|
Objection 1: It would seem that we ought not to love more those who
are more closely united to us by ties of blood. For it is written
(Prov. 18:24): "A man amiable in society, shall be more
friendly than a brother." Again, Valerius Maximus says (Fact.
et Dict. Memor. iv 7): "The ties of friendship are most strong
and in no way yield to the ties of blood." Moreover it is quite
certain and undeniable, that as to the latter, the lot of birth is
fortuitous, whereas we contract the former by an untrammelled will,
and a solid pledge. Therefore we ought not to love more than others
those who are united to us by ties of blood.
Objection 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Officiis i, 7): "I
love not less you whom I have begotten in the Gospel, than if I had
begotten you in wedlock, for nature is no more eager to love than
grace." Surely we ought to love those whom we expect to be with us
for ever more than those who will be with us only in this world.
Therefore we should not love our kindred more than those who are
otherwise connected with us.
Objection 3: Further, "Love is proved by deeds," as Gregory
states (Hom. in Evang. xxx). Now we are bound to do acts of love
to others than our kindred: thus in the army a man must obey his
officer rather than his father. Therefore we are not bound to love our
kindred most of all.
On the contrary, The commandments of the decalogue contain a special
precept about the honor due to our parents (Ex. 20:12).
Therefore we ought to love more specially those who are united to us by
ties of blood.
I answer that, As stated above (Article 7), we ought out of
charity to love those who are more closely united to us more, both
because our love for them is more intense, and because there are more
reasons for loving them. Now intensity of love arises from the union
of lover and beloved: and therefore we should measure the love of
different persons according to the different kinds of union, so that a
man is more loved in matters touching that particular union in respect
of which he is loved. And, again, in comparing love to love we
should compare one union with another. Accordingly we must say that
friendship among blood relations is based upon their connection by
natural origin, the friendship of fellow-citizens on their civic
fellowship, and the friendship of those who are fighting side by side
on the comradeship of battle. Wherefore in matters pertaining to
nature we should love our kindred most, in matters concerning relations
between citizens, we should prefer our fellow-citizens, and on the
battlefield our fellow-soldiers. Hence the Philosopher says
(Ethic. ix, 2) that "it is our duty to render to each class of
people such respect as is natural and appropriate. This is in fact the
principle upon which we seem to act, for we invite our relations to a
wedding . . . It would seem to be a special duty to afford our
parents the means of living . . . and to honor them."
The same applies to other kinds of friendship.
If however we compare union with union, it is evident that the union
arising from natural origin is prior to, and more stable than, all
others, because it is something affecting the very substance, whereas
other unions supervene and may cease altogether. Therefore the
friendship of kindred is more stable, while other friendships may be
stronger in respect of that which is proper to each of them.
Reply to Objection 1: In as much as the friendship of comrades
originates through their own choice, love of this kind takes precedence
of the love of kindred in matters where we are free to do as we choose,
for instance in matters of action. Yet the friendship of kindred is
more stable, since it is more natural, and preponderates over others
in matters touching nature: consequently we are more beholden to them
in the providing of necessaries.
Reply to Objection 2: Ambrose is speaking of love with regard to
favors respecting the fellowship of grace, namely, moral instruction.
For in this matter, a man ought to provide for his spiritual children
whom he has begotten spiritually, more than for the sons of his body,
whom he is bound to support in bodily sustenance.
Reply to Objection 3: The fact that in the battle a man obeys his
officer rather than his father proves, that he loves his father less,
not simply relatively, i.e. as regards the love which is based on
fellowship in battle.
|
|