가톨릭 신앙생활 Q&A 코너
|
[꼭필독] IIa IIae q 23, 애덕(charity)이라는 덕 [신학대전여행] 교리용어_사랑 _애덕 773_love _우의 _친교 [번역미숙] |
|---|
|
2013-11-04 ㅣ No.1465 번역자 주: 다음은, 성 토마스 아퀴나스의 신학 대전의 약 600여 개에 달하는 각 문항(Questions)들에 대한 "압축된 바꾸어 말하기"인 Paul J. Glenn 몬시뇰(1893-1957)의 저서: "A Tour of the Summa(신학대전여행)"의 IIa IIae q23, 애덕이라는 덕 전문이며, 그리고 하반부의 글은, 상반부의 글에 대응하는 성 토마스 아퀴나스의 신학 대전, IIa IIae q23, 애덕이라는 덕 전문이다.
초벌 번역 일자: 2013년 11월 03일 번역자: 교수 소순태 마태오 (Ph.D.) 우리말 번역문 출처: http://club.catholic.or.kr/tourofsumma 본글로의 접속 주소: http://ch.catholic.or.kr/pundang/4/soh/1465.htm -------------------- 당부의 말씀: 많이 부족한 죄인인 필자의 글들은 어떤 특정인의 감정을 자극하기 위하여 마련된 글들이 결코 아니기에, 다음의 당부의 말씀을 드립니다: (1) 지금까지 필자의 글들을 읽고서 필자에 대한 "분노(anger)" 혹은 "질투(envy)"를 가지게 된 분들은, 혹시라도 그분들께 "걸림돌(stumbling block)"일 수도 있는, 많이 부족한 죄인의 글들을 더 이상 읽지 마시기 바랍니다. 꼭 부탁드립니다. (2) 그리고 위의 제(1)항의 당부의 말씀을 읽고도 굳이 이 화면의 아래로 스스로 이동하여, 많이 부족한 죄인의 아래의 본글을 읽는 분들은, 필자에 대한 "분노(anger)"와 "질투(envy)" 둘 다를 가지지 않을 것임에 동의함을 필자와 다른 분들께 이미 밝힌 것으로 이해하겠습니다. (3) 그리 길지 않은 인생 여정에 있어, 누구에게나, 결국에, "유유상종[類類相從, 같은 무리끼리 서로 사귐 (출처: 표준국어대사전)]"이 유의미할 것이라는 생각에 드리는 당부의 말씀입니다. 23. The Virtue of Charity 23. 애덕이라는 덕
1. Charity as a supernatural virtue is the friendship of man and God. On God's part, it is love, benevolence, and communication of benefits and graces; on man's part charity involves devotion and service to God. It was in charity that our Lord said to his apostles (John 15:15): "I will not now call you servants . . . but friends."
1. 한 개의 초자연적 덕(a supernatural virtue)으로서 애덕(charity)은 사람과 하느님 [사이]에서 발견되는 친구의 관계(the friendship of man and God) [즉, 우의(友誼)]를 말합니다.(*) 하느님 쪽에서, 이 관계는 사랑(love), 선의(善意)[선을 행하고자 하는 성향(benevolence)], 그리하여 도움(benefits)들과 은총(graces)들의 나누어 줌(communication)이며, 그리고 사람 쪽에서 애덕은 하느님을 향하는 공경/경례(敬禮)(devotion)와 봉사(service)를 수반합니다(involves).(**) 우리의 주님께서 당신의 사도들에게 다음과 같이 말씀하셨던 것은 바로 애덕의 상태에서(in charity) 였습니다: "나는 너희를 더 이상 종이라고 부르지 않는다. ... 나는 너희를 친구라고 불렀다." (요한 복음서 15,15).
-----
(**) 번역자 주:
(2) "friendship" 을 "우의(友誼)" 로 번역한 것은 다음에 있는 2008년에 대만에서 발행된 중국어본 신학 대전에서 "friendship" 을 "友誼" 로 번역하고 있고 그리고 "love of friendship" 을 "友誼的愛" 혹은, 간략하여, "友愛" 로 번역하고 있기 때문이다: 출처: http://ch.catholic.or.kr/pundang/4/summa/ch/18_Index.pdf
(권고 사항 한 개) 다른 한편으로, 2008년에 대만에서 발행된 중국어본 "신학 대전"에서는 "friendship" 의 차용 번역 용어로서 "親交(친교)" 라는 단어를 사용하고 있지 않으나, 그러나 "親交(친교)" 라는 단어가 그동안 일본에서 주로 사용해온 "friendship" 의 차용 번역 용어임은 다음의 구글 검색 결과로 구체적으로 확인할 수 있다:
따라서, 국내의 가톨릭계에서도, 우리말본 가톨릭 교회 교리서 등의 핵심 문헌들에서 "friendship" 의 차용 번역 용어로서, 지금까지처럼 "親交(친교)" 대신에, "友誼(우의)" 라는 단어를 사용할 것을 적극 권고드립니다.
예를 들어, 다음의 가톨릭 대사전에 주어진 "divine friendship" 의 우리말 번역 용어 및 이 용어에 대한 설명에서, "親交(친교)" 대신에, "友誼(우의)" 라는 단어를 사용할 것을 적극 권고드립니다:
(3) 사랑(love)에 있어, 해당 사랑의 수혜자가 사랑의 주체(subject) 혹은 사랑의 대상(object)임에 따라 구분되는,
(4) 다음의 주소에 접속하면, 비엔나(Vienna)의 대주교이고 그리고 1992년에 초판 발행된 "가톨릭 교회 교리서(CCC)" 기안을 책임진 위원회의 장이셨던, Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, O.P. 주교님께서 2002년 6월 22일, 미국 캘리포니아 주 소재, Thomas Aquinas College에서의 졸업식 연설문(Commencement Address)[제목: On Love and Friendship(애덕과 우의(友誼)에 대하여)]을 읽고 또 들을 수 있는데, 이 연설문은 성 토마스 아퀴나스(St. Thomas Aquinas)의 신학 대전(Summa Theologica), IIa IIae, q32 charity(애덕) 에 대한 대단히 좋은 요약 설명이라는 생각에, 되도록 많은 분들의 필독을 강력히 권고한다:
특히 우의(友誼)(friendship)를 연설의 주제로 삼게 된 데에 대하여 다음과 같이 서두에서 말하고 있다:
(발췌 시작)
I hope you have learned a lot at Thomas Aquinas College, and, above all, the one thing found in the heart of every happy Christian human life, namely, friendship. And that is what I would like to talk about – not only because I have learned in my own life that friendship is the most valuable of all goods, but because I am convinced that St. Thomas Aquinas made friendship the central point of all his theological works, by defining charity, doubtless the epitome of Christianity, as friendship.
애덕(love)과 우의(友誼, friendship)에 대하여
저는 여러분들이 토마스 아퀴나스 대학(Thomas Aquinas College)에서 많은 것을, 그리고, 무엇보다도, 모든 행복한 그리스도인의 삶의 심장(heart)에서 발견되는 한 개의 사물을, 즉, 우의(友誼, friendship)를, 이미 배웠을 것임을 희망합니다. 그리고 바로 이것이 왜 제가 그것에 관하여 말씀드리고자 하는 바인데, 이는 제가 제 자신의 삶 안에서 우정이 모든 재화들 중에서 가장 가치로운 것임을 이미 배웠기 때문만이 아니라, 또한 성 토마스 아퀴나스(St. Thomas Aquinas)가, 의심할 여지 없이 그리스도교의 축도(縮圖, epitome)인 애덕(charity)을 우의(友誼, friendship)로서 정의함으로써(by defining), 우의(友誼, friendship)를 자신의 신학적 일(works)들 모두의 중심 요지로 삼았음을 제가 확신하기 때문입니다.
참고로, Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, O.P. 주교님에 대한 더 자세한 안내의 글은 다음에 있다:
(5) 다음은 "friendship with God [하느님과의 우의(友誼), 즉 애덕(charity)]" 에 대한 추가 읽을꺼리들이다:
2. Charity is in a person as a determinate, supernatural, habitual power, added to the natural power of the soul, which inclines the will to act with ease and delight in the exercise of loving friendship with God.
2. 애덕은, 영혼의 본성적 힘에 추가된 한 개의 확정적(determinate), 초자연적, 습관적 힘(power)으로서, 한 인격(a person) 안에 있는데, 이 덕이 의지(the will)로 하여금, 하느님과의 애정있는(loving) 친구의 관계[friendship, 우의(友誼)]의 실행(exercise)에 있어, 손쉽게 그리고 기꺼이(with ease and delight) 행동하도록(act) 기울어지게 합니다(inclines).
3. St. Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl., xi):"Charity is a virtue which, when our affections are perfectly ordered, unites us to God; for it is by charity that we love him."
3. 성 아우구스티노(St. Augustine)는 다음과 같이 말합니다: "애덕은, 우리의 애정(affections)들이 완미하게(perfectly) 배열될 때에(is ordered), 우리를 하느님께 결합시키는 한 개의 덕인데, 이는 우리가 그분을 사랑하는(love) 것이 바로 이 애덕에 의하여서이기 때문입니다." (De Morib. Eccl., xi).
4. Charity is not a general virtue, nor an overlapping of virtues; it is a special virtue in its own nature; it is on a level with the other theological virtues (faith and hope), and is distinct from these virtues.
4. 애덕은 어떤 일반적인 덕(a general virtue)이 아니고, 또한 덕들의 어떤 겹침(an overlapping)도 아니며, 그리고 이 덕은 그 고유의 본성에 있어 한 개의 특별한 덕이며, 그리고 이 덕은 다른 신학적 덕들(theological virtues, 향주덕들, 대신덕들)[신덕(faith), 망덕(hope)]과 어떤 동일한 수준에 있으며, 그리고 이들 덕들로부터 구분됩니다.
5. And charity is one virtue; it is not divided into different species or essential kinds.
5. 그리고 애덕은 한 개의 덕이며, 그리고 이 덕은 서로 다른 종(species)들 혹은 본질적 종류들로 나누어지지 않습니다.
6. Charity is the most excellent of all virtues. Faith knows truth about God; hope aspires to good in God; charity attains God himself simply, and not as having something to gain from him.
6. 애덕은 모든 덕들 중에서 가장 우수한 덕입니다. 신덕(faith, 믿음)은 하느님에 관한 진리를 알며, 그리고 망덕(hope, 희망)은 하느님께 있는 선을 향하여 열망하며, 그리고 애덕(charity, 사랑)은 단체(單體)적으로(simply) 하느님 당신 자신을 소유하게 되는(attains) 것이지, 그분으로부터 노력하여 얻는(gain) 그 무엇을 가지는 것이 아닙니다.
7. All true virtue directs a man to God, his ultimate good, his last end. Hence, charity, which embraces the ultimate good simply, must be in the soul that has any true and living virtue. No true supernatural virtue is possible without charity.
7. 모든 참된 덕은 한 사람을 하느님을, 당신의 궁극적 선(good)을, 당신의 최종 끝을, 향하도록 지시합니다(directs). 따라서, 궁극적인 선을 단체(單體)적으로(simply) 기꺼이 받아들이는(embraces) 애덕은 임의의 참된 그리고 살아있는 덕을 가지는 영혼 안에 있는 것이 틀림없습니다. 어떠한 참된 초자연적 덕도 애덕 없이 가능하지 않습니다.
8. Charity therefore directs the acts of all the other virtues, making these serve to get man onward to his last end. And thus charity gives to these virtues their determinate being as effective instruments. Thus charity is said to be the "form" of the other virtues.
8. 그러므로 애덕은 다른 덕들 모두의 행위들을, 이 행위들이 사람을 자신의 최종 끝을 향하여 전진하도록 도우는 역할을 하게(serve) 함으로써, 지시합니다(directs). 그리하여 바로 이러한 방식으로 애덕은 이들 덕들에 효과적인 도구(instruments)들로서 그들의 확정적 있음(determinate being)을 제공합니다. 따라서 애덕은 다른 덕들의 "형상(form)"이다(*) 라고 말해집니다.
-----
----------
====================
출처 1: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3023.htm
신학 대전 IIa IIae
Question 23. Charity, considered in itself 질문 23. 그 자체로 고찰되는 애덕
In proper sequence, we must consider charity; and (1) charity itself;
고유한 순서에 있어, 우리는 애덕(charity)에 대하여 고찰하여야 하며, 그리고 (1) 애덕 자체, 그리고 (2) 대응하는 지혜의 선물에 대하여 고찰하여야 합니다. 그 첫 번째 고찰은 다음과 같이 장차 다섯 겹일 것입니다: (1) 애덕 자체, (2) 애덕의 대상(object), (3) 그 행위들, (4) 상반되는 악덕들, 그리고 (5) 그것에 관한 규범(precepts)들.
The first of these considerations will be twofold: (1) Charity, considered as regards itself; (2) Charity, considered in its relation to its subject. Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry:
이들 고찰들의 첫 번째는 다음과 같이 장차 두 겹일 것입니다: (1) 그 자체에 관하여 고찰되는 애덕, (2) 그 주체(subject)와의 관계 안에서 고찰되는 애덕. 이 첫 번째 표제 아래에서 질문에 있어서의 여덟 개의 요지들이 다음과 같이 있습니다:
1. Is charity friendship?
Article 1. Whether charity is friendship?
Objection 1. It would seem that charity is not friendship. For nothing is so appropriate to friendship as to dwell with one's friend, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 5). Now charity is of man towards God and the angels, "whose dwelling [Douay: 'conversation'] is not with men" (Daniel 2:11). Therefore charity is not friendship.
Objection 2. Further, there is no friendship without return of love (Ethic. viii, 2). But charity extends even to one's enemies, according to Matthew 5:44: "Love your enemies." Therefore charity is not friendship.
Objection 3. Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 3) there are three kinds of friendship, directed respectively towards the delightful, the useful, or the virtuous. Now charity is not the friendship for the useful or delightful; for Jerome says in his letter to Paulinus which is to be found at the beginning of the Bible: "True friendship cemented by Christ, is where men are drawn together, not by household interests, not by mere bodily presence, not by crafty and cajoling flattery, but by the fear of God, and the study of the Divine Scriptures." No more is it friendship for the virtuous, since by charity we love even sinners, whereas friendship based on the virtuous is only for virtuous men (Ethic. viii). Therefore charity is not friendship.
On the contrary, It is written (John 15:15): "I will not now call you servants . . . but My friends." Now this was said to them by reason of nothing else than charity. Therefore charity is friendship.
이와는 달리, 다음과 같이 기록되어 있습니다: "나는 너희를 더 이상 종이라고 부르지 않는다. ... 나는 너희를 친구라고 불렀다." (요한 복음서 15,15). 그런데 바로 이것이 그들에게 말해진 것은 애덕(charity)이 아닌 다른 어떤 것 때문이 아니었습니다. 그러므로 애덕은 우의(友誼, friendship) 입니다.
I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 2,3) not every love has the character of friendship, but that love which is together with benevolence, when, to wit, we love someone so as to wish good to him. If, however, we do not wish good to what we love, but wish its good for ourselves, (thus we are said to love wine, or a horse, or the like), it is love not of friendship, but of a kind of concupiscence. For it would be absurd to speak of having friendship for wine or for a horse.
저는 다음과 같이 답변합니다: 철학자에 따르면 (Ethic. viii, 2,3)(*) 모든 사랑이 우의(友誼, friendship)의 특성(character)을 가지고 있는 것이 아니라, 오로지(but), 말하자면, 우리가 어떤 이를, 그에게 선을 바라기(wish) 위하여, 사랑할 때인, 선을 행하고자 하는 성향(benevolence)과 함께 하는 바로 그러한 사랑만이 그러합니다. 그러나, 만약에 우리가 사랑하는 바에 우리가 선을 바라는 것이 아니라, 우리 자신들을 위하여 그 선을 바란다면 (그 결과 우리가 포도주, 혹은 어떤 말(a horse), 등을 사랑한다고 말해진다면), 그것은 우의(友誼, friendship)에 기인하는 사랑이 아니고, 사욕편정(私慾偏情, concupiscence)의 한 종류에 기인하는 사랑입니다. 이는 포도주에 대하여 혹은 어떤 말(a horse)에 대하여 우의(友誼, friendship)를 가짐에 대하여 말하는 것은 어리석기(absurd) 때문일 것입니다.
-----
Yet neither does well-wishing suffice for friendship, for a certain mutual love is requisite, since friendship is between friend and friend: and this well-wishing is founded on some kind of communication.
그러나 어느 한쪽이 상대방의 행복을 바라는 것은 우의(友誼, friendship)를 위하여 충분하지 않는데, 이는, 우의(友誼, friendship)란 친구와 친구 사이에 있으며, 그리고 바로 이러한 상대방의 행복을 바라는 것은 나누어 줌(communication)(*)의 어떤 종류에 기초하기에(since), 어떤 구체적인 상호 사랑이 요구되기 때문입니다.
-----
Accordingly, since there is a communication between man and God, inasmuch as He communicates His happiness to us, some kind of friendship must needs be based on this same communication, of which it is written (1 Corinthians 1:9): "God is faithful: by Whom you are called unto the fellowship of His Son." The love which is based on this communication, is charity: wherefore it is evident that charity is the friendship of man for God.
따라서, 사람과 하느님 사이에 어떤 나누어 줌(communication)이 있기에, 당신께서 당신의 행복을 우리에게 나누어 주시는 한, 바로 이 동일한 나누어 줌 위에 우의(友誼, friendship)의 어떤 종류가 기초할 필요가 있음은 틀림없으며, 바로 이것에 대하여 다음과 같이 기록되어 있습니다: "하느님은 성실한 분이십니다. 그분께서 당신의 아드님 우리 주 예수 그리스도와 친교[fellowship, communionem, 통공, 상통(相通)]를 맺도록 여러분을 불러주셨습니다." (1코린토 1,9). 바로 이러한 나누어 줌(communication)에 근거한 사랑이 애덕(charity)이며, 그런 까닭으로(wherefore) 애덕(charity)이 하느님에 대한 사람의 우의(友誼, friendship)임은 명백합니다(evident).
Reply to Objection 1. Man's life is twofold. There is his outward life in respect of his sensitive and corporeal nature: and with regard to this life there is no communication or fellowship between us and God or the angels. The other is man's spiritual life in respect of his mind, and with regard to this life there is fellowship between us and both God and the angels, imperfectly indeed in this present state of life, wherefore it is written (Philippians 3:20): "Our conversation is in heaven." But this "conversation" will be perfected in heaven, when "His servants shall serve Him, and they shall see His face" (Apocalypse 22:3-4). Therefore charity is imperfect here, but will be perfected in heaven.
Reply to Objection 2. Friendship extends to a person in two ways: first in respect of himself, and in this way friendship never extends but to one's friends: secondly, it extends to someone in respect of another, as, when a man has friendship for a certain person, for his sake he loves all belonging to him, be they children, servants, or connected with him in any way. Ondeed so much do we love our friends, that for their sake we love all who belong to them, even if they hurt or hate us; so that, in this way, the friendship of charity extends even to our enemies, whom we love out of charity in relation to God, to Whom the friendship of charity is chiefly directed.
Reply to Objection 3. The friendship that is based on the virtuous is directed to none but a virtuous man as the principal person, but for his sake we love those who belong to him, even though they be not virtuous: in this way charity, which above all is friendship based on the virtuous, extends to sinners, whom, out of charity, we love for God's sake.
Article 2. Whether charity is something created in the soul?
Objection 1. It would seem that charity is not something created in the soul. For Augustine says (De Trin. viii, 7): "He that loveth his neighbor, consequently, loveth love itself." Now God is love. Therefore it follows that he loves God in the first place. Again he says (De Trin. xv, 17): "It was said: God is Charity, even as it was said: God is a Spirit." Therefore charity is not something created in the soul, but is God Himself.
Objection 2. Further, God is the life of the soul spiritually just as the soul is the life of the body, according to Deuteronomy 30:20: "He is thy life." Now the soul by itself quickens the body. Therefore God quickens the soul by Himself. But He quickens it by charity, according to 1 John 3:14: "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren." Therefore God is charity itself.
Objection 3. Further, no created thing is of infinite power; on the contrary every creature is vanity. But charity is not vanity, indeed it is opposed to vanity; and it is of infinite power, since it brings the human soul to the infinite good. Therefore charity is not something created in the soul.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 10): "By charity I mean the movement of the soul towards the enjoyment of God for His own sake." But a movement of the soul is something created in the soul. Therefore charity is something created in the soul.
I answer that, The Master looks thoroughly into this question in 17 of the First Book, and concludes that charity is not something created in the soul, but is the Holy Ghost Himself dwelling in the mind. Nor does he mean to say that this movement of love whereby we love God is the Holy Ghost Himself, but that this movement is from the Holy Ghost without any intermediary habit, whereas other virtuous acts are from the Holy Ghost by means of the habits of other virtues, for instance the habit of faith or hope or of some other virtue: and this he said on account of the excellence of charity.
But if we consider the matter aright, this would be, on the contrary, detrimental to charity. For when the Holy Ghost moves the human mind the movement of charity does not proceed from this motion in such a way that the human mind be merely moved, without being the principle of this movement, as when a body is moved by some extrinsic motive power. For this is contrary to the nature of a voluntary act, whose principle needs to be in itself, as stated above (I-II, 6, 1): so that it would follow that to love is not a voluntary act, which involves a contradiction, since love, of its very nature, implies an act of the will.
Likewise, neither can it be said that the Holy Ghost moves the will in such a way to the act of loving, as though the will were an instrument, for an instrument, though it be a principle of action, nevertheless has not the power to act or not to act, for then again the act would cease to be voluntary and meritorious, whereas it has been stated above (I-II, 114, 4) that the love of charity is the root of merit: and, given that the will is moved by the Holy Ghost to the act of love, it is necessary that the will also should be the efficient cause of that act.
Now no act is perfectly produced by an active power, unless it be connatural to that power of reason of some form which is the principle of that action. Wherefore God, Who moves all things to their due ends, bestowed on each thing the form whereby it is inclined to the end appointed to it by Him; and in this way He "ordereth all things sweetly" (Wisdom 8:1). But it is evident that the act of charity surpasses the nature of the power of the will, so that, therefore, unless some form be superadded to the natural power, inclining it to the act of love, this same act would be less perfect than the natural acts and the acts of the other powers; nor would it be easy and pleasurable to perform. And this is evidently untrue, since no virtue has such a strong inclination to its act as charity has, nor does any virtue perform its act with so great pleasure. Therefore it is most necessary that, for us to perform the act of charity, there should be in us some habitual form superadded to the natural power, inclining that power to the act of charity, and causing it to act with ease and pleasure.
Reply to Objection 1. The Divine Essence Itself is charity, even as It is wisdom and goodness. Wherefore just as we are said to be good with the goodness which is God, and wise with the wisdom which is God (since the goodness whereby we are formally good is a participation of Divine goodness, and the wisdom whereby we are formally wise, is a share of Divine wisdom), so too, the charity whereby formally we love our neighbor is a participation of Divine charity. For this manner of speaking is common among the Platonists, with whose doctrines Augustine was imbued; and the lack of adverting to this has been to some an occasion of error.
Reply to Objection 2. God is effectively the life both of the soul by charity, and of the body by the soul: but formally charity is the life of the soul, even as the soul is the life of the body. Consequently we may conclude from this that just as the soul is immediately united to the body, so is charity to the soul.
Reply to Objection 3. Charity works formally. Now the efficacy of a form depends on the power of the agent, who instills the form, wherefore it is evident that charity is not vanity. But because it produces an infinite effect, since, by justifying the soul, it unites it to God, this proves the infinity of the Divine power, which is the author of charity.
Article 3. Whether charity is a virtue?
Objection 1. It would seem that charity is not a virtue. For charity is a kind of friendship. Now philosophers do not reckon friendship a virtue, as may be gathered from Ethic. viii, 1; nor is it numbered among the virtues whether moral or intellectual. Neither, therefore, is charity a virtue.
Objection 2. Further, "virtue is the ultimate limit of power" (De Coelo et Mundo i, 11). But charity is not something ultimate, this applies rather to joy and peace. Therefore it seems that charity is not a virtue, and that this should be said rather of joy and peace.
Objection 3. Further, every virtue is an accidental habit. But charity is not an accidental habit, since it is a more excellent thing than the soul itself: whereas no accident is more excellent than its subject. Therefore charity is not a virtue.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Moribus Eccl. xi): "Charity is a virtue which, when our affections are perfectly ordered, unites us to God, for by it we love Him."
I answer that, Human acts are good according as they are regulated by their due rule and measure. Wherefore human virtue which is the principle of all man's good acts consists in following the rule of human acts, which is twofold, as stated above (Question 17, Article 1), viz. human reason and God.
Consequently just as moral virtue is defined as being "in accord with right reason," as stated in Ethic. ii, 6, so too, the nature of virtue consists in attaining God, as also stated above with regard to faith, (4, 5) and hope (17, 1). Wherefore, it follows that charity is a virtue, for, since charity attains God, it unites us to God, as evidenced by the authority of Augustine quoted above.
Reply to Objection 1. The Philosopher (Ethic. viii) does not deny that friendship is a virtue, but affirms that it is "either a virtue or with a virtue." For we might say that it is a moral virtue about works done in respect of another person, but under a different aspect from justice. For justice is about works done in respect of another person, under the aspect of the legal due, whereas friendship considers the aspect of a friendly and moral duty, or rather that of a gratuitous favor, as the Philosopher explains (Ethic. viii, 13). Nevertheless it may be admitted that it is not a virtue distinct of itself from the other virtues. For its praiseworthiness and virtuousness are derived merely from its object, in so far, to wit, as it is based on the moral goodness of the virtues. This is evident from the fact that not every friendship is praiseworthy and virtuous, as in the case of friendship based on pleasure or utility. Wherefore friendship for the virtuous is something consequent to virtue rather than a virtue. Moreover there is no comparison with charity since it is not founded principally on the virtue of a man, but on the goodness of God.
Reply to Objection 2. It belongs to the same virtue to love a man and to rejoice about him, since joy results from love, as stated above (I-II, 25, 2) in the treatise on the passions: wherefore love is reckoned a virtue, rather than joy, which is an effect of love. And when virtue is described as being something ultimate, we mean that it is last, not in the order of effect, but in the order of excess, just as one hundred pounds exceed sixty.
Reply to Objection 3. Every accident is inferior to substance if we consider its being, since substance has being in itself, while an accident has its being in another: but considered as to its species, an accident which results from the principles of its subject is inferior to its subject, even as an effect is inferior to its cause; whereas an accident that results from a participation of some higher nature is superior to its subject, in so far as it is a likeness of that higher nature, even as light is superior to the diaphanous body. On this way charity is superior to the soul, in as much as it is a participation of the Holy Ghost.
Article 4. Whether charity is a special virtue?
Objection 1. It would seem that charity is not a special virtue. For Jerome says: "Let me briefly define all virtue as the charity whereby we love God" [The reference should be to Augustine, Ep. clxvii]: and Augustine says (De Moribus Eccl. xv) [De Civ. Dei xv, 22 that "virtue is the order of love." Now no special virtue is included in the definition of virtue in general. Therefore charity is not a special virtue.
Objection 2. Further, that which extends to all works of virtue, cannot be a special virtue. But charity extends to all works of virtue, according to 1 Corinthians 13:4: "Charity is patient, is kind," etc.; indeed it extends to all human actions, according to 1 Corinthians 16:14: "Let all your things be done in charity." Therefore charity is not a special virtue.
Objection 3. Further, the precepts of the Law refer to acts of virtue. Now Augustine says (De Perfect. Human. Justit. v) that, "Thou shalt love" is "a general commandment," and "Thou shalt not covet," "a general prohibition." Therefore charity is a general virtue.
On the contrary, Nothing general is enumerated together with what is special. But charity is enumerated together with special virtues, viz. hope and faith, according to 1 Corinthians 13:13: "And now there remain faith, hope, charity, these three." Therefore charity is a special virtue.
I answer that, Acts and habits are specified by their objects, as shown above (I-II, 18, 2; I-II, 54, 2). Now the proper object of love is the good, as stated above (I-II, 27, 1), so that wherever there is a special aspect of good, there is a special kind of love. But the Divine good, inasmuch as it is the object of happiness, has a special aspect of good, wherefore the love of charity, which is the love of that good, is a special kind of love. Therefore charity is a special virtue.
Reply to Objection 1. Charity is included in the definition of every virtue, not as being essentially every virtue, but because every virtue depends on it in a way, as we shall state further on (A7,8). On this way prudence is included in the definition of the moral virtues, as explained in Ethic. ii, vi, from the fact that they depend on prudence.
Reply to Objection 2. The virtue or art which is concerned about the last end, commands the virtues or arts which are concerned about other ends which are secondary, thus the military art commands the art of horse-riding (Ethic. i). Accordingly since charity has for its object the last end of human life, viz. everlasting happiness, it follows that it extends to the acts of a man's whole life, by commanding them, not by eliciting immediately all acts of virtue.
Reply to Objection 3. The precept of love is said to be a general command, because all other precepts are reduced thereto as to their end, according to 1 Timothy 1:5: "The end of the commandment is charity."
Article 5. Whether charity is one virtue?
Objection 1. It would seem that charity is not one virtue. For habits are distinct according to their objects. Now there are two objects of charity--God and our neighbor--which are infinitely distant from one another. Therefore charity is not one virtue.
Objection 2. Further, different aspects of the object diversify a habit, even though that object be one in reality, as shown above (17, 6; I-II, 54, 2, ad 1). Now there are many aspects under which God is an object of love, because we are debtors to His love by reason of each one of His favors. Therefore charity is not one virtue.
Objection 3. Further, charity comprises friendship for our neighbor. But the Philosopher reckons several species of friendship (Ethic. viii, 3,11,12). Therefore charity is not one virtue, but is divided into a number of various species.
On the contrary, Just as God is the object of faith, so is He the object of charity. Now faith is one virtue by reason of the unity of the Divine truth, according to Ephesians 4:5: "One faith." Therefore charity also is one virtue by reason of the unity of the Divine goodness.
I answer that, Charity, as stated above (Article 1) is a kind of friendship of man for God. Now the different species of friendship are differentiated, first of all, in respect of a diversity of end, and in this way there are three species of friendship, namely friendship for the useful, for the delightful, and for the virtuous; secondly, in respect of the different kinds of communion on which friendships are based; thus there is one species of friendship between kinsmen, and another between fellow citizens or fellow travellers, the former being based on natural communion, the latter on civil communion or on the comradeship of the road, as the Philosopher explains (Ethic. viii, 12).
Now charity cannot be differentiated in either of these ways: for its end is one, namely, the goodness of God; and the fellowship of everlasting happiness, on which this friendship is based, is also one. Hence it follows that charity is simply one virtue, and not divided into several species.
Reply to Objection 1. This argument would hold, if God and our neighbor were equally objects of charity. But this is not true: for God is the principal object of charity, while our neighbor is loved out of charity for God's sake.
Reply to Objection 2. God is loved by charity for His own sake: wherefore charity regards principally but one aspect of lovableness, namely God's goodness, which is His substance, according to Psalm 105:1: "Give glory to the Lord for He is good." Other reasons that inspire us with love for Him, or which make it our duty to love Him, are secondary and result from the first.
Reply to Objection 3. Human friendship of which the Philosopher treats has various ends and various forms of fellowship. This does not apply to charity, as stated above: wherefore the comparison fails.
Article 6. Whether charity is the most excellent of the virtues?
Objection 1. It would seem that charity is not the most excellent of the virtues. Because the higher power has the higher virtue even as it has a higher operation. Now the intellect is higher than the will, since it directs the will. Therefore, faith, which is in the intellect, is more excellent than charity which is in the will.
Objection 2. Further, the thing by which another works seems the less excellent of the two, even as a servant, by whom his master works, is beneath his master. Now "faith . . . worketh by charity," according to Galatians 5:6. Therefore faith is more excellent than charity.
Objection 3. Further, that which is by way of addition to another seems to be the more perfect of the two. Now hope seems to be something additional to charity: for the object of charity is good, whereas the object of hope is an arduous good. Therefore hope is more excellent than charity.
On the contrary, It is written (1 Corinthians 13:13): "The greater of these is charity."
I answer that, Since good, in human acts, depends on their being regulated by the due rule, it must needs be that human virtue, which is a principle of good acts, consists in attaining the rule of human acts. Now the rule of human acts is twofold, as stated above (Article 3), namely, human reason and God: yet God is the first rule, whereby, even human reason must be regulated. Consequently the theological virtues, which consist in attaining this first rule, since their object is God, are more excellent than the moral, or the intellectual virtues, which consist in attaining human reason: and it follows that among the theological virtues themselves, the first place belongs to that which attains God most.
Now that which is of itself always ranks before that which is by another. But faith and hope attain God indeed in so far as we derive from Him the knowledge of truth or the acquisition of good, whereas charity attains God Himself that it may rest in Him, but not that something may accrue to us from Him. Hence charity is more excellent than faith or hope, and, consequently, than all the other virtues, just as prudence, which by itself attains reason, is more excellent than the other moral virtues, which attain reason in so far as it appoints the mean in human operations or passions.
Reply to Objection 1. The operation of the intellect is completed by the thing understood being in the intellectual subject, so that the excellence of the intellectual operation is assessed according to the measure of the intellect. On the other hand, the operation of the will and of every appetitive power is completed in the tendency of the appetite towards a thing as its term, wherefore the excellence of the appetitive operation is gauged according to the thing which is the object of the operation. Now those things which are beneath the soul are more excellent in the soul than they are in themselves, because a thing is contained according to the mode of the container (De Causis xii). On the other hand, things that are above the soul, are more excellent in themselves than they are in the soul. Consequently it is better to know than to love the things that are beneath us; for which reason the Philosopher gave the preference to the intellectual virtues over the moral virtues (Ethic. x, 7,8): whereas the love of the things that are above us, especially of God, ranks before the knowledge of such things. Therefore charity is more excellent than faith.
Reply to Objection 2. Faith works by love, not instrumentally, as a master by his servant, but as by its proper form: hence the argument does not prove.
Reply to Objection 3. The same good is the object of charity and of hope: but charity implies union with that good, whereas hope implies distance therefrom. Hence charity does not regard that good as being arduous, as hope does, since what is already united has not the character of arduous: and this shows that charity is more perfect than hope.
Article 7. Whether any true virtue is possible without charity?
Objection 1. It would seem that there can be true virtue without charity. For it is proper to virtue to produce a good act. Now those who have not charity, do some good actions, as when they clothe the naked, or feed the hungry and so forth. Therefore true virtue is possible without charity.
Objection 2. Further, charity is not possible without faith, since it comes of "an unfeigned faith," as the Apostle says (1 Timothy 1:5). Now, in unbelievers, there can be true chastity, if they curb their concupiscences, and true justice, if they judge rightly. Therefore true virtue is possible without charity.
Objection 3. Further, science and art are virtues, according to Ethic. vi. But they are to be found in sinners who lack charity. Therefore true virtue can be without charity.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 13:3): "If I should distribute all my goods to the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." And yet true virtue is very profitable, according to Wisdom 8:7: "She teacheth temperance, and prudence, and justice, and fortitude, which are such things as men can have nothing more profitable in life." Therefore no true virtue is possible without charity.
I answer that, Virtue is ordered to the good, as stated above (I-II, 55, 4). Now the good is chiefly an end, for things directed to the end are not said to be good except in relation to the end. Accordingly, just as the end is twofold, the last end, and the proximate end, so also, is good twofold, one, the ultimate and universal good, the other proximate and particular. The ultimate and principal good of man is the enjoyment of God, according to Psalm 72:28: "It is good for me to adhere to God," and to this good man is ordered by charity. Man's secondary and, as it were, particular good may be twofold: one is truly good, because, considered in itself, it can be directed to the principal good, which is the last end; while the other is good apparently and not truly, because it leads us away from the final good. Accordingly it is evident that simply true virtue is that which is directed to man's principal good; thus also the Philosopher says (Phys. vii, text. 17) that "virtue is the disposition of a perfect thing to that which is best": and in this way no true virtue is possible without charity.
If, however, we take virtue as being ordered to some particular end, then we speak of virtue being where there is no charity, in so far as it is directed to some particular good. But if this particular good is not a true, but an apparent good, it is not a true virtue that is ordered to such a good, but a counterfeit virtue. Even so, as Augustine says (Contra Julian. iv, 3), "the prudence of the miser, whereby he devises various roads to gain, is no true virtue; nor the miser's justice, whereby he scorns the property of another through fear of severe punishment; nor the miser's temperance, whereby he curbs his desire for expensive pleasures; nor the miser's fortitude, whereby as Horace, says, 'he braves the sea, he crosses mountains, he goes through fire, in order to avoid poverty'" (Epis. lib, 1; Ep. i, 45). If, on the other hand, this particular good be a true good, for instance the welfare of the state, or the like, it will indeed be a true virtue, imperfect, however, unless it be referred to the final and perfect good. Accordingly no strictly true virtue is possible without charity.
Reply to Objection 1. The act of one lacking charity may be of two kinds; one is in accordance with his lack of charity, as when he does something that is referred to that whereby he lacks charity. Such an act is always evil: thus Augustine says (Contra Julian. iv, 3) that the actions which an unbeliever performs as an unbeliever, are always sinful, even when he clothes the naked, or does any like thing, and directs it to his unbelief as end.
There is, however, another act of one lacking charity, not in accordance with his lack of charity, but in accordance with his possession of some other gift of God, whether faith, or hope, or even his natural good, which is not completely taken away by sin, as stated above (10, 4; I-II, 85, 2). On this way it is possible for an act, without charity, to be generically good, but not perfectly good, because it lacks its due order to the last end.
Reply to Objection 2. Since the end is in practical matters, what the principle is in speculative matters, just as there can be no strictly true science, if a right estimate of the first indemonstrable principle be lacking, so, there can be no strictly true justice, or chastity, without that due ordering to the end, which is effected by charity, however rightly a man may be affected about other matters.
Reply to Objection 3. Science and art of their very nature imply a relation to some particular good, and not to the ultimate good of human life, as do the moral virtues, which make man good simply, as stated above (I-II, 56, 3). Hence the comparison fails.
Article 8. Whether charity is the form of the virtues?
Objection 1. It would seem that charity is not the true form of the virtues. Because the form of a thing is either exemplar or essential. Now charity is not the exemplar form of the other virtues, since it would follow that the other virtues are of the same species as charity: nor is it the essential form of the other virtues, since then it would not be distinct from them. Therefore it is in no way the form of the virtues.
Objection 2. Further, charity is compared to the other virtues as their root and foundation, according to Ephesians 3:17: "Rooted and founded in charity." Now a root or foundation is not the form, but rather the matter of a thing, since it is the first part in the making. Therefore charity is not the form of the virtues.
Objection 3. Further, formal, final, and efficient causes do not coincide with one another (Phys. ii, 7). Now charity is called the end and the mother of the virtues. Therefore it should not be called their form.
On the contrary, Ambrose [Lombard, Sent. iii, D, 23 says that charity is the form of the virtues.
I answer that, In morals the form of an act is taken chiefly from the end. The reason of this is that the principal of moral acts is the will, whose object and form, so to speak, are the end. Now the form of an act always follows from a form of the agent. Consequently, in morals, that which gives an act its order to the end, must needs give the act its form. Now it is evident, in accordance with what has been said (7), that it is charity which directs the acts of all other virtues to the last end, and which, consequently, also gives the form to all other acts of virtue: and it is precisely in this sense that charity is called the form of the virtues(*), for these are called virtues in relation to "informed" acts.
-----
Reply to Objection 1. Charity is called the form of the other virtues not as being their exemplar or their essential form, but rather by way of efficient cause, in so far as it sets the form on all, in the aforesaid manner.
Reply to Objection 2. Charity is compared to the foundation or root in so far as all other virtues draw their sustenance and nourishment therefrom, and not in the sense that the foundation and root have the character of a material cause.
Reply to Objection 3. Charity is said to be the end of other virtues, because it directs all other virtues to its own end. And since a mother is one who conceives within herself and by another, charity is called the mother of the other virtues, because, by commanding them, it conceives the acts of the other virtues, by the desire of the last end.
---------- 작업에 소요된 시간: 약15시간
0 1,786 2
|
