Jesus said to bless those who curse you. I once saw one of Mother Teresa’s
Missionaries of Charity do that. I was helping in a soup kitchen in the US. A man came
along in line, obviously on drugs. As the Sister was putting food on his plate, he began
to curse her. I tried to stop him. She just put her head down. What was she thinking?
She was obviously praying. Maybe she understood that his mind was damaged.
In September, 2006, in Mogadishu, an Italian Consolata Sister, Sister Leonella was
crossing the road from the hospital where she worked, to her convent. She was shot
with seven bullets by two men. As she died, she said three times, “I forgive.” She was
beatified in May, 2018.
When St. Thomas Aquinas explains what Jesus is teaching, he uses two words:
affectus, meaning our interior disposition and effectus, meaning the actions that we do.
What should we give to every one? Thomas answers: “compassion from the heart, or a
kind word from the mouth, or wisdom from the mind” (Commentary on Gospel of Saint
Matthew).
Thomas says that “everyone is bound to love by affect (interior disposition), but to love
everyone by effect (action) when they have necessity” (Commentary on Gospel of Saint
Matthew). Our interior disposition towards others should be love and we should be
disposed to help even our “enemies” if they are in genuine need.
There is a higher standard for those who seriously seek the “perfection” that Jesus
speaks about: “The perfect should love their enemies perfectly outside of necessity, by
affect and effect” (Commentary on Gospel of Saint Matthew).
In today’s Gospel, Jesus declares that we should love our enemies. Love of enemies
and persecutors is a teaching that is distinctive to Jesus. Many of us would want to do
what Jesus teaches but wonder how it could be possible since loving our enemies goes
against our natural instincts. Jesus’ concern is that we recognize each other as children
of God and that we keep our hearts clean from negative feelings.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains that we can love our enemies in regard to their nature,
which is how God created them: “Love of one’s enemies may mean that we love them
as to their nature, but in general: and in this sense charity requires that we should love
our enemies, namely, that in loving God and our neighbor, we should not exclude our
enemies from the love given to our neighbor in general” (2a2ae. 25, 8).
Thomas recognizes that, as long as we love our enemies in a general way, we may not
have a special reaching out to our enemies: “Love of one’s enemies may be considered
as specially directed to them, namely, that we should have a special movement of love
towards our enemies. Charity does not require this absolutely, because it does not
require that we should have a special movement of love to every individual man, since
this would be impossible (2a2ae. 25, 8).

However, if our enemies are in need, we should be disposed to help them, if necessary:
“Charity does require this, in respect of our being prepared in mind, namely, that we
should be ready to love our enemies individually, if the necessity were to occur” (2a2ae.
25, 8).
To be friendly towards an enemy, even when not necessary is, according to Thomas, an
act of perfection, in our love of God, which is not a command but a counsel of Jesus:
“That man should actually do so, and love his enemy for God’s sake, without it being
necessary for him to do so, belongs to the perfection of charity. For since man loves his
neighbor, out of charity, for God’s sake, the more he loves God, the more does he put
enmities aside and show love towards his neighbor: thus if we loved a certain man very
much, we would love his children though they were unfriendly towards us” (2a2ae. 25,
8).
Thomas wants us to recognize that we should not let our natural reactions dominate our
relationships with others: “Everything naturally hates its contrary as such. Now our
enemies are contrary to us, as enemies, wherefore this itself should be hateful to us, for
their enmity should displease us. They are not, however, contrary to us, as men and
capable of happiness: and it is as such that we are bound to love them” (2a2ae. 25, 8,
ad 2).
Thomas recalls Augustine’s assertion: “To do good to one’s enemies is the height of
perfection” [Augustine, Enchiridion lxxiii]. Thomas reflects: “Now charity does not require
us to do that which belongs to its perfection. Therefore charity does not require us to
show the signs and effects of love to our enemies” (2a2ae. 25, 9).
Thomas considers it necessary that we should love our enemies in a general way, even
if not as individuals: “The effects and signs of charity are the result of inward love, and
are in proportion with it. Now it is absolutely necessary, for the fulfilment of the precept,
that we should inwardly love our enemies in general, but not individually, except as
regards the mind being prepared to do so” (2a2ae. 25, 9).
Nevertheless, according to Thomas, signs of love that are shown to others in general
should be shown to our enemies as well: “We must accordingly apply this to the
showing of the effects and signs of love. For some of the signs and favors of love are
shown to our neighbors in general, as when we pray for all the faithful, or for a whole
people, or when anyone bestows a favor on a whole community: and the fulfilment of
the precept requires that we should show such like favors or signs of love towards our
enemies” (2a2ae. 25, 9).
If we withhold good from our enemies, we are being vengeful: “For if we did not so, it
would be a proof of vengeful spite, and contrary to what is written: ‘Seek not revenge,
nor be mindful of the injury of thy citizens’ (Lev. 19:18)” (2a2ae. 25, 9).

Signs of affection that are given to particular persons need not be given to our enemies:
“But there are other favors or signs of love, which one shows to certain persons in
particular: and it is not necessary for salvation that we show our enemies such like
favors and signs of love, except as regards being ready in our minds, for instance to
come to their assistance in a case of urgency, according to Prov. 25:21: ‘If thy enemy
be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him . . . drink’ (2a2ae. 25, 9).
However, to give such signs of affection are a sign of perfection, which goes beyond the
minimum: “Outside cases of urgency, to show such like favors to an enemy belongs to
the perfection of charity, whereby we not only beware, as in duty bound, of being
overcome by evil, but also wish to overcome evil by good (Rm. 12:21), which belongs to
perfection: for then we not only beware of being drawn into hatred on account of the
hurt done to us, but purpose to induce our enemy to love us on account of our
kindliness” (2a2ae. 25, 9).
Thomas maintains that both love of friends and of enemies must be considered in
relation to love of God: “God is the reason for our loving our neighbor out of charity.
When therefore it is asked which is better or more meritorious, to love one’s friend or
one’s enemy, these two loves may be compared in two ways, first, on the part of our
neighbor whom we love, secondly, on the part of the reason for which we love him”
(2a2ae. 27, 7).
Thomas grants that there is a genuine value in loving a good person: “Love of one’s
friend surpasses love of one’s enemy, because a friend is both better and more closely
united to us, so that he is a more suitable matter of love and consequently the act of
love that passes over this matter, is better, and therefore its opposite is worse, for it is
worse to hate a friend than an enemy” (2a2ae. 27, 7).
However, when love of an enemy or a friend is motivated by love of God, loving an
enemy may be better: “It is better to love one’s enemy than one’s friend, and this for two
reasons. First, because it is possible to love one’s friend for another reason than God,
whereas God is the only reason for loving one’s enemy. Secondly, because if we
suppose that both are loved for God, our love for God is proved to be all the stronger
through carrying a man’s affections to things which are furthest from him, namely, to the
love of his enemies, even as the power of a furnace is proved to be the stronger,
according as it throws its heat to more distant objects. Hence our love for God is proved
to be so much the stronger, as the more difficult are the things we accomplish for its
sake, just as the power of fire is so much the stronger, as it is able to set fire to a less
inflammable matter” (2a2ae. 27, 7).
Thomas allows that our love for a friend may be stronger: “Yet just as the same fire acts
with greater force on what is near than on what is distant, so too, charity loves with
greater fervor those who are united to us than those who are far removed; and in this
respect the love of friends, considered in itself, is more ardent and better than the love
of one’s enemy” (2a2ae. 27, 7).

Our love for another person should be for love of God: “The words of Our Lord must be
taken in their strict sense: because the love of one’s friends is not meritorious in God’s
sight when we love them merely because they are our friends: and this would seem to
be the case when we love our friends in such a way that we love not our enemies. On
the other hand the love of our friends is meritorious, if we love them for God’s sake, and
not merely because they are our friends” (2a2ae. 27, 7, ad 1).
Thomas recalls the words of the First Letter of John: “He that . . . hates his brother, is in
darkness” (1 Jn. 2:9). Thomas asserts: “Now spiritual darkness is sin. Therefore there
cannot be hatred of one’s neighbor without sin” (2a2ae. 34, 3).
Thomas comments: “Hatred is opposed to love; so that hatred of a thing is evil
according as the love of that thing is good. Now love is due to our neighbor in respect of
what he holds from God, that is in respect of nature and grace, but not in respect of
what he has of himself and from the devil, that is, in respect of sin and lack of justice”
(2a2ae. 34, 3).
According to Thomas, we can hate the sin of our brother: “It is lawful to hate the sin in
one’s brother, and whatever pertains to the defect of Divine justice, but we cannot hate
our brother’s nature and grace without sin. Now it is part of our love for our brother that
we hate the fault and the lack of good in him, since desire for another’s good is
equivalent to hatred of his evil. Consequently the hatred of one’s brother, if we consider
it simply, is always sinful” (2a2ae. 34, 3).
Thomas responds to Jesus’ words that we should “hate” our parents: “By the
commandment of God (Ex. 20:12) we must honor our parents—as united to us in nature
and kinship. But we must hate them in so far as they prove an obstacle to our attaining
the perfection of Divine justice” (2a2ae. 34, 3, ad 1).
God doesn’t hate a person’s nature: “God hates the sin which is in the detractor, not his
nature: so that we can hate detractors without committing a sin (2a2ae. 34, 3, ad 2).
A practical form of love of our enemies is praying for them, as Jesus has taught: “To
pray for another is an act of charity. Wherefore we are bound to pray for our enemies in
the same manner as we are bound to love them. We are bound to love our enemies,
namely, that we must love in them their nature, not their sin. and that to love our
enemies in general is a matter of precept, while to love them in the individual is not a
matter of precept, except in the preparedness of the mind, so that a man must be
prepared to love his enemy even in the individual and to help him in a case of necessity,
or if his enemy should beg his forgiveness. But to love one’s enemies absolutely in the
individual, and to assist them, is an act of perfection” (2a2ae, 83, 8).
We should include our enemies in our general prayers: “In like manner it is a matter of
obligation that we should not exclude our enemies from the general prayers which we
offer up for others: but it is a matter of perfection, and not of obligation, to pray for them
individually, except in certain special cases” (2a2ae, 83, 8).

Denis Vincent Wiseman, O.P.

References to the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas give the part of the
Summa, the question and the article. References to Thomas have been taken from
various questions and articles of the “second part of the second part” of the Summa. If
the passage is found in a response to an objection that Thomas has introduced in the
first part of the article, the Latin word “ad,” meaning “to,” is added with the number of the
objection.