered egoism and chiefly pursue private advantages, more than the good of God, or exclusively, with the glory of God or the salvation and utility of others set after them (Phil. II, 21; I Cor. X, 24 [the original prints II Cor.]; II Tim. III, 1-2). Hence it is understood 1. that this happens in every mortal sin (Ps. X, 6; Tob. XII, 10); 2. that for the sake of no good is it permitted to sin even venially.

b) More by defect: 1. those who so love exterior or bodily goods that spiritual goods are contemned, namely, by preferring the good of the body to the good of the soul (Mt. X, 28), or even by placing goods of fortune before the salvation and life of the body;

2. those who neglect the means necessary for salvation or the ordinary means of conserving their own life, integrity of the body, or health; or expose themselves without sufficient reason to danger of soul (for example, by long deferring penance) or of body (for example, of death or grave illness);

3. those who wish evil to themselves and, a fortiori, inflict it on themselves, for example, by directly harming the health of the body, by injuring themselves in the integrity of members, or by taking bodily life from themselves.

Nevertheless, one need not attend specially in confession to that malice by which these sins are opposed to charity toward oneself, because it is included in every sin; besides, these sins always injure another precept or virtue, and therefore they must be declared according to another species.

I ASSERT that the love of oneself is also included in the precept of Charity.

It is PROVED by the Saintly Doctors; for in the precept of the love of neighbor it is said: thou shalt love him as thyself; but we love our neighbor out of Charity: therefore by the same Charity also ourselves, as St. Aug. observes serm. 3. post Pentecost. and the Saintly Doct. dist. 28. q. 6. ad 2.

It is PROVED second by the Saintly Doctor, because to love God with the whole heart, with the whole soul, and with the whole mind is to love oneself. Therefore it is said Lucae 10. after the precepts of Charity have been handed down: Do this, and thou shalt live.

That a special precept need not have been handed down, the Saintly Doctor admonishes, because from natural inclination we are sufficiently inclined toward ourselves: For no man ever hated his own flesh. Ephes. 5. Therefore a third commandment was not necessary, as St. Augustine says Lib. 1. de doctrina Christiana, cap. 24.

Yet the Saintly Doctor NOTES, dist. 28. quest. 5. in the body, and quest. 6. there, that since Charity, properly speaking, is friendship, we can speak of Charity in a twofold way: in one way under the common aspect of friendship; and in this sense friendship toward oneself is not had, because friendship implies the union of several, as D. Dionysius says cap. 4. de divin. nominibus, part. 2.; but toward oneself for each one there is unity, which is more powerful than union with another. Therefore with a more sublime love than friendship we love ourselves; for as unity is the principle of union, so the love by which one loves himself is the form and root of friendship. For we have friendship toward others in this, that we bear ourselves toward them as toward ourselves; for it is said in 9. Eth. cap. 8. that the things of friendship which are toward another come from those which are toward oneself. In another way we can speak of Charity as it is the friendship of man with God principally,¹ and in consequence toward the things that are God's, among which is also man himself, who has Charity; and thus among the other things that he loves out of Charity, as pertaining to God, he loves also himself out of Charity. Thus Tannerus also discusses it disp. 2. quest. 3. dub. 1. ¹ Editor's note: the print reads 'de Charitate, pto vt est amicitia' — a defective letterform (apparently broken 'r' in 'pro'); rendered 'prout est' (insofar as it is).

From these understand what St. Gregory means homil. 27. in Evang. that Charity cannot be had as less than between two; whence he infers that Charity is not had toward oneself; clearly in the reason of friendship, as the Saintly Doctors expound it.

I ASSERT that it is so. It is the common opinion of the Theologians.

It is proved first by D. Bonaventure, from Ephes. 5: Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies; but wives are to be loved out of Charity: Therefore also bodies.

It is proved secondly by the Holy Doctors from D. Augustine, Book 1. of de doctrina Christiana, chapter 23.

It is proved thirdly by S. Bonaventure: everything beatifiable is lovable out of Charity: such are bodies: Therefore.

It is proved fourthly by S. Thomas. In the order of Charity kinsfolk are to be preferred to strangers, as Ambrose teaches in the Cam. Gloss on ch. 2; but kinship exists only on the part of bodies: Therefore, since our bodies are above all joined to us for this reason, they are to be loved out of Charity.

It is explained by S. Thomas, in corpore. Charity is a weight inclining toward the highest good and perfect beatitude, and consequently makes us love everything lovable. Thus God must first be loved as blessed by essence: then the Spirits as beatifiable by participation: lastly bodies as beatifiable by the overflowing from the soul. So also Tannerus disp. 2. quaest. 3. dub. 1.

You will object first, Ioan. 12: He who loves his life shall lose it; but there it is understood as meaning animation unto life.

S. Bonaventure and D. Thomas answer that Christ urges us to hate the carnal life, not as meaning natural life, which is good, coming from God, and therefore to be loved: hence it is not lawful to kill oneself; but to hate the carnal life, as meaning the life fostered by the fire of concupiscence.

You will object secondly. That which impedes beatitude is not to be loved out of Charity: such is the body, Galat. 5: The flesh concupisceth against the spirit. And Rom. 7: I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, etc. Whence he said: Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

The Holy Doctors answer that the Apostle does not reject bodily life as it is natural; for it is not an impediment to salvation for that reason, but on account of concupiscence arising from sin.

You will object thirdly. Charity never falleth away, 1 Corinth. 13; therefore the things that are to be loved out of Charity do not fall away; but bodies fall: Therefore.

S. Thomas answers that bodies are destined for perpetual incorruption in beatitude: hence, although now they are sown in corruption, yet they shall rise in glory; and consequently they are to be loved out of Charity.

You will object fourthly. That which makes lovable out of Charity is communication in the image of God: But bodies do not have the Divine image: Therefore.

S. Thomas answers that of themselves they are indeed lovable by reason of the image and the capacity for God; hence bodies, because they participate in the image and beatitude only by reason of union, are therefore to be loved secondarily.

It must be asserted. This is proved by the Holy Doctor first from the Saints, Augustine and Ambrose, who immediately after the love of God place the love of self, as we saw in quaest. 28.

Secondly, from Ecclus. 14: He who is evil to himself, to whom will he be good? Therefore one cannot orderly love one's neighbor unless one first loves oneself: for this reason in Matth. 22 and Deuter. 6 it is said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Therefore the love of self is the exemplar of the love of neighbor: but the exemplar is superior to the exemplated.

Thirdly, from St. Augustine in the Enchir. cap. 76. See also Valencia disp. 3 quaest. 4 p. 3, Tanner disp. 2 q. 5 dub. 3.

Fourthly. The order of charity is first toward the first principle and last end, which is the Highest Good; then toward the participants: Man therefore loves himself as a participant in that good; others indeed as Companions in the participation; and, the participants being equal, unity is preferable to union. St. Thomas uses the same middle.

It is confirmed first by the Holy Doctor in the body, because a weight draws more the thing in which it is than that which is attached to it: but charity is a weight, as I showed in quaest. 30.

It is confirmed secondly. Each thing appetizes perfection in itself more than in its like: Therefore we reasonably appetize that God be united to us more than to others like to us.

It is confirmed thirdly by the Holy Doctor and Valencia, because those are reproved and called fools who neglect their own salvation to procure that of another: Matth. 16: What doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the detrimment of his soul?

Finally, if he ought to love each individual neighbor as himself: Therefore also another neighbor conjoined simultaneously double more, and four, quadruple, and so on to infinity. From this affection it follows that one cannot give one's life for the life of a friend to be saved; so Durand. 4 dist. 17 quaest. 6, Richard dist. 15 art. 3 quaest. 5, Gabriel dist. 16 quaest. 3 art. 1, Paludanus dist. 15 q. 3 art. 2, Bellarm. on good works lib. 3 cap. 8 tom. 3. Hence St. Augustine in lib. de mendacio cap. 6 says: If anyone lose his bodily life for the bodily life of a friend, he does not love his neighbor as himself, but more than himself; which exceeds the rule of doctrine.

The reason is the one the Holy Doctor brings in the body and at ad 2, because love toward self is the measure of love toward neighbor; for it is said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; but the measure is more perfect than the measured, as Scotus also says. Hence Hurtado defends this opinion tooth and nail in t. 2 disp. 114 sect. 4 § 42, where he lays down that it is a sin to die for the life of a neighbor.

Others however say that this is licit: Azorius tom. 2 lib. 2 cap. 3 quaestio 2, Soto on Justice lib. 5 quaest. 1 art. 6, Victoria relect. on homicide num. 25, Corduba lib. 1 quaest. 83 at ad 4, Tanner disp. 2 quaest. 5 dub. 4 num. 73, citing St. Thomas 3 dist. 29 quaest. 1 art. 5 at ad 3 and lib. 1 de regimine Principum, and here quaest. 26 art. 4 at ad 2, Bannes, Aragon, Valencia quaest. 4 p. 3. See below quaest. 35.

Diana p. 5 tract. 4 resol. 28, with Faber on Restitution in 4 disp. 52 num. 41, Valencia tom. 3 disp. 3 quaest. IV p. III, Lorca II II quaest. XXVI art. V sect. III disp. XXVIII member III num. 55, say that it is sometimes licit to do this on account of some added cause; for instance if the friend is more useful, or if he is unjustly oppressed; and thus justice also is saved; and in this way it is a heroic work, says Lorca.

The Holy Doctor asserts it entirely in III dist. XXIX dub. I litt. With equality indeed given, the Holy Doctor wills that alms be given first to oneself. But he calls perfect heroic charity in dub. V, from St. Augustine tract. V on John, when one is ready to die for love of the brethren — a death not undergone precisely for them, but in order to God. Wherefore the act will be heroic by Charity. Hence in John XV it is said: Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. So also Bass. v. Charity, num. 19, where he brings forward many.

Against this assent you will object first: Charity seeketh not her own, I. Cor. XIII.

It is replied that seeking one's own good is forbidden as excluding the common; for that is lust. But to seek one's own good as such is not evil; for he himself in Philip. the first desired to be dissolved and to be with Christ. So also St. Thomas replies from St. Augustine, the third rule.

You will object secondly from Matth. XXII, where we have: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: Therefore equally.

The Holy Doctor replies particularly that as, is not a mark of perfect equality, but of expressed likeness, which is attended to in this, that man love his neighbor toward that good toward which he loves himself, and that after his own salvation he ought to wish nothing more than that of another.

You will object thirdly from St. Gregory, homil. XVII on the Gospels: No one is said to have Charity toward himself, but toward another.

The Holy Doctor replies that the sense is not to terminate Charity in oneself, but that it ought to be extended toward one's neighbor, for he who does not love remains in death. It is also replied that Charity is toward another insofar as it is friendship.

You will object fourthly. Liberality is attended to toward another. But charity is a liberal love: Therefore.

He replies that liberality is extended toward another, but nevertheless begins from oneself.