Interesting. I actually managed to get a philosophy degree from the University of Chicago without ever reading Aquinas. Still, I stand by my assertion that most modern-day charity is primarily driven by some combination of pity, guilt, social pressure, and self-aggrandizement. There’s rarely an interpersonal element to it, certainly nothing approaching the level of affection and concern that generally passes between family members.

One of Kurt Vonnegut’s lesser known works explores a near-future where everyone in the US is assigned a color, or maybe it was a number. In any event, whenever you met someone who shared your color/number, you were supposed to help him unconditionally and in any way that you could. The idea was to guarantee that everyone had a family to help and support him.

Vonnegut’s more popular God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater explores a similar theme. Eliot Rosewater inherits the presidency of a large family foundation and ultimately gives himself up completely to the people the Foundation seeks to help. He grants all requests for assistance and answers phone calls personally at all hours of the night. While it could be argued that he is actually taking the Foundation’s stated purpose as seriously as possible, his heirs point to this behavior as proof of his insanity and attempt to have him removed from the office so that they can control the fortune.

Saw the film. My soul shrinks by 1% ever time I see a Sandra Bullock film.

Interesting re: the distinction between charity and love is that the word “charity” originally was used to refer to the highest possible form of love rather than an act of caring devoid of real emotional attachment. The OED is not freely accessible online, but here is the wikipedia entry for charity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_(virtue)