Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that charity can decrease. For contraries by their nature affect the same subject. Now increase and decrease are contraries. Since then charity increases, as stated above (Article 4), it seems that it can also decrease.

Objection 2: Further, Augustine, speaking to God, says (Confess. x) "He loves Thee less, who loves aught besides Thee": and (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 36) he says that "what kindles charity quenches cupidity." For this it seems to follow that, on the contrary, what arouses cupidity quenches charity. But cupidity, whereby a man loves something besides God, can increase in man. Therefore charity can decrease.

Objection 3: Further, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 12) "God makes the just man, by justifying him, but in such a way, that if the man turns away from God, he no longer retains the effect of the Divine operation." From this we may gather that when God preserves charity in man, He works in the same way as when He first infuses charity into him. Now at the first infusion of charity God infuses less charity into him that prepares himself less. Therefore also in preserving charity, He preserves less charity in him that prepares himself less. Therefore charity can decrease.

On the contrary, In Scripture, charity is compared to fire, according to Cant 8:6: "The lamps thereof," i.e. of charity, "are fire and flames." Now fire ever mounts upward so long as it lasts. Therefore as long as charity endures, it can ascend, but cannot descend, i.e. decrease.

I answer that, The quantity which charity has in comparison with its proper object, cannot decrease, even as neither can it increase, as stated above (Article 4, ad 2).

Since, however, it increases in that quantity which it has in comparison with its subject, here is the place to consider whether it can decrease in this way. Now, if it decrease, this must needs be either through an act, or by the mere cessation from act. It is true that virtues acquired through acts decrease and sometimes cease altogether through cessation from act, as stated above (1.2, Question 53, Article 3). Wherefore the Philosopher says, in reference to friendship (Ethic. viii, 5) "that want of intercourse," i.e. the neglect to call upon or speak with one's friends, "has destroyed many a friendship." Now this is because the safe-keeping of a thing depends on its cause, and the cause of human virtue is a human act, so that when human acts cease, the virtue acquired thereby decreases and at last ceases altogether. Yet this does not occur to charity, because it is not the result of human acts, but is caused by God alone, as stated above (Article 2). Hence it follows that even when its act ceases, it does not for this reason decrease, or cease altogether, unless the cessation involves a sin.

The consequence is that a decrease of charity cannot be caused except either by God or by some sinful act. Now no defect is caused in us by God, except by way of punishment, in so far as He withdraws His grace in punishment of sin. Hence He does not diminish charity except by way of punishment: and this punishment is due on account of sin.

It follows, therefore, that if charity decrease, the cause of this decrease must be sin either effectively or by way of merit. But mortal sin does not diminish charity, in either of these ways, but destroys it entirely, both effectively, because every mortal sin is contrary to charity, as we shall state further on (Article 12), and by way of merit, since when, by sinning mortally, a man acts against charity, he deserves that God should withdraw charity from him.

In like manner, neither can venial sin diminish charity either effectively or by way of merit. Not effectively, because it does not touch charity, since charity is about the last end, whereas venial sin is a disorder about things directed to the end: and a man's love for the end is none the less through his committing an inordinate act as regards the things directed to the end. Thus sick people sometimes, though they love health much, are irregular in keeping to their diet: and thus again, in speculative sciences, the false opinions that are derived from the principles, do not diminish the certitude of the principles. So too, venial sin does not merit diminution of charity; for when a man offends in a small matter he does not deserve to be mulcted in a great matter. For God does not turn away from man, more than man turns away from Him: wherefore he that is out of order in respect of things directed to the end, does not deserve to be mulcted in charity whereby he is ordered to the last end.

The consequence is that charity can by no means be diminished, if we speak of direct causality, yet whatever disposes to its corruption may be said to conduce indirectly to its diminution, and such are venial sins, or even the cessation from the practice of works of charity.

Reply to Objection 1: Contraries affect the same subject when that subject stands in equal relation to both. But charity does not stand in equal relation to increase and decrease. For it can have a cause of increase, but not of decrease, as stated above. Hence the argument does not prove.

Reply to Objection 2: Cupidity is twofold, one whereby man places his end in creatures, and this kills charity altogether, since it is its poison, as Augustine states (Confess. x). This makes us love God less (i.e. less than we ought to love Him by charity), not indeed by diminishing charity but by destroying it altogether. It is thus that we must understand the saying: "He loves Thee less, who loves aught beside Thee," for he adds these words, "which he loveth not for Thee." This does not apply to venial sin, but only to mortal sin: since that which we love in venial sin, is loved for God's sake habitually though not actually. There is another cupidity, that of venial sin, which is always diminished by charity: and yet this cupidity cannot diminish charity, for the reason given above.

Reply to Objection 3: A movement of the free-will is requisite in the infusion of charity, as stated above (1.2, Question 113, Article 3). Wherefore that which diminishes the intensity of the free-will conduces dispositively to a diminution in the charity to be infused. On the other hand, no movement of the free-will is required for the safe-keeping of charity, else it would not remain inn us while we sleep. Hence charity does not decrease on account of an obstacle on the part of the intensity of the free-will's movement.

Articulus 10

Argumentum 1

Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caritas possit diminui.

Contraria enim nata sunt fieri circa idem. Sed diminutio et augmentum sunt contraria. Cum igitur caritas augeatur, ut dictum est supra, videtur quod etiam possit diminui.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, Augustinus, X confess., ad deum loquens, dicit, minus te amat qui tecum aliquid amat.

Et in libro octogintatrium quaest. Dicit quod nutrimentum caritatis est diminutio cupiditatis, ex quo videtur quod etiam e converso augmentum cupiditatis sit diminutio caritatis. Sed cupiditas, qua amatur aliquid aliud quam deus, potest in homine crescere. Ergo caritas potest diminui.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, sicut Augustinus dicit, VIII super Gen. Ad litt., non ita deus operatur hominem iustum iustificando eum, ut, si abscesserit, maneat in absente quod fecit, ex quo potest accipi quod eodem modo deus operatur in homine caritatem eius conservando, quo operatur primo ei caritatem infundendo. Sed in prima caritatis infusione minus se praeparanti deus minorem caritatem infundit.

Ergo etiam in conservatione caritatis minus se praeparanti minorem caritatem conservat. Potest ergo caritas diminui.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod caritas in Scriptura igni comparatur, secundum illud Cant. VIII, lampades eius, scilicet caritatis, lampades ignis atque flammarum.

Sed ignis, quandiu manet, semper ascendit. Ergo caritas, quandiu manet, ascendere potest; sed descendere, idest diminui, non potest.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod quantitas caritatis quam habet in comparatione ad obiectum proprium, minui non potest, sicut nec augeri, ut supra dictum est.

Sed cum augeatur secundum quantitatem quam habet per comparationem ad subiectum, hic oportet considerare utrum ex hac parte diminui possit. Si autem diminuatur, oportet quod vel diminuatur per aliquem actum; vel per solam cessationem ab actu. Per cessationem quidem ab actu diminuuntur virtutes ex actibus acquisitae, et quandoque etiam corrumpuntur, ut supra dictum est, unde de amicitia philosophus dicit, in VIII ethic., quod multas amicitias inappellatio solvit, idest non appellare amicum vel non colloqui ei.

Sed hoc ideo est quia conservatio uniuscuiusque rei dependet ex sua causa; causa autem virtutis acquisitae est actus humanus; unde, cessantibus humanis actibus, virtus acquisita diminuitur et tandem totaliter corrumpitur. Sed hoc in caritate locum non habet, quia caritas non causatur ab humanis actibus, sed solum a deo, ut supra dictum est.

Unde relinquitur quod etiam cessante actu, propter hoc nec diminuitur nec corrumpitur, si desit peccatum in ipsa cessatione.

Relinquitur ergo quod diminutio caritatis non possit causari nisi vel a deo, vel ab aliquo peccato. A deo quidem non causatur aliquis defectus in nobis nisi per modum poenae, secundum quod subtrahit gratiam in poenam peccati. Unde nec ei competit diminuere caritatem nisi per modum poenae. Poena autem debetur peccato. Unde relinquitur quod, si caritas diminuatur, quod causa diminutionis eius sit peccatum, vel effective vel meritorie. Neutro autem modo peccatum mortale diminuit caritatem, sed totaliter corrumpit ipsam, et effective, quia omne peccatum mortale contrariatur caritati, ut infra dicetur; et etiam meritorie, quia qui peccando mortaliter aliquid contra caritatem agit, dignum est ut deus ei subtrahat caritatem.

Similiter etiam nec per peccatum veniale caritas diminui potest, neque effective, neque meritorie. Effective quidem non, quia ad ipsam caritatem non attingit. Caritas enim est circa finem ultimum, veniale autem peccatum est quaedam inordinatio circa ea quae sunt ad finem. Non autem diminuitur amor finis ex hoc quod aliquis inordinationem aliquam committit circa ea quae sunt ad finem, sicut aliquando contingit quod aliqui infirmi, multum amantes sanitatem, inordinate tamen se habent circa diaetae observationem; sicut etiam et in speculativis falsae opiniones circa ea quae deducuntur ex principiis, non diminuunt certitudinem principiorum.

Similiter etiam veniale peccatum non meretur diminutionem caritatis. Cum enim aliquis delinquit in minori, non meretur detrimentum pati in maiori. Deus enim non plus se avertit ab homine quam homo se avertit ab ipso. Unde qui inordinate se habet circa ea quae sunt ad finem, non meretur detrimentum pati in caritate, per quam ordinatur ad ultimum finem.

Unde consequens est quod caritas nullo modo diminui possit, directe loquendo. Potest tamen indirecte dici diminutio caritatis dispositio ad corruptionem ipsius, quae fit vel per peccata venialia; vel etiam per cessationem ab exercitio operum caritatis.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod contraria sunt circa idem quando subiectum aequaliter se habet ad utrumque contrariorum. Sed caritas non eodem modo se habet ad augmentum et diminutionem, potest enim habere causam augentem, sed non potest habere causam minuentem, sicut dictum est.

Unde ratio non sequitur.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod duplex est cupiditas. Una quidem qua finis in creaturis constituitur. Et haec totaliter mortificat caritatem, cum sit venenum ipsius, ut Augustinus dicit ibidem.

Et hoc facit quod deus minus ametur, scilicet quam debet amari ex caritate, non quidem caritatem diminuendo, sed eam totaliter tollendo.

Et sic intelligendum est quod dicitur, minus te amat qui tecum aliquid amat, subditur enim, quod non propter te amat.

Quod non contingit in peccato veniali, sed solum in mortali, quod enim amatur in peccato veniali, propter deum amatur habitu, etsi non actu. Est autem alia cupiditas venialis peccati, quae semper diminuitur per caritatem, sed tamen talis cupiditas caritatem diminuere non potest, ratione iam dicta.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod in infusione caritatis requiritur motus liberi arbitrii, sicut supra dictum est.

Et ideo illud quod diminuit intensionem liberi arbitrii, dispositive operatur ad hoc quod caritas infundenda sit minor. Sed ad conservationem caritatis non requiritur motus liberi arbitrii, alioquin non remaneret in dormientibus. Unde per impedimentum intensionis motus liberi arbitrii non diminuitur caritas.