Dist. 29, Art. 1, Q. 4
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/29/q/bon-sent-III-d29-a1-q4
----------------------------------------
### Question IV. *Whether parents are more to be loved than children, or conversely.*

Fourthly it is asked about the order of charity in respect to the comparison of father to son, and it is asked whether parents are more to be loved than children, or conversely. And that parents are first to be loved, seems [the case]:

1. *First*, by the commandment of the Lord; for he commands [us] to honor parents, Exodus twenty: *Honor your father* etc.: if therefore the commandments of God have been handed down according to the order of charity, it seems that the love of charity has principally to set in order [the love] toward parents rather than toward children.

2. Likewise, by the authority of Ambrose, which is had in the littera; for he says that « first God is to be loved, secondly parents, then children ».

3. Likewise, this same thing seems [evident] by *reason*: for according to the law of charity we ought to be grateful for benefits received; but we receive more benefits from parents than from children: therefore we ought to be more grateful to them. But he who is more grateful to another loves him more: therefore parents are to be preferred to children in the order of charity.

4. Likewise, that which proceeds from a principle depends on the principle more than conversely; but where there is greater dependence, there is greater inclination; and where there is greater inclination, there is greater conversion of love: since therefore one having a father and a son is compared to the father as that-which-proceeds-from-a-principle to the principle, but to the son as the principle to that-which-proceeds-from-it; it seems that according to the rule of love one ought to be turned more toward the father than toward the son.

**On the contrary:**
1. Second to the Corinthians twelve: *Children ought not to lay up treasure for their parents, but parents for their children;* but no one ought to lay up treasure except for him whom he ought to love: if therefore parents ought to lay up treasure for children more than conversely, they ought according to the order of charity to love children more, than children [love] parents.

2. Likewise, according to the order of nature the sap proceeds from the root to the branches, not conversely: if therefore the conversion of love in rational beings is like the derivation of sap in vegetative things, and the father is compared to the children as the root to the branches; it seems that according to the right order children are to be loved more than parents.

3. Likewise, charity regards the communication of good according to fittingness and conformity; but parents communicate more good to children than conversely: therefore it seems that the love of charity according to the right order first and more abundantly renders [one] apt to love children than parents.

4. Likewise, grace is the perfection of nature; but we see that naturally men love children more than parents: therefore it seems that a like order ought to be in gratuitous love.

> ### Conclusion.
> According to the order of charity parents are to be loved more than children, other things being equal.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as Ambrose says, according to the order of charity parents are to be preferred to children; and this is to be understood other things being equal, as will be made clear below. — For the ground of this is: that *gratuitous* love makes [one] mindful of benefits received — on account of which sacred Scripture too, by commanding and admonishing, induces us to recall the paternal benefits — and because we receive more benefits from parents than from children: therefore according to the divine law we are more bound to them and ought to love and procure their salvation more. And the reasons which show this are to be granted.

But to the reasons which are adduced to the opposite, it must be answered that those reasons run [their course] concerning *natural* love, according to which the affection of man is inclined more toward children than toward the father. And the ground of this is that *nature* desires to be conserved in its like and loves more that in which it has principally to be preserved; and since the father has to be preserved in the son according to the order of nature, not conversely: hence it is that according to the order of *nature* he has a greater inclination toward the son, because he wills rather that [the son] than the father survive him. But *gratuitous* love

regards rather the conferring of benefits and the completion of the heavenly citizens, to which parents and children are compared indifferently.

1. 2. 3. And by this is evident the response to those three [objections] which were objected first.

4. But to that which is objected last, that grace ought to be conformed to nature; it must be said that nature in some [cases] runs a way *consonant* with grace, in some runs a way *opposed,* in some runs a way *disparate.* For in this, that a man loves himself more than his neighbor, nature *agrees* with grace, as was shown above; in this, that he loves himself more than God, it *resists* grace; but in this, that he loves the son more than the father, because he intends to be preserved in him, it proceeds as it were by a *diverse* way. And therefore supervening grace, in the first affection, *preserves and perfects* the order; in the second, simply *changes* [it]; in the third, however, *gives a new order,* yet in such a way that it does not destroy that affection. Hence I judge that a man having charity and having parents and children, while he is moved by the affection of *gratuitous* love, more desires the salvation of his parents; while he is moved by the affection of *nature,* more desires the health of his son. Nor is there here an opposition of natural love to gratuitous [love], on account of the diverse consideration.