This article examines the understanding of Christian love for the poor as portrayed by Thomas Aquinas and Gustavo Gutiérrez. It intends (1) to reveal the misunderstandings underlying some current criticisms of both charity and the preferential option, (2) to clarify the real differences between these positions, and (3) to identify areas in which our understanding of the preferential option might be advanced through more conceptual elaboration. The article argues that Thomistic charity is not private, superfluous, and acceptable as a substitute for justice. It also maintains that the preferential option is not a replacement for charity or a distortion of agapē that eliminates love of enemies. The major difference between Thomistic charity and the preferential option is the latter's assumption of modern “historical consciousness.” The fundamental ethical task awaiting advocates of the preferential option is a systematic explication of the connection between solidarity and the order of love. The fundamental theological task is to account for the relation of God to nature as well as to history.
