Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus III

[Since, in those things in which some principle is found, order is attended to according to comparison with that principle, and since the principle of love is God and the lover himself, it is necessary that, according to the greater nearness to one of these principles, the affection of love be greater.]

I say 1°: The better are to be loved more objectively than those more closely joined to us who are less good: inasmuch as, according to their present state of justice, we ought to will them a greater participation in beatitude than those more closely joined to us but less good, according to their present state; because it belongs to charity that it will the justice of God to be preserved, according to which those who are better participate more in beatitude¹.

I say 2°: Those more closely joined to us according to the flesh are, speaking per se, to be loved more intensively than better strangers²

It is proved. 1° because the intensity of the motion depends on its proper agent³, which is naturally apt to influence those nearer more vehemently than those farther away. Therefore.

2° Scripture in several places specially commends to us the love of relatives, besides the special precept of honoring parents, as Isa., LVIII, 7, after enumerating various works of mercy, adds: And despise not thy own flesh, that is, those who are joined to thee carnally. I Tim., V, 8: If anyone have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Where the Apostle calls his own those who are joined in any way whatever, but those of his house those who are joined by blood.

Toward those who are not joined to us we have only the friendship of charity; toward relatives, however, we have other friendships as well, according to the mode of union: the friendship of sons toward parents, and conversely, of brother toward brother, of citizen toward fellow citizen, etc. And although these loves are natural or moral, in well-ordered men they are nevertheless commanded by charity; because the good on which any honest friendship is founded is ordered as to an end to the good on which charity is founded; whence it follows that charity commands the act of every other friendship, as the art that is about the end commands the art that is about those things that are directed to the end.

I said, « speaking per se, » because per accidens it happens that the better are to be loved more than those joined according to the flesh; as if a person to be saved were necessary for the common good; if someone snatched you from death, whether corporal or spiritual, which your parents wished to inflict on you; if he received you when abandoned by your brothers in extreme necessity and cared for you; if among those spiritually joined there be the closest bond, and scarcely any among more remote blood relations, as in the third, fourth, or fifth degree. In these and similar cases, the better are to be loved more than those joined carnally.

What is objected against this conclusion is easily solved, having before one's eyes the distinction between objective and intensive love.

I say 3°: Among variously joined persons, those joined carnally, speaking per se, are to be loved more, in things pertaining to nature, than those otherwise joined⁴.

The conclusion presupposes various modes of union: 1° according to the flesh, as between parents and blood relations; 2° according to political society, as between fellow citizens and comrades in arms, both among themselves and with their magistrates and leaders; 3° according to the reason of service, whether spiritual or temporal.

It is proved of the conclusion; because the intensity of love arises from the union of the beloved with the lover; but the carnal union of origin is prior and more immovable, and it is according to that which pertains to substance, while the others are supervening. Therefore.

I said, « in things pertaining to nature; » because in things pertaining to the other unions, those are to be loved more who are joined according to those unions⁵; understand this, however, outside necessity. Hence in war obedience is given to the general rather than to the father. Comparing, however, love with love, union with union, carnal union is to be preferred to any whatsoever, so that, if the things pertaining to carnal union and the things proper to those other unions cannot both be rendered, these latter are to be omitted, and the unions abandoned, if need be. Thus a soldier ought to leave military service so as to succor the necessity of his parents, a Religious to leave the monastery for the same end. Whence, speaking simply, those joined carnally are to be loved more than those otherwise joined.

You will gather: 1° that in grave or extreme necessity, speaking per se, succor is to be given to parents, children, wife, and probably also brothers and sisters, rather than to any benefactor however distinguished. I said, « speaking per se; » which is true under the same exceptions appended to the second conclusion. 2° Also in equal spiritual necessity, it is more probable that carnal parents and children are to be preferred to spiritual parents and children. 3° A father is to be loved more objectively than a son⁶; for he is loved under the reason of principle, which has the reason of a more eminent good, and more like to God: but a son is to be loved more intensively than a father⁷; for a son is more something of the father, than the father is something of the son. Speaking absolutely, however, the father in necessity is to be preferred to the son, because the father is loved as cause, the son as effect; and greater is the obligation of effect toward cause, than of cause toward effect. 4° A father, speaking per se, is to be loved more than a mother, because he is a nobler principle than the mother⁸. 5° A father, for the reason adduced above, is to be loved more objectively and appreciatively than a wife, but a wife more intensively than father and children; for she is more closely joined than father and children⁹.

[Moreover theologians observe that to change the order in the last three conclusions is not a grave sin, because there is no notable excess of one above another.]