Conferences on the Virtues
By Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd
Number 88
Other Virtues
Affiliated with Justice
Question
I – Gratitude and ingratitude…
According to my
textbook, gratitude is expressed whenever we compensate another for some
benefit received, whether by word or by deed or by doing a favor in
return. Considered in this way, acts of
the virtues of Religion, Piety and Observance are all expressions of gratitude,
since by them, we acknowledge how much we owe to the gratuitous good
will of God, of our Parents and of our lawful Superiors.
However, when
moralists speak of the virtue of Gratitude, they have in mind that special good
habit of returning a favor to particular individual benefactors [who are our
peers in some respect]. Whenever
someone freely (under no obligation) confers a benefit upon us, or gives us a
gift, common decency creates in us an obligation to acknowledge the
favor. In others words, it is by the
virtue of gratitude that we say Thank You! Which is short for I
acknowledge that you are gratuitously conferring this benefit
(gift or favor) upon me.
There are
always two things to be considered in the matter of receiving an undeserved
benefit. First, there is the benefit
conferred (intangible favor or tangible gift).
And second, there is the affection for the recipient that resides in the
heart of the giver. Of these, the
latter is by far the most important, and it is to this that the gratitude is
chiefly directed.
Similarly, in
the matter of rendering thanks (making a return), two things are to be
considered, first, the perceptible expression or sign of gratitude, and second,
the affection of the recipient for the donor.
With regard to
the latter, it is engendered by the very reception of the gift. Sometimes the recipient is surprised to
learn that the donor nourishes affection for him/her, and only then begins
to experience an affection for the donor.
Very often, though, the recipient already has an affection for the
donor, so that the reception of the gift or favor increases and deepens the
affection. Those donees who possess the
virtue of gratitude find that a beginning/increase of affection for the donor
is automatic and instantaneous
With regard to
the former (the perceptible sign or expression of gratitude in return), it
usually takes the form of gift or favor also.
According to my textbook, this should not be made right away, but after
a time suitable and fitting to the benefactor.
Otherwise, the author states, the immediate return might be interpreted,
NOT as a sign of free and willing acknowledgement, BUT as the discharge of an
onerous (unwanted) debt.
As we stated
above, it is common decency that creates the obligation to render thanks
to a benefactor for a gift or favor, which by its very nature, is not owed
to the recipient. That is why Gratitude
is said to be affiliated with the virtue of Justice, and is not,
strictly speaking, one of the manifestations of the virtue of Justice.
Sins contrary
to gratitude can be committed in various ways.
(1) A
person may omit altogether to say thanks for a gift or favor received.
(2) A
person may do something that offends the benefactor, or he may fail to come to
the aid of a benefactor in need.
Either
of these may be done with or without contempt or bad will on the part of the
ungrateful one. When done without the
evil dispositions, that is, out of mere negligence or forgetfulness, the sin
would be material (technical) and venial only. When someone does either of these out of
contempt and/or bad will, as for example, a refusal to admit that a favor has
been conferred on him, or to admit that he owes the donor a debt of gratitude,
it is a formal sin of ingratitude, and by its nature quite serious. Example (2) above is a general circumstance
accompanying any offense against God, even though the sin is seldom intended as
a manifestation of ingratitude toward Him.
The
Three Degrees of Gratitude…
The first
degree resides in the soul. Thus,
the intellect acknowledges the debt of thanks, the memory stores away (for
recall) that datum of experience, and the will nourishes affection for, and
good will toward, the benefactor.
The second
degree is the external manifestation of the first degree by means of words
(praising and/or thanking the benefactor).
Often the grateful one cannot but tell others, also, of the favor
received from the donor.
The third
degree is also an external manifestation of the first degree of gratitude,
but by deeds (giving a gift or doing a favor in return). As mentioned before, this way of saying
thanks is to be done in an appropriate manner and at an appropriate time.
Because this
third degree requires at least the doing of a favor, and not necessarily
giving a gift, even the indigent can have all three degrees of gratitude. For example, from time to time, any grateful,
poor person can return the favor by offering special prayers to God soliciting
His blessings upon the benefactor and his dear ones.
Similarly there
are three degrees of ingratitude, but in reverse order:
(1) No
favor is done, or gift given.
(2) The
one who should be grateful pretends that he is unaware of the debt of gratitude
by failing verbally to say Thanks.
(3) Refusing
to admit in his mind that the debt of gratitude exits.
With regard to
gratitude, St. Thomas Aquinas considers the question: Who is more bound to render thanks to God (whose debt of
gratitude is greater), an innocent person (one who has never offended God
seriously) or a penitent (one who has)?
He states that,
considered objectively, it is the innocent one, since the grace of
preserving him/her from falling into serious sin is a very great one. Considered subjectively, he says it
is the penitent, since, where he deserved punishment for his past sins; he
received the graces (gratuitous favors) of contrition, repentance, forgiveness
and the restoration of divine life (sanctifying grace). To help us understand why he says that, St.
Thomas says that a small gift of necessities given to a very poor man is
esteemed much, much more by him than a large gift of necessities is esteemed by
someone who is wealthy.
Vindication…
We have already
had occasion to speak of Vindication when we were speaking of the civil
authority of judges to vindicate the rights of Society and of private
individuals within the society whenever these rights had been violated by
evildoers. The civil judges achieve the
vindication of those violated rights by inflicting a punishment proportionate
to the crime. In that context,
vindication is a virtue that properly pertains to the Cardinal Virtue of
Justice and is a manifestation of it.
What we say now will be a kind of review of the previous treatment of
that virtue which resides properly only in civil judges and their counterparts
in other natural societies. Here
we speak of it as existing in private individuals.
In private
individuals the virtue of Vindication regulates the natural instinct we
will have to get revenge on folks who have unjustifiably caused us harm
of one kind or another. Here is how the
author of my textbook introduces the subject:
In
the strict sense, Vindication is the infliction of a punishment upon another in
return for an unmerited injury. The
retribution in the form of punishment would be illicit and sinful if the
intention of the vindicator were ONLY to inflict harm in return, and to rest in
the enjoyment of having gotten even.
That would be nothing more than an expression of hate, which can never
be justified.
On
the other hand, if the principal and by far the predominant motive for seeking
the retribution is the GOOD that is brought about by the infliction of
punishment, then it is not only licit, but also desirable. Among the good things that can be
accomplished by punishment are: the
amendment of the culprit, its value as a deterrent, resultant greater peace and
security for oneself and others, the fostering of justice in human
relationships, and finally, restoring and safeguarding the honor due to God.
It may be
difficult for most good Christians to think of the act of punishing someone who
has wronged him/her personally as a manifestation of virtue, because, in Jesus’
Sermon on the Mount (the Charter, the Constitution of the Kingdom of God), we
are instructed: …Love your enemies,
do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who persecute and slander
you… (Matt. 5:44) And somewhere in
the letters of St. Paul, we are advised to return good for evil and
otherwise to conquer evil with good.
If we can train ourselves to overlook the deliberate harm done to us by
others [which is probably very infrequent] and to see instead that the one who
purposely inflicts injury upon us is, in truth, inflicting an even greater
injury upon his/her own soul, then it becomes easier for us to accept the fact
that the habitual inclination to vindicate one’s injured rights for
the good of the culprit does really and truly perfect us as human
beings. After all, that is the role of
virtue in our lives, to cause us, instinctively, to be thoroughly human
[as God created us to be] in all our doings, especially in our interpersonal
relationships.
Again, as we
saw in the previous consideration of this virtue, there are two vices opposed
to it. One may sin against this virtue
by excess, and that is called cruelty or savagery. Or one may sin against it by defect
[not enough]. There is no technical
name for it, and it is referred to in the textbook as remissiveness in
punishing.
Liberality…
This is the
Latin name (Liberalitas) of the virtue that regulates our natural love
of riches in the sense that it renders us prompt in sharing wealth whenever
right reason so dictates. Under the
term wealth we include any and all exterior goods insofar as they are
useful to us and may be given a monetary value. Thus, this virtue is not as wide in scope as the virtue of generosity,
which renders us prompt in sharing our goods of any kind, spiritual and
internal included, whenever right reason (informed by Faith and Charity)
requires. The author of my textbook
states:
Liberality
is concerned immediately with our esteem and affection for money by keeping us
from according it an importance that is neither too great nor too little. Mediately, it is concerned with our use of
money. On the on hand it removes the
impediment to spending or using money due to an excessive love for it, and thus
clears the way to sharing or spending it for the good of others. No one needs a special virtue to guarantee
that he/she will spend money on himself/herself, but this is the virtue that
one must have to be habitually inclined to spend money on others when it is
fitting and proper. Thus it is possible
even for the indigent to have and exercise the virtue of Liberality in so far
as they also can have the habitual inclination to share even the little in
material goods that they do possess.
Liberality is
affiliated with (is analogous to) the virtue of Justice because by it money and
exterior goods of fortune are transferred to others. In the case of Justice, it is BECAUSE the others have a strict,
legal right to those goods. In the case
of Liberality, it is because the donor feels he/she is OBLIGATED to do so in
virtue of considerations of decency and equity.
Therefore
Liberality differs from the virtues of mercy and from natural love. The former habitually inclines one to share
his/her goods with the needy out of motives of compassion. The latter inclines one to share with those
close to him/herself by ties of blood and friendship. But like mercy, Liberality also inclines the donor to share with
others who ARE NOT related nor in any way CLOSE to him/her. Strike that. Compassion, an integral component of Mercy, DOES CAUSE the
needy and afflicted to become close to us.
As Jesus implied in the parable of the Good Samaritan, it is the state
of need that makes another to be OUR NEIGHBOR.
Again,
Liberality differs from the virtue of Magnificence (from the Latin Magnificentia),
which is a virtue affiliated with the Cardinal virtue of Fortitude, as we saw
over four years ago in this series.
Magnificence inclines one to spend his/her resources for the
accomplishment of works and projects that are extraordinary in scope and
size. We could call it, then, the
virtue of SuperLiberality.
In the
hierarchy (order of nobility) of virtues, Liberality is lower on the list than
the virtue of Temperance, which regulates the habitual tendency to be overly
indulgent toward one’s flesh by spending money to obtain gratification of the
senses.
Likewise it is
not as high on the list as Fortitude, which enables one to overcome the
natural resistance to giving away wealth, as well as to endure the
privations that ensue from transferring wealth to others.
Justice, too,
which inclines one to share wealth for the sake of the common good, as in the
payment of one’s fair share of taxes, is also higher on the list.
Higher than all
of these on the list if the virtue of Religion, which habitually inclines one
to use his/her wealth to render due honor to God our Creator and Father through
the support and embellishment of Churches and other places of public worship.
In spite of
being of lesser importance than the virtues just referred to, there is a very
special nobility associated with the virtue of liberality. It derives from the fact that Liberality
habitually keeps one from being overly attached to money and material
possessions. And that is that what
renders a person capable of using them for the good of others and the glory of
God.
The vice that
is opposed to Liberality by way of defect is Avarice (Greed) which is an
inordinate appetite and affection for money. The disorder can be of two kinds:
1. As
an appetite: That of obtaining and
keeping money and wealth with no legal right or title to possess them. Actually, this is directly opposed to
Justice, and indirectly opposed to Liberality.
2. As
an affection: That of being overly
attached to money and taking delight in the possession of money. This is directly opposed to Liberality, and
is only a serious sin when someone is prepared to commit a mortal sin in order
to obtain money, or seeks his/her ultimate happiness in possessing it.
As
you know Avarice is one of the Capital Sins, which, according to the Holy
Spirit, speaking to us in Sacred Scripture, is the ROOT of all evil.
Opposed
to the virtue of Liberality by way of excess is the vice of Prodigality.
The
former enables one to give to others in moderation, in the sense that one gives
neither too much nor too little, in view of the circumstances.
The
latter, on the other hand, inclines one to spend excessively on trifles
and trivialities that do neither the spendthrift nor others any real good.
The
disorder associated with the vice of Prodigality has to do not so much
with the quantity given away or spent, but with the fact that it is not done in
conformity with right reason.
Right reason considers all the relevant circumstances, i.e., When? Where?
What? How much? Why?
To Whom?
Perhaps
in order for us to get a better grasp of this virtue of Liberality, the author
of my textbook makes a comparison between the vices of Greed (Avarice) and
prodigality.
The
greedy person exceeds right reason in his affection and love of money. The spendthrift (prodigal) does not come up
to right reason in his/her esteem of money.
In
the use of money, the Spendthrift exceeds right reason in spending, and falls
short of it in hanging on to money. The
greedy one falls short of right reason in spending money, but exceeds it by
hanging on to money too tightly
Thus
it is possible [but very rare] for someone to be both greedy and
prodigal at the same time: Greedy to
acquire, prodigal in spending. [Such a
person would be seeking to obtain riches for the exclusive purpose of
surrendering completely to the demands of other Capital Sins, such as pride,
Lust and Gluttony].
Prodigality
is, by nature, not nearly as serious a sin as Greed.
1. As
an inclination to spend or give to others out of one’s abundance, Prodigality
is close to Liberality. Avarice, on the
other hand, as an inclination to hang on to money, is far from it.
2. By
reason of effect, the prodigal does indirectly help others to some extent, at
least merchants, shopkeepers and their employees, and perhaps the economy in
general. The greedy person doesn’t help
anyone by hanging on to his money, not even himself, in the sense that by being
avaricious he is killing his own soul.
3. And,
very often, by reason of duration, since falling into need (the Prodigal Son),
age and experience can easily and quickly cure the Spendthrift, whereas it is
very difficult for an avaricious person to overcome his Greed.
Prodigality is
by nature a venial sin, but it could become serious in view of particular
circumstances:
1. When
it causes a person to fail to support his family adequately and/or to become
insolvent.
2. When
it renders him incapable of paying his fair share to support charitable and
necessary pious works of the Church.
Affability…
This is the
virtue that inclines us habitually to be pleasing in our words, deeds and
comportment whenever we are in the company of others. That is to say, it inclines us to be civil and decent in our
conduct when we are with people.
The difference
between this virtue and friendship lies in their respective origins. The basis and source of that conduct we call
friendly is mutual benevolence, which is the highest and purest form of
love, as we have had occasion to say in previous conferences.
The basis and
source of conduct we call affable is common decency, namely, a love of
order and harmony in human relationships.
Sometimes this
virtue is given the name courtesy, and at times urbanity.
Affability and
Justice are related in that they both govern our relationships with our peers,
but in different respects.
Justice
inclines us to give to others and do for others what the others have a strict
legal right to, or because of mutual agreements entered into.
Affability
inclines us to conduct ourselves with others in view of our nature as social
beings. The word social is from
the Latin socius – a companion.
In other words, affability is OWED to those in whose company we find
ourselves because we are, so to speak, all fellow travelers. Which means: We’re all in this [vale of tears] together.
The vices
opposed to affability are obsequiousness and contentiousness. The former is disorderly through the
excessive desire to please. The latter
by not wanting enough to be pleasant with others.
Obsequiousness
is manifested most often through flattery.
Sometimes flattery is used merely because the flatterer is afraid to ruffle
someone’s feathers. But most often
flattery is resorted to because of the hope of receiving some benefit from the
person flattered. Thus, obsequiousness
is: an excessive and unbecoming
accommodation to others.
Contentiousness
is the habit of being abrasive in the company of others by seldom agreeing,
often contradicting, and just being difficult to get along with. The motive is usually to get one’s own
way.
When this kind
of conduct arises from a lack of love, it is discord, a sin against
charity. When done out of anger, it is
against meekness.
Question
5 – Equity…
Like so many
words in our language that come from Latin, the word Equity has a
meaning in common parlance that differs from the technical meaning it
has in Moral Theology. In the mouths of
ordinary citizens, speaking as such, it means the state or quality of being impartial
or fair.
It is also a
technical word in our Legal System, and it stands for a set of principles to
cover situations not dealt with by Statute or by the Common Law. But again, the result aimed at is fairness
and impartiality in the resolution of conflicts of rights and duties
among citizens. Still another meaning
of equity occurs as shorthand for equity of redemption, which
occurs in a Real Estate context. The
amount paid back on the principal of a mortgage loan is said to be the
equity the payers have in the house.
According to my
textbook, moral theology gives two chief meanings of the Virtue of Equity:
1. The
good habit (virtue) that inclines one to give a benign interpretation to the
letter of a law in those situations where a strict, literal interpretation
would be burdensome or otherwise oppressive.
To justify such an interpretation, the individual possessing the virtue
appeals to the mind of the legislator, whose intention in making laws is
to sweeten interpersonal relationships and interchanges for the sake of
the Common Good.
2. The
good habit which inclines one to defer enforcing legal rights for the sake of a
fair accommodation with those whose particular circumstances make it difficult
for them to honor the said rights. This
same good habit would also incline one to go beyond one’s strict legal obligations
toward others, again out of considerations of fairness. An example of the latter would be for an
employer to share windfall profits with his employees.
Description
(1) of Equity represents a virtue that most appropriately resides in those
entrusted with the enforcement of laws in a particular society. Thus it is related to Legal Justice.
Description
(2) is a virtue that resides most properly in ordinary citizens, vis-à-vis
their peers in society with whom they stand in some legal relationship. Here it is related closely to Commutative
Justice.
Finally,
now, we can give a definition of Equity:
it is the virtue that inclines one to make a humane application and
use of rights or laws in conformity with right reason.
From
the above, it is possible to observe that Equity stands midway between Charity
and Justice. As such, it mitigates
Justice and perfects it. Saint Cyprian
described Equity as Justice tempered by Mercy.
Again,
Equity is also related to the Virtue of Prudence, in that the latter comes into
play by suggesting that in certain particular situations the common good is
better served by setting aside the letter of the written law and seeking
the guidance of its spirit.
Question
6 – The Gift of Piety…
The Gift of the
Holy Spirit that serves, aids and abets the Cardinal Virtue of Justice is Piety
toward God. This is what my textbook
has to say about this:
The
Gifts of the Holy Spirit are certain habitual dispositions of the soul by means
of which it can be easily set into action by a special movement of the Holy
Spirit.
Among
other things, it is the Holy Spirit Who inspires in the Christian soul a
certain filial affection for God, according to St. Paul in Romans 8: 15: You have received the Spirit of adoption
as children, by which we cry out:
Abba, Father. Because piety,
fruit of our natural love for our human fathers, governs and directs the
expression of honor and submission due to them, it follows that the Piety by
means of which we render due honor and submission to God the Father is
instilled in us by the Holy Spirit, who is THE LOVE in the Holy Trinity.
But
the virtue of piety as exercised toward one’s earthly father necessarily
extends to all others who are related to him by blood and who, in a sense,
belong to him. Similarly, Piety, the
Gift of the Holy Spirit governs not only our relationship with God the Father,
but also extends to all those persons who belong to Him, that is, to ALL human
beings.
From this we
see that Piety, the Gift, corresponds to Justice because it moves us to give to
all others what is owed to them (what they have a right to) as human beings.
There are
different degrees in the exercise of the Gift of Piety.
1. To
live among others as kind, generous, and willing to share with them both
temporal and spiritual goods insofar as their health of body and soul require.
If
we are prepared to give only out of our abundance, and are not ready to impose
any kind of want upon ourselves, we have attained only to the first degree.
2. When
we are prepared to give to others for their spiritual and temporal welfare even
some of what we need for ourselves, then we have attained the second degree.
3. When
we are prepared to give of our very selves for the good of others, as the
Apostle says: I am perfectly willing
to spend what I have, and to be expended, in the interest of your souls (2
Cor. 12:15), then we have attained the third degree of the exercise of Piety,
the Gift of the Holy Spirit.
According to my
author, The Gift of Piety is related to three of the beatitudes. Insofar as
piety comes to the aid of one’s neighbor, it has something in common with both
the 4th: Blessed are they
who hunger and thirst for Justice, and the 5th: Blessed are
the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
However, in so
far as the Gift of Piety seeks to overcome obstacles that would prevent going
to the aid of others, it has something in common with the 2nd: Blessed are the meek, for they shall
possess the earth.
The
Precepts of Justice
Here I will
adhere closely to the presentation of this topic as found in my textbook:
The
Ten Commandments are the first definitive principles of [written] law, to which natural reason,
after a quick perusal, gives against their neighbor.
Both
because of the great harm that is done to an individual by violations of the 6th
and 7th Commandments, and because of the ease with which the desire
to violate them can be stirred up in us, the final two of the Ten Commandments
are directed specifically toward that particular aspect of our fallen,
disordered humanity. They forbid even
the will (desire) to commit those sins:
9th: Thou shall not covet they
neighbor’s wife, and
10th: Thou shall not covet thy
neighbor’s goods.
If there are no
commandments forbidding the desire to violate the 5th and 8th
Commandments, it can probably be explained by the fact that the mere thought of
taking the life of another and of spreading falsehood are repulsive to the
ordinary person of good will. That
disgust, of itself, tends to overcome any desire to commit those sins.
Thus we have
come to the end of this Series of conferences on the Four Cardinal Virtues of
Prudence, Fortitude, Temperance and Justice.
MISSION STATEMENT: This web site was created for the purpose
of completing the work of Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, O.C.D These conferences may be
reproduced for private use only. Publication of this material is forbidden
without permission of the Father Provincial for the Discalced Carmelites,
Holy Hill, 1525 Carmel Rd., Hubertus, WI 53033-9770.