St. Bernard's Affective and Effective Charity

On affective and effective charity, and the order to be observed in both (Canticles,12th century)

“He set charity in order in me.”

You are expecting I suppose, that having completed my exposition of the words which formed the text of the last discourse, I shall to-day pass on to the following verse. Yet such is not my intention. I have still the fragments remaining after yesterday’s feast, which I took the trouble to gather up “lest they be lost,” and which I purpose to set before you now. For lost they must certainly be unless they are distributed. What is more, I should lose myself with them, did I attempt to keep them for my own exclusive enjoyment. I have therefore no desire to defraud that insatiable appetite of yours, which I know so well, of these broken meats, especially since they are from the dish of charity, as sweet as they are delicate, and only the more savoury because so small. Were I to act otherwise, I should offend most grievously against charity by neglecting to communicate it to my brethren. And so we shall occupy ourselves to-day with a further consideration of the words of the Spouse, “He set charity in order in me.”

Charity, my brethren, must be exercised in two ways, in action and in affection. Now, in my opinion, the law of charity imposed upon men, and the definite precept, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul, with all thy strength and with all thy mind and thy neighbour as thyself,” concerns not affective but effective or active charity. For who could obey the command if it referred to feeling? We may therefore assume that effective charity is enjoined as the principle of merit, and affective rendered in reward. However, I do not deny that even in this present life we can, by the grace of God, make a beginning and some progress in affective charity; my contention is that its perfection and consummation belong exclusively to the happy life to come. How then, it may be asked, could God have laid upon us an obligation which it is absolutely impossible for us to discharge? Nevertheless, if you still insist that the precept of charity has reference to charity of affection, I shall not quarrel with your conviction, provided you are willing to allow that the commandment has never been and never shall be perfectly fulfilled by any mere mortal. For who would be so presumptuous as to pretend to a perfection which was beyond the reach of St. Paul, as he confesses where he says, “I do not count myself to have apprehended”? The Divine Legislator knew perfectly well that the burden of this law exceeded human strength. But He deemed it profitable for men to be reminded thus of their own insufficiency, and to learn at the same time what is the perfection of justice to which they must strive to approximate by every means in their power. Therefore, in commanding what is impossible He designs to make us humble, not to prove us prevaricators, “that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world be made subject to God, because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before Him.” For, receiving the command, and being conscious of our sinfulness and incapacity, we shall cry aloud to heaven and the Lord God will have mercy on us; and in that day we shall know “that not by the works of justice which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.”

Thus, my brethren, should I speak were we convinced that the charity enjoined is affective charity. But in truth the object of the law appears to be rather effective charity. This becomes the more evident from the fact that after saying, “Love your enemies,” the Lord added immediately, “Do good to them that hate you,” which refers to good works, or to charity in operation. And elsewhere we read, “If thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he be thirsty give him to drink.” Here also, as you perceive, there is question of love not in feeling but in effect. But attend once more to the Lord, where He is laying down the law concerning the love of Himself. “If you love Me,” He says, “keep my commandments.” In this place, again, by enjoining the observance of the commandments, He manifestly directs our attention to the works of charity. But if the love of Him whereof He is speaking, were only a matter of feeling, it would surely be superfluous to make mention of good works. It is in the same way, therefore, we must understand that other precept whereby we are commanded to love our neighbour as ourselves, even though this is not so clearly expressed. And for yourselves, my brethren, do you not consider yourselves to have sufficiently discharged the duty of fraternal charity, when you have fully observed that precept of the natural law, equally binding on every man, “See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another”; and also this, “All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them”?

But I do not mean to say that we should be devoid of affection, and that with hearts hard and dry we should exercise nothing but our hands in the works of piety. Amongst the other great and grievous crimes with which the Apostle charges the gentiles, I find this also enumerated, that they were “without affection.” Now, there is an affection which is begotten of the flesh; and there is an affection which is obedient to the rule of reason; and there is an affection which is seasoned with the salt of wisdom. The first is that whereof St. Paul declares, “It is not subject to the law of God, neither can it be.” Of the second the same Apostle bears opposite testimony, for it is the affection which “consents to the law (of God) that it is good.” These two, therefore, must differ from each other, since to one and the same law the latter is subject and the former insubordinate. But far removed from either is the last, which tastes and understands “that the Lord is sweet,” thus extinguishing the first and rewarding the second. For the affection of the flesh is pleasant but vile; the rational affection has strength without savour; whilst the affection of wisdom is both unctuous and sweet. Hence it is by the affection of reason that good works are performed; and it is truly a love of charity, not that emotional charity, which, as has been said, is seasoned and enriched with the salt of wisdom, and which replenishes the mind with a “multitude of (God’s) sweetness,” but the charity which I have called effective and operative. This indeed does not as yet delight and refresh the soul with the delicious love just mentioned, but it inflames our hearts with a vehement love of that love. “Let us not love in word nor in tongue,” says the Evangelist, “but in deed and in truth.”

Observe, my brethren, how carefully the beloved Disciple steers here a middle course between the vicious carnal love and the affective spiritual love, distinguishing from both one and the other the charity which is active and salutary. From this he excludes the falsity of a deceitful tongue, without requiring, however, as an evidence of its possession, that savour of sweetness which belongs to the affection of wisdom.” “Let us love,” he says, “in deed and in truth.” He speaks in this manner because he knows that we are moved to the performance of good works rather by the impulse of vivid truth than by the attraction of affective charity. “He set charity in order in me,” exclaims the Spouse. But is it affective charity or effective? Both surely, yet in opposite ways. For whereas the latter loves best what is low, the former prefers what is high. It cannot be questioned, for example, that in well-ordered affective charity the love of God takes precedence of the love of one’s neighbour, and as amongst men, the more perfect are preferred to the less perfect, heaven is preferred to earth, eternity to time, the soul to the body. But well-regulated active charity moves in the inverse order, if not always, at least as a rule. For we feel ourselves pressed with greater solicitude and occupy ourselves more frequently in what concerns our neighbour than in the things appertaining to God; we show more care and assiduity in assisting the weak brother than him that is stronger; by the laws of humanity and the very necessity of our condition we pay more attention to the peace of earth than to the glory of heaven; we are so taken up with the worries of temporal affairs that we can scarcely give a thought to the interests of eternity, the wants of the soul receive little consideration, whereas we are all but constantly ministering to the needs of the body; “and such as we think to be the less honourable members of the body about these we put a more abundant honour,” as the Apostle speaks. Thus do we fulfil in a manner the word of the Lord Who said, “So shall the last be first and the first last.” Who can deny that in prayer we converse with God? Yet how often are we not obliged to interrupt and abandon that exercise at the bidding of charity, for the sake of those who need the help of our words or works! How often are we not compelled in the interests of piety to exchange the repose of pious contemplation for the turmoil of worldly affairs! How often without prejudice to conscience do we not put aside our spiritual book in order to devote ourselves to manual labour! Nay, how often do we not find in the necessity of looking after our temporal concerns more than sufficient reason for intermitting even the celebration of the Holy Mysteries! Surely a preposterous order. But necessity recognises no law. Effective charity thus pursues its own course, “beginning from the last,” according to the command of the Father of the family. That it is just and pious we must certainly acknowledge, seeing that it has no respect of persons, and considers not so much the worth of objects as the necessities of men.

The case is very different with affective charity, which begins not from the last, as the other, but from the first. For it is that wisdom by which we value and esteem things in accordance with the worth and merit of each, so that what possesses the highest intrinsic perfection attracts our affection most strongly; what has the less high, less; and what has the lowest, least. Such is the order demanded by the charity of truth; whereas the contrary is observed by the truth of charity. For it is evidently required by the truth of charity that they whose needs are greatest should be the first attended to; whilst, on the other hand, the charity of truth is then made manifest when the affection of the will follows the same order as the judgment of the reason. Therefore, my brother, if thou lovest “the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength;” and if with a more ardent affection, lifting thyself higher than the mere love of divine love which contents effective charity, thou hast already arrived at the end whereto this is but the means, so that thou art now all inflamed with holy fire from thy proximity to the Godhead, having received the fulness of the Spirit—if thou hast attained to this, certainly God will give thee now an appreciation of Himself, which, if not worthy of His perfection—for no created intellect can form an adequate idea of that—shall at least be proportionate to thy limited capacity. Then thou shalt also esteem thyself at thy proper value. For thou shalt clearly understand that thou hast nothing at all in thyself which could found a title to even thine own love, except that, and in so far as, thou art God’s. I mean to say, thou shalt ascribe to Him exclusively whatever thou mayst find in thyself deserving of love. Thou shalt then, I repeat, value thyself at thy real worth, since by the very experience of the love and regard thou shalt feel for thyself, it will become plain to thee that thou hast absolutely no right to be loved, even by thyself, save only for His sake without Whom thou art nothing.

As for thy neighbour, whom thou art plainly obliged to love as thou lovest thyself, in order to appreciate him as he deserves, thou must estimate his worth not otherwise than as thou hast determined thine own. For he is what thou art, that is, a man. Consequently, since thou lovest thyself only for the reason that thou lovest God, it follows that thou wilt love equally with thyself all who equally love God. But the man who hates thee, by that fact does not love God, and is therefore nothing. Hence thou canst not love him as thyself, who art something, because of thy love for God. Nevertheless, thou mayst love him in order to excite him to love. There is a great difference between loving a man because he loves God, and loving him in order to lead him to the love of God. Therefore, if thou wouldst have an esteem for thine enemy, it will be necessary to appraise him not according to what he actually is, that is, as nothing, but according to what he may become, which, as being still uncertain, we may consider as next to nothing. But if we have certitude with regard to any creature that he is never to be restored to the love of God, such a one must be estimated, not according to what he may become and as next to nothing, but according to what he now is, and as nothing absolutely; since it is his destiny to remain for ever nothing. So far from being obliged to love one thus excluded eternally from the charity of God, we have rather the duty to hate him, conformably to what is written, “Have I not hated them, O Lord, that hated Thee, and pined away because of Thy enemies”? But this is the sole exception to the law of love. For the rest, charity, which is particularly jealous of its rights herein, allows us to leave no man, even our bitterest enemy, without some little degree of affection. “Who is wise and will understand these things?”

My brethren, give me a man who loves God above all and with his whole being, and proportions his love of himself and his neighbour to his own and his neighbour’s love for God; who loves his enemies in the hope that they will at length recover the grace of divine charity; who loves the parents of his flesh with tenderness, by the instinct of nature, and the directors of his spirit with abundance, at the prompting of grace; and whose well-ordered love for God extends itself in the same manner to all the other creatures of God; who despises the earth, keeps his eyes lifted up to heaven, “uses this world as if he used it not,” and by the interior spiritual sense of taste can so distinguish between what is meant to be employed as a means and what must be embraced as an end, that he passes over things transitory in a transitory way, caring only for such of them as are necessary and in so far only as they are necessary, whilst he longs for the things of eternity with an insatiable desire—give me, I say, a man like this, and I will confidently declare him wise with the wisdom which esteems all things at their proper worth, so that he may glory like the Spouse with all justice and security, and may say, “He set charity in order in me.” But where shall we find such a man? Or when shall it be granted us to attain to such perfection? How long, with tears I ask it, how long must the homeland appear to us in the distance, without our being able to reach it? How long shall we sigh and salute it from afar, enjoying its perfumes, but unable to relish its sweetness? O Truth Divine, the exile’s home, and the end of his exile! Already I behold Thee; but, held back by the flesh, I am not able yet to enter Thee. Besides, I do not deserve to be admitted, all covered, as I am, with the soil of my sins. O Wisdom, Who “reachest from end to end mightly” in creating and embracing the universe, “and orderest all things sweetly” in regulating and beautifying our affections, direct our actions, we beseech Thee, according as our temporal necessities demand, and dispose our wills conformably to the requirements of Thy eternal truth, so that each one of us may at last securely glory in Thee, saying with the Spouse, “He set charity in order in me”! For Thou art the “Virtue of God” and the “Wisdom of God,” the Bridegroom of the Church, Christ Jesus Our Lord, Who is over all things, God blessed for ever. Amen.