Gratitude

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 35 of 82 · 20 per page

• From Four Days to Glory: Wrestling with the Soul of the American Heartland (2005)

  Mary has even summoned up her nerve a few times to mention to the parents of other wrestlers that they might be dealing with the same kind of effect in their households. The others mostly don’t listen—it is, after all, a wrestling life—and Mary finds it re markable that so many people are so unwilling to admit the possibility of needing some help. “It’s a medical condition,” she says with her usual candor. “The more you learn about it, the less there is to worry about. But I can’t get very many people to understand.” She is a wrestling mom; she has seen her share of boys suffering. But there is physical pain and then there is the other kind, and for the life of her, Mary cannot understand her friends’ kids being made to suffer that way, when she sees an alternative right in front of them. And from where Doug sits, Mary saved the family. The fact that he was not present when Mary first told me of the LeCleres’ discovery of the depression in their midst does not diminish his enthusiasm for it being discussed. “I wish we’d have known it a lot sooner than we did,” he says at one point, “and I wish some of these other kids who wrestle would take a look at it. It’s easy for parents to miss depression in a wrestler because, let’s face it, when you can’t eat, you’re grumpy, and you avoid people so you don’t get into an argument or altercation because sometimes you lose it and all hell breaks loose. It’s easy to just stay in your room and be by yourself.” Mary, the girl that Doug has loved all of his adult life, the one who lived barely five miles away from him in Prairieburg when they were in high school and whom he fell for the first time he met her—she saved his boys and got them back on track. Michael says now that if he had been on antidepressants back as a sophomore in high school, he might never have reached the point where quitting wrestling seemed like the thing to do. Mary helped Mike to the point where he could begin going forward again—and she made sure that the rest of the LeCleres were taken care of, too. “She was the best thing that happened to me,” Doug says flatly. “I hope I can someday repay her for her loyalty.” When Brad Bridgewater mentioned earlier in the week that Dan was ratcheting up his workouts, I took it to mean he was putting in more time than usual, which seems unlikely, since “usual” in the LeClere vernacular is roughly equivalent to “most of the time” in the first place. In fact, Dan is going to put in more time, lift more weight, climb more rope than usual. But he also is going into game-day mode, or at least into a full-scale bear-down mentality, almost a full week before competition.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Objection 3: Further, Seneca says (De Benef. ii) that “it is proper to a benefactor to act freely and quickly.” Now repayment ought to equal the favor received. Therefore it should be done at once. On the contrary, Seneca says (De Benef. iv): “He that hastens to repay, is animated with a sense, not of gratitude but of indebtedness.” I answer that, Just as in conferring a favor two things are to be considered, namely, the affection of the heart and the gift, so also must these things be considered in repaying the favor. As regards the affection of the heart, repayment should be made at once, wherefore Seneca says (De Benef. ii): “Do you wish to repay a favor? Receive it graciously.” As regards the gift, one ought to wait until such a time as will be convenient to the benefactor. In fact, if instead of choosing a convenient time, one wished to repay at once, favor for favor, it would not seem to be a virtuous, but a constrained repayment. For, as Seneca observes (De Benef. iv), “he that wishes to repay too soon, is an unwilling debtor, and an unwilling debtor is ungrateful.” Reply to Objection 1: A legal debt must be paid at once, else the equality of justice would not be preserved, if one kept another’s property without his consent. But a moral debt depends on the equity of the debtor: and therefore it should be repaid in due time according as the rectitude of virtue demands. Reply to Objection 2: Earnestness of the will is not virtuous unless it be regulated by reason; wherefore it is not praiseworthy to forestall the proper time through earnestness. Reply to Objection 3: Favors also should be conferred at a convenient time and one should no longer delay when the convenient time comes; and the same is to be observed in repaying favors. Whether in giving thanks we should look at the benefactor’s disposition or at the deed?Objection 1: It seems that in repaying favors we should not look at the benefactor’s disposition but at the deed. For repayment is due to beneficence, and beneficence consists in deeds, as the word itself denotes. Therefore in repaying favors we should look at the deed. Objection 2: Further, thanksgiving, whereby we repay favors, is a part of justice. But justice considers equality between giving and taking. Therefore also in repaying favors we should consider the deed rather than the disposition of the benefactor. Objection 3: Further, no one can consider what he does not know. Now God alone knows the interior disposition. Therefore it is impossible to repay a favor according to the benefactor’s disposition. On the contrary, Seneca says (De Benef. i): “We are sometimes under a greater obligation to one who has given little with a large heart, and has bestowed a small favor, yet willingly.”

• From Four Days to Glory: Wrestling with the Soul of the American Heartland (2005)

  Maybe Dan and Leah will hang on and get married, and maybe Dan will return to this place and work alongside his father and Brad Bridgewater and Larry Henderson and all the other people who love it too much to leave, the people who could go out somewhere else in the world but who really, honestly choose to stay—their choice, not the world’s. They will stay, and they will teach and coach, and work the tables, and sell the stuff at the concession stands, and design the T-shirts, and fix up the minivans, and make all the drives, and gossip about the local politics, and carry on the old rivalries, and take over the banquet rooms at the chow houses on the nights after tournaments. They will provide the light and the space and the warmth and the discipline, all of it; and they’ll suffer along when something goes wrong. They’ll look for the greater meaning when it doesn’t, such as the time a couple of years back when Dan and Leah and a friend were driving to Cedar Rapids for a night out and got hit by a train as their car crossed the tracks. They somehow escaped unscathed, after which Mary remembers telling her son, “I don’t know what God has planned for you, Daniel, but it must be something very special.” And maybe Dan will go on and do great things, Olympian things. He could, anyway. You look at him here, now, with this aura of invincibility about him, these other wrestlers gazing upon him with an odd mixture of longtime friendship and recently developed awe, and you see Tom Brands down the road waiting to mold him, and you realize that anything is possible. And Dan could do those things, special things—become a national wrestler, or even an international one. But then, after it is done, maybe Doug and Mary’s son will find his way back to unpaved roads and icy bridges, farmhouses, big fields, little wrestling rooms. Maybe, when you get down to it, special is in the eye of the beholder. At the LeClere family farmhouse, the one in which Doug’s parents live , where Doug’s father was born upstairs and now uses an electric chair-lift to get up and down those stairs, the kids lounge around on the couches and chairs and on the well-padded carpet. Out side, the light rain has begun to fall. Snow is on the way. Dan and Leah are stretched out, both still small enough that they don’t even take up the full couch, and everyone else—Nick, Chris, cousins—is either fully prone or headed that way. Nobody slept much last night. Dan, in particular, looks completely wiped out. It may be the most well-earned rest of the year.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  I answer that, The repayment of a favor may belong to three virtues, namely, justice, gratitude and friendship. It belongs to justice when the repayment has the character of a legal debt, as in a loan and the like: and in such cases repayment must be made according to the quantity received. On the other hand, repayment of a favor belongs, though in different ways, to friendship and likewise to the virtue of gratitude when it has the character of a moral debt. For in the repayment of friendship we have to consider the cause of friendship; so that in the friendship that is based on the useful, repayment should be made according to the usefulness accruing from the favor conferred, and in the friendship based on virtue repayment should be made with regard for the choice or disposition of the giver, since this is the chief requisite of virtue, as stated in Ethic. viii, 13. And likewise, since gratitude regards the favor inasmuch as it is bestowed gratis, and this regards the disposition of the giver, it follows again that repayment of a favor depends more on the disposition of the giver than on the effect. Reply to Objection 1: Every moral act depends on the will. Hence a kindly action, in so far as it is praiseworthy and is deserving of gratitude, consists materially in the thing done, but formally and chiefly in the will. Hence Seneca says (De Benef. i): “A kindly action consists not in deed or gift, but in the disposition of the giver or doer.” Reply to Objection 2: Gratitude is a part of justice, not indeed as a species is part of a genus, but by a kind of reduction to the genus of justice, as stated above ([3189]Q[80]). Hence it does not follow that we shall find the same kind of debt in both virtues. Reply to Objection 3: God alone sees man’s disposition in itself: but in so far as it is shown by certain signs, man also can know it. It is thus that 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. Whether the repayment of gratitude should surpass the favor received?Objection 1: It seems that there is no need for the repayment of gratitude to surpass the favor received. For it is not possible to make even equal repayment to some, for instance, one’s parents, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 14). Now virtue does not attempt the impossible. Therefore gratitude for a favor does not tend to something yet greater.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  I answer that, As stated above ([3184]FS, Q[60], A[3]), the nature of the debt to be paid must needs vary according to various causes giving rise to the debt, yet so that the greater always includes the lesser. Now the cause of debt is found primarily and chiefly in God, in that He is the first principle of all our goods: secondarily it is found in our father, because he is the proximate principle of our begetting and upbringing: thirdly it is found in the person that excels in dignity, from whom general favors proceed; fourthly it is found in a benefactor, from whom we have received particular and private favors, on account of which we are under particular obligation to him. Accordingly, since what we owe God, or our father, or a person excelling in dignity, is not the same as what we owe a benefactor from whom we have received some particular favor, it follows that after religion, whereby we pay God due worship, and piety, whereby we worship our parents, and observance, whereby we worship persons excelling in dignity, there is thankfulness or gratitude, whereby we give thanks to our benefactors. And it is distinct from the foregoing virtues, just as each of these is distinct from the one that precedes, as falling short thereof. Reply to Objection 1: Just as religion is superexcelling piety, so is it excelling thankfulness or gratitude: wherefore giving thanks to God was reckoned above ([3185]Q[83], A[17]) among things pertaining to religion. Reply to Objection 2: Proportionate repayment belongs to commutative justice, when it answers to the legal due; for instance when it is contracted that so much be paid for so much. But the repayment that belongs to the virtue of thankfulness or gratitude answers to the moral debt, and is paid spontaneously. Hence thanksgiving is less thankful when compelled, as Seneca observes (De Beneficiis iii). Reply to Objection 3: Since true friendship is based on virtue, whatever there is contrary to virtue in a friend is an obstacle to friendship, and whatever in him is virtuous is an incentive to friendship. In this way friendship is preserved by repayment of favors, although repayment of favors belongs specially to the virtue of gratitude. Whether the innocent is more bound to give thanks to God than the penitent?Objection 1: It seems that the innocent is more bound to give thanks to God than the penitent. For the greater the gift one has received from God, the more one is bound to give Him thanks. Now the gift of innocence is greater than that of justice restored. Therefore it seems that the innocent is more bound to give thanks to God than the penitent.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Objection 3: Further, science is no less spiritual than power. Now it is lawful to receive money for the use of science: thus a lawyer may sell his just advocacy, a physician his advice for health, and a master the exercise of his teaching. Therefore in like manner it would seem lawful for a prelate to receive something for the use of his spiritual power, for instance, for correction, dispensation, and so forth. Objection 4: Further, religion is the state of spiritual perfection. Now in certain monasteries something is demanded from those who are received there. Therefore it is lawful to demand something for spiritual things. On the contrary, It is stated (I, qu. i [*Can. Quidquid invisibilis]): “It is absolutely forbidden to make a charge for what is acquired by the consolation of invisible grace, whether by demanding a price or by seeking any kind of return whatever.” Now all these spiritual things are acquired through an invisible grace. Therefore it is not lawful to charge a price or return for them. I answer that, Just as the sacraments are called spiritual, because they confer a spiritual grace, so, too, certain other things are called spiritual, because they flow from spiritual grace and dispose thereto. And yet these things are obtainable through the ministry of men, according to 1 Cor. 9:7, “Who serveth as a soldier at any time at his own charges? Who feedeth the flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?” Hence it is simoniacal to sell or buy that which is spiritual in such like actions; but to receive or give something for the support of those who minister spiritual things in accordance with the statutes of the Church and approved customs is lawful, yet in such wise that there be no intention of buying or selling, and that no pressure be brought to bear on those who are unwilling to give, by withholding spiritual things that ought to be administered, for then there would be an appearance of simony. But after the spiritual things have been freely bestowed, then the statutory and customary offerings and other dues may be exacted from those who are unwilling but able to pay, if the superior authorize this to be done. Reply to Objection 1: As Jerome says in his commentary on Mic. 3:9, certain gifts were freely offered to the good prophets, for their livelihood, but not as a price for the exercise of their gift of prophecy. Wicked prophets, however, abused this exercise by demanding payment for it.

• From Four Days to Glory: Wrestling with the Soul of the American Heartland (2005)

  In Iowa: Kevin McCauley, Bud Legg, Jeff Nelson, Mike McDonough, Tom Brands, Mike Chapman, Kyle Klingman, Mike Fisher, Dan Gable, Pablo Ubasa, Jim Zalesky, Larry Henderson, Jason Haag, Curt Hynek, CJ McDonald, the Marion Maid-Rite Café and that used CD shop over by the mall off Collins Road. For help unwittingly supplied: Brian Brown, Bruce Schoenfeld, Donald E. Wood, Shelly Wood, Barry Lorge, Bob Wright, Michael “Duke” McIntyre, Murph and Chris, Jim, Blake, Kevin and Mitch, the good folks at the Sacramento Bee, and countless others who volunteered good wishes and belief at precisely the times they were needed. Much love to big brother Steve and sister Kay; to my mother, Rachel; to Fitz; to my father’s memory; to legions of Costellos, Kreidlers, Woods, Janssens, and FitzSimonses everywhere; and to our enduring friends. You know who you are. Sincere thanks to Jeff Nicholson for the office space. This book is lovingly dedicated to Colleen Costello-Kreidler, Patric Kreidler and Ryan Kreidler, for their unswerving loyalty and nearly limitless patience. You are my finalists. About the Author MARK KREIDLER is a regular contributor to ESPN television, ESPN.com, and ESPN magazine, and a recipient of the Associated Press Sports Editors citation as one of the ten best sportswriters in America. He lives in northern California with his wife and sons. Visit www.AuthorTracker.com for exclusive information on your favorite HarperCollins author. Credits Cover photograph by Benjamin Hill Copyright FOUR DAYS TO GLORY. Copyright © 2007 by Mark Kreidler. All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, down-loaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of HarperCollins e- books. EPub Edition © NOVEMBER 2007 ISBN: 9780061865640 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 About the Publisher Australia HarperCollins Publishers (Australia) Pty. Ltd. 25 Ryde Road (PO Box 321) Pymble, NSW 2073, Australia http://www.harpercollinsebooks.com.au Canada HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. 55 Avenue Road, Suite 2900 Toronto, ON, M5R, 3L2, Canada http://www.harpercollinsebooks.ca New Zealand HarperCollinsPublishers (New Zealand) Limited P.O. Box 1 Auckland, New Zealand http://www.harpercollinsebooks.co.nz United Kingdom HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. 77-85 Fulham Palace Road London, W6 8JB, UK http://www.harpercollinsebooks.co.uk United States HarperCollins Publishers Inc. 10 East 53rd Street New York, NY 10022 http://www.harpercollinsebooks.com

• From Collected Essays (1998)

  He was acquitted that day and when he returned to the cel l-f or he could not be released until morning-he found me sitting numbly on the floor, having just been prevented, by the sight of a man, all blood, being carried back to his cell on a stretcher, from seizing the bars and screaming until they let me out. The sight of the man on the stretcher proved, however, that screaming EQ UAL IN PARIS 11 5 would not do much for me. The petty-larceny man went around asking if he could do anything in the world outside for those he was leaving behind. When he came to me I, at first, responded, "N o, nothing"-f or I suppose I had by now retreated into the attitude, the earliest I remember, that of my father, which was simply (since I had lost his God) that noth ing could help me. And I suppose I will remember with grat itude until I die the fact that the man now insisted: aMais, etes-vous sur?)) Then it swept over me that he was going out side and he instantly became my first contact since the Lord alone knew how long with the outside world. At the same time, I remember, I did not really believe that he would help me. There was no reason why he should. But I gave him the phone number of my attorney friend and my own name. So, in the middle of the next day, Christmas Eve, I shuffied downstairs again, to meet my visitor. He looked extremely well fed and sane and clean. He told me I had nothing to worry about any more. Only not even he could do anything to make the mill of justice grind any faster. He would, how ever, send me a lawyer of his acquaintance who would def end me on the 27th, and he would himself, along with several other people, appear as a character witness. He gave me a package of Lucky Strikes (which the turnkey took from me on the way upstairs) and said that, though it was doubtful that there would be any celebration in the prison, he would see to it that I got a fine Christmas dinner when I got out. And this, somehow, seemed very funny. I remember being astonished at the discovery that I was actually laughing.

• From Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption (2014)

  Now that Walter’s case record was complete, appeal pleadings would be due soon, and time was critical. I should have returned to Montgomery directly from the prison, but Walter’s family wanted to meet, and since they were less than an hour from the prison I had promised to come to Monroeville. — Walter’s wife, Minnie Belle McMillian, and his daughter Jackie were waiting patiently when I pulled up to the McMillians’ dilapidated house in Repton, which was off the main road leading into Monroeville. Walter had told me I would know I was close when I passed a cluster of liquor stores on the county line between Conecuh and Monroe counties. Monroe County is a “dry county” where no alcoholic beverages can be sold; for the convenience of its thirsty citizens, several package stores marked the boundary with Conecuh County. Walter’s house was just a few miles from the county line. I pulled into the driveway and was surprised at the profound disrepair; this was a poor family’s home. The front porch was propped on three cinder blocks piled precariously beneath wood flooring that showed signs of rot. The blue window panes were in desperate need of paint, and a makeshift set of stairs that didn’t connect to the structure was the only access to the home. The yard was littered with abandoned car parts, tires, broken pieces of furniture, and other detritus. Before getting out of my car, I decided to put on my well-worn suit jacket, even though I had noticed earlier that it was missing buttons on both jacket sleeves. Minnie walked out the front door and apologized for the appearance of the yard as I carefully stepped onto the porch. She kindly invited me inside while a woman in her early twenties lingered behind her. “Let me fix something for you to eat. You been at the prison all day,” she said. Minnie looked tired but otherwise appeared as I had imagined—patient and strong—based on Walter’s descriptions and my own guesses from our phone conversations. Because the State had made Walter’s affair with Karen Kelly part of its case in court, the trial had been especially difficult for Minnie. But she looked like she was still standing strong. “Oh, no, thank you. I appreciate it, but it’s fine. Walter and I ate some things on the visitation yard.” “They don’t have nothing on that prison yard but chips and sodas. Let me cook you something good.” “That’s very kind, I appreciate it, but I’m really okay. I know you’ve been working all day, too.”

• From Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption (2014)

  A month later, a trial was convened. Facing charges of first-degree murder, George sat alone in front of an estimated crowd of fifteen hundred white people who had packed the courtroom and surrounded the building. No African Americans were allowed inside the courthouse. George’s white court-appointed attorney, a tax lawyer with political aspirations, called no witnesses. The prosecution’s only evidence was the sheriff’s testimony regarding George’s alleged confession. The trial was over in a few hours. An all-white jury deliberated for ten minutes before convicting George of rape and murder. Judge Stoll promptly sentenced the fourteen-year-old to death. George’s lawyer said there would be no appeal because his family didn’t have the money to pay for it. Despite appeals from the NAACP and black clergy, who asked that the sentence be converted to life imprisonment, Governor Olin Johnston refused to intervene and George was sent to Columbia to be executed in South Carolina’s electric chair. Small even for his age, the five foot two, ninety-two-pound Stinney walked up to the chair with a Bible in his hand. He had to sit on the book when prison staff couldn’t fit the electrodes to his small frame. Alone in the room, with no family or any people of color present, the terrified child sat in the oversized electric chair. He frantically searched the room for someone to help but saw only law enforcement personnel and reporters. The adult-size mask slid off George’s face when the first jolt of electricity struck his body. Witnesses to the execution could see his “wide open, tearful eyes and saliva dripping from his mouth.” Eighty-one days after being approached by two young girls about where flowers might be found, George Stinney was pronounced dead. Years later, rumors surfaced that a white man from a prominent family confessed on his deathbed to killing the girls. Recently, an effort has been launched to exonerate George Stinney. The Stinney execution was horrific and heartbreaking, but it reflected the racial politics of the South more than the way children accused of crimes were generally treated. It was an example of how policies and norms once directed exclusively at controlling and punishing the black population have filtered their way into our general criminal justice system. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, the politics of fear and anger sweeping the country and fueling mass incarceration was turning its attention to children.

• From Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption (2014)

  It would have been too embarrassing to turn around, so I drove slowly across the bridge and was relieved when we had made it to the other side. I continued for another mile until the forest began to give way to trailers, a few small homes, and finally, an entire community hidden away in the woods. We pulled up a hill until we reached a trailer that was glowing in the darkness, lit by a fire burning in a barrel out front. Six or seven small children were playing outside; they dashed into the trailer when they saw our car pull up. As we got out of the car, a tall man emerged from the trailer. He walked up to us and hugged Minnie and Jackie before shaking my hand. “They been waiting for you,” he told me. “I know you probably got a lot of work to do, but we appreciate you coming to meet with us. I’m Giles, Walter’s nephew.” Giles led me to the trailer and opened the door for me to step inside. The small home was packed with more than thirty people, whose chattering fell silent when I walked in. I was startled by the size of the group, which stared at me appraisingly and then, one by one, started to smile at me. Then, to my amazement, the room broke into loud applause. I was stunned by the gesture. No one had ever applauded me just for showing up. There were older women, younger women, men Walter’s age, and several men much older. Their faces were creased with a by-now familiar look of anxiety. When the applause had died down, I began to speak. “Thank you, that’s very kind,” I started. “I’m so glad to meet you all. Mr. McMillian told me he had a large family, but I didn’t expect so many of you to be here. I saw him today, and he wants me to pass along his thanks and his gratitude to all of you for sticking by him. I hope you know how much your support means. He has to wake up on death row every morning, and that’s not easy. But he knows he’s not alone. He talks about you all the time.” “Sit down, Mr. Stevenson,” someone shouted. I took a seat on an empty couch that seemed to have been reserved for me and Minnie sat down beside me. Everyone else stood, facing me. “We don’t have any money. We gave it all to the first lawyer,” called out one of the men. “I understand that, and I won’t take a penny. I work for a nonprofit law office, and we provide legal assistance at no cost to the people we represent,” I replied. “Well, how do you pay the bills?” asked one young woman. People laughed at the question. “We get donations from foundations and people who support our work.”

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Objection 5: Further, no one is bound to do what he cannot do equitably and advantageously. Now it happens at times that the benefactor is very well off, and it would be of no advantage to him to be repaid for a favor he has bestowed. Again it happens sometimes that the benefactor from being virtuous has become wicked, so that it would not seem equitable to repay him. Also the recipient of a favor may be a poor man, and is quite unable to repay. Therefore seemingly a man is not always bound to repayment for favors received. Objection 6: Further, no one is bound to do for another what is inexpedient and hurtful to him. Now sometimes it happens that repayment of a favor would be hurtful or useless to the person repaid. Therefore favors are not always to be repaid by gratitude. On the contrary, It is written (1 Thess. 5:18): “In all things give thanks.” I answer that, Every effect turns naturally to its cause; wherefore Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i) that “God turns all things to Himself because He is the cause of all”: for the effect must needs always be directed to the end of the agent. Now it is evident that a benefactor, as such, is cause of the beneficiary. Hence the natural order requires that he who has received a favor should, by repaying the favor, turn to his benefactor according to the mode of each. And, as stated above with regard to a father ([3186]Q[31], A[3];[3187] Q[101], A[2]), a man owes his benefactor, as such, honor and reverence, since the latter stands to him in the relation of principle; but accidentally he owes him assistance or support, if he need it. Reply to Objection 1: In the words of Seneca (1 Benef. v), “just as a man is liberal who gives not to himself but to others, and gracious who forgives not himself but others, and merciful who is moved, not by his own misfortunes but by another’s, so too, no man confers a favor on himself, he is but following the bent of his nature, which moves him to resist what hurts him, and to seek what is profitable.” Wherefore in things that one does for oneself, there is no place for gratitude or ingratitude, since a man cannot deny himself a thing except by keeping it. Nevertheless things which are properly spoken of in relation to others are spoken of metaphorically in relation to oneself, as the Philosopher states regarding justice (Ethic. v, 11), in so far, to wit, as the various parts of man are considered as though they were various persons.

• From Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption (2014)

  Trina’s mental and physical health made her life in prison extremely challenging. She was grateful for our help and showed remarkable improvement when we told her that we were going to fight to get her sentence reduced, but she had many other needs. She talked constantly about wanting to see her son. She wanted to know that she was not alone in the world. We tracked down her sisters and arranged a visit where Trina could see her son, and it seemed to strengthen her in ways I wouldn’t have thought possible. I flew to Los Angeles and drove hundreds of miles through the heart of Central California farmland to meet Antonio at a maximum-security prison dominated by gangs and frequent violence. He was trying to acculturate himself to a world that corrupted healthy human development in every way. Reading had always been challenging for Antonio, but he had a strong desire to learn and was so determined to understand that he would read a passage over and over, looking up unfamiliar words in the dictionary we sent him, until he got it. We recently sent him Darwin’s The Origin of Species, which he hopes will help him better understand those around him. It turns out that Ian was very, very bright. Although being smart and sensitive made his extended time in solitary confinement especially destructive, he had managed to educate himself, read hundreds of books, and write poetry and short stories that reflected an eager, robust intellect. He sent me dozens of letters and poems. I’d return to the office after traveling for a few days and often find letters from Ian. Sometimes I’d find within a letter a scrap of wrinkled paper, which, once unfolded, would reveal thoughtful and sobering poems with titles like “Uncried Tears,” “Tied Up with Words,” “The Unforgiving Minute,” “Silence,” and “Wednesday Ritual.” We decided to publish a report to draw attention to the plight of children in the United States who had been sentenced to die in prison. I wanted to photograph some of our clients in order to give the life-without-parole sentences imposed on children a human face. Florida was one of the few states that would allow photographers inside a prison, so we asked prison officials if Ian could be permitted out of his solitary, no-touch existence for an hour so that the photographer we hired could take the pictures. To my delight, they agreed and allowed Ian to be in the same room with an outside photographer. As soon as the visit was over, Ian immediately wrote me a letter. Dear Mr. Stevenson: I hope this letter reaches you in good health, and everything is going well for you. The focal point of this letter is to thank you for the photo session with the photographer and obtain information from you how I can obtain a good amount of photos.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  AMBROSE. Or it may reseek its own home, i. e. return to Paradise, for that is its true home, which first received man, and was lost not fairly, but by treachery. Rightly then is the soul restored thither, since He has come Who will undo the treacherous knot, and reestablish righteousness. 5:27–3227. And after these things he went forth, and saw a Publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me. 28. And he left all, rose up, and followed him. 29. And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of Publicans and of others that sat down with them. 30. But their Scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with Publicans and sinners? 31. And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. 32. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. AUGUSTINE. (de con. Ev. l. ii. c. 26.) After the healing of the sick of the palsy, St. Luke goes on to mention the conversion of a publican, saying, And after these things, he went forth, and saw a publican of the name of Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom. This is Matthew, also called Levi. BEDE. Now Luke and Mark, for the honour of the Evangelist, are silent as to his common name, but Matthew is the first to accuse himself, and gives the name of Matthew and publican, that no one might despair of salvation because of the enormity of his sins, when he himself was changed from a publican to an Apostle. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA. For Levi had been a publican, a rapacious man, of unbridled desires after vain things, a lover of other men’s goods, for this is the character of the publican, but snatched from the very worship of malice by Christ’s call. Hence it follows, And he said unto him, Follow me. He bids him follow Him, not with bodily step, but with the soul’s affections. Matthew therefore, being called by the Word, left his own, who was wont to seize the things of others, as it follows, And having left all, he rose, and followed him. CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. 30. in Matt.) Here mark both the power of the caller, and the obedience of him that was called. For he neither resisted nor wavered, but forthwith obeyed; and like the fishermen, he did not even wish to go into his own house that he might tell it to his friends. BASIL. (Reg. fus. tract. 8.) He not only gave up the profits of the customs, but also despised the dangers which might occur to himself and his family from leaving the accounts of the receipts uncompleted. THEOPHYLACT. And so from him that received toll from the passers by, Christ received toll, not money, but entire devotion to His company.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  But whereas the invisible things of God are clearly seen … being understood by the things that are made, by divine grace not only are divine things revealed to men, but also some things about creatures; and this apparently belongs to knowledge. Hence it is said (Wis. 7:17): He hath given me the true knowledge of the things that are: to know the disposition of the whole world, and the virtues of the elements. Again the Lord said to Solomon (2 Paralip. 1:12): Wisdom and knowledge are granted to thee. Again, man cannot conveniently communicate his knowledge to others except by speech. Since, then, according to the order established by God, those who receive God’s revelation have to instruct others, it was also necessary that they should receive the grace of the word, in so far as it was required for the profit of those to be instructed. Hence it is said (Isa. 50:4): The Lord hath given me a learned tongue, that I should know how to uphold by word him that is weary. And our Lord said to His disciples (Luke 21:15): I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries will not be able to resist and gainsay.—For this same reason, as long as the truth of faith had to be preached in various countries by a few, certain ones were equipped with the gift of speaking in divers tongues, according to Acts 2:4: They were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak. Since, however, the proffered speech needs confirmation that it may be accepted, unless it be manifest in itself; and whereas things that are of faith are not clear to human reason: it was necessary to provide some means of confirming the utterances of those who preached the faith. But they could not be confirmed by being demonstrated from principles of reason, since matters of faith are above reason. Therefore the preachers’ words needed to be confirmed by some kind of signs, whereby it was made evident that their words were from God, and that the preacher should do such works as healing the sick, and performing other deeds of power, which God alone can do. Hence our Lord, on the point of sending His disciples to preach, said (Matth. 10:8): Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out devils: and (Mark 16:20) it is said: But they, going forth, preached everywhere: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Reply to Objection 3: As in injustice, which is a cardinal virtue, we consider equality of things, so in gratitude we consider equality of wills. For while on the one hand the benefactor of his own free-will gave something he was not bound to give, so on the other hand the beneficiary repays something over and above what he has received. OF INGRATITUDE (FOUR ARTICLES)We must now consider ingratitude, under which head there are four points of inquiry: (1) Whether ingratitude is always a sin? (2) Whether ingratitude is a special sin? (3) Whether every act of ingratitude is a mortal sin? (4) Whether favors should be withdrawn from the ungrateful? Whether ingratitude is always a sin?Objection 1: It seems that ingratitude is not always a sin. For Seneca says (De Benef. iii) that “he who does not repay a favor is ungrateful.” But sometimes it is impossible to repay a favor without sinning, for instance if one man has helped another to commit a sin. Therefore, since it is not a sin to refrain from sinning, it seems that ingratitude is not always a sin. Objection 2: Further, every sin is in the power of the person who commits it: because, according to Augustine (De Lib. Arb. iii; Retract. i), “no man sins in what he cannot avoid.” Now sometimes it is not in the power of the sinner to avoid ingratitude, for instance when he has not the means of repaying. Again forgetfulness is not in our power, and yet Seneca declares (De Benef. iii) that “to forget a kindness is the height of ingratitude.” Therefore ingratitude is not always a sin. Objection 3: Further, there would seem to be no repayment in being unwilling to owe anything, according to the Apostle (Rom. 13:8), “Owe no man anything.” Yet “an unwilling debtor is ungrateful,” as Seneca declares (De Benef. iv). Therefore ingratitude is not always a sin. On the contrary, Ingratitude is reckoned among other sins (2 Tim. 3:2), where it is written: “Disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked.” etc. I answer that, As stated above ([3191]Q[106], A[4], ad 1, A[6]) a debt of gratitude is a moral debt required by virtue. Now a thing is a sin from the fact of its being contrary to virtue. Wherefore it is evident that every ingratitude is a sin. Reply to Objection 1: Gratitude regards a favor received: and he that helps another to commit a sin does him not a favor but an injury: and so no thanks are due to him, except perhaps on account of his good will, supposing him to have been deceived, and to have thought to help him in doing good, whereas he helped him to sin. In such a case the repayment due to him is not that he should be helped to commit a sin, because this would be repaying not good but evil, and this is contrary to gratitude.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Moreover, the active power of the male seed operates naturally, and so man, who is begotten of male seed, is brought to perfection, not at once, but by definite processes. For all natural things advance to fixed ends through fixed intermediary stages. But Christ’s body ought to have been perfect and informed by a rational soul at its very assumption; for a body is capable of being assumed by the Word of God so far as it is united to a rational soul, even though it was not at first perfect with regard to its full measure of quantity. Accordingly the body of Christ ought not to have been formed through the power of the male seed. CHAPTER 219 THE CAUSE OF THE FORMATION OF CHRIST’S BODYSince the formation of the human body is naturally effected by the male seed, any other way of fashioning the body of Christ was above nature. God alone is the author of nature, and He works supernaturally in natural things, as was remarked above. Hence we conclude that God alone miraculously formed that body from matter supplied by human nature. However, although every action of God in creation is common to the three divine persons, the formation of Christ’s body is, by a certain appropriation, attributed to the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and the Son, who love each other and us in Him. Since God decreed that His Son should become incarnate because of “His exceeding charity with which He loved us,” as the Apostle says in Ephesians 2:4, the formation of Christ’s flesh is fittingly ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Besides, the Holy Spirit is the author of all grace, since He is the first in whom all gifts are given gratis. But the taking up of human nature into the unity of a divine person was a communication of superabundant grace, as is clear from what was said above. Accordingly, to emphasize the greatness of this grace, the formation of Christ’s body is attributed to the Holy Spirit. Another reason for the appropriateness of this teaching is the relationship between the human word and spirit. The human word, as existing in the heart, bears a resemblance to the eternal Word as existing in the Father. And as the human word takes voice that it may become sensibly perceptible to men, so the Word of God took flesh that it might appear visibly to men. But the human voice is formed by man’s breath or spirit. In the same way the flesh of the Word of God ought to have been formed by the Spirit of the Word. CHAPTER 220

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  I. On the first head, it is to be noted, that three reasons chiefly move us in shewing mercy. (1) Necessity; (2) utility; (3) congruity. It is a necessity, because he who does not shew mercy will not find mercy. James 2:13, “For he shall have judgment without mercy that hath shewed no mercy.” It is useful, because he who shews mercy shall find mercy. S. Matt. 5:7, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” It is congruous, because when we obtain mercy from all creatures, it is only suitable that we should shew mercy to others. For we are full of misery, and unless other creatures should have compassion on us in giving themselves and their kind offices for us, we should not be able to exist. For if the sun or fire should give up its light and heat, and the earth its fruit, what could miserable man do? Therefore it is sufficiently congruous, since man meets mercy, that he should shew mercy to others. Prov. 19:22, Vulg., “The needy man is merciful;” and he who needs mercy ought to shew mercy to others—ought to be sorry for others; whence, in a certain way, creatures accuse the unmerciful. II. On the second head, it is to be noted that the mercy of God chiefly appeared in three ways. (1) In the gift of His Son: it was a great gift, and a great mercy, of which S. Luke 1:72, “To perform the mercy promised to our fathers.” (2) In the glorification of the just, Psalm 109:21, “Because Thy mercy is good.” Psalm 36:5, “Thy mercy, O Lord, is in the heavens.” (3) In the justification of sinners, Psalm 86:13, “For great is Thy mercy toward me.” On account of the first mercy we ought to praise Him and love Him. On account of the second mercy we ought to be confident, for however great sinners they may be they may fly to God. Isa. 55:7. “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him: and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon.” On account of the third mercy we ought, with quickness, to run to God. Heb. 4:11, “Let us labour, therefore, to enter into that rest” (Vulgate, hasten). To which rest may we, &c. HOMILY IX THE EVIL AND THE GOOD FIFTH SUNDAY AFTER TRINITY.—(FROM THE EPISTLE)“Let him eschew evil and do good; let him seek peace and ensue it.”—1 Peter 3:11. THERE are two parts of righteousness to which the blessed Peter invites us in these words. The first is the avoiding of evil, “Let him eschew evil.” The second is, the delighting in good, “and do good.”

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Objection 2: Further, a man owes love to his benefactor just as he owes him gratitude. Now Augustine says (Confess. ii): “What man, weighing his own infirmity, would dare to ascribe his purity and innocence to his own strength; that so he should love Thee the less, as if he had less needed Thy mercy, whereby Thou remittest sins to those that turn to Thee?” And farther on he says: “And for this let him love Thee as much, yea and more, since by Whom he sees me to have been recovered from such deep torpor of sin, by Him he sees himself to have been from the like torpor of sin preserved.” Therefore the innocent is also more bound to give thanks than the penitent. Objection 3: Further, the more a gratuitous favor is continuous, the greater the thanksgiving due for it. Now the favor of divine grace is more continuous in the innocent than in the penitent. For Augustine says (Confess. iii): “To Thy grace I ascribe it, and to Thy mercy, that Thou hast melted away my sins as it were ice. To Thy grace I ascribe also whatsoever I have not done of evil; for what might I not have done? . . . Yea, all I confess to have been forgiven me, both what evils I committed by my own wilfulness, and what by Thy guidance committed not.” Therefore the innocent is more bound to give thanks than the penitent. On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 7:43): “To whom more is forgiven, he loveth more [*Vulg.: ‘To whom less is forgiven, he loveth less’ Lk. 7:47].” Therefore for the same reason he is bound to greater thanksgiving.

• From The Well of Loneliness (1928)

  And now, because they were so often parted, even chance meetings became of importance. They might meet while preparing their cars in the morning, and if this should happen they would draw close together for a moment, as though finding comfort in nearness. Letters from home would arrive for Stephen, and these she would want to read to Mary. In addition to writing, Puddle sent food, even luxuries sometimes, of a pre-war nature. To obtain them she must have used bribery and corruption, for food of all kinds had grown scarce in England. Puddle, it seemed, had a mammoth war map into which she stuck pins with gay little pennants. Every time the lines moved by so much as a yard, out would come Puddle’s pins to go in at fresh places; for since Stephen had left her to go to the front, the war had become very personal to Puddle. Anna also wrote, and from her Stephen learnt of the death of Roger Antrim. He had been shot down while winning his V.C. through saving the life of a wounded captain. All alone he had gone over to no-man’s-land and had rescued his friend where he lay unconscious, receiving a bullet through the head at the moment of flinging the wounded man into safety. Roger—so lacking in understanding, so crude, so cruel and remorseless a bully—Roger had been changed in the twinkling of an eye into something superb because utterly selfless. Thus it was that the undying urge of mankind towards the ideal had come upon Roger. And Stephen as she sat there and read of his passing, suddenly knew that she wished him well, that his courage had wiped one great bitterness out of her heart and her life for ever. And so by dying as he had died, Roger, all unknowing, had fulfilled the law that must be extended to enemy and friend alike—the immutable law of service. 4 Events gathered momentum. By the June of that year 700,000 United States soldiers, strong and comely men plucked from their native prairies, from their fields of tall corn, from their farms and their cities, were giving their lives in defence of freedom on the blood-soaked battlefields of France.