The Order of Charity Among Neighbors

If I cannot succor all whom of themselves I would be bound to succor, this order must be observed:

I. With respect to the act of complacency, after God the holier persons are to be preferred to others, because they participate more in the divine goodness (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 26, a. 6; St. Alphonsus, II, 27).

II. With respect to internal affection, likewise a certain order must be observed. "The reason is that, since the principle of love is God and the one loving himself, it is necessary that according to greater nearness to either of those principles there be a greater affection of love" (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 26, a. 6).

III. With respect to effects, or with respect to beneficence, these things hold:

1. Necessity is commonly to be preferred to connection; greater necessity to lesser necessity. The reason is that the obligation of succoring is sought primarily from necessity.

2. Once equal necessity is posited, likewise a certain order must be observed according to these words of St. Thomas already cited above: "Since the principle of love is God and the one loving himself, it is necessary that according to greater nearness to either of those principles there be a greater affection of love" (II-II, q. 26, a. 6), and - in conformity with the whole article, I would add - a greater effect (St. Alphonsus, II, 27). Therefore:

a) Those connected with us are to be preferred to strangers.¹

b) Those connected with us in a different species of connection are to be helped thus:

a) Outside necessity: 1. with respect to common services, there come those connected: a) spiritually, b) carnally, c) civilly; 2. with respect to goods proper to some species of connection, those connected in that species are to be preferred to others; and men also seem to act thus, for they call relatives to weddings (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 26, a. 8).

b) In extreme or grave necessity, whether temporal or spiritual, those connected carnally are to be preferred to those connected otherwise. The reason is that carnal connection is prior to the others, firmer, and more founded upon benefits. Yet if the carnal connection is remote, the obligation of preferring it is only light, or even - namely if another connection is intimate - none (St. Alphonsus, III, 946).

c) Among those connected in the same species but in a different degree of connection, those more closely connected are commonly to be preferred to those less closely connected. Hence, for example, those connected carnally in different degree are to be helped in this order:

a) Outside necessity there come: 1. spouse, 2. children, 3. father, 4. mother, 5. brothers and sisters, 6. the remaining relatives. In this necessity the spouse and children are to be preferred to parents, because of themselves parents ought to provide for children, not conversely.

b) In extreme or grave necessity there come: 1. father, 2. mother, 3. spouse, 4. children, 5. brothers and sisters, 6. the remaining relatives (St. Alphonsus, II, 27; VI, 939, dub. 2; Homo Apostolicus, tr. 4, n. 15). - In extreme or grave necessity parents are to be preferred to spouse and children, because life is owed to the former.

Note. To the title of charity or piety, which we had before our eyes in the foregoing, other titles can be added, for example of gratitude, which can bring it about that the order can or must be inverted. Other extraordinary circumstances can bring about the same thing; thus, for example, a stranger who is necessary to the common good must, in extreme necessity, be preferred to a relative.

Inversion of the order is then only a grave sin when there is question both of extreme or grave necessity, and the inversion is notable with respect to neglect of the order, for example if, of two persons placed in extreme or grave necessity, a stranger is preferred to one connected with us, or one more remotely connected is preferred to one closely connected, for example a cousin to parents or children.

¹ Connection is distinguished as threefold: carnal, which arises from the bond of blood, and to it belong the goods of life and family; spiritual, which arises from the bond of religion, and to it belong spiritual goods; civil, which arises from a civil bond, and to it belong civil goods. Civil connection consists in multiple species, for example among citizens, soldiers, etc.

809. (B) Concerning the order to be observed among different neighbors. Other things being equal, we ought to love more those neighbors who are nearer to God or to ourselves.

(a) If there is question of love of complacency, we ought to love more those who are nearer to God, or holier; thus a holy man should be loved more than an impious parent; for love of complacency, which rests upon qualities already possessed, ought to be proportioned to the virtues of those whom we love.

(b) But if there is question of affective and effective love, or of benevolence and beneficence, those who are nearer to us are to be loved more; for here there is question of goods not yet possessed, and it is consonant with reason that we desire or confer them upon those whose necessities, on account of a special bond of piety or gratitude, we are bound to provide for more strictly.

810. But the nearness by which men are joined among themselves can be threefold: carnal, by which by reason of blood they are connected to one another, as parents and children, husband and wife, blood-relations, relatives by marriage; - civil, by which those who are members of the same society are joined among themselves, for example, fellow citizens, fellow soldiers, friends, associates, etc.; - spiritual, when by force of some spiritual office they are united among themselves, such as superiors and inferiors, pastors and their subjects, confessors and penitents. - Now, in any kind of conjunction, those are to be preferred who are nearer in the same kind; thus, in those things which pertain to nature, blood-relations are to be preferred to strangers;³ in civil matters we ought to love fellow citizens more than foreigners; in spiritual matters, those who are joined by a more intimate bond are to be loved more.

³ Among blood-relations themselves a diverse order is assigned, according to diverse respects. Thus, outside the case of extreme necessity, or in ordinary necessities, the following are to be helped: wife, children, parents, brothers and sisters, other blood-relations according to the degree of blood-relationship. - In extreme necessity, parents of themselves are to be preferred to wife and children. (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 26, a. 9-11). But in practice, before the fact, there is scarcely room for deliberation, and, after the fact, the matter is to be judged from the dispositions of the subject.

Yet it must be noted that not rarely special and extraordinary circumstances intervene, which permit some inversion of order; thus, by reason of a special friendship otherwise legitimate, friends are loved more than blood-relations; likewise, among blood-relations, sometimes those who have conferred greater benefits are loved more, although less near. But those who feel thus are not to be made anxious, provided that they render due love to those nearer.

S. Th. II-II, q. 26, aa. 6-13; q. 31, a. 3; de Virt., q. 2, a. 9.

911. Notions. - Order is attended according to greater proximity to the principle. But the principle of dilection is twofold, one objective: God; the other efficient: the one loving. Therefore a twofold order must be attended in charity: a) according to proximity to God; b) according to proximity or conjunction to the one loving.

Now a threefold conjunction is chiefly distinguished:

1. carnal, arising from the bond of blood, and founded in the goods of life and family: this is diverse in species according as it is between parents and children, - or between spouses, - or between blood-relatives, - or between relatives by affinity;

2. spiritual, arising from the bond of religion and founded in spiritual and eternal goods; which also contains several species: between members of the Church, - between members of a community, - between pastor and sheep, - between preacher or confessor and convert or penitent, etc.;

3. civil, arising from a political bond and founded in social goods, of which again there are multiple species: between citizens, cohabitants, fellow soldiers, benefactor and one receiving benefits, etc.

912. General principle. In the order of charity the better are to be loved more objectively, the more proximate more intensively and appreciatively. - Order is attended according to greater proximity to the principle. But the principle of dilection is twofold, one objective: God; the other efficient: the one loving. Therefore those who are more proximate and more conjoined to God or to us are to be loved more. And indeed:

1. The better or holier are to be loved more in one way, namely, objectively but directly, that is, by dilection which rests upon goods already possessed: for by dilection of complacency we ought to rejoice concerning the greater good possessed by them, and by dilection of benevolence we ought to will to them the greater beatitude to which they possess a right. For they are more proximate to God and therefore more worthy, and according to this we also owe them greater reverence, worship, and honor.

2. Those more conjoined to us, other things being equal, are to be loved more in all other ways:

a) Intensively: for love is the motion of the lover into the beloved; but the principle of motion flows more vehemently into those things which are more proximate to it than into more remote things; therefore, the more proximate some are to the one loving, the more vehemently they are to be loved, "and therefore man loves them with a more intense affection as regards that good toward which he loves them than the better as regards a greater good."

b) Also appreciatively: for thus those are to be loved more who are loved by more titles, and modes of dilection or friendships, all of which are commanded by charity (to which they are ordered as to an end, as was said in n. 901). But those more conjoined to us are united to us by more titles and dilections; others, however, only by the common conjunction of charity, because they can arrive at beatitude. Therefore from charity we ought to esteem more and prefer those more conjoined to us.

c) Hence also objectively they are to be loved more, at least indirectly: for the good of virtue in man can be increased and diminished, and therefore from charity we can will that those more proximate to us be better than others, and thus arrive at greater beatitude. - Therefore they are to be loved more by the dilection of benevolence and desire, by which we wish for others a good not yet possessed, and by the dilection of mercy and beneficence, by which we procure good for them (I Tim. V, 8; Gal. VI, 10; Is. LVIII).

Whence simply and absolutely those more conjoined are to be loved more.

913. Special principles. I. In goods proper to some conjunction, he is to be preferred to the others who according to this conjunction is more proximate to us, and therefore in those things which pertain to nature we ought to love blood-relatives more, in those things which pertain to civil intercourse fellow citizens are to be preferred, and in military matters fellow soldiers.

II. In goods common to any conjunction whatever, whether eternal or temporal, those must be preferred who are absolutely more proximate, that is, who are united to us by a stronger conjunction.

But in itself spiritual conjunction prevails over civil; but carnal conjunction prevails over both, as resting upon nature, and therefore prior and more immovable, and founded upon greater benefits: for charity does not change the order of nature but perfects it. Hence a son is bound to leave military service or religious life, if necessary, for converting or supporting his parents.

914. Order among blood-relatives. - Generally, ordinarily, and in itself, among various blood-relatives aid must be given 1. to the wife, who is so intimately united with the husband that they are one flesh; 2. to children, for whom according to nature parents ought to provide; 3. to the father, who is the nobler principle of generation; 4. to the mother; 5. to brothers and sisters; 6. to other blood-relatives and relatives by affinity. After them come friends, benefactors, superiors, and persons more useful to the commonwealth.

It is said: generally, ordinarily, and in itself, for a) in extreme necessity parents seem to be preferred to all others, because since they have given life, their life, if necessary, is especially to be preserved; b) from particular circumstances it is permitted to invert this order: thus a good and diligent mother is to be loved more than an evil and dissipating father, likewise a singular friend or notable benefactor more than more remote blood-relatives; c) it is permitted to change the order by reason of office or a special obligation: thus a pastor generally is bound more to the instruction of parishioners than of blood-relatives, yet not in extreme necessity.

915. Observations. - 1. Parents, because more similar to God, are to be loved more objectively and with reverence than wife and children; but these latter more estimatively and intensively and with beneficence, because they are more conjoined. For the same reason benefactors are loved more objectively than those to whom we do good; conversely, those to whom we do good are loved more intensively than benefactors.

2. A father as father is in itself to be loved more than a mother as such, because he is the nobler principle of generation; but under another respect (and by another dilection) the mother can be loved more, for example, if she loves more, as naturally easily happens, because often she has done more for the son (at least in the beginning) and knows more that he is her son than the father does, and immediately holds and nourishes the newborn with herself. Whence St. Thomas, III Sent., d. 29, q. 1, a. 7, ad 4: "the mother places more of her own in the son than the father, but more of that by which he is son is placed by the father than by the mother."

3. In these and in all the rules stated above, equal necessity in all in the same order of goods is always supposed; in unequal necessity one must first aid him who suffers the greater need, for example, an infant is to be baptized rather than confessions heard.

4. An inversion of the order of charity is not mortally evil unless there is question of extreme necessity; - or unless it is very notable and is done without any reason. An inversion between son, wife, and parents is not notable; but it is notable between wholly strange persons and those very conjoined.

5. In heaven a) the order of charity between God and us remains, where God will be loved simply above all things; - b) as regards the order between us and neighbor, objectively we will love the better more, and the less good less, in perfect conformity to the divine will; but appreciatively and intensively, ourselves more; - c) as regards various neighbors, simply we will love more those more conjoined to God (as more conjoined to us), because every other conjunction to neighbor ceases in heaven and the whole blessed life consists in the immutable ordination of the mind to God; whence those are loved more there and are held by us as more proximate who are more proximate to God. And although some are also loved by more titles and modes (because grace does not destroy natural dilection), nevertheless to all these reasons the reason of dilection which is taken from proximity to God is incomparably preferred. The contrary holds on earth, where we need the help of others (Q. D. de Virt. 2, a. 9, ad 12; II-II, q. 26, a. 13).

[Since, in those things in which some principle is found, order is attended to according to comparison with that principle, and since the principle of love is God and the lover himself, it is necessary that, according to the greater nearness to one of these principles, the affection of love be greater.]

I say 1°: The better are to be loved more objectively than those more closely joined to us who are less good: inasmuch as, according to their present state of justice, we ought to will them a greater participation in beatitude than those more closely joined to us but less good, according to their present state; because it belongs to charity that it will the justice of God to be preserved, according to which those who are better participate more in beatitude¹⁵⁸. ¹⁵⁸ Hic q. 26, a. 7, c.

I say 2°: Those more closely joined to us according to the flesh are, speaking per se, to be loved more intensively than better strangers^{159 159} Ibid.

It is proved. 1° because the intensity of the motion depends on its proper agent¹⁶⁰, which is naturally apt to influence those nearer more vehemently than those farther away. Therefore. ¹⁶⁰ Ibid.

2° Scripture in several places specially commends to us the love of relatives, besides the special precept of honoring parents, as Isa., LVIII, 7, after enumerating various works of mercy, adds: And despise not thy own flesh, that is, those who are joined to thee carnally. I Tim., V, 8: If anyone have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Where the Apostle calls his own those who are joined in any way whatever, but those of his house those who are joined by blood.

Toward those who are not joined to us we have only the friendship of charity; toward relatives, however, we have other friendships as well, according to the mode of union: the friendship of sons toward parents, and conversely, of brother toward brother, of citizen toward fellow citizen, etc. And although these loves are natural or moral, in well-ordered men they are nevertheless commanded by charity; because the good on which any honest friendship is founded is ordered as to an end to the good on which charity is founded; whence it follows that charity commands the act of every other friendship, as the art that is about the end commands the art that is about those things that are directed to the end.

I said, « speaking per se, » because per accidens it happens that the better are to be loved more than those joined according to the flesh; as if a person to be saved were necessary for the common good; if someone snatched you from death, whether corporal or spiritual, which your parents wished to inflict on you; if he received you when abandoned by your brothers in extreme necessity and cared for you; if among those spiritually joined there be the closest bond, and scarcely any among more remote blood relations, as in the third, fourth, or fifth degree. In these and similar cases, the better are to be loved more than those joined carnally.

What is objected against this conclusion is easily solved, having before one's eyes the distinction between objective and intensive love.

I say 3°: Among variously joined persons, those joined carnally, speaking per se, are to be loved more, in things pertaining to nature, than those otherwise joined¹⁶¹. ¹⁶¹ Ibid., a. 8, c.

The conclusion presupposes various modes of union: 1° according to the flesh, as between parents and blood relations; 2° according to political society, as between fellow citizens and comrades in arms, both among themselves and with their magistrates and leaders; 3° according to the reason of service, whether spiritual or temporal.

It is proved of the conclusion; because the intensity of love arises from the union of the beloved with the lover; but the carnal union of origin is prior and more immovable, and it is according to that which pertains to substance, while the others are supervening. Therefore.

I said, « in things pertaining to nature; » because in things pertaining to the other unions, those are to be loved more who are joined according to those unions¹⁶²; understand this, however, outside necessity. Hence in war obedience is given to the general rather than to the father. Comparing, however, love with love, union with union, carnal union is to be preferred to any whatsoever, so that, if the things pertaining to carnal union and the things proper to those other unions cannot both be rendered, these latter are to be omitted, and the unions abandoned, if need be. Thus a soldier ought to leave military service so as to succor the necessity of his parents, a Religious to leave the monastery for the same end. Whence, speaking simply, those joined carnally are to be loved more than those otherwise joined. ¹⁶² Ibid.

You will gather: 1° that in grave or extreme necessity, speaking per se, succor is to be given to parents, children, wife, and probably also brothers and sisters, rather than to any benefactor however distinguished. I said, « speaking per se; » which is true under the same exceptions appended to the second conclusion. 2° Also in equal spiritual necessity, it is more probable that carnal parents and children are to be preferred to spiritual parents and children. 3° A father is to be loved more objectively than a son¹⁶³; for he is loved under the reason of principle, which has the reason of a more eminent good, and more like to God: but a son is to be loved more intensively than a father¹⁶⁴; for a son is more something of the father, than the father is something of the son. Speaking absolutely, however, the father in necessity is to be preferred to the son, because the father is loved as cause, the son as effect; and greater is the obligation of effect toward cause, than of cause toward effect. 4° A father, speaking per se, is to be loved more than a mother, because he is a nobler principle than the mother¹⁶⁵. 5° A father, for the reason adduced above, is to be loved more objectively and appreciatively than a wife, but a wife more intensively than father and children; for she is more closely joined than father and children¹⁶⁶. ¹⁶³ Ibid., a. 9, c. ¹⁶⁴ Ibid. ¹⁶⁵ Ibid., a. 10, o. ¹⁶⁶ Ibid., a. 11, o.

[Moreover theologians observe that to change the order in the last three conclusions is not a grave sin, because there is no notable excess of one above another.]

XV. Question VII. Who are to be preferred in love? Answer. First of all are to be preferred father and mother; then wives and children. Wives are to be preferred to parents only as regards habitation and a more tender love. Brothers are to be set before other blood-relations; and among these, those must be preferred who are nearer. Blood-relations must be set before relations by marriage; the faithful before infidels; friends before enemies; benefactors before non-benefactors; spiritual benefactors before temporal benefactors; fellow-citizens before strangers. But the precept of this preference presses only when extreme necessity presses of succoring one or the other of these neighbors. Hence a stranger placed in extreme necessity must be succored before a father who does not labor under such necessity. A community laboring under grave spiritual necessity you must succor even at the danger of life, because in such a community someone is always found placed in extreme necessity.

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.

You will object fifthly. Charity, coming upon nature, inverts the order; and he who before loved himself more than God begins to love God more: Therefore it inverts also the love in order to neighbor, so that the latter be loved more.

The Holy Doctor replies that there is no variation of nature, that I should love myself before my neighbor; therefore it is not to be taken away by Charity, as vitious self-love is taken away.

You will object sixthly. Our charity ought to be conformed to the Charity of God, who loves our neighbors more, if they are better, than us. The assumption is proved: for he wills his honor; but the salvation of a hundred souls is more toward God's honor than my salvation: Therefore. For thus the Apostle in Rom. IX desired to be an anathema for the brethren.

The Holy Doctor replies, with St. Thomas, that the order of Charity is not attended to only by the magnitude of the good wished; but also on the part of the lover; just as the quantity of an action depends on the subject itself. Therefore, although the neighbor be better, nevertheless he does not preponderate, because Charity was given to me first for acting in its own subject, and this is the honor of God and his will expressed in the Scriptures. But what the Apostle desired, to be an anathema, understand for a time, or under a condition, should it be desirable, as St. Bonav. says at the end; or he desired separation from the fellowship of the members of Christ, as Chrysostom explains; or he desired death for the salvation of his neighbor, as Valencia notes disp. III quaest. IV punct. 3. Say the same of that saying of Moses, Deuter. XXXII: Either forgive them, etc. or blot me out of thy book; which Fusesius explains in lib. III cap. 9 as a filial exaggeration.

I assert that the Salvation of our neighbor is to be preferred to our life, from what was said in quaest. XXX, with the Holy Doctors and St. Augustine lib. I de doctrina Christiana cap. 27.

It is proved secondly by St. Bonaventure here. That thing is more lovable by charity which is more consociable in supernatural beatitude: Such is the soul of the neighbor, participating immediately, while the body shares only by redundancy. Fusesius urges this with St. Thomas. This, however, holds in an unavoidable necessity, for instance, if an infant would perish without baptism should I not hasten, nor could I without danger to life; not if he, in an unjust war, would expose himself to the combat; for that is avoidable. So St. Thomas at the place cited, where Sylvius, Malder. Arag. Nau. Mam. cap. 24 num. 10, Valent. disp. III quaest. IV p. III, Dian. p. V tract. XIII resol. 14, Tanner. disp. II q. III dub. n. 60, Filliuc. tract. XXVIII num. 35, and Bassaeus does not deny it v. Charity, num. 18.

Sancius nevertheless denies it, select. disp. X num. 9, who says with Sà num. 4 that we are held indeed not to inflict spiritual harm on our neighbor, nor to inflict it for the sake of preserving our body, but we are not held to prevent it; otherwise a pregnant mother would be held to allow herself to be cut open so that the infant could be baptized, which would otherwise perish without baptism; and he charges with indiscretion those Doctors who say, they would indeed, but would not do it.

He excepts the case where one is bound by convention, for instance if one is a Pastor; or hired soldiers. He teaches this from St. Bonaventure on John X: The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep: for both receive a stipend. So also Bonac. tract. II disp. III quaest. IV punct. 4, Sylvius cit., Laym. lib. II tract. III cap. 3, Reginald. lib. IV cap. 25 num. 356, 348 and 357, Chapeauvilla cap. I quaest. IV, Malder. loc. cit., Tab. v. Bishop, quaest. V, Tannerus cit. disp. IV n. 64, Filliuc. cit. num. 56, Dian. loc. cit. and resol. 33, Bassaeus loc. cit.

I assert it. It is proved by St. Thomas, because the order of love is attended to according to the principle of goodness. Therefore he who is more conjoined to a more lovable goodness is more lovable; but some neighbors are nearer to God, and to us, than others. The Holy Doctor uses this reason also at the place cited, and Valent. disp. III q. IV p. IV, Fusiens. lib. III c. 9, and others.

First indeed, by a greater love objectively the better one is to be loved more. So St. Thomas art. 7. For he who is better is more conjoined with the principal object of charity, which is God, and has more good in himself. We can nevertheless wish a greater good for another, for instance a kinsman, than that which another has.

Secondly. By a greater appreciative love, he is to be loved more who is more conjoined either to God, or to the one loving him, or to both: but if one be better, the other more conjoined to me, the latter is to be loved more as regards those goods by which he is conjoined to me; hence in I Tim. V: If any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith: And it is the opinion of St. Augustine lib. I doct. Christ. c. 28.

It is proved also by the reason of St. Bonaventure brought forward in q. XXX. Every motion takes its intensity, and as it were its weight, by which it tends toward the term, from its own principle, especially from that from which it proceeds; therefore the motion of charity too is borne with a greater as-it-were weight toward that which is more conjoined to the principle from which that motion of love proceeds; namely to the one loving himself.

Hence you have that those conjoined in all things are to be loved more than strangers, even if they be better, other things being equal; for as regards spiritual goods, those are to be loved more who are conjoined in grace, as spiritual sons, or spiritual parents.

I assert that parents are to be loved more by Charity, on the part of the lovable object, which is good. So St. Bonaventure here, and St. Thomas quaest. 26 art. 9 and quaest. 31 art. 3 ad 4, where Valencia, Bannes, Aragon, and Tanner. disp. 2 quaest. 3 dub. 5, Fuliens. lib. 3 cap. 10.

It is proved by St. Bonaventure first, because after the worship of God, the honor of parents is straightway commanded in Exodi 20. Therefore as regards the honor owed and the obligation of assisting, parents are to be preferred.

Secondly it is proved by the Holy Doctors from St. Ambrose, cited in quaest. 13.

Thirdly: Where there is a greater dependence, and whence a greater good, and the origin of arriving at the highest good, in the enjoyment of which the consummation of Charity consists, there is the greater inclination toward it; but man depends more on his parents, from whom he has being ordered to the highest good, which they imitate of the first Principle and last End: Therefore. Hence Aristot. 9 Eth. cap. 2 says: Man more honorably assists his parents than his sons, and even himself.

Fourthly in the body, because we have more and more excellent goods from our parents: Therefore, on the part of the object of Charity, which is good, parents are to be loved more.

I assert secondly, on the part of the lover, that sons are to be loved more.

It is proved by the Holy Doctors, because the son is a part of the father, and hence more intimate to the one loving from 8 Eth. cap. 12, and in him he is more conserved and expressed. And so the love holds itself, as the exceeding and the exceeded, under diverse rationes; yet so that grace inclines more toward parents; nature indeed, as regards the affection, toward sons — which is so clear that I wonder that Valencia disp. 3 quaest. 4 p. 5 said that Bonaventure was deceived, in which also Tannerus wrongly carps at the Holy Doctor.