Praeterea, Augustinus, X Confess., ad Deum loquens, dicit, minus te amat qui tecum aliquid amat. Et in libro Octoginta trium 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. Obj. 2: Further, Augustine, speaking to God, says (Confess. x) He loves Thee less, who loves aught besides Thee: and (83 Questions, Q. 36) he says that what kindles charity quenches cupidity. From 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. 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. Obj. 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. 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. 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. Respondeo dicendum quod quantitas caritatis quam habet in comparatione ad obiectum proprium, minui non potest, sicut nec augeri, ut supra dictum est. 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 (A. 4, ad 2). 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. 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 (I-II, Q. 53, A. 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 (A. 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. 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. 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, insofar 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. 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. 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 (A. 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. 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. 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 nonetheless 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. 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. 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. 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. Reply Obj. 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. 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. Reply Obj. 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. 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. Reply Obj. 3: A movement of the free-will is requisite in the infusion of charity, as stated above (I-II, Q. 113, A. 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 in 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 11 Article 11 Utrum caritas semel habita possit amitti Whether we can lose charity when once we have it? Ad undecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caritas semel habita non possit amitti. Si enim amittitur, non amittitur nisi propter peccatum. Sed ille qui habet caritatem non potest peccare. Dicitur enim I Ioan. III, omnis enim qui natus est ex Deo, peccatum non facit, quia semen ipsius in eo manet, et non potest peccare, quoniam ex Deo natus est. Caritatem autem non habent nisi filii Dei, ipsa enim est quae distinguit inter filios regni et filios perditionis, ut Augustinus dicit, in XV de Trin. Ergo ille qui habet caritatem non potest eam amittere. Objection 1: It would seem that we cannot lose charity when once we have it. For if we lose it, this can only be through sin. Now he who has charity cannot sin, for it is written (1 John 3:9): Whosoever is born of God, committeth not sin; for His seed abideth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. But none save the children of God have charity, for it is this which distinguishes the children of God from the children of perdition, as Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 17). Therefore he that has charity cannot lose it. Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in VIII de Trin., quod dilectio, si non est vera, dilectio dicenda non est. Sed sicut ipse dicit in Epist. ad Iulianum comitem, caritas quae deseri potest, nunquam vera fuit. Ergo neque caritas fuit. Si ergo caritas semel habeatur, nunquam amittitur. Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. viii, 7) that if love be not true, it should not be called love. Now, as he says again in a letter to Count Julian, charity which can fail was never true. Therefore it was no charity at all. Therefore, when once we have charity, we cannot lose it. Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, in homilia Pentecostes, quod amor Dei magna operatur, si est, si desinit operari, caritas non est. Sed nullus magna operando amittit caritatem. Ergo, si caritas insit, amitti non potest. Obj. 3: Further, Gregory says in a homily for Pentecost (In Evang. xxx) that God’s love works great things where it is; if it ceases to work it is not charity. Now no man loses charity by doing great things. Therefore if charity be there, it cannot be lost. Praeterea, liberum arbitrium non inclinatur ad peccatum nisi per aliquod motivum ad peccandum. Sed caritas excludit omnia motiva ad peccandum, et amorem sui, et cupiditatem, et quidquid aliud huiusmodi est. Ergo caritas amitti non potest. Obj. 4: Further, the free-will is not inclined to sin unless by some motive for sinning. Now charity excludes all motives for sinning, both self-love and cupidity, and all such things. Therefore charity cannot be lost. Sed contra est quod dicitur Apoc. II, habeo adversum te pauca, quod caritatem primam reliquisti. On the contrary, It is written (Rev 2:4): I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first charity. Respondeo dicendum quod per caritatem Spiritus Sanctus in nobis habitat, ut ex supradictis patet. Tripliciter ergo possumus considerare caritatem. Uno modo, ex parte spiritus sancti moventis animam ad diligendum Deum. Et ex hac parte caritas impeccabilitatem habet ex virtute spiritus sancti, qui infallibiliter operatur quodcumque voluerit. Unde impossibile est haec duo simul esse vera, quod Spiritus Sanctus aliquem velit movere ad actum caritatis, et quod ipse caritatem amittat peccando, nam donum perseverantiae computatur inter beneficia Dei quibus certissime liberantur quicumque liberantur, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Praed. Sanct. I answer that, The Holy Spirit dwells in us by charity, as shown above (A. 2; QQ. 23, 24). We can, accordingly, consider charity in three ways: first on the part of the Holy Spirit, Who moves the soul to love God, and in this respect charity is incompatible with sin through the power of the Holy Spirit, Who does unfailingly whatever He wills to do. Hence it is impossible for these two things to be true at the same time—that the Holy Spirit should will to move a certain man to an act of charity, and that this man, by sinning, should lose charity. For the gift of perseverance is reckoned among the blessings of God whereby whoever is delivered, is most certainly delivered, as Augustine says in his book on the Predestination of the saints (De Dono Persev. xiv). Alio modo potest considerari caritas secundum propriam rationem. Et sic caritas non potest nisi illud quod pertinet ad caritatis rationem. Unde caritas nullo modo potest peccare, sicut nec calor potest infrigidare; et sicut etiam iniustitia non potest bonum facere, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Serm. Dom. in monte. Second, charity may be considered as such, and thus it is incapable of anything that is against its nature. Wherefore charity cannot sin at all, even as neither can heat cool, nor unrighteousness do good, as Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 24). Tertio modo potest considerari caritas ex parte subiecti, quod est vertibile secundum arbitrii libertatem. Potest autem attendi comparatio caritatis ad hoc subiectum et secundum universalem rationem qua comparatur forma ad materiam; et secundum specialem rationem qua comparatur habitus ad potentiam. Est autem de ratione formae quod sit in subiecto amissibiliter quando non replet totam potentialitatem materiae, sicut patet in formis generabilium et corruptibilium. Quia materia horum sic recipit unam formam quod remanet in ea potentia ad aliam formam, quasi non repleta tota materiae potentialitate per unam formam; et ideo una forma potest amitti per acceptionem alterius. Sed forma corporis caelestis, quia replet totam materiae potentialitatem, ita quod non remanet in ea potentia ad aliam formam, inamissibiliter inest. Sic igitur caritas patriae, quia replet totam potentialitatem rationalis mentis, inquantum scilicet omnis actualis motus eius fertur in Deum, inamissibiliter habetur. Caritas autem viae non sic replet potentialitatem sui subiecti, quia non semper actu fertur in Deum. Unde quando actu in Deum non fertur, potest aliquid occurrere per quod caritas amittatur. Third, charity can be considered on the part of its subject, which is changeable on account of the free-will. Moreover charity may be compared with this subject, both from the general point of view of form in comparison with matter, and from the specific point of view of habit as compared with power. Now it is natural for a form to be in its subject in such a way that it can be lost, when it does not entirely fill the potentiality of matter: this is evident in the forms of things generated and corrupted, because the matter of such things receives one form in such a way, that it retains the potentiality to another form, as though its potentiality were not completely satisfied with the one form. Hence the one form may be lost by the other being received. On the other hand the form of a celestial body which entirely fills the potentiality of its matter, so that the latter does not retain the potentiality to another form, is in its subject inseparably. Accordingly the charity of the blessed, because it entirely fills the potentiality of the rational mind, since every actual movement of that mind is directed to God, is possessed by its subject inseparably: whereas the charity of the wayfarer does not so fill the potentiality of its subject, because the latter is not always actually directed to God: so that when it is not actually directed to God, something may occur whereby charity is lost. Habitui vero proprium est ut inclinet potentiam ad agendum quod convenit habitui inquantum facit id videri bonum quod ei convenit, malum autem quod ei repugnat. Sicut enim gustus diiudicat sapores secundum suam dispositionem, ita mens hominis diiudicat de aliquo faciendo secundum suam habitualem dispositionem, unde et philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod qualis unusquisque est, talis finis videtur ei. Ibi ergo caritas inamissibiliter habetur, ubi id quod convenit caritati non potest videri nisi bonum, scilicet in patria, ubi Deus videtur per essentiam, quae est ipsa essentia bonitatis. Et ideo caritas patriae amitti non potest. Caritas autem viae, in cuius statu non videtur ipsa Dei essentia, quae est essentia bonitatis, potest amitti. It is proper to a habit to incline a power to act, and this belongs to a habit, insofar as it makes whatever is suitable to it, to seem good, and whatever is unsuitable, to seem evil. For as the taste judges of savors according to its disposition, even so does the human mind judge of things to be done, according to its habitual disposition. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 5) that such as a man is, so does the end appear to him. Accordingly charity is inseparable from its possessor, where that which pertains to charity cannot appear otherwise than good, and that is in heaven, where God is seen in His Essence, which is the very essence of goodness. Therefore the charity of heaven cannot be lost, whereas the charity of the way can, because in this state God is not seen in His Essence, which is the essence of goodness. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod auctoritas illa loquitur secundum potestatem spiritus sancti, cuius conservatione a peccato immunes redduntur quos ipse movet quantum ipse voluerit. Reply Obj. 1: The passage quoted speaks from the point of view of the power of the Holy Spirit, by Whose safeguarding, those whom He wills to move are rendered immune from sin, as much as He wills. Ad secundum dicendum quod caritas quae deseri potest ex ipsa ratione caritatis, vera caritas non est. Hoc enim esset si hoc in suo amore haberet, quod ad tempus amaret et postea amare desineret quod non esset verae dilectionis. Sed si caritas amittatur ex mutabilitate subiecti, contra propositum caritatis, quod in suo actu includitur; hoc non repugnat veritati caritatis. Reply Obj. 2: The charity which can fail by reason of itself is no true charity; for this would be the case, were its love given only for a time, and afterwards were to cease, which would be inconsistent with true love. If, however, charity be lost through the changeableness of the subject, and against the purpose of charity included in its act, this is not contrary to true charity. Ad tertium dicendum quod amor Dei semper magna operatur in proposito, quod pertinet ad rationem caritatis. Non tamen semper magna operatur in actu, propter conditionem subiecti. Reply Obj. 3: The love of God ever works great things in its purpose, which is essential to charity; but it does not always work great things in its act, on account of the condition of its subject. Ad quartum dicendum quod caritas, secundum rationem sui actus, excludit omne motivum ad peccandum. Sed quandoque contingit quod caritas actu non agit. Et tunc potest intervenire aliquod motivum ad peccandum, cui si consentiatur, caritas amittitur. Reply Obj. 4: Charity by reason of its act excludes every motive for sinning. But it happens sometimes that charity is not acting actually, and then it is possible for a motive to intervene for sinning, and if we consent to this motive, we lose charity. Articulus 12 Article 12 Utrum caritas amittatur per unum actum peccati mortalis Whether charity is lost through one mortal sin? Ad duodecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caritas non amittatur per unum actum peccati mortalis. Dicit enim Origenes, in I Periarch., si aliquando satietas capit aliquem ex his qui in summo perfectoque constiterint gradu, non arbitror quod ad subitum quis evacuetur aut decidat, sed paulatim ac per partes eum decidere necesse est. Sed homo decidit caritatem amittens. Ergo caritas non amittitur per unum solum actum peccati mortalis. Objection 1: It would seem that charity is not lost through one mortal sin. For Origen says (Peri Archon i): When a man who has mounted to the stage of perfection, is satiated, I do not think that he will become empty or fall away suddenly; but he must needs do so gradually and by little and little. But man falls away by losing charity. Therefore charity is not lost through only one mortal sin. Praeterea, Leo Papa dicit, in Serm. de passione, alloquens Petrum, vidit in te dominus non fidem victam, non dilectionem aversam, sed constantiam fuisse turbatam. Abundavit fletus, ubi non defecit affectus, et fons caritatis lavit verba formidinis. Et ex hoc accepit Bernardus quod dixit in Petro caritatem non fuisse extinctam, sed sopitam. Sed Petrus, negando Christum, peccavit mortaliter. Ergo caritas non amittitur per unum actum peccati mortalis. Obj. 2: Further, Pope Leo in a sermon on the Passion (lx) addresses Peter thus: Our Lord saw in thee not a conquered faith, not an averted love, but constancy shaken. Tears abounded where love never failed, and the words uttered in trepidation were washed away by the fount of charity. From this Bernard drew his assertion that charity in Peter was not quenched, but cooled. But Peter sinned mortally in denying Christ. Therefore charity is not lost through one mortal sin. Praeterea, caritas est fortior quam virtus acquisita. Sed habitus virtutis acquisitae non tollitur per unum actum peccati contrarium. Ergo multo minus caritas tollitur per unum actum peccati mortalis contrarium. Obj. 3: Further, charity is stronger than an acquired virtue. Now a habit of acquired virtue is not destroyed by one contrary sinful act. Much less, therefore, is charity destroyed by one contrary mortal sin. Praeterea, caritas importat dilectionem Dei et proximi. Sed aliquis committens aliquod peccatum mortale retinet dilectionem Dei et proximi, ut videtur, inordinatio enim affectionis circa ea quae sunt ad finem non tollit amorem finis, ut supra dictum est. Ergo potest remanere caritas ad Deum, existente peccato mortali per inordinatam affectionem circa aliquod temporale bonum. Obj. 4: Further, charity denotes love of God and our neighbor. Now, seemingly, one may commit a mortal sin, and yet retain the love of God and one’s neighbor; because an inordinate affection for things directed to the end, does not remove the love for the end, as stated above (A. 10). Therefore charity towards God can endure, though there be a mortal sin through an inordinate affection for some temporal good. Praeterea, virtutis theologicae obiectum est ultimus finis. Sed aliae virtutes theologicae, scilicet fides et spes, non excluduntur per unum actum peccati mortalis, immo remanent informes. Ergo etiam caritas potest remanere informis, etiam uno peccato mortali perpetrato. Obj. 5: Further, the object of a theological virtue is the last end. Now the other theological virtues, namely faith and hope, are not done away by one mortal sin, in fact they remain though lifeless. Therefore charity can remain without a form, even when a mortal sin has been committed. Sed contra, per peccatum mortale fit homo dignus morte aeterna, secundum illud Rom. VI, stipendia peccati mors. Sed quilibet habens caritatem habet meritum vitae aeternae, dicitur enim Ioan. XIV, si quis diligit me, diligetur a patre meo, et ego diligam eum, et manifestabo ei meipsum; in qua quidem manifestatione vita aeterna consistit, secundum illud Ioan. XVII, haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te, verum Deum, et quem misisti, Iesum Christum. Nullus autem potest esse simul dignus vita aeterna et morte aeterna. Ergo impossibile est quod aliquis habeat caritatem cum peccato mortali. Tollitur ergo caritas per unum actum peccati mortalis. On the contrary, By mortal sin man becomes deserving of eternal death, according to Rom. 6:23: The wages of sin is death. On the other hand whoever has charity is deserving of eternal life, for it is written (John 14:21): He that loveth Me, shall be loved by My Father: and I will love Him, and will manifest Myself to him, in which manifestation everlasting life consists, according to John 17:3: This is eternal life; that they may know Thee the . . . true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent. Now no man can be worthy, at the same time, of eternal life and of eternal death. Therefore it is impossible for a man to have charity with a mortal sin. Therefore charity is destroyed by one mortal sin. Respondeo dicendum quod unum contrarium per aliud contrarium superveniens tollitur. Quilibet autem actus peccati mortalis contrariatur caritati secundum propriam rationem, quae consistit in hoc quod Deus diligatur super omnia, et quod homo totaliter se illi subiiciat, omnia sua referendo in ipsum. Est igitur de ratione caritatis ut sic diligat Deum quod in omnibus velit se ei subiicere, et praeceptorum eius regulam in omnibus sequi, quidquid enim contrariatur praeceptis eius, manifeste contrariatur caritati. Unde de se habet quod caritatem excludere possit. I answer that, That one contrary is removed by the other contrary supervening. Now every mortal sin is contrary to charity by its very nature, which consists in man’s loving God above all things, and subjecting himself to Him entirely, by referring all that is his to God. It is therefore essential to charity that man should so love God as to wish to submit to Him in all things, and always to follow the rule of His commandments; since whatever is contrary to His commandments is manifestly contrary to charity, and therefore by its very nature is capable of destroying charity.