On the Question of Love

  • Thread starter Thread starter Immotus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Immotus

Guest
If love is - as St. Thomas Aquinas says - to will the good of the other, then we are due it to all people (on account of the commission of our Lord).
  1. But how does one reconcile this general love with the specificity and exclusivity of the love between husband and wife, and how does one then even arrive at the stage of marital love?
  2. Which is the higher love, that which strives to will the good of all equally, or that which wills more forcefully the good of the other half?
  3. How does one proceed from the more general love to the more specific?
 
Fr Spirago (in his work “The Catechism Explained”) discusses the “theology of friendship” (the work has the nihil obstat and imprimatur):

We are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves, but we are by no means obliged to love him better than ourselves.

Our Lord says: “Whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them” (Matt. vii. 12). Holy Tobias says: “See that thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee” (Tob. iv. 16). Put yourself in your neighbor’s place and you will certainly treat him differently. Charity to one’s neighbor has its limits, however. No one is bound to deprive himself of what is necessary, to relieve his neighbor’s wants. In such cases to render assistance is heroic charity. “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friend” (John xv. 13). This Our Saviour did; and hundreds of missioners continually expose themselves to the risk of death to save souls. All the saints have incurred personal dangers for the sake of aiding others.

It is not wrong to have friends, and to love them more than other men; for Christ had friends whom He loved with a special predilection.

Our Lord loved all men, but He loved His disciples best; He called them His friends, His children, and treated them with familiarity and confidence. Among His disciples John was His special favorite; next to him He loved Peter and James; these three were with Him on the most memorable occasions of His life on earth, on Thabor and on Olivet. We are told also that Jesus loved Lazarus and his two sisters (John xi. 5). We know that God shows special predilection for, and confers most graces on those who are most like Him, and who love Him most; we therefore are warranted in doing the same, in loving and trusting those most in whom we find similarity of tastes and affection for ourselves. The need of friendship is implanted by the Creator in every human breast.

Those only are true friends whose friendship is based upon principles of religion.

Friendship, like a building, must rest upon a solid foundation; and only when this foundation is the fear of God and the love of God, will the structure of friendship stand firm. If it is based on wrong or selfish motives, it is founded upon sand. One who is the enemy of God cannot be a true friend to his neighbor; he only loves his friend aright who loves God in him (St. Augustine). When seen in the bed of the ocean, coral appears to be a bush of greenish hue, without any special beauty, but when taken out of the water it becomes bright, red and hard. So friendship acquires its brilliancy, its beauty, its solidity, when it is elevated into the atmosphere of divine love (St. Francis of Sales).

continued….
 
Last edited:
Those are false friends whose friendship rests on principles that are reprehensible; they ruin one another body and soul, and forsake one another in the time of adversity.

False friendships are those which are formed merely for the sake of pleasure or gain, or some bad purpose; or between men who need one another’s assistance in perpetrating some dark deed. Thus Judas made an agreement with the high priests against Our Lord; and Pilate and Herod were made friends on the occasion of His condemnation. False friends are only steadfast as long as they need each other (Ecclus. vi. 7 seq.). When Judas in desperation took the money back to the chief priests with self-accusations, they spoke as if they knew nothing about him: “What is that to us? Look thou to it” (Matt, xxvii. 4). False friends act like the swallows; as long as it is warm here, they stay happily in this country with us; but as soon as they feel the inclement winter approaching, they take flight to a sunnier clime. Or they may be compared to bees, which fly away from a flower when they have sucked all the honey out of its cup (Segneri). They are like a reed, which breaks when one leans on it. The Romans used to say: " As long as thou art happy thou wilt have many friends, but as soon as adversity overtakes thee thou wilt find thyself alone." Misfortune is the test of true friendship.
 
Fr Callan and Fr McHugh (in their work “Moral Theology”) also discuss the “order of charity” (the work has the nihil obstat and imprimatur). I have quoted some sections but to read all of what they have to say on this topic see no. 1158 and onwards. Their work is available for free here:

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/35354/pg35354-images.html

1158. The Order of Charity.— Charity not only requires that we love God, ourselves, and our neighbors, but it also obliges us to love these objects according to a certain order, some being preferred to others.

(a) God must be loved above all, more than self (Matt, xvi. 24), more than father and mother (Matt., x. 37; Luke, xiv. 26), for He is the common good of all, and the source of all good.

(b) Other things being equal, one should love self more than one’s neighbor, for the love of self is the model for the love of neighbor (Matt., xxii. 39), and nature itself inclines to this in accordance with the saying: “Charity begins at home.”

(c) Among neighbors those should be loved more who have more of a claim on account of their greater nearness to God or to ourselves.
  1. Love can become greater in two ways: (a) objectively, when the person loved is esteemed as of greater worth, or has more titles to affection, or has a more enduring right to be loved; (b) subjectively, when the person loving is more touched and moved in his feelings, even though the object be not more amiable in itself.
1160. The Character of our Love of God.—(a) It must be supreme objectively, since He is infinite perfection and has the highest of all claims on our love. Hence, one should be disposed to suffer any loss rather than abandon God. (b) It must be supreme subjectively, in our desire, that is, realizing that God is the highest good, we should at least wish to give Him the utmost of our fervor and ardor. (c) It need not be supreme subjectively, in fact; for we are not always masters of our feelings, and things that are nearer to us affect us more than those that are more important, but remote from sense. Hence, it is not against charity that one should be more moved sensibly at the thought of a dear human friend than at the thought of God, provided the will places God above all.
  1. Regarding the love of self (i.e., of the inner man, or our spiritual nature), we should note: (a) Objectively, one esteems others who are higher in sanctity than oneself (e.g., the Blessed Virgin), as more worthy of love. But one may desire for self according to charity such progress in virtue that one will pass some others who are now better than oneself; for the virtue of charity is given us that we may perfect ourselves. (b) Subjectively, one holds self as being nearer than other persons, and thus loves oneself with a greater intensity.
continued….
 
Last edited:
  1. The order of charity as between those nearer to God and those nearer to self is as follows:
(a) Objectively, we should esteem more those who are better, and desire for them that higher degree of God’s favor which belongs to their merits. But we may desire for those nearer to ourselves that they will finally surpass in holiness those now better than they are, and thus attain to a greater beatitude. Moreover, while we prefer in one respect (i.e., that of holiness) a saintly person, who is a stranger, we prefer in many respects (e.g., on account of relationship, friendship, gratitude) another who is less holy.

(b) Subjectively, the love for those nearer to self is greater, that is, more intense, more vividly felt. The preferences for those nearer to self, therefore, far from being wrong or the expression of mere natural love, are expressions of charity itself. For it is God’s will that more love should be shown to those who are nearer to us: “If any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (I Tim., v. 8). Hence, charity itself inclines one to have more love for one’s own, and it supernaturalizes filial piety, patriotism, and friendship.
  1. The order to be followed in the manifestation of charity will correspond with the order of charity itself. (a) To those to whom greater objective love is due, on account of their holiness, more respect due to their excellence should be shown. (b) To those to whom greater return of love is due on account of the benefits they have shown (as parents, friends, etc.), more assistance should be given spiritually and temporally. That is, if one had to choose between helping either a relative or a stranger who was more virtuous, one would have to decide in favor of the relative. (c) To those to whom greater subjective love is due, more signs of affection (such as visits) should be given.
  2. The order of charity between various kinds of natural relationships is as follows: (a) the relationship that arises from consanguinity is prior and more stable, since it arises from nature itself and cannot be removed; (b) the relationship of friendship, since it arises from one’s own choice, may be more congenial and may be preferred even to kinship, when there is question of society and companionship (Prov., xviii. 24).
  3. In practice, other things being equal, one should manifest more love to a relative in those things that belong to the relationship.
(a) To those who are related by blood, corporal or temporal assistance is more due. If one has to choose between helping one’s indigent parents or an indigent friend, one should rather help one’s parents.

(b) To those who are spiritually related (e.g., pastor and parishioner, director and penitent, god-parent and god-child), more spiritual assistance in instruction, advice and prayer is due. Thus, a pastor is supposed to be more solicitous about instructing his congregation than his relatives who belong to another congregation.

continued….
 
(c) To those who are related by some special tie, political, military, religious, etc., more is due in things political, military, religious, etc., than to others. Thus, a soldier owes obedience to his officer, and not to his father, in matters that pertain to army life; a priest owes deference to an ecclesiastical superior in clerical matters, not to his parents.
  1. Kinship, as being an older and more fundamental relationship, should have precedence in assistance over any other kind of private relationship in case of conflict and extreme necessity. (a) Thus, as regards spiritual matters (e.g., calling a priest to give absolution), if a parent and a spiritual father were both in extreme necessity, one’s first duty would be to one’s parent. (b) As regards temporal matters, if one has to choose between assisting one’s needy parents and remaining in some relationship in which one cannot help them, one should give up the relationship, if possible. Thus, a Religious is allowed to return to the world, if his parents require his support.
  2. The order of charity as between kinsfolk gives preference of course to the nearer relatives-parents, children, wife. Between these nearer relatives there is also an order of preference, as follows :(a) objectively (or with reference to the greater or less claim to respect and honor), the order is: father, mother, wife, children; (b) subjectively (or with reference to the greater or less intensity of affection), the order is the reverse, namely: children, wife, parents.
  3. The following should be noted about this order of preference between the members of one’s family: (a) the basis of preference given is only kinship, and hence there may be other considerations to change the order given (e.g., a pious mother is rightly more respected and honored by her children than a worthless father); (b) there is no notable excess in the claim of one member of the family over that of another, and hence those whose affections do not follow the order given are not guilty of serious sin.
  4. The order in which relatives have a claim on assistance when several are in equal need is as follows: (a) in cases of ordinary need the order is, first, the wife, for a man leaves his parents for his wife (Gen., ii. 24), second, the children, for ordinarily parents must provide for children, and not children for parents (II Cor., xii. 14), third, parents; after these come in order, brothers and sisters, other relatives, friends, fellow-citizens of the same locality or country, all others; (b) in case of extreme need, however, parents are to be preferred to all others, even to wife, children or creditors, since one receives life from parents.
(Personal note: I think a lot a parents or grandparents who were in extreme need would relinguish their preferred right to aid in favour of their children or grandchildren).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top