Teología de la caridad

Description

TXT and EPUB are DeepL Pro NMT English translation.

Discussing each part of the definition of the virtue of charity (p. 27, PDF p. 36),

Charity is a single theological virtue, infused by God into the will, by which the just man loves God for Himself with a love of friendship above all things and oneself and his neighbor for God.

spec. the "into the will" part, p. 30 (PDF p. 39), he shows that charity ≠ feeling, but that it can redound into our sensibilities (sensible graces); he cites De veritate q. 26 a. 7 ("Does a passion accompanying a meritorious act detract from its merit?"):

arg. 7: The more the love of charity in us is purified of carnal love (carnali amore), the more praiseworthy it is; "for the affection (dilectio) among us should not be carnal but spiritual," as Augustine says [in his Rule]. But as a passion love (passio amoris) is to some extent carnal. Consequently an act of charity is more praiseworthy without the passion of love. And the same holds true of the other passions.
...
ad 7: There is question of the carnality of spiritual affection only if the passion of love (passio amoris) precedes the affection of the will (dilectionem voluntatis), but not if it follows. For in the latter event there would be question of the fervor of charity, which consists in the fact that the spiritual affection, which is in the higher part, by reason of its vehemence overflows/redounds (redundat) to the extent of altering the lower part.

[cf. St. Bonaventure's criteria for whether a friendship is pure or not, quoted by St. Alphonsus]

Speaking of friendship (p. 25, PDF p. 34):

The ascending affective movement is, then, the following: first, sympathy , though a simple wishing; then benevolence ensues, with which we desire some good for the person we find sympathetic; next, love buds, which presupposes the two previous sentiments, adding to them affective union of the heart toward the person loved; finally, perfect love leads to friendship , which is the love of benevolence with reciprocity of affections and communication of goods.

re: order of charity, cf. II-II q. 26 a. 6 ("Whether we ought to love one neighbor more than another?") co.:

Quidam enim dixerunt quod omnes proximi sunt aequaliter ex caritate diligendi quantum ad affectum, sed non quantum ad exteriorem effectum; ponentes ordinem dilectionis esse intelligendum secundum exteriora beneficia, quae magis debemus impendere proximis quam alienis; non autem secundum interiorem affectum, quem aequaliter debemus impendere omnibus, etiam inimicis.

This seems reasonable, but it does have a sort of communist, egalitarian vibe to it.

Sed hoc irrationabiliter dicitur. […] dicendum est quod etiam secundum affectum oportet magis unum proximorum quam alium diligere. Et ratio est quia, cum principium dilectionis sit Deus et ipse diligens, necesse est quod secundum propinquitatem maiorem ad alterum istorum principiorum maior sit dilectionis affectus, sicut enim supra dictum est, in omnibus in quibus invenitur aliquod principium, ordo attenditur secundum comparationem ad illud principium.

pp. 138-9 (PDF pp. 147-8), on which, knowledge or charity of God, is greater in this life (hac vita , that of a wayfarer, viator , not comprehensor):

as St. Thomas explains,[II-II 27,4; cf. 26,1 ad 2; I 16,1; 82,3.] by the virtue of charity we can love God in an immediate way even in this life, and this by an obvious consequence of the psychology of love. For, unlike the understanding, which brings things to itself, the will goes out of itself by its act of love to rest immediately in the beloved object as it is in itself. The understanding draws things to itself, emptying them, as it were, into its own intellectual mold. Whence, when it knows beings inferior to itself (e.g., material things), it ennobles and dignifies them, making them ascend to the intellectual order; but, when it knows beings superior to itself (God, angels, supernatural truths), it dwarfs and diminishes them, forcing them into its inferior intellectual molds.

The exact opposite is true of the will. By virtue of its proper act—love—, the will goes out of itself to rest in the beloved object as it is in itself. Hence, if it loves beings inferior to itself (e.g., things of the earth), it is diminished and degraded, lowering itself to their inferior level; but, if it loves superior beings (God, angels, etc.), it is exalted and sublimated, raising itself to the level of those superior beings in whom it rests through love in an immediate and as they are in themselves manner. That is why St. Augustine said most profoundly, "If you love the earth, you are earth; but, if you love God, what shall I say but that you are God?" [St. Augustine, In epist. Ioannis tr. 2 n. 14: ML 35,1997: "Terram diligis? terra eris. Deum diligis? quid dicam? deus eris? "]

From whence it must be concluded—as St. Thomas says—that, although in itself, as a natural power, the understanding is more perfect than the will, nevertheless, in this life, and by the very nature of the operation, it is more perfect to love God with the will than to know him by the understanding.[Cf. I 82,3; II-II 27,4 ad 2.] There are theologians who know many things about God, but in a cold, purely intellectual way; and there are simple and humble souls who hardly know anything about theology, but love God intensely. The latter is better. Let us not forget that it is perfectly possible for love to surpass one's knowledge of the beloved object.[Cf. I-II 27,2 ad 2, II-II 27,4 ad 1 et 2.] It is enough for the soul to conceive of God as an infinitely good and lovable being, though incomprehensible and ineffable, for the impetus of its love to throw itself towards Him in a way far superior to the knowledge it has of Him.

como explica Santo Tomás[II-II 27,4; cf. 26,1 ad 2; I 16,1; 82,3.], por la virtud de la caridad podemos amar a Dios de una manera inmediata aun en esta vida, y ello por una consecuencia obvia de la psicología del amor. Porque, a diferencia del entendimiento, que trae las cosas a sí, la voluntad sale de sí misma por su acto de amor para descansar inmediatamente en el objeto amado tal como es en si. El entendimiento atrae a sí las cosas, vaciándolas, por decirlo así, en su propio molde intelectual. De donde, cuando conoce los seres inferiores a él (v.gr., las cosas materiales), los ennoblece y dignifica, haciéndoles ascender al orden intelectual; pero, cuando conoce los seres superiores a él (Dios, los ángeles, las verdades sobrenaturales), los empequeñece y achica, obligándolas a entrar en sus moldes intelectuales inferiores.

Con la voluntad ocurre exactamente lo contrario. En virtud de su acto propio—el amor—, la voluntad sale de sí misma para descansar en el objeto amado tal como es en si mismo. De donde, si ama a los seres inferiores a ella (v.gr., las cosas de la tierra), se empequeñece y degrada, rebajándose a su nivel inferior; pero, ú ama a los seres superiores (Dios, los ángeles, etc.), se engrandece y sublima, elevándose hasta el nivel de aquellos seres superiores en los que descansa por el amor de una manera inmediata y tal como son en si mismos. Por eso decía profundísimamente San Agustín: «Si amas la tierra, tierra eres; pero, si amas a Dios, ¿qué he de decir sino que eres Dios?»[San Agustín, In epist. Ioannis tr. 2 n. 14: ML 35,1997: "Terram diligis? terra eris. Deum diligis? quid dicam? deus eris? ".]

De donde hay que concluir—como dice Santo Tomás—que, aunque en sí mismo, como potencia natural, es más perfecto el entendimiento que la voluntad, sin embargo, en esta vida, y por la naturaleza misma de la operación, es más perfecto amar a Dios con la voluntad que conocerle por el entendimiento.[Cf. I 82,3; II-II 27,4 ad 2.] Hay teólogos que saben muchas cosas de Dios, pero de una manera fría, puramente intelectual; y hay almas sencillas y humildes que apenas saben nada de teología, pero aman intensamente a Dios. Esto último es mejor. No olvidemos que es perfectamente posible que el amor supere al conocimiento que se tenga del objeto amado.[Cf. I-II 27,2 ad 2, II-II 27,4 ad 1 et 2.] Basta que el alma conciba a Dios como un ser infinitamente bueno y amable, aunque incomprensible e inefable, para que el ímpetu de su amor se lance hacia El en forma muy superior al conocimiento que de El tiene.

pp. 375-402 (PDF pp. 382-409) are an excellent, multi-source exegesis on 1 Cor. 13:1-13 (…Charity [αγάπη] is patient, is kind…). He begins by quoting the commentary by Fr. Allo, O.P., pp. 340-1 [DjVu pp. 453-4].
p. 383 (PDF p. 390), commenting on "Charity is not envious":

Santa Teresita llegó a afirmar que, si amamos un bien del prójimo más de lo que lo ama él, en realidad nos pertenece a nosotros más que a él.
[St. Teresa (de Ávila seu Lisieux? seu De los Andes?) came to affirm that, if we love our neighbor's good more than he loves it, in reality the good belongs to us more than to him.]

PDF p. 537 (p. 532) gives a concise explanation, in the context of the "mutua ayuda " end of matrimony, for why the state of virginity is superior to that of matrimony (cf. Trent sess. 24 can. 10):

La mutua ayuda y consuelo de los cónyuges es uno de los fines del matrimonio, dispuesto y ordenado por el mismo Dios cuando dijo en el paradiso terrenal: No es bueno que el hombre esté solo; voy a hacerle una a ayuda semejante a él (Gen. 2,18). Y aunque es falsísimo—como ha declarado la Iglesia repetidas veces—que el matrimonio sea el estado más perfecto a que el hombre puede aspirar, como si se tratara de un complemento fisiológico exigido por su propia naturaleza humana y constitución orgánica, no cabe duda que, a menos de sublimar ambas cosas al servicio de una vocación más alta (sacerdotal, religiosa, virginidad en el mundo), que siempre será patrimonio de unos pocos, el hombre encuentra en el matrimonio el complemento natural que exige la sociedad familiar en orden a la generación de los hijos y mutuo auxilio de los cónyuges.

The mutual help and consolation of the spouses is one of the purposes of marriage, arranged and ordained by God himself when he said in earthly paradise: It is not good for man to be alone; I am going to make him a help similar to him (Gn. 2:18). And although it is most false—as the Church has repeatedly declared—that marriage is the most perfect state to which man can aspire, as if it were a physiological complement demanded by his own human nature and organic constitution, there is no doubt that—unless sublimating both [mutual help and consolation] in the service of a higher vocation (priestly, religious, virginity in the world), which will always be the patrimony of a few—man finds in marriage the natural complement that family society demands in order for the procreation of children and the mutual help of the spouses.

Treatise on the Love of God bk. 10, ch. 1 quoted on PDF pp. 183-5 (in the context of the precept to love God):

MAN is the perfection of the universe; the spirit is the perfection of man; love, that of the spirit; and charity, that of love. Wherefore the love of God is the end, the perfection and the excellence of the universe. […] divine goodness, in order that neither thy greatness, nor our vileness, nor any pretext whatever should keep us from loving thee, thou dost command it to us. The poor Apelles, not able to keep from loving the beautiful Campaspe, yet dared not love her because she belonged to the great Alexander; but when he had leave to love her, how greatly obliged did he consider himself to him who gave this leave to him! He knew not whether he should more love that beautiful Campaspe whom so great an emperor had given up to him, or that great emperor who had given him so beautiful a Campaspe. Oh! if we were able to comprehend it, my dear Theotimus, what obligation should we have to this sovereign good, who not only permits but even commands us to love him!

7:33 ff. of this sermion says that an alternative translation of Mt. 22:39 is: "the second [commandment] is equal (not "like") to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." No English translations of Mt. 22:39 (except perhaps the NLT: "A second is equally important: …") say this.
Does the Syriac say "equal"? The Greek uses ομοία (could this sometimes mean "equal"?). St. Jerome's Latin uses simile.

The expression used originally in Aramaic by Our Blessed Lord explaining these two interrelated commandments is typical of a Hebraic formula often recurring in the Scriptures, which tends to be “lost” in translations.

איך נפשך… ←

I certainly would not say that “like” is a defective translation relative to “equal,” since איך in Aramaic is nothing other than a comparative preposition, meaning precisely “like” or “as.”

But it is also true that to compare here, as when saying x is like y, in no way lessens the true meaning of the divine commandment as it pertains to the love of one’s neighbor, quite to the contrary. What follows the comparative preposition איך, in Aramaic, makes the case powerfully compelling and clear, since we find the term נפשא, meaning “soul,” with the possessive determiner at the end, giving נפשך, meaning “thy soul” (rather than just “yourself”).

Thus, the Aramaic portion of the text of Matt 22:39 we are discussing here quite literally translates as follows:

“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as/like your [own] soul.”

This is where the pertinence of “equal” comes into play, both in relation to loving God, the first commandment, and to loving our neighbor, the second commandment, and so no less than loving our own very soul (we sure need grace). And this, I believe, we most especially do whenever we do what we can for the eternal welfare of anyone (their temporal welfare included), blood relative or not, friend or enemy.

English translation generated with this command (took 5½ min.):

parallel --bar -k curl -s https://api.deepl.com/v1/translate -d "auth_key=[my CAT/API key]" -d "text={}" -d "target_lang=EN" -d "source_lang=ES" \| jq -r '.translations[0][\"text\"]' \; echo :::: "Teología de la caridad (Royo Marín, O.P.)_djvu.txt" > en.txt