The Virtue of Charity

[gherkin]

Some people speculate that nature is base or evil. Perhaps a remnant of Calvin's theology. This explains my understanding in a more accurate way.

Well, since one of St. Thomas's principal foes was manicheanism, I think you'll find he was one of the more energetic, creative, brilliant, orthodox and of course holy defenders of the goodness of Creation. And I don't think you're going to find he was much influenced by Calvin, either. There may be temporal impediments to that.

As a virtue, charity is that habit or power which disposes us to love God above all creatures for Himself, and to love ourselves and our neighbours for the sake of God. When this power or habit is directly infused into the soul by God, the virtue is supernatural; when it is acquired through repeated personal acts, it is natural. If, in the last sentence but one, for the words, "power or habit which disposes us to" we substitute the words, "act by which we", the definition will fit the act of charity. Such an act will be supernatural if it proceeds from the infused virtue of charity, and if its motive (God lovable because of His infinite perfections) is apprehended through revelation; if either of these conditions is wanting the act is only natural. Thus, when a person with the virtue of charity in his soul assists a needy neighbour on account of the words of Christ, "as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me", or simply because his Christian training tells him that the one in need is a child of God, the act is one of supernatural charity. It is likewise meritorious of eternal life. The same act performed by one who had never heard of the Christian revelation, and from the same motive of love of God, would be one of natural charity. When charity towards the neighbour is based upon love of God, it belongs to the same virtue (natural or supernatural according to circumstances) as charity towards God. However, it is not necessary that acts of brotherly love should rest upon this high motive in order to deserve a place under the head of charity. It is enough that they be prompted by consideration of the individual's dignity, qualities, or needs. Even when motivated by some purely extrinsic end, as popular approval or the ultimate injury of the recipient, they are in essence acts of charity.

This is exactly what I've been saying. The theological virtue of charity is infused at baptism and is wholly lacking in nonChristians. Is there a natural anologue to it, just as there are natural analogue of hope and faith? Sure. You can have human faith in your friend when he promises you something, but this is simply not the same kind of act as Faith in God as revealing, which is not a merely human act, but an infused virtue. The language of St. Thomas is always open ended and he calls for considerable attention to the way he uses words. What is indisputable is that when we're talking properly about charity, it is an infused virtue and not in some way a mere extension of human kindness.

[Stella]

Some people speculate that nature is base or evil. Perhaps a remnant of Calvin's theology. This explains my understanding in a more accurate way.

Well, since one of St. Thomas's principal foes was manicheanism, I think you'll find he was one of the more energetic, creative, brilliant, orthodox and of course holy defenders of the goodness of Creation. And I don't think you're going to find he was much influenced by Calvin, either. There may be temporal impediments to that.

The author of the article you linked to, Larry Chapp, may well be though.

As a virtue, charity is that habit or power which disposes us to love God above all creatures for Himself, and to love ourselves and our neighbours for the sake of God. When this power or habit is directly infused into the soul by God, the virtue is supernatural; when it is acquired through repeated personal acts, it is natural. If, in the last sentence but one, for the words, "power or habit which disposes us to" we substitute the words, "act by which we", the definition will fit the act of charity. Such an act will be supernatural if it proceeds from the infused virtue of charity, and if its motive (God lovable because of His infinite perfections) is apprehended through revelation; if either of these conditions is wanting the act is only natural. Thus, when a person with the virtue of charity in his soul assists a needy neighbour on account of the words of Christ, "as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me", or simply because his Christian training tells him that the one in need is a child of God, the act is one of supernatural charity. It is likewise meritorious of eternal life. The same act performed by one who had never heard of the Christian revelation, and from the same motive of love of God, would be one of natural charity. When charity towards the neighbour is based upon love of God, it belongs to the same virtue (natural or supernatural according to circumstances) as charity towards God. However, it is not necessary that acts of brotherly love should rest upon this high motive in order to deserve a place under the head of charity. It is enough that they be prompted by consideration of the individual's dignity, qualities, or needs. Even when motivated by some purely extrinsic end, as popular approval or the ultimate injury of the recipient, they are in essence acts of charity.

This is exactly what I've been saying. The theological virtue of charity is infused at baptism and is wholly lacking in nonChristians. Is there a natural anologue to it, just as there are natural analogue of hope and faith? Sure. You can have human faith in your friend when he promises you something, but this is simply not the same kind of act as Faith in God as revealing, which is not a merely human act, but an infused virtue. The language of St. Thomas is always open ended and he calls for considerable attention to the way he uses words. What is indisputable is that when we're talking properly about charity, it is an infused virtue and not in some way a mere extension of human kindness.

At the point in the other thread where I took the question to Catholicism 101, you had claimed...

"It is not charity because it does not have its source in the infused virtue of charity. That is as simple a point as could possibly be."

viewtopic.php?p=3659#p3659

... whereas my citation supports my original comments about pre Christian charity.

The same act performed by one who had never heard of the Christian revelation, and from the same motive of love of God, would be one of natural charity. When charity towards the neighbour is based upon love of God, it belongs to the same virtue (natural or supernatural according to circumstances) as charity towards God. However, it is not necessary that acts of brotherly love should rest upon this high motive in order to deserve a place under the head of charity. It is enough that they be prompted by consideration of the individual's dignity, qualities, or needs. Even when motivated by some purely extrinsic end, as popular approval or the ultimate injury of the recipient, they are in essence acts of charity.

[gherkin]

Dr. Larry Chapp, proprietor of a Catholic Worker farm, is an unlikely manichean. Have you ever heard of Dorothy Day?

The thing you are missing about the language--and by the way, although the original Catholic Encyclopedia is a fine resource, it has many flaws, including articles leaning towards Molinism and other such things, and hence like any encyclopedia shouldn't be taken as authoritative--is that you are speaking of the "charity" of the non-Christian as though it were the same in kind as the charity of the Christian, and it simply is not. Now, I do not know offhand of where St. Thomas ever speaks of natural love as charity (he often uses dilectio in this context, sometimes other terms). But as I said to peregrinator much earlier in the thread, this is not one of my areas of expertise and I could be wrong. However, if there were such a use, that use of the term must be understood to be analogous, and when a competent theologian uses such a term in professional writing all the baggage involved in the various uses is intended to be grasped by the reader. And the reader is not merely the curious layman. What is crystal clear is that both St. Thomas and even the modern CCC clearly mark a difference in kind between charity in its proper sense--its sense as an infused virtue--and any purely natural 'charity'.

An analogue to this, but a mere analogue, would be the fact that St. Thomas unhesitatingly uses the term dilectio to refer to the love of concupiscence and the love of friendship, which are deeply different. It's not like the love of friendship is just a deepening or an improved version of the love of concupiscence, it's that they are structurally different at root. If I move from loving someone with the love of concupiscence to loving him with the love of friendship, I haven't kept doing the same thing, only better. I've started doing something quite different. Now, as I say, this is a mere analogue, for the difference between infused charity and 'natural charity' is far greater than the difference between two natural forms of love.

It's not the words that matter here, it's the realities that are being described. Your grasp of charity was wrong, at least as you presented it here. You were missing out on the reality of the infused virtue of faith. Don't latch on to a word to try to protect that mistake.

ETA: my suspicion is that the author of the CE article is using 'charity' where St. Thomas would have used 'dilectio.' The non Christian can have a love of others, including real loves of friendship--loving the other for his own sake.

[Stella]

Dr. Larry Chapp, proprietor of a Catholic Worker farm, is an unlikely manichean. Have you ever heard of Dorothy Day?

The thing you are missing about the language--and by the way, although the original Catholic Encyclopedia is a fine resource, it has many flaws, including articles leaning towards Molinism and other such things, and hence like any encyclopedia shouldn't be taken as authoritative--is that you are speaking of the "charity" of the non-Christian as though it were the same in kind as the charity of the Christian, and it simply is not. Now, I do not know offhand of where St. Thomas ever speaks of natural love as charity (he often uses dilectio in this context, sometimes other terms). But as I said to peregrinator much earlier in the thread, this is not one of my areas of expertise and I could be wrong. However, if there were such a use, that use of the term must be understood to be analogous, and when a competent theologian uses such a term in professional writing all the baggage involved in the various uses is intended to be grasped by the reader. And the reader is not merely the curious layman. What is crystal clear is that both St. Thomas and even the modern CCC clearly mark a difference in kind between charity in its proper sense--its sense as an infused virtue--and any purely natural 'charity'.

An analogue to this, but a mere analogue, would be the fact that St. Thomas unhesitatingly uses the term dilectio to refer to the love of concupiscence and the love of friendship, which are deeply different. It's not like the love of friendship is just a deepening or an improved version of the love of concupiscence, it's that they are structurally different at root. If I move from loving someone with the love of concupiscence to loving him with the love of friendship, I haven't kept doing the same thing, only better. I've started doing something quite different. Now, as I say, this is a mere analogue, for the difference between infused charity and 'natural charity' is far greater than the difference between two natural forms of love.

It's not the words that matter here, it's the realities that are being described. Your grasp of charity was wrong, at least as you presented it here. You were missing out on the reality of the infused virtue of faith. Don't latch on to a word to try to protect that mistake.

ETA: my suspicion is that the author of the CE article is using 'charity' where St. Thomas would have used 'dilectio.' The non Christian can have a love of others, including real loves of friendship--loving the other for his own sake.

(I do know of Dorothy Day. Originally considered a radical progressive.)

On the other hand I'd suggest that your understanding doesn't take into account the flourishing foundation of Catholic Social teaching that recognises the image of God in all people regardless of ethnicity, creed, gender, sexuality, age or ability. We can and recognise the attributes of God in all people.

I’m confident that my understanding of this is within the realms of orthodoxy based on having been thoroughly formed by the post Vatican II Popes. I’m reminded of a discussion online I was involved in 20 odd years ago when some were objecting to Pope StJPII’s use of ‘humanism’ in describing love in action believing that there is no connection between base nature and Christian charity. Despite the Popes very clear explanations that he was talking of Christ centered humanism, it continued to be rejected.

Aquinas had previously made the same observation regarding the nature of sanctifying grace…

"Since therefore grace does not destroy nature but perfects it,"

Or in demonstrating the ability to prove the existence of God…

"Grace presupposes nature, as divine law presupposes natural law”.

[gherkin]

On the other hand I'd suggest that your understanding doesn't take into account the flourishing foundation of Catholic Social teaching that recognises the image of God in all people regardless of ethnicity, creed, gender, sexuality, age or ability. We can and recognise the attributes of God in all people.

Of course. That gives exactly zero support to the flattening of the theological virtues into mere extensions of natural attitudes. It is NOT true, for example, that in baptism, God just gives your natural goodness a little massage to improve its status. Indeed no. Grace is infused--grace of a sort which is wholly absent prior to baptism--and takes the thing stamped indelibly with the image of God, and makes it an actual part of the Church, the Body of Christ, through a radical interior change.

I’m confident that my understanding of this is within the realms of orthodoxy based on having been thoroughly formed by the post Vatican II Popes. I’m reminded of a discussion online I was involved in 20 odd years ago when some were objecting to Pope StJPII’s use of ‘humanism’ in describing love in action believing that there is no connection between base nature and Christian charity.

Your confidence is your business, but when you reduce theological virtues to a kind of rough continuity with the natural, you are not being orthodox. As I've asked you before, do you think there's some possibility you've taken a rather reductionistic approach to the Faith? After all, you yourself mentioned taking a class in a program where heresy was being openly taught. You may have caught that Johnson was over the line, but what else slipped past your sensors? Just a thought, though none of my business, and I'm not trying to attack you, just pointing out what I think is an obvious possibility.

I guess you can't really object to my characterizing your intellectual approach to the Faith as somehow off track, since you keep trying to suggest that I'm denying the goodness of nature. In fact, Chesterton gives a pretty fair summary of my baseline on the matter, in a passage well worth meditating on.

Now nobody will begin to understand the Thomist philosophy, or indeed the Catholic philosophy, who does not realise that the primary and fundamental part of it is entirely the praise of Life, the praise of Being, the praise of God as the Creator of the World. Everything else follows a long way after that, being conditioned by various complications like the Fall or the vocation of heroes.

[gherkin]

I should add that in a certain sense, you are moving the goalposts here in the discussion. For your real contention is that there are nonChristian governmental (or otherwise corporate) actions that are charitable, not that there are nonChristian individual actions that are charitable. Of course, I still don't grant the latter point. But the former point is even more strongly at odds with the Church, for now you are suggesting that the works of, for example, the Gates Foundation are based in charity. This, I deny strongly, for reasons already offered. It may well be the case that there are people on the board of the Gates Foundation who are decent and fine people (I wouldn't know), but the goals of the foundation, to the extent that we can attribute goals in an analagous way to an organization, are too mixed with evil to count as positive. When your means to an end are foul, the value of the action is undermined.

[Stella]

I should add that in a certain sense, you are moving the goalposts here in the discussion. For your real contention is that there are nonChristian governmental (or otherwise corporate) actions that are charitable, not that there are nonChristian individual actions that are charitable. Of course, I still don't grant the latter point. But the former point is even more strongly at odds with the Church, for now you are suggesting that the works of, for example, the Gates Foundation are based in charity. This, I deny strongly, for reasons already offered. It may well be the case that there are people on the board of the Gates Foundation who are decent and fine people (I wouldn't know), but the goals of the foundation, to the extent that we can attribute goals in an analagous way to an organization, are too mixed with evil to count as positive. When your means to an end are foul, the value of the action is undermined.

So that I'm understanding your base line...

Do you believe that the physical and spiritual are opposed?
Or that in baptism that the supernatural virtues automatically replace the natural virtues?
Do you believe that nature without baptism is 'wholly' corrupt?

Do you believe that every single person is made in the image and likeness of God and therefore fundamentally desires God... a point expressed by Augustine "to desire the help of grace is the beginning of grace".

[gherkin]

So that I'm understanding your base line...

Do you believe that the physical and spiritual are opposed?
Or that in baptism that the supernatural virtues automatically replace the natural virtues?
Do you believe that nature without baptism is 'wholly' corrupt?

Do you believe that every single person is made in the image and likeness of God and therefore fundamentally desires God... a point expressed by Augustine "to desire the help of grace is the beginning of grace".

That is a very silly post.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Is that a yes or a no?

[Stella]

So that I'm understanding your base line...

Do you believe that the physical and spiritual are opposed?
Or that in baptism that the supernatural virtues automatically replace the natural virtues?
Do you believe that nature without baptism is 'wholly' corrupt?

Do you believe that every single person is made in the image and likeness of God and therefore fundamentally desires God... a point expressed by Augustine "to desire the help of grace is the beginning of grace".

That is a very silly post.

I'm genuinely needing a base line for your perspective because it is bringing to mind the convert who a while back attempted to adapt the TULIP principles of Calvinism to his Catholic faith. It seems the principle of total depravity of humanity can be hard to get over when becoming Catholic. Whereas the Church has been developing a recognition of Gods attributes in non Christians since before Vatican II. I'd asked you earlier about your views on Christian humanism regularly cited by Pope StJPII? Some Christians believe humanism and Christianity are opposed to each other. One too base and natural to have commerce with the other. An interesting irony though is that some atheists believe they are opposed to each other because it attempts to deify humanity.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

TULIP is not as opposed to Catholicism as one might think. https://jimmyakin.com/a-tiptoe-through-tulip

[gherkin]

I'm genuinely needing a base line for your perspective because it is bringing to mind the convert who a while back attempted to adapt the TULIP principles of Calvinism to his Catholic faith.

But that is like my saying that your posts are bringing to mind hinduism. If you're smelling Calvinism in my posts it's only because you are first seasoning them with it.

[gherkin]

TULIP is not as opposed to Catholicism as one might think. https://jimmyakin.com/a-tiptoe-through-tulip

The trouble with citing that here is that Jimmy is using theological and philosophical terms (e.g. supernatural) without carefully explaining them, and the OP here is resisting having things like theological virtues explained to her. So she's going to read the same confusion into the citations of St. Thomas there that she's reading into them here.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Granted, but it at least demonstrates that saying, "Oh, that smells like TULIP" doesn't rule out its being Catholic.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Oops. I didn't mean "granted". That would imply agreement.

[Stella]

I'm genuinely needing a base line for your perspective because it is bringing to mind the convert who a while back attempted to adapt the TULIP principles of Calvinism to his Catholic faith.

But that is like my saying that your posts are bringing to mind hinduism. If you're smelling Calvinism in my posts it's only because you are first seasoning them with it.

I could say that of your smelling me 'naturalizing the faith' as well.

TULIP is not as opposed to Catholicism as one might think. https://jimmyakin.com/a-tiptoe-through-tulip

The trouble with citing that here is that Jimmy is using theological and philosophical terms (e.g. supernatural) without carefully explaining them, and the OP here is resisting having things like theological virtues explained to her. So she's going to read the same confusion into the citations of St. Thomas there that she's reading into them here.

Ahem, I am not resisting the facts of the theological. I take them as a given but am more focused on their application in real concrete situations in life. For example, I've just been reading the encyclical Caritas in veritate (2009 Pope BenedictXVI) in which he addressed not just to Catholics but 'all people of good will'. In it he calls on those with the means to develop a global authority to serve the common good of all people of the world. This call justified by...

"All people feel the interior impulse to love authentically: love and truth never abandon them completely, because these are the vocation planted by God in the heart and mind of every human person. The search for love and truth is purified and liberated by Jesus Christ from the impoverishment that our humanity brings to it, and he reveals to us in all its fullness the initiative of love and the plan for true life that God has prepared for us. In Christ, charity in truth becomes the Face of his Person, a vocation for us to love our brothers and sisters in the truth of his plan."

https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict ... itate.html

Bear in mind that my basic question was in regards to your claim that charity isn't charity without the infused grace of baptism.

[Doom]

I'm genuinely needing a base line for your perspective because it is bringing to mind the convert who a while back attempted to adapt the TULIP principles of Calvinism to his Catholic faith. It seems the principle of total depravity of humanity can be hard to get over when becoming Catholic. Whereas the Church has been developing a recognition of Gods attributes in non Christians since before Vatican II. I'd asked you earlier about your views on Christian humanism regularly cited by Pope StJPII? Some Christians believe humanism and Christianity are opposed to each other. One too base and natural to have commerce with the other. An interesting irony though is that some atheists believe they are opposed to each other because it attempts to deify humanity.

I think you need to read St. Augustine and St Thomas on these issues before you completely discard TULIP, these two are considered to be "Proto-Calvinists" by adherents of TULIP and they are not completely wrong. Catholics are neither Calvinists nor Arminians, but of the two, Calvinism is much closer to the Catholic view, and Catholics are a lot less hostile to TULIP than most Protestants, such as Lutherans or Methodists. The whole "TULIP" thing is extremely misleading anyway, it only dates from the 20th century, appearing for the first time in Loraine Bottner's 1932 book "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination", and many in the Reformed tradition reject it because they consider it to be a very poorly thought out, oversimplified and misleading way of summarizing the 5 Points taught by the Synod of Dordt.

[Doom]

Oops. I didn't mean "granted". That would imply agreement.

The Catholic view of predestination is definitely much closer to TULIP than it is to the corresponding 5 Points of Arminianism which come close to Peligianism. Of course, the traditional Calvinist view of the matter isn't really as easily summarized as the TULIP acrostic would suggest, each of those 5 points is a very complex matter, and modern theologians tend to hold to very nuanced versions of them which I think most anti-Calvinists would find a lot less offensive than the simplistic popular descriptions of "TULIP" make them.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Oops. I didn't mean "granted". That would imply agreement.

The Catholic view of predestination is definitely much closer to TULIP than it is to the corresponding 5 Points of Arminianism which come close to Peligianism. Of course, the traditional Calvinist view of the matter isn't really as easily summarized as the TULIP acrostic would suggest, each of those 5 points is a very complex matter, and modern theologians tend to hold to very nuanced versions of them which I think most anti-Calvinists would find a lot less offensive than the simplistic popular descriptions of "TULIP" make them.

I didn't want to appear to agree with the pickle.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Oops. I didn't mean "granted". That would imply agreement.

The Catholic view of predestination is definitely much closer to TULIP than it is to the corresponding 5 Points of Arminianism which come close to Peligianism. Of course, the traditional Calvinist view of the matter isn't really as easily summarized as the TULIP acrostic would suggest, each of those 5 points is a very complex matter, and modern theologians tend to hold to very nuanced versions of them which I think most anti-Calvinists would find a lot less offensive than the simplistic popular descriptions of "TULIP" make them.

Much though I hate to say it, modern Catholic thought tends to be semi-Pelagian at best.