|
Objection 1: It would seem that the precept of the love of our
neighbor is unfittingly expressed. For the love of charity extends to
all men, even to our enemies, as may be seen in Mt. 5:44. But
the word "neighbor" denotes a kind of "nighness" which does not seem
to exist towards all men. Therefore it seems that this precept is
unfittingly expressed.
Objection 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. ix,
8) "the origin of our friendly relations with others lies in our
relation to ourselves," whence it seems to follow that love of self is
the origin of one's love for one's neighbor. Now the principle is
greater than that which results from it. Therefore man ought not to
love his neighbor as himself.
Objection 3: Further, man loves himself, but not his neighbor,
naturally. Therefore it is unfitting that he should be commanded to
love his neighbor as himself.
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 22:39): "The second"
commandment "is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself."
I answer that, This precept is fittingly expressed, for it indicates
both the reason for loving and the mode of love. The reason for loving
is indicated in the word "neighbor," because the reason why we ought
to love others out of charity is because they are nigh to us, both as
to the natural image of God, and as to the capacity for glory. Nor
does it matter whether we say "neighbor," or "brother" according to
1 Jn. 4:21, or "friend," according to Lev. 19:18,
because all these words express the same affinity.
The mode of love is indicated in the words "as thyself." This does
not mean that a man must love his neighbor equally as himself, but in
like manner as himself, and this in three ways. First, as regards
the end, namely, that he should love his neighbor for God's sake,
even as he loves himself for God's sake, so that his love for his
neighbor is a "holy" love. Secondly, as regards the rule of love,
namely, that a man should not give way to his neighbor in evil, but
only in good things, even as he ought to gratify his will in good
things alone, so that his love for his neighbor may be a "righteous"
love. Thirdly, as regards the reason for loving, namely, that a man
should love his neighbor, not for his own profit, or pleasure, but in
the sense of wishing his neighbor well, even as he wishes himself
well, so that his love for his neighbor may be a "true" love: since
when a man loves his neighbor for his own profit or pleasure, he does
not love his neighbor truly, but loves himself.
This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
|
|