Hope and Charity in St. Thomas

HOPE AND CHARITY IN ST. THOMAS DOES the desire of union with God spring from the theological virtue of hope or charity or from neither? We do not intend to speak here of the natural desire of the vision of God and of St. Thomas' classical doctrine on this point. We have in view the love of desire for God traditionally distinguished in Scholasticism from the love of benevolence, the amor concupiscentiae as opposed to the amor benevolentiae, corresponding broadly to the " interested " and " disinterested " love of modem spirituality, without however understanding "self-interest" in a pejorative sense. We consider this interested love of God as supernatural and theological, that is, as a self-regarding love of God which originates from grace and not from nature alone, and which has as its formal object God Himself and not some created goodness as would be the case for an interested love of God in which the primary moving reason would be inan's own happiness. Desire of God, if deprived of this theological character, cannot indeed arise from any of the theological virtues. Of this theological love or desire for God we ask the question: Is it an act of hope or an act of charity? Or can it exist without either hope or charity? 1 As is well known, all three possible answers have been proposed by Catholic theologians. One school, beginning with Scotus and popularized by Suarez, holds that the interested love of God belongs to hope. This would 1 The third alternative mentioned, paradoxical though it may seem to say that a theological act would exist without any theological virtue, refers to the imperfect desire of God presupposed in hope, as will be explained presently.-For recent studies on hope and charity we mention especially the following: C. Zimara, Daa Wesen der Hoffnung in Natur und Ubematur (Paderborn 1988), and the Article, "Charite" (by various authors) in the Dictionnaire de Spiritualite !l, (507-691). 204 HOPE AND CHARITY IN ST. THOMAS seem to be the more widespread opinion to-day. The hope of possessing God in heaven is the desire of heaven. Another school refers the theological desire of God to charity of which it is an essential though secondary act, the primary act of charity being the love of benevolence for God. In this conception , interested love of God, when it is theological, can not exist without theological charity and without sanctifying grace, nor can charity exist without the desire of union with God. This was the position of St. Augustine, and of the ancient Scholastics down to St. Bonaventure and, it would seem, _to St. Thomas; it is Scotus who first made a departure from this traditional view. The third solution, namely, that the desire of God is neither hope nor charity, also has found its advocates. In order to explain that some desire of God is presupposed to hope, as all admit, these theologians conclude that this desire, in its imperfect stage at any rate, can exist before hope or charity and is, therefore, different from both.2 Which of these three answers is the correct one? Which is the answer of St. Thomas and of the Thomistic tradition? Is it correct to say that St. Thomas was an innovator in his conception of charity by restricting charity to the friendship of God and excluding from it the love of desire? In St. Thomas' conception, " there would be no longer room within the structure of charity for that love which seeks God from the motive that He is the supreme Good which appeases man's desire for beatitude; this love can exist along with charity, but it does not originate from charity." 3 The question is not without important practical implications. H the desire of union with God is essentially an act of charity, then it necessarily supposes the state of grace. If it is an act of hope, or different from hope or charity, then it can be found without sanctifying grace. From a Thomistic viewpoint the question whether St. Thomas 2 Cf. E. Harent, "Esperance," in Diet. de Theol, Cathol. 5 (1913) 605-76; and Zimara, op. cit., ~Wl-14. 3 Zimara, op...