Does the mode of charity fall under a precept of divine law?

It seems that the mode of charity falls under a precept of divine law:

Objection 1:  Matthew 19:17 says, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments,” and from this it is apparent that the observance of the commandments is sufficient for entering into life.  But good works are not sufficient for entering into life unless they are done out of charity; for 1 Corinthians 13:3 says, “If I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, but have not charity, it profits me nothing.”  Therefore, the mode of charity is contained in a precept.

Objection 2:  The mode of charity properly concerns doing all things for the sake of God.  But this falls under a precept; for in 1 Corinthians 10:31 the Apostle says, “Do everything for the glory of God.”  Therefore, the mode of charity falls under a precept.

Objection 3:  If the mode of charity does not fall under a precept, then someone can fulfill the precepts of the law without having charity.  But what can be done without charity can be done without grace, which is always joined to charity.  Therefore, someone can fulfill the precepts of the Law without grace.  But as is clear from Augustine in De Haeresibus, this is the error of Pelagius.  Therefore, the mode of charity is contained in a precept.

But contrary to this:  Whoever does not observe a precept commits a mortal sin.  Therefore, if the mode of charity fell under a precept, it would follow that if someone did something without acting out of charity, he would commit a mortal sin.  But anyone who does not have charity is such that he acts without acting out of charity.  Therefore, it follows that anyone who does not have charity commits a mortal sin in every act that he does, no matter how good it is.  But this is absurd.

I respond:  There have been contrary opinions on this matter.
Some have claimed that, absolutely speaking, the mode of charity falls under a precept.  And it is not impossible for someone lacking charity to observe this precept, since he can dispose himself to having charity infused in him by God.  Nor is it the case that whenever someone lacking charity does something good, he commits a mortal sin.  For ‘Act out of charity’ is an affirmative precept and imposes an obligation not for all times, but only for those times at which someone has charity.
By contrast, others have claimed that the mode of charity does not fall under a precept in any way at all.
Both sides have asserted the truth in a certain respect.  For there are two possible ways to think of the act of charity:
In the first way, one is thinking of it as a certain act in its own right (quidam actus per se).  And in this sense it falls under the precept of the Law that is proposed specifically about this act, viz., “You shall love the Lord your God, and you shall love your neighbor.”  And on this score, the first opinion has asserted the truth, since it is not impossible to observe this precept, which has to do with the act of charity.  For a man can dispose himself to have charity, and then, when he has it, he can make use of it.
In a second way, the act of charity can be thought of insofar as it is a mode of the acts of the other virtues, i.e., insofar as the acts of the other virtues are ordered to charity, which is, as 1 Timothy 1:5 says, the end of the precept.  For as was explained above (q. 12, a. 1), the intending of an end is a sort of formal mode of an act ordered to that end.  And in this sense, what the second opinion asserted is true, viz., that the mode of charity does not fall under a precept.  That is to say, the precept “Honor your father, etc.” includes only honoring one’s father and not honoring one’s father out of charity.  Hence, even if someone who is honoring his father does not have charity, he is not transgressing this precept—and this is so even if he is transgressing the precept that has to do with the act of charity and so merits punishment because of this transgression.

Reply to objection 1:  Our Lord did not say, “If you wish to enter into life, keep one commandment.”  Rather, He said, “Keep all the commandments”—among which is the commandment about love of God and neighbor.

Reply to objection 2:  The commandment of charity includes loving God with one’s whole heart, which has to do with referring all things to God.  And so a man cannot fulfill the precept of charity without referring all things to God.  So, then, one who honors his parents is obligated to honor them out of charity, but this obligation comes from the force of the precept “You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart” and not from the force of the precept “Honor your parents.”  Moreover, since these two affirmative precepts do not impose an obligation for all times, they can impose obligations for diverse times.  And so it is possible for someone to fulfill the precept about honoring one’s parents at a time when the precept concerning the omission of the mode of charity is not being transgressed.

Reply to objection 3:  A man cannot observe all the precepts of the Law unless he fulfills the precept of charity, which cannot be done without grace.  And so what Pelagius claimed is impossible, viz., that man fulfills the Law without grace.