In what way is it sinful to help non-believers?

[meltzerboy]

well granted that we should love our neighbors, still how does that not conflict with other Catholic aims -like spreading catholicism?

For instance, if you feed a starving Jew, it is highly likely that he will live and if he lives, it is highly likely that he will continue to be Jewish. Does that not conflict with the mission to spread the church (which alone offers the path to human happiness)? Or is spreading the true religion somehow less important, than loving one’s neighbor? I’m sorry for my apparent thick-headedness but I am honestly quite confused by this.

If you must be only logical about this rather than also kind-hearted, if you didn’t feed the starving Jew, Muslim, Hindu, whomever, they might die and that would also limit the mission of the Church to spread the Gospel.

 

[Catholic90]

So are you advocating killing those who are not catholic because they do not believe as Catholics believe? Do you advocate killing non-Catholics who committ sin? Catholics who committ sin?

Please explain.

 

[meltzerboy]

You asked why? Here’s why:

*But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you… *Luke 6:27

and

The second is this, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these. Mark 12:31

And in the Hebrew Bible: “Rejoice not when thine enemy falls.”

 

[Lui]

If you must be only logical about this rather than also kind-hearted, if you didn’t feed the starving Jew, Muslim, Hindu, whomever, they might die and that would also limit the mission of the Church to spread the Gospel.

I mentioned earlier that Mother Teresa did exactly that. She took care of the poor in Calcutta even though they weren’t Catholic. I don’t really get what the OP is talking about.

 

[jmcrae]

well granted that we should love our neighbors, still how does that not conflict with other Catholic aims -like spreading catholicism?

For instance, if you feed a starving Jew, it is highly likely that he will live and if he lives, it is highly likely that he will continue to be Jewish. Does that not conflict with the mission to spread the church (which alone offers the path to human happiness)? Or is spreading the true religion somehow less important, than loving one’s neighbor? I’m sorry for my apparent thick-headedness but I am honestly quite confused by this.

This is completely ridiculous. How would letting someone starve to death help to spread our religion?

I would expect it to have the opposite effect. If you want people to like you, you have to be kind to them.

 

[OraLabora]

From the Summa Theologica’s teachings, we are called to love our neighbor in his nature, not in his accidental qualities. And also, we are allowed to kill if the exigencies are too extreme. Now when we kill we don’t sin against loving our neighbor, so if we kill by starvation, its unlikely that we sin against loving our neighbor.

Also, to kill a sinner is not to hate a person according to his nature (as a person) but according to him being a sinner. So again, there’s no sin in that.

and finally, it is worse to love our neighbor above God. But God is opposed to falsehood and our neighbor teaches and believes what is wrong. So it would be wrong to help our neighbor as against God. So it would be wrong to provide material relief for our incorrect neighbor lest we go against what is right.

You are one sick person. You need to see a priest as soon as possible. This is a very dangerous attitude to have and puts your own soul in peril as it is so deeply against Church teaching.

 

[jmcrae]

From the Summa Theologica’s teachings, we are called to love our neighbor in his nature, not in his accidental qualities. And also, we are allowed to kill if the exigencies are too extreme. Now when we kill we don’t sin against loving our neighbor, so if we kill by starvation, its unlikely that we sin against loving our neighbor.

Also, to kill a sinner is not to hate a person according to his nature (as a person) but according to him being a sinner. So again, there’s no sin in that.

and finally, it is worse to love our neighbor above God. But God is opposed to falsehood and our neighbor teaches and believes what is wrong. So it would be wrong to help our neighbor as against God. So it would be wrong to provide material relief for our incorrect neighbor lest we go against what is right.

Keep in mind, St. Thomas wrote the Summa as a dialogue between a “bad guy” and a “good guy.” You have to be very careful to read the entire chapter, in order to distinguish the “bad guy” part from the “good guy” part.

I suspect that what you’re quoting here is the “bad guy” portion of this chapter, since I strongly doubt that St. Thomas ever advocated killing people, or starving them to death, as a means of showing love to one’s neighbors.

 

[kmuestwin]

Fakename,

How do you evangelize?

Do you go out and say, “I’m a Catholic, you’re a sinner. To be good like me you should become Catholic”?

 

[Catholic90]

Fakename,

How do you evangelize?

Do you go out and say, “I’m a Catholic, you’re a sinner. To be good like me you should become Catholic”?

Let’s hope not! But then again, based on some of his (her?) threads, this does kind of seem like his modus operandi…let’s hope not, though.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

well granted that we should love our neighbors, still how does that not conflict with other Catholic aims -like spreading catholicism?

For instance, if you feed a starving Jew, it is highly likely that he will live and if he lives, it is highly likely that he will continue to be Jewish. Does that not conflict with the mission to spread the church (which alone offers the path to human happiness)? Or is spreading the true religion somehow less important, than loving one’s neighbor? I’m sorry for my apparent thick-headedness but I am honestly quite confused by this.

Well if you don’t feed them, there is also an even greater chance that they will die outside the Church, and given the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, I’d say that allowing that would be one of the least charitable actions imaginable. And you some how seem to think that helping others in their time of need (generally accepted to be positive) will make them negatively of Christ and his Church… my question is “how”?

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

From the Summa Theologica’s teachings, we are called to love our neighbor in his nature, not in his accidental qualities. And also, we are allowed to kill if the exigencies are too extreme. Now when we kill we don’t sin against loving our neighbor, so if we kill by starvation, its unlikely that we sin against loving our neighbor.

Also, to kill a sinner is not to hate a person according to his nature (as a person) but according to him being a sinner. So again, there’s no sin in that.

and finally, it is worse to love our neighbor above God. But God is opposed to falsehood and our neighbor teaches and believes what is wrong. So it would be wrong to help our neighbor as against God. So it would be wrong to provide material relief for our incorrect neighbor lest we go against what is right.

Gutsy to ask such an unpopular question. Still, your question is painful. The idea that only those in your community ought to receive aid when it is needed is deeply flawed.

“For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?” Matthew 5:46

But then, that is not really what you are after. You want to know if corporeal assistance to a person who is in need of spiritual confirms or aids his disbelief. The answer is no. You can go to scripture, as some have, for answers, or to the example of many, many saints. But since you have brought up St. Thomas as an authority, lets go there:

On almsgiving, article nine:
“Objection 1. It would seem that one ought not to give alms to those rather who are more closely united to us. For it is written (Sirach 12:4-6): “Give to the merciful and uphold not the sinner . . . Do good to the humble and give not to the ungodly.” Now it happens sometimes that those who are closely united to us are sinful and ungodly. Therefore we ought not to give alms to them in preference to others.
…
Reply to Objection 1. We ought not to help a sinner as such, that is by encouraging him to sin, but as man, that is by supporting his nature.”

He is speaking of whether we should care first for strangers or to those more closely united to us, but he speaks to your question as well. We cannot encourage sin. We do not aid the sinner as a sinner, but as a man. That is, in providing for his corporeal needs we do not confirm his sin.

Elsewhere in the same section, he discusses the difference between spiritual and corporeal alms. That is worth a read for this discussion.
newadvent.org/summa/3032.htm#article9

Also, I am not sure where you get the idea that killing sinners, self defense, community justice and war justifications notwithstanding, is something that St. Thomas would or did defend.

He did indeed, in discussion of murder, allow that killing a sinner is not necessarily evil. But he went on quite clearly to say that it is not allowed or defensible for a private individual.

“On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i) [Can. Quicumque percutit, caus. xxiii, qu. 8: “A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him.””
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article2

Your final point, about loving man more than God, is moot. We are asked to love God through one another. When we feed the hungry, we show our love for the Lord. Again, you are loving the nature of the man (God’s image in him) not the sin, when you feed the hungry.

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’
Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’
He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Matthew 25:41-46

 

[Allegra]

well granted that we should love our neighbors, still how does that not conflict with other Catholic aims -like spreading catholicism?

For instance, if you feed a starving Jew, it is highly likely that he will live and if he lives, it is highly likely that he will continue to be Jewish. Does that not conflict with the mission to spread the church (which alone offers the path to human happiness)? Or is spreading the true religion somehow less important, than loving one’s neighbor? I’m sorry for my apparent thick-headedness but I am honestly quite confused by this.

If the Jewish person dies of starvation, how does that help the kingdom of God? At the very least, he will remember your kindness and see Christianity in a more positive light. By the same token, he could experience a conversion due to your kindness.

 

[fakename]

Gutsy to ask such an unpopular question. Still, your question is painful. The idea that only those in your community ought to receive aid when it is needed is deeply flawed.

“For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?” Matthew 5:46

But then, that is not really what you are after. You want to know if corporeal assistance to a person who is in need of spiritual confirms or aids his disbelief. The answer is no. You can go to scripture, as some have, for answers, or to the example of many, many saints. But since you have brought up St. Thomas as an authority, lets go there:

On almsgiving, article nine:
“Objection 1. It would seem that one ought not to give alms to those rather who are more closely united to us. For it is written (Sirach 12:4-6): “Give to the merciful and uphold not the sinner . . . Do good to the humble and give not to the ungodly.” Now it happens sometimes that those who are closely united to us are sinful and ungodly. Therefore we ought not to give alms to them in preference to others.
…
Reply to Objection 1. We ought not to help a sinner as such, that is by encouraging him to sin, but as man, that is by supporting his nature.”

He is speaking of whether we should care first for strangers or to those more closely united to us, but he speaks to your question as well. We cannot encourage sin. We do not aid the sinner as a sinner, but as a man. That is, in providing for his corporeal needs we do not confirm his sin.

Elsewhere in the same section, he discusses the difference between spiritual and corporeal alms. That is worth a read for this discussion.
newadvent.org/summa/3032.htm#article9

Also, I am not sure where you get the idea that killing sinners, self defense, community justice and war justifications notwithstanding, is something that St. Thomas would or did defend.

He did indeed, in discussion of murder, allow that killing a sinner is not necessarily evil. But he went on quite clearly to say that it is not allowed or defensible for a private individual.

“On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i) [Can. Quicumque percutit, caus. xxiii, qu. 8: “A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him.””
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article2

Your final point, about loving man more than God, is moot. We are asked to love God through one another. When we feed the hungry, we show our love for the Lord. Again, you are loving the nature of the man (God’s image in him) not the sin, when you feed the hungry.

I’m just curious here, but when it says to love men in their nature, I can only think that this means don’t be misanthropic -not that we should feed sinners. This is because sinning is not an intrinsic part of man so it cannot be loved as human nature: a rational animal is no less animal or capable of reason for sinning.

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

I’m just curious here, but when it says to love men in their nature, I can only think that this means don’t be misanthropic -not that we should feed sinners. This is because sinning is not an intrinsic part of man so it cannot be loved as human nature: a rational animal is no less animal or capable of reason for sinning.

I am a little confused by the question, but I will try to answer nonetheless. Sorry if I miss.

Man’s nature, that which differentiates him from animal, is that he is made in God’s image. He is a child of God. This is not less true for the sinner, fortunate since we are all sinners. When you feed the hungry, you are not loving his sin, you are loving God in him.

You cannot define a thing by its negative. You cannot say that love of man is the opposite of misanthropy. Love is not a wishy-washy feeling or an uncontrollable passion- no matter what the latest rom-com might teach. Love is active.

Or as St. Thomas says,

"Article 8. Whether the order of charity is included in the precept [Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.]?
…
On the contrary, Whatever God works in us by His grace, He teaches us first of all by His Law, according to Jeremiah 31:33: “I will give My Law in their heart [Vulgate: ‘in their bowels, and I will write it in their heart’].” Now God causes in us the order of charity, according to Canticles 2:4: “He set in order charity in me.” Therefore the order of charity comes under the precept of the Law.

I answer that, As stated above (4, ad 1), the mode which is essential to an act of virtue comes under the precept which prescribes that virtuous act. Now the order of charity is essential to the virtue, since it is based on the proportion of love to the thing beloved, as shown above (25, 12; 26, 1 and 2). It is therefore evident that the order of charity must come under the precept."

newadvent.org/summa/3044.htm#article7

I am not sure if that is helpful. If not, you can try reading more about Charity in the Summa here:
newadvent.org/summa/3023.htm

wherein you will find what is possibly my favorite quote from the Summa,

“Charity is said to be the end of other virtues, because it directs all other virtues to its own end. And since a mother is one who conceives within herself and by another, charity is called the mother of the other virtues, because, by commanding them, it conceives the acts of the other virtues, by the desire of the last end.”

Or finally, and possibly most relevant:

“Article 6. Whether we ought to love sinners out of charity?
…
Objection 2. Further, “love is proved by deeds” as Gregory says in a homily for Pentecost (In Evang. xxx). But good men do no works of the unjust: on the contrary, they do such as would appear to be works of hate, according to Psalm 100:8: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land”: and God commanded (Exodus 22:18): “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.” Therefore sinners should not be loved out of charity.
…
Reply to Objection 2. As the Philosopher observes (Ethic. ix, 3), when our friends fall into sin, we ought not to deny them the amenities of friendship, so long as there is hope of their mending their ways, and we ought to help them more readily to regain virtue than to recover money, had they lost it, for as much as virtue is more akin than money to friendship. When, however, they fall into very great wickedness, and become incurable, we ought no longer to show them friendliness. It is for this reason that both Divine and human laws command such like sinners to be put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways. Nevertheless the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual. Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin any more.”

newadvent.org/summa/3025.htm#article6

I have quoted rather a lot, and I apologize. I hope some of it is helpful. If not, I will have more time to discuss, rather than just quote, on Monday.

 

[fakename]

I am a little confused by the question, but I will try to answer nonetheless. Sorry if I miss.

Man’s nature, that which differentiates him from animal, is that he is made in God’s image. He is a child of God. This is not less true for the sinner, fortunate since we are all sinners. When you feed the hungry, you are not loving his sin, you are loving God in him.

You cannot define a thing by its negative. You cannot say that love of man is the opposite of misanthropy. Love is not a wishy-washy feeling or an uncontrollable passion- no matter what the latest rom-com might teach. Love is active.

Or as St. Thomas says,

newadvent.org/summa/3044.htm#article7

I am not sure if that is helpful. If not, you can try reading more about Charity in the Summa here:
newadvent.org/summa/3023.htm

wherein you will find what is possibly my favorite quote from the Summa,

Or finally, and possibly most relevant:

newadvent.org/summa/3025.htm#article6

I have quoted rather a lot, and I apologize. I hope some of it is helpful. If not, I will have more time to discuss, rather than just quote, on Monday.

Sorry, what i meant to ask was, why should love of man as man (to love man in his nature)=feeding a starving man since, helping a starving man seems to be to help a man not as man but insofar as he is starving.

It’s like asking why should the love of walls imply an obligation to paint the wall blue, since the blueness is just an accidental quality, inessential to wallness? It should be sufficient enough to just admire walls w/o going out of your way to apply an inessential quality to them.

 

[jmcrae]

Sorry, what i meant to ask was, why should love of man as man (to love man in his nature)=feeding a starving man since, helping a starving man seems to be to help a man not as man but insofar as he is starving.

It’s like asking why should the love of walls imply an obligation to paint the wall blue, since the blueness is just an accidental quality, inessential to wallness? It should be sufficient enough to just admire walls w/o going out of your way to apply an inessential quality to them.

Walls don’t have a need to be blue. Human beings, however, do have a need to eat.

I think you really need to read the Epistle of James, in which he explains why we show our love to other human beings by doing things for them that are good for them, rather than simply admiring them from a distance, and telling them that we wish them well.

 

[fakename]

Walls don’t have a need to be blue. Human beings, however, do have a need to eat.

I think you really need to read the Epistle of James, in which he explains why we show our love to other human beings by doing things for them that are good for them, rather than simply admiring them from a distance, and telling them that we wish them well.

So it (the need to eat) is an essential accident like laughing, such that the human nature implies that people need to eat?

 

[jmcrae]

So it (the need to eat) is an essential accident like laughing, such that the human nature implies that people need to eat?

I don’t even understand the question. Human beings, in order to remain alive, need to eat. Therefore, we have to feed human beings who are starving, in order to keep them alive.

I’m not sure why that’s so complicated for you.

 

[meltzerboy]

Based on the content of this post and that of some of your other posts, I get the impression (correct me if I’m wrong) you’re partial to philosophy and may not really believe in the statements you’re presenting, but rather wish to formulate a philosophical argument by means of playing the devil’s advocate. Nothing bad about that although it may give the appearance that you’re lacking in compassion. Am I close or completely off-base?

 

[fakename]

Based on the content of this post and that of some of your other posts, I get the impression (correct me if I’m wrong) you’re partial to philosophy and may not really believe in the statements you’re presenting, but rather wish to formulate a philosophical argument by means of playing the devil’s advocate. Nothing bad about that although it may give the appearance that you’re lacking in compassion. Am I close or completely off-base?

well clearly morals are based on metaphysics since the only reason man is subject to morality is because humanness is subject to a teleological cause. That is the laws of metaphysics are the laws of morality stated differently.

Because of this I don’t understand how something apparently metaphysically insignificant (a man’s hunger) is morally significant. Why is this?

( I’m actually quite nice in normal life but the only difference is that I don’t think I have any good reason to be nice).