Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 31 [ << | >> ]
Deinde considerandum est de exterioribus actibus vel effectibus caritatis.
|
We must now consider the outward acts or effects of charity,
|
| Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. | Under the first head there are four points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum beneficentia sit actus caritatis. | (1) Whether beneficence is an act of charity? |
| Secundo, utrum sit omnibus benefaciendum. | (2) Whether we ought to be beneficent to all? |
| Tertio, utrum magis coniunctis sit magis benefaciendum. |
(3) Whether we ought to be more beneficent to those who are more closely united to us? |
| Quarto, utrum beneficentia sit virtus specialis. | (4) Whether beneficence is a special virtue? |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 31 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod beneficentia non sit actus caritatis. Caritas enim maxime habetur ad Deum. Sed ad eum non possumus esse benefici, secundum illud Iob XXXV, quid dabis ei? Aut quid de manu tua accipiet? Ergo beneficentia non est actus caritatis. | Objection 1: It would seem that beneficence is not an act of charity. For charity is chiefly directed to God. Now we cannot benefit God, according to Job 35:7: "What shalt thou give Him? or what shall He receive of thy hand?" Therefore beneficence is not an act of charity. |
| Praeterea, beneficentia maxime consistit in collatione donorum. Sed hoc pertinet ad liberalitatem. Ergo beneficentia non est actus caritatis, sed liberalitatis. | Objection 2: Further, beneficence consists chiefly in making gifts. But this belongs to liberality. Therefore beneficence is an act of liberality and not of charity. |
| Praeterea, omne quod quis dat, vel dat sicut debitum vel dat sicut non debitum. Sed beneficium quod impenditur tanquam debitum pertinet ad iustitiam, quod autem impenditur tanquam non debitum, gratis datur, et secundum hoc pertinet ad misericordiam. Ergo omnis beneficentia vel est actus iustitiae vel est actus misericordiae. Non est ergo actus caritatis. | Objection 3: Further, what a man gives, he gives either as being due, or as not due. But a benefit conferred as being due belongs to justice while a benefit conferred as not due, is gratuitous, and in this respect is an act of mercy. Therefore every benefit conferred is either an act of justice, or an act of mercy. Therefore it is not an act of charity. |
| Sed contra, caritas est amicitia quaedam, ut dictum est. Sed philosophus, in IX Ethic., inter alios amicitiae actus ponit hoc unum quod est operari bonum ad amicos, quod est amicis benefacere. Ergo beneficentia est actus caritatis. |
On the contrary, Charity is a kind of friendship, as stated above (Question [23], Article [1]). Now the Philosopher reckons among the acts of friendship (Ethic. ix, 1) "doing good," i.e. being beneficent, "to one's friends." Therefore it is an act of charity to do good to others. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod beneficentia nihil aliud importat quam facere bonum alicui. Potest autem hoc bonum considerari dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum communem rationem boni. Et hoc pertinet ad communem rationem beneficentiae. Et hoc est actus amicitiae, et per consequens caritatis. Nam in actu dilectionis includitur benevolentia, per quam aliquis vult bonum amico, ut supra habitum est. Voluntas autem est effectiva eorum quae vult, si facultas adsit. Et ideo ex consequenti benefacere amico ex actu dilectionis consequitur. Et propter hoc beneficentia secundum communem rationem, est amicitiae vel caritatis actus. |
I answer that, Beneficence simply means doing good to someone. This good may be considered in two ways, first under the general aspect of good, and this belongs to beneficence in general, and is an act of friendship, and, consequently, of charity: because the act of love includes goodwill whereby a man wishes his friend well, as stated above (Question [23], Article [1]; Question [27], Article [2]). Now the will carries into effect if possible, the things it wills, so that, consequently, the result of an act of love is that a man is beneficent to his friend. Therefore beneficence in its general acceptation is an act of friendship or charity. |
| Si autem bonum quod quis facit alteri accipiatur sub aliqua speciali ratione boni, sic beneficentia accipiet specialem rationem, et pertinebit ad aliquam specialem virtutem. | But if the good which one man does another, be considered under some special aspect of good, then beneficence will assume a special character and will belong to some special virtue. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., amor movet ordinata ad mutuam habitudinem, et inferiora convertit in superiora ut ab eis perficiantur, et superiora movet ad inferiorum provisionem. Et quantum ad hoc beneficentia est effectus dilectionis. Et ideo nostrum non est Deo benefacere, sed eum honorare, nos ei subiiciendo, eius autem est ex sua dilectione nobis benefacere. | Reply to Objection 1: According to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv), "love moves those, whom it unites, to a mutual relationship: it turns the inferior to the superior to be perfected thereby; it moves the superior to watch over the inferior:" and in this respect beneficence is an effect of love. Hence it is not for us to benefit God, but to honor Him by obeying Him, while it is for Him, out of His love, to bestow good things on us. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod in collatione donorum duo sunt attendenda, quorum unum est exterius datum; aliud autem est interior passio quam habet quis ad divitias, in eis delectatus. Ad liberalitatem autem pertinet moderari interiorem passionem, ut scilicet aliquis non superexcedat in concupiscendo et amando divitias, ex hoc enim efficietur homo facile emissivus donorum. Unde si homo det aliquod donum magnum, et tamen cum quadam concupiscentia retinendi, datio non est liberalis. Sed ex parte exterioris dati collatio beneficii pertinet in generali ad amicitiam vel caritatem. Unde hoc non derogat amicitiae, si aliquis rem quam concupiscit retinere det alicui propter amorem; sed magis ex hoc ostenditur amicitiae perfectio. | Reply to Objection 2: Two things must be observed in the bestowal of gifts. One is the thing given outwardly, while the other is the inward passion that a man has in the delight of riches. It belongs to liberality to moderate this inward passion so as to avoid excessive desire and love for riches; for this makes a man more ready to part with his wealth. Hence, if a man makes some great gift, while yet desiring to keep it for himself, his is not a liberal giving. On the other hand, as regards the outward gift, the act of beneficence belongs in general to friendship or charity. Hence it does not detract from a man's friendship, if, through love, he give his friend something he would like to I keep for himself; rather does this prove the perfection of his friendship. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod sicut amicitia seu caritas respicit in beneficio collato communem rationem boni, ita iustitia respicit ibi rationem debiti. Misericordia vero respicit ibi rationem relevantis miseriam vel defectum. | Reply to Objection 3: Just as friendship or charity sees, in the benefit bestowed, the general aspect of good, so does justice see therein the aspect of debt, while pity considers the relieving of distress or defect. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 31 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit omnibus benefaciendum. Dicit enim Augustinus, in I de Doct. Christ., quod omnibus prodesse non possumus. Sed virtus non inclinat ad impossibile. Ergo non oportet omnibus benefacere. | Objection 1: It would seem that we are not bound to do good to all. For Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 28) that we "are unable to do good to everyone." Now virtue does not incline one to the impossible. Therefore it is not necessary to do good to all. |
| Praeterea, Eccli. XII dicitur, da iusto, et non recipias peccatorem. Sed multi homines sunt peccatores. Non ergo omnibus est benefaciendum. | Objection 2: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 12:5) "Give to the good, and receive not a sinner." But many men are sinners. Therefore we need not do good to all. |
| Praeterea, caritas non agit perperam, ut dicitur I ad Cor. XIII. Sed benefacere quibusdam est agere perperam, puta si aliquis benefaciat inimicis reipublicae; vel si benefaciat excommunicato, quia per hoc ei communicat. Ergo, cum benefacere sit actus caritatis, non est omnibus benefaciendum. |
Objection 3: Further, "Charity dealeth not perversely" (1 Cor. 13:4). Now to do good to some is to deal perversely: for instance if one were to do good to an enemy of the common weal, or if one were to do good to an excommunicated person, since, by doing so, he would be holding communion with him. Therefore, since beneficence is an act of charity, we ought not to do good to all. |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Gal. ult., dum tempus habemus, operemur bonum ad omnes. |
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Gal. 6:10): "Whilst we have time, let us work good to all men." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, beneficentia consequitur amorem ex ea parte qua movet superiora ad provisionem inferiorum. Gradus autem in hominibus non sunt immutabiles, sicut in Angelis, quia homines possunt pati multiplices defectus; unde qui est superior secundum aliquid, vel est vel potest esse inferior secundum aliud. Et ideo, cum dilectio caritatis se extendat ad omnes, etiam beneficentia se debet extendere ad omnes, pro loco tamen et tempore, omnes enim actus virtutum sunt secundum debitas circumstantias limitandi. |
I answer that, As stated above (Article [1], ad 1), beneficence is an effect of love in so far as love moves the superior to watch over the inferior. Now degrees among men are not unchangeable as among angels, because men are subject to many failings, so that he who is superior in one respect, is or may be inferior in another. Therefore, since the love of charity extends to all, beneficence also should extend to all, but according as time and place require: because all acts of virtue must be modified with a view to their due circumstances. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, simpliciter loquendo, non possumus omnibus benefacere in speciali, nullus tamen est de quo non possit occurrere casus in quo oporteat ei benefacere etiam in speciali. Et ideo caritas requirit ut homo, etsi non actu alicui benefaciat, habeat tamen hoc in sui animi praeparatione, ut benefaciat cuicumque si tempus adesset. Aliquod tamen beneficium est quod possumus omnibus impendere, si non in speciali saltem in generali, sicut cum oramus pro omnibus fidelibus et infidelibus. | Reply to Objection 1: Absolutely speaking it is impossible to do good to every single one: yet it is true of each individual that one may be bound to do good to him in some particular case. Hence charity binds us, though not actually doing good to someone, to be prepared in mind to do good to anyone if we have time to spare. There is however a good that we can do to all, if not to each individual, at least to all in general, as when we pray for all, for unbelievers as well as for the faithful. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod in peccatore duo sunt, scilicet culpa et natura. Est ergo subveniendum peccatori quantum ad sustentationem naturae, non est autem ei subveniendum ad fomentum culpae; hoc enim non esset benefacere, sed potius malefacere. | Reply to Objection 2: In a sinner there are two things, his guilt and his nature. Accordingly we are bound to succor the sinner as to the maintenance of his nature, but not so as to abet his sin, for this would be to do evil rather than good. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod excommunicatis et reipublicae hostibus sunt beneficia subtrahenda inquantum per hoc arcentur a culpa. Si tamen immineret necessitas, ne natura deficeret, esset eis subveniendum, debito tamen modo, puta ne fame aut siti morerentur, aut aliquod huiusmodi dispendium, nisi secundum ordinem iustitiae, paterentur. | Reply to Objection 3: The excommunicated and the enemies of the common weal are deprived of all beneficence, in so far as this prevents them from doing evil deeds. Yet if their nature be in urgent need of succor lest it fail, we are bound to help them: for instance, if they be in danger of death through hunger or thirst, or suffer some like distress, unless this be according to the order of justice. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 31 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit magis benefaciendum his qui sunt nobis magis coniuncti. Dicitur enim Luc. XIV, cum facis prandium aut cenam, noli vocare amicos tuos neque fratres neque cognatos. Sed isti sunt maxime coniuncti. Ergo non est magis benefaciendum coniunctis, sed potius extraneis indigentibus, sequitur enim, sed cum facis convivium, voca pauperes et debiles, et cetera. |
Objection 1: It would seem that we are nor bound to do good to those rather who are more closely united to us. For it is written (Lk. 14:12): "When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsmen." Now these are the most closely united to us. Therefore we are not bound to do good to those rather who are more closely united to us, but preferably to strangers and to those who are in want: hence the text goes on: "But, when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed," etc. |
| Praeterea, maximum beneficium est quod homo aliquem in bello adiuvet. Sed miles in bello magis debet iuvare extraneum commilitonem quam consanguineum hostem. Ergo beneficia non sunt magis exhibenda magis coniunctis. | Objection 2: Further, to help another in the battle is an act of very great goodness. But a soldier on the battlefield is bound to help a fellow-soldier who is a stranger rather than a kinsman who is a foe. Therefore in doing acts of kindness we are not bound to give the preference to those who are most closely united to us. |
| Praeterea, prius sunt debita restituenda quam gratuita beneficia impendenda. Sed debitum est quod aliquis impendat beneficium ei a quo accepit. Ergo benefactoribus magis est benefaciendum quam propinquis. | Objection 3: Further, we should pay what is due before conferring gratuitous favors. But it is a man's duty to be good to those who have been good to him. Therefore we ought to do good to our benefactors rather than to those who are closely united to us. |
| Praeterea, magis sunt diligendi parentes quam filii, ut supra dictum est. Sed magis est benefaciendum filiis, quia non debent filii thesaurizare parentibus, ut dicitur II ad Cor. XII. Ergo non est magis benefaciendum magis coniunctis. |
Objection 4: Further, a man ought to love his parents more than his children, as stated above (Question [26], Article [9]). Yet a man ought to be more beneficent to his children, since "neither ought the children to lay up for the parents," according to 2 Cor. 12:14. Therefore we are not bound to be more beneficent to those who are more closely united to us. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in I de Doct. Christ., cum omnibus prodesse non possis, his potissimum consulendum est qui, pro locorum et temporum vel quarumlibet rerum opportunitatibus, constrictius tibi, quasi quadam sorte, iunguntur. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 28): "Since one cannot do good to all, we ought to consider those chiefly who by reason of place, time or any other circumstance, by a kind of chance are more closely united to us." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod gratia et virtus imitantur naturae ordinem, qui est ex divina sapientia institutus. Est autem talis ordo naturae ut unumquodque agens naturale per prius magis diffundat suam actionem ad ea quae sunt sibi propinquiora, sicut ignis magis calefacit rem sibi magis propinquam. Et similiter Deus in substantias sibi propinquiores per prius et copiosius dona suae bonitatis diffundit; ut patet per Dionysium, IV cap. Cael. Hier. Exhibitio autem beneficiorum est quaedam actio caritatis in alios. Et ideo oportet quod ad magis propinquos simus magis benefici. | I answer that, Grace and virtue imitate the order of nature, which is established by Divine wisdom. Now the order of nature is such that every natural agent pours forth its activity first and most of all on the things which are nearest to it: thus fire heats most what is next to it. In like manner God pours forth the gifts of His goodness first and most plentifully on the substances which are nearest to Him, as Dionysius declares (Coel. Hier. vii). But the bestowal of benefits is an act of charity towards others. Therefore we ought to be most beneficent towards those who are most closely connected with us. |
| Sed propinquitas unius hominis ad alium potest attendi secundum diversa in quibus sibi ad invicem homines communicant, ut consanguinei naturali communicatione, concives in civili, fideles in spirituali, et sic de aliis. Et secundum diversas coniunctiones sunt diversimode diversa beneficia dispensanda, nam unicuique est magis exhibendum beneficium pertinens ad illam rem secundum quam est magis nobis coniunctus, simpliciter loquendo. Tamen hoc potest variari secundum diversitatem locorum et temporum et negotiorum, nam in aliquo casu est magis subveniendum extraneo, puta si sit in extrema necessitate, quam etiam patri non tantam necessitatem patienti. | Now one man's connection with another may be measured in reference to the various matters in which men are engaged together; (thus the intercourse of kinsmen is in natural matters, that of fellow-citizens is in civic matters, that of the faithful is in spiritual matters, and so forth): and various benefits should be conferred in various ways according to these various connections, because we ought in preference to bestow on each one such benefits as pertain to the matter in which, speaking simply, he is most closely connected with us. And yet this may vary according to the various requirements of time, place, or matter in hand: because in certain cases one ought, for instance, to succor a stranger, in extreme necessity, rather than one's own father, if he is not in such urgent need. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dominus non prohibet simpliciter vocare amicos aut consanguineos ad convivium, sed vocare eos ea intentione quod te ipsi reinvitent. Hoc enim non erit caritatis, sed cupiditatis. Potest tamen contingere quod extranei sint magis invitandi in aliquo casu, propter maiorem indigentiam. Intelligendum est enim quod magis coniunctis magis est, ceteris paribus, benefaciendum. Si autem duorum unus sit magis coniunctus et alter magis indigens, non potest universali regula determinari cui sit magis subveniendum, quia sunt diversi gradus et indigentiae et propinquitatis, sed hoc requirit prudentis iudicium. | Reply to Objection 1: Our Lord did not absolutely forbid us to invite our friends and kinsmen to eat with us, but to invite them so that they may invite us in return, since that would be an act not of charity but of cupidity. The case may occur, however, that one ought rather to invite strangers, on account of their greater want. For it must be understood that, other things being equal, one ought to succor those rather who are most closely connected with us. And if of two, one be more closely connected, and the other in greater want, it is not possible to decide, by any general rule, which of them we ought to help rather than the other, since there are various degrees of want as well as of connection: and the matter requires the judgment of a prudent man. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod bonum commune multorum divinius est quam bonum unius. Unde pro bono communi reipublicae vel spiritualis vel temporalis virtuosum est quod aliquis etiam propriam vitam exponat periculo. Et ideo, cum communicatio in bellicis ordinetur ad conservationem reipublicae, in hoc miles impendens commilitoni auxilium, non impendit ei tanquam privatae personae, sed sicut totam rempublicam iuvans. Et ideo non est mirum si in hoc praefertur extraneus coniuncto secundum carnem. | Reply to Objection 2: The common good of many is more Godlike than the good of an individual. Wherefore it is a virtuous action for a man to endanger even his own life, either for the spiritual or for the temporal common good of his country. Since therefore men engage together in warlike acts in order to safeguard the common weal, the soldier who with this in view succors his comrade, succors him not as a private individual, but with a view to the welfare of his country as a whole: wherefore it is not a matter for wonder if a stranger be preferred to one who is a blood relation. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod duplex est debitum. Unum quidem quod non est numerandum in bonis eius qui debet, sed potius in bonis eius cui debetur. Puta si aliquis habet pecuniam aut rem aliam alterius vel furto sublatam vel mutuo acceptam sive depositam, vel aliquo alio simili modo, quantum ad hoc plus debet homo reddere debitum quam ex eo benefacere coniunctis. Nisi forte esset tantae necessitatis articulus in quo etiam liceret rem alienam accipere ad subveniendum necessitatem patienti. Nisi forte et ille cui res debetur in simili necessitate esset. In quo tamen casu pensanda esset utriusque conditio secundum alias conditiones, prudentis iudicio, quia in talibus non potest universalis regula dari, propter varietatem singulorum casuum, ut philosophus dicit, in IX Ethic. | Reply to Objection 3: A thing may be due in two ways. There is one which should be reckoned, not among the goods of the debtor, but rather as belonging to the person to whom it is due: for instance, a man may have another's goods, whether in money or in kind, either because he has stolen them, or because he has received them on loan or in deposit or in some other way. In this case a man ought to pay what he owes, rather than benefit his connections out of it, unless perchance the case be so urgent that it would be lawful for him to take another's property in order to relieve the one who is in need. Yet, again, this would not apply if the creditor were in equal distress: in which case, however, the claims on either side would have to be weighed with regard to such other conditions as a prudent man would take into consideration, because, on account of the different particular cases, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. ix, 2), it is impossible to lay down a general rule. |
| Aliud autem est debitum quod computatur in bonis eius qui debet, et non eius cui debetur, puta si debeatur non ex necessitate iustitiae, sed ex quadam morali aequitate, ut contingit in beneficiis gratis susceptis. Nullius autem benefactoris beneficium est tantum sicut parentum, et ideo parentes in recompensandis beneficiis sunt omnibus aliis praeferendi; nisi necessitas ex alia parte praeponderaret, vel aliqua alia conditio, puta communis utilitas Ecclesiae vel reipublicae. In aliis autem est aestimatio habenda et coniunctionis et beneficii suscepti. Quae similiter non potest communi regula determinari. | The other kind of due is one which is reckoned among the goods of the debtor and not of the creditor; for instance, a thing may be due, not because justice requires it, but on account of a certain moral equity, as in the case of benefits received gratis. Now no benefactor confers a benefit equal to that which a man receives from his parents: wherefore in paying back benefits received, we should give the first place to our parents before all others, unless, on the other side, there be such weightier motives, as need or some other circumstance, for instance the common good of the Church or state. In other cases we must take to account the connection and the benefit received; and here again no general rule can laid down. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod parentes sunt sicut superiores, et ideo amor parentum est ad benefaciendum, amor autem filiorum ad honorandum parentes. Et tamen in necessitatis extremae articulo magis liceret deserere filios quam parentes; quos nullo modo deserere licet, propter obligationem beneficiorum susceptorum; ut patet per philosophum, in VIII Ethic. | Reply to Objection 4: Parents are like superiors, and so a parent's love tends to conferring benefits, while the children's love tends to honor their parents. Nevertheless in a case of extreme urgency it would be lawful to abandon one's children rather than one's parents, to abandon whom it is by no means lawful, on account of the obligation we lie under towards them for the benefits we have received from them, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. iii, 14). |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 31 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod beneficentia sit specialis virtus. Praecepta enim ad virtutes ordinantur, quia legislatores intendunt facere homines virtuosos, sicut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed seorsum datur praeceptum de beneficentia et de dilectione, dicitur enim Matth. V, diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos. Ergo beneficentia est virtus distincta a caritate. |
Objection 1: It would seem that beneficence is a special virtue. For precepts are directed to virtue, since lawgivers purpose to make men virtuous (Ethic. i 9,13; ii, 1). Now beneficence and love are prescribed as distinct from one another, for it is written (Mt. 4:44): "Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you." Therefore beneficence is a virtue distinct from charity. |
| Praeterea, vitia virtutibus opponuntur. Sed beneficentiae opponuntur aliqua specialia vitia, per quae nocumentum proximo infertur, puta rapina, furtum et alia huiusmodi. Ergo beneficentia est specialis virtus. | Objection 2: Further, vices are opposed to virtues. Now there are opposed to beneficence certain vices whereby a hurt is inflicted on our neighbor, for instance, rapine, theft and so forth. Therefore beneficence is a special virtue. |
| Praeterea, caritas non distinguitur in multas species. Sed beneficentia videtur distingui in multas species, secundum diversas beneficiorum species. Ergo beneficentia est alia virtus a caritate | Objection 3: Further, charity is not divided into several species: whereas there would seem to be several kinds of beneficence, according to the various kinds of benefits. Therefore beneficence is a distinct virtue from charity. |
| Sed contra est quod actus interior et exterior non requirunt diversas virtutes. Sed beneficentia et benevolentia non differunt nisi sicut actus exterior et interior, quia beneficentia est executio benevolentiae. Ergo, sicut benevolentia non est alia virtus a caritate, ita nec beneficentia. | On the contrary, The internal and the external act do not require different virtues. Now beneficence and goodwill differ only as external and internal act, since beneficence is the execution of goodwill. Therefore as goodwill is not a distinct virtue from charity, so neither is beneficence. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod virtutes diversificantur secundum diversas rationes obiecti. Eadem autem est ratio formalis obiecti caritatis et beneficentiae, nam utraque respicit communem rationem boni, ut ex praedictis patet. Unde beneficentia non est alia virtus a caritate, sed nominat quendam caritatis actum. |
I answer that, Virtues differ according to the different aspects of their objects. Now the formal aspect of the object of charity and of beneficence is the same, since both virtues regard the common aspect of good, as explained above (Article [1]). Wherefore beneficence is not a distinct virtue from charity, but denotes an act of charity. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod praecepta non dantur de habitibus virtutum, sed de actibus. Et ideo diversitas praeceptorum non significat diversos habitus virtutum, sed diversos actus. | Reply to Objection 1: Precepts are given, not about habits but about acts of virtue: wherefore distinction of precept denotes distinction, not of habits, but of acts. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod sicut omnia beneficia proximo exhibita, inquantum considerantur sub communi ratione boni, reducuntur ad amorem; ita omnia nocumenta, inquantum considerantur secundum communem rationem mali, reducuntur ad odium. Prout autem considerantur secundum aliquas speciales rationes vel boni vel mali, reducuntur ad aliquas speciales virtutes vel vitia. Et secundum hoc etiam sunt diversae beneficiorum species. | Reply to Objection 2: Even as all benefits conferred on our neighbor, if we consider them under the common aspect of good, are to be traced to love, so all hurts considered under the common aspect of evil, are to be traced to hatred. But if we consider these same things under certain special aspects of good or of evil, they are to be traced to certain special virtues or vices, and in this way also there are various kinds of benefits. |
| Unde patet responsio ad tertium. | Hence the Reply to the Third Objection is evident. |