Ten lepers call to Jesus from their distance: “Master, have pity on us” (Luke 17:11-19).
Of course, Jesus pitied them. Their disease could actually be what we now call
“Hansen’s Disease” or another serious skin infection. When it was spotted, the victims
were forced to leave their families and their homes and live beyond the villages or
towns. People who loved them might leave off small bundles of food or clothes.
Otherwise their only companions were others afflicted with disease.
Jesus healed them in an unusual way. Even though they had not yet been healed,
Jesus sent them to show themselves to the priests, as the Book of Leviticus prescribed
for those who recovered from leprosy (Lev 14:3-4). As they went, they were healed.
One came back and thanked Jesus. Of course, they were all relieved that their
sufferings were over. Probably, they wanted to go back to their families immediately and
get started on their lives afresh. In a way, their behavior was understandable. Still, they
were oblivious to the fact that the miraculous change in their lives had been given to
them by a person.
Jesus was disappointed. Healing the external scars of their illness was only the
beginning of what Jesus wanted to give them. St. Thomas Aquinas has said, “The
purpose of the outward healings worked by Christ is the healing of the soul” (3a. 44, 3,
ad 3). The deeper healing was the ability to appreciate God’s goodness.
Almost everyone would agree that gratitude is a virtue. A virtue, for St. Thomas, is an
almost- permanent inclination to act in a good way.
Thomas considers the virtue of gratitude as a sub-category of the virtue of justice.
Justice inclines one to give each person what is rightfully hers or his. Gratitude, which
Thomas describes as “excelling thankfulness,” is a repayment for benefits that have
been received (2a2ae. 106, 1).
St. Thomas attests that the first one to whom we should be grateful is God, “the primary
source of all that we have” (2a2ae. 106, 1). If we stop for a moment and think, we can
realize that life itself is the most wonderful gift. Our parents, our families, our minds, our
souls, our bodies with all their parts, are wonderful gifts, as is even the faith that enables
us to see the meaning of all that is. Nothing in this marvelous world had to be, not even
ourselves.
Thomas asserts that the second ones to whom we owe gratitude are our parents, upon
whom we depend for our “birth and upbringing” (2a2ae. 106, 1). For Thomas, gratitude
reflects the relationship with our benefactors. Parents have a right to receive “honor and
reverence and, when in need, help and support” (2a2ae. 106, 3).

We owe gratitude to those leaders of society who enable our way of life. We owe
gratitude to those from whom “we have received some special, personal kindness”
(2a2ae. 106, 1).
Thomas offers a general principle: “The thanks of the one who receives responds to the
graciousness of the one who gives, and should therefore be greater where greater favor
has been shown. A favor is a thing that is done freely” (2a2ae. 106, 2).
The value of the gift isn’t just the gift itself but the need of the person. Thomas notes, “A
small gift given to a poor person is more precious than an expensive gift to a wealthy
person” (2a2ae. 106, 2).
Every person can be grateful “A poor person is not without gratitude as long as he does
what he can. Since kindness depends on the heart rather than on the deed, gratitude
depends chiefly on the heart” (2a2ae. 106, 3, ad 5). Thomas explains: “No one is
excused from gratitude through inability to repay, for the very reason that the mere will
suffices for repayment of the debt of gratitude” (2a2ae. 107, 1, ad 2).
Even when what we have been given may have come from mixed motives, Thomas
believes that we should also be grateful: “To be more conscious of good than of evil is a
mark of goodness of heart” (2a2ae. 106, 3, ad 2).
We can be grateful to those who don’t seem to need our thanks: “However well off a
man may be, it is possible to thank him for his kindness by showing him reverence and
honor” (2a2ae. 106, 3, ad 5). Whatever type of person a benefactor may be, “the
kindness he has shown should be held in memory” (2a2ae. 106, 3, ad 5).
Thomas affirms that the significance of the gift depends on “the affection of the heart
and the gift itself” (2a2ae. 106, 4).
The gift is not so much what has been received as much as the intention, “Gratitude
regards the disposition of the giver more than what was given” (2a2ae. 106, 5). Thomas
teaches that we should recognize the kindness in the will of the giver: “Every moral act
depends on the will. Hence, a kindly action, in so far as it is praiseworthy and is
deserving of gratitude consists in the thing done but formally and chiefly in the will”
(2a2ae. 106, 5, ad 1).
Thomas reflects that only God knows a person’s disposition but there are signs that
help us know: “A benefactor’s disposition is known by the way in which he does the
kindly action, for instance through his doing it joyfully and readily” (2a2ae. 106, 5, ad 3).
Thomas proposes that since the benefactor gave freely, our response should go further
than the benefactor in order to also give freely (2a2ae. 106, 6). In other words, if our
response is equal to what we have received, it isn’t freely-given. In returning thanks,
“the affection of the heart should be made at once” although we might respond with a
gift at a suitable occasion (2a2ae. 106, 4).

In some instances, it seems that our gratitude can never be enough: “If we consider the
benefits that a child receives from parents, namely, to be and to live, the child cannot
make an equal repayment but if we consider the will of the giver and of the one wanting
to repay… If the child is unable to repay, the will to pay back would be sufficient for
gratitude” (2a2ae. 106, 6, ad 1).
According to Thomas, ingratitude is always a sin because the debt of gratitude is a
moral debt and the sin is contrary to the virtue of gratitude, even if it happens through
forgetfulness which is negligence (2a2ae. 107, 1). Thomas affirms: “A debt in gratitude
has its origins in the indebtedness of love, from which no one should want to be freed.
When someone is unwilling to owe this debt, there is a lack of love for the benefactor”
(2a2ae. 107, 1, ad 3).
Thomas proposes three steps in gratitude: “The first is that the person admit that he/she
has received a favor; the second, that he/she praises it and expresses thanks; the third
that he/she repay it in the proper circumstances and according to his/her means”
(2a2ae. 107, 2). The sins of ingratitude correspond to the three steps in that failure to
admit the favor is the most serious, failure to express thanks is somewhat less serious
and failure to repay is the least serious.
Thomas thinks that we should not be quick to assume that a person is ungrateful.
Rather, we should try to encourage gratitude: “The one who gives should be inclined to
turn the person’s ingratitude into gratitude. If he does not achieve this by being kind
once, he may try again. If the more he/she repeats the favors and the person becomes
more ungrateful then the giver should cease giving favors” (2a2ae. 107, 4).
In general, Thomas’ attitude is to be patient with the ungrateful: “Whoever bestows a
favor must not quickly become an avenger of ingratitude, but, as a kindly physician,
seek by repeated kindness to remedy it” (2a2ae. 107, 4, ad 3). Surely, that is the
approach that God has taken with many of us.
Denis Vincent Wiseman, O.P.

References to St. Thomas’ Summa Theologiae give the part of the Summa, which, in this case, is the
second part of the second part. Then the question is given, such as question 106 and then the article,
such as the 3 rd . If the reference is from Thomas response to an objection, the number of the objection is
added, with the Latin word, ad, meaning “to,” in this case, it is the reply to the third objection.