We must now consider virginity: and under this head there are five
points of inquiry:
(1) In what does virginity consist?
(2) Whether it is lawful?
(3) Whether it is a virtue?
(4) Of its excellence in comparison with marriage;
(5) Of its excellence in comparison with the other virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether virginity consists in integrity of the flesh?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that virginity does not consist in integrity of the
flesh. For Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup.) [*The quotation is from De
Sancta Virgin. xiii] that "virginity is the continual meditation on
incorruption in a corruptible flesh." But meditation does not concern the
flesh. Therefore virginity is not situated in the flesh.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, virginity denotes a kind of purity. Now Augustine says
(De Civ. Dei i, 18) that "purity dwells in the soul." Therefore virginity
is not incorruption of the flesh.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the integrity of the flesh would seem to consist in the
seal of virginal purity. Yet sometimes the seal is broken without loss of
virginity. For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 18) that "those organs may
be injured through being wounded by mischance. Physicians, too, sometimes
do for the sake of health that which makes one shudder to see: and a
midwife has been known to destroy by touch the proof of virginity that
she sought." And he adds: "Nobody, I think, would be so foolish as to
deem this maiden to have forfeited even bodily sanctity, though she lost
the integrity of that organ." Therefore virginity does not consist in
incorruption of the flesh.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, corruption of the flesh consists chiefly in resolution
of the semen: and this may take place without copulation, whether one be
asleep or awake. Yet seemingly virginity is not lost without copulation:
for Augustine says (De Virgin. xiii) that "virginal integrity and holy
continency that refrains from all sexual intercourse is the portion of
angels." Therefore virginity does not consist in incorruption of the
flesh.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Virgin. viii) that "virginity is
continence whereby integrity of the flesh is vowed, consecrated and
observed in honor of the Creator of both soul and flesh."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[1] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Virginity takes its name apparently from "viror"
[freshness], and just as a thing is described as fresh and retaining its
freshness, so long as it is not parched by excessive heat, so too,
virginity denotes that the person possessed thereof is unseared by the
heat of concupiscence which is experienced in achieving the greatest
bodily pleasure which is that of sexual intercourse. Hence, Ambrose says
(De Virgin. i, 5) that "virginal chastity is integrity free of pollution."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[1] Body Para. 2/2
Now venereal pleasures offer three points for consideration. The first
is on the part of the body, viz. the violation of the seal of virginity.
The second is the link between that which concerns the soul and that
which concerns the body, and this is the resolution of the semen, causing
sensible pleasure. The third is entirely on the part of the soul, namely
the purpose of attaining this pleasure. Of these three the first is
accidental to the moral act, which as such must be considered in
reference to the soul. The second stands in the relation of matter to the
moral act, since the sensible passions are the matters of moral acts. But
the third stands in the position of form and complement, because the
essence of morality is perfected in that which concerns the reason. Since
then virginity consists in freedom from the aforesaid corruption, it
follows that the integrity of the bodily organ is accidental to
virginity; while freedom from pleasure in resolution of the semen is
related thereto materially; and the purpose of perpetually abstaining
from this pleasure is the formal and completive element in virginity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This definition of Augustine's expresses directly that
which is formal in virginity. For "meditation" denotes reason's purpose;
and the addition "perpetual" does not imply that a virgin must always
retain this meditation actually, but that she should bear in mind the
purpose of always persevering therein. The material element is expressed
indirectly by the words "on incorruption in a corruptible body." This is
added to show the difficulty of virginity: for if the flesh were
incorruptible, it would not be difficult to maintain a perpetual
meditation on incorruption.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: It is true that purity, as to its essence, is in the soul;
but as to its matter, it is in the body: and it is the same with
virginity. Wherefore Augustine says (De Virgin. viii) that "although
virginity resides in the flesh," and for this reason is a bodily quality,
"yet it is a spiritual thing, which a holy continency fosters and
preserves."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above, the integrity of a bodily organ is
accidental to virginity, in so far as a person, through purposely
abstaining from venereal pleasure, retains the integrity of a bodily
organ. Hence if the organ lose its integrity by chance in some other way,
this is no more prejudicial to virginity than being deprived of a hand or
foot.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Pleasure resulting from resolution of semen may arise in
two ways. If this be the result of the mind's purpose, it destroys
virginity, whether copulation takes place or not. Augustine, however,
mentions copulation, because such like resolution is the ordinary and
natural result thereof. In another way this may happen beside the purpose
of the mind, either during sleep, or through violence and without the
mind's consent, although the flesh derives pleasure from it, or again
through weakness of nature, as in the case of those who are subject to a
flow of semen. In such cases virginity is not forfeit, because such like
pollution is not the result of impurity which excludes virginity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether virginity is unlawful?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that virginity is unlawful. For whatever is
contrary to a precept of the natural law is unlawful. Now just as the
words of Gn. 2:16, "Of every tree" that is in "paradise, thou shalt eat,"
indicate a precept of the natural law, in reference to the preservation
of the individual, so also the words of Gn. 1:28, "Increase and multiply,
and fill the earth," express a precept of the natural law, in reference
to the preservation of the species. Therefore just as it would be a sin
to abstain from all food, as this would be to act counter to the good of
the individual, so too it is a sin to abstain altogether from the act of
procreation, for this is to act against the good of the species.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, whatever declines from the mean of virtue is apparently
sinful. Now virginity declines from the mean of virtue, since it abstains
from all venereal pleasures: for the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 2),
that "he who revels in every pleasure, and abstains from not even one, is
intemperate: but he who refrains from all is loutish and insensible."
Therefore virginity is something sinful.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, punishment is not due save for a vice. Now in olden
times those were punished who led a celibate life, as Valerius Maximus
asserts [*Dict. Fact. Mem. ii, 9]. Hence according to Augustine (De Vera
Relig. iii) Plato "is said to have sacrificed to nature, in order that he
might atone for his perpetual continency as though it were a sin."
Therefore virginity is a sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, No sin is a matter of direct counsel. But virginity is
a matter of direct counsel: for it is written (1 Cor. 7:25): "Concerning
virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give counsel." Therefore
virginity is not an unlawful thing.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, In human acts, those are sinful which are against right
reason. Now right reason requires that things directed to an end should
be used in a measure proportionate to that end. Again, man's good is
threefold as stated in Ethic. i, 8; one consisting in external things,
for instance riches; another, consisting in bodily goods; the third,
consisting in the goods of the soul among which the goods of the
contemplative life take precedence of the goods of the active life, as
the Philosopher shows (Ethic. x, 7), and as our Lord declared (Lk.
10:42), "Mary hath chosen the better part." Of these goods those that are
external are directed to those which belong to the body, and those which
belong to the body are directed to those which belong to the soul; and
furthermore those which belong to the active life are directed to those
which belong to the life of contemplation. Accordingly, right reason
dictates that one use external goods in a measure proportionate to the
body, and in like manner as regards the rest. Wherefore if a man refrain
from possessing certain things (which otherwise it were good for him to
possess), for the sake of his body's good, or of the contemplation of
truth, this is not sinful, but in accord /with right reason. In like
manner if a man abstain from bodily pleasures, in order more freely to
give himself to the contemplation of truth, this is in accordance with
the rectitude of reason. Now holy virginity refrains from all venereal
pleasure in order more freely to have leisure for Divine contemplation:
for the Apostle says (1 Cor. 7:34): "The unmarried woman and the virgin
thinketh on the things of the Lord: that she may be holy in both body and
in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world,
how she may please her husband." Therefore it follows that virginity
instead of being sinful is worthy of praise.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: A precept implies a duty, as stated above (Q[122], A[1]).
Now there are two kinds of duty. There is the duty that has to be
fulfilled by one person; and a duty of this kind cannot be set aside
without sin. The other duty has to be fulfilled by the multitude, and the
fulfilment of this kind of duty is not binding on each one of the
multitude. For the multitude has many obligations which cannot be
discharged by the individual; but are fulfilled by one person doing this,
and another doing that. Accordingly the precept of natural law which
binds man to eat must needs be fulfilled by each individual, otherwise
the individual cannot be sustained. On the other hand, the precept of
procreation regards the whole multitude of men, which needs not only to
multiply in body, but also to advance spiritually. Wherefore sufficient
provision is made for the human multitude, if some betake themselves to
carnal procreation, while others abstaining from this betake themselves
to the contemplation of Divine things, for the beauty and welfare of the
whole human race. Thus too in an army, some take sentry duty, others are
standard-bearers, and others fight with the sword: yet all these things
are necessary for the multitude, although they cannot be done by one
person.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The person who, beside the dictate of right reason,
abstains from all pleasures through aversion, as it were, for pleasure as
such, is insensible as a country lout. But a virgin does not refrain from
every pleasure, but only from that which is venereal: and abstains
therefrom according to right reason, as stated above. Now the mean of
virtue is fixed with reference, not to quantity but to right reason, as
stated in Ethic. ii, 6: wherefore it is said of the magnanimous (Ethic.
iv, 3) that "in point of quantity he goes to the extreme, but in point of
becomingness he follows the mean."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Laws are framed according to what occurs more frequently.
Now it seldom happened in olden times that anyone refrained from all
venereal pleasure through love of the contemplation of truth: as Plato
alone is related to have done. Hence it was not through thinking this a
sin, that he offered sacrifice, but "because he yielded to the false
opinion of his fellow countrymen," as Augustine remarks (De Vera Relig.
iii).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether virginity is a virtue?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that virginity is not a virtue. For "no virtue is
in us by nature," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1). Now virginity
is in us by nature, since all are virgins when born. Therefore virginity
is not a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, whoever has one virtue has all virtues, as stated above
(FS, Q[65], A[1]). Yet some have other virtues without having virginity:
else, since none can go to the heavenly kingdom without virtue, no one
could go there without virginity, which would involve the condemnation of
marriage. Therefore virginity is not a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, every virtue is recovered by penance. But virginity is
not recovered by penance: wherefore Jerome says [*Ep. xxii ad Eustoch.]:
"Other things God can do, but He cannot restore the virgin after her
downfall." Therefore seemingly virginity is not a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, no virtue is lost without sin. Yet virginity is lost
without sin, namely by marriage. Therefore virginity is not a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[3] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, virginity is condivided with widowhood and conjugal
purity. But neither of these is a virtue. Therefore virginity is not a
virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Virgin. i, 3): "Love of virginity
moves us to say something about virginity, lest by passing it over we
should seem to cast a slight on what is a virtue of high degree."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), the formal and completive element
in virginity is the purpose of abstaining from venereal pleasure, which
purpose is rendered praiseworthy by its end, in so far, to wit, as this
is done in order to have leisure for Divine things: while the material
element in virginity is integrity of the flesh free of all experience of
venereal pleasure. Now it is manifest that where a good action has a
special matter through having a special excellence, there is a special
kind of virtue: for example, magnificence which is about great
expenditure is for this reason a special virtue distinct from liberality,
which is about all uses of money in general. Now to keep oneself free
from the experience of venereal pleasure has an excellence of its own
deserving of greater praise than keeping oneself free from inordinate
venereal pleasure. Wherefore virginity is a special virtue being related
to chastity as magnificence to liberality.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Men have from their birth that which is material in
virginity, namely integrity of the flesh and freedom from venereal
experience. But they have not that which is formal in virginity, namely
the purpose of safeguarding this integrity for God's sake, which purpose
gives virginity its character of virtue. Hence Augustine says (De Virgin.
xi): "Nor do we praise virgins for being virgins, but, because their
virginity is consecrated to God by holy continency."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Virtues are connected together by reason of that which is
formal in them, namely charity, or by reason of prudence, as stated above
(Q[129], A[3], ad 2), but not by reason of that which is material in
them. For nothing hinders a virtuous man from providing the matter of one
virtue, and not the matter of another virtue: thus a poor man has the
matter of temperance, but not that of magnificence. It is in this way
that one who has the other virtues lacks the matter of virginity, namely
the aforesaid integrity of the flesh: nevertheless he can have that which
is formal in virginity, his mind being so prepared that he has the
purpose of safeguarding this same integrity of the flesh, should it be
fitting for him to do so: even as a poor man may be so prepared in mind
as to have the purpose of being magnificent in his expenditure, were he
in a position to do so: or again as a prosperous man is so prepared in
mind as to purpose bearing misfortune with equanimity: without which
preparedness of the mind no man can be virtuous.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: Virtue can be recovered by penance as regards that which is
formal in virtue, but not as to that which is material therein. For if a
magnificent man has squandered all his wealth he does not recover his
riches by repenting of his sin. In like manner a person who has lost
virginity by sin, recovers by repenting, not the matter of virginity but
the purpose of virginity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
As regards the matter of virginity there is that which can be
miraculously restored by God, namely the integrity of the organ, which we
hold to be accidental to virginity: while there is something else which
cannot be restored even by miracle, to wit, that one who has experienced
venereal lust should cease to have had that experience. For God cannot
make that which is done not to have been done, as stated in the FP, Q[25]
, A[4].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Virginity as a virtue denotes the purpose, confirmed by
vow, of observing perpetual integrity. For Augustine says (De Virgin.
viii) that "by virginity, integrity of the flesh is vowed, consecrated
and observed in honor of the Creator of both soul and flesh." Hence
virginity, as a virtue, is never lost without sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[3] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: Conjugal chastity is deserving of praise merely because it
abstains from unlawful pleasures: hence no excellence attaches to it
above that of chastity in general. Widowhood, however, adds something to
chastity in general; but it does not attain to that which is perfect in
this matter, namely to entire freedom from venereal pleasure; virginity
alone achieves this. Wherefore virginity alone is accounted a virtue
above chastity, even as magnificence is reckoned above liberality.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether virginity is more excellent than marriage?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that virginity is not more excellent than marriage.
For Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xxi): "Continence was equally
meritorious in John who remained unmarried and Abraham who begot
children." Now a greater virtue has greater merit. Therefore virginity is
not a greater virtue than conjugal chastity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the praise accorded a virtuous man depends on his
virtue. If, then, virginity were preferable to conjugal continence, it
would seem to follow that every virgin is to be praised more than any
married woman. But this is untrue. Therefore virginity is not preferable
to marriage.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the common good takes precedence of the private good,
according to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 2). Now marriage is directed to
the common good: for Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xvi): "What food is
to a man's wellbeing, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare of the
human race." On the other hand, virginity is ordered to the individual
good, namely in order to avoid what the Apostle calls the "tribulation of
the flesh," to which married people are subject (1 Cor. 7:28). Therefore
virginity is not greater than conjugal continence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Virgin. xix): "Both solid reason and
the authority of Holy Writ show that neither is marriage sinful, nor is
it to be equaled to the good of virginal continence or even to that of
widowhood."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, According to Jerome (Contra Jovin. i) the error of
Jovinian consisted in holding virginity not to be preferable to marriage.
This error is refuted above all by the example of Christ Who both chose a
virgin for His mother, and remained Himself a virgin, and by the teaching
of the Apostle who (1 Cor. 7) counsels virginity as the greater good. It
is also refuted by reason, both because a Divine good takes precedence of
a human good, and because the good of the soul is preferable to the good
of the body, and again because the good of the contemplative life is
better than that of the active life. Now virginity is directed to the
good of the soul in respect of the contemplative life, which consists in
thinking "on the things of God" [Vulg.: 'the Lord'], whereas marriage is
directed to the good of the body, namely the bodily increase of the human
race, and belongs to the active life, since the man and woman who embrace
the married life have to think "on the things of the world," as the
Apostle says (1 Cor. 7:34). Without doubt therefore virginity is
preferable to conjugal continence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Merit is measured not only by the kind of action, but still
more by the mind of the agent. Now Abraham had a mind so disposed, that
he was prepared to observe virginity, if it were in keeping with the
times for him to do so. Wherefore in him conjugal continence was equally
meritorious with the virginal continence of John, as regards the
essential reward, but not as regards the accidental reward. Hence
Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xxi) that both "the celibacy of John and
the marriage of Abraham fought Christ's battle in keeping with the
difference of the times: but John was continent even in deed, whereas
Abraham was continent only in habit."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Though virginity is better than conjugal continence, a
married person may be better than a virgin for two reasons. First, on the
part of chastity itself; if to wit, the married person is more prepared
in mind to observe virginity, if it should be expedient, than the one who
is actually a virgin. Hence Augustine (De Bono Conjug. xxii) charges the
virgin to say: "I am no better than Abraham, although the chastity of
celibacy is better than the chastity of marriage." Further on he gives
the reason for this: "For what I do now, he would have done better, if it
were fitting for him to do it then; and what they did I would even do now
if it behooved me now to do it." Secondly, because perhaps the person who
is not a virgin has some more excellent virtue. Wherefore Augustine says
(De Virgin. xliv): "Whence does a virgin know the things that belong to
the Lord, however solicitous she be about them, if perchance on account
of some mental fault she be not yet ripe for martyrdom, whereas this
woman to whom she delighted in preferring herself is already able to
drink the chalice of the Lord?"
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The common good takes precedence of the private good, if it
be of the same genus: but it may be that the private good is better
generically. It is thus that the virginity that is consecrated to God is
preferable to carnal fruitfulness. Hence Augustine says (De Virgin. ix):
"It must be confessed that the fruitfulness of the flesh, even of those
women who in these times seek naught else from marriage but children in
order to make them servants of Christ, cannot compensate for lost
virginity."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether virginity is the greatest of virtues?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that virginity is the greatest of virtues. For
Cyprian says (De Virgin. [*De Habitu Virg.]): "We address ourselves now
to the virgins. Sublime is their glory, but no less exalted is their
vocation. They are a flower of the Church's sowing, the pride and
ornament of spiritual grace, the most honored portion of Christ's flock."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a greater reward is due to the greater virtue. Now the
greatest reward is due to virginity, namely the hundredfold fruit,
according to a gloss on Mt. 13:23. Therefore virginity is the greatest of
the virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the more a virtue conforms us to Christ, the greater it
is. Now virginity above all conforms us to Christ; for it is declared in
the Apocalypse 14:4 that virgins "follow the Lamb whithersoever He
goeth," and (Apoc. 14:3) that they sing "a new canticle," which "no"
other "man" could say. Therefore virginity is the greatest of the virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Virgin. xlvi): "No one, methinks,
would dare prefer virginity to martyrdom," and (De Virgin. xlv): "The
authority of the Church informs the faithful in no uncertain manner, so
that they know in what place the martyrs and the holy virgins who have
departed this life are commemorated in the Sacrament of the Altar." By
this we are given to understand that martyrdom, and also the monastic
state, are preferable to virginity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, A thing may excel all others in two ways. First, in some
particular genus: and thus virginity is most excellent, namely in the
genus of chastity, since it surpasses the chastity both of widowhood and
of marriage. And because comeliness is ascribed to chastity
antonomastically, it follows that surpassing beauty is ascribed to
chastity. Wherefore Ambrose says (De Virgin. i, 7): "Can anyone esteem
any beauty greater than a virgin's, since she is beloved of her King,
approved by her Judge, dedicated to her Lord, consecrated to her God?"
Secondly, a thing may be most excellent simply, and in this way virginity
is not the most excellent of the virtues. Because the end always excels
that which is directed to the end; and the more effectively a thing is
directed to the end, the better it is. Now the end which renders
virginity praiseworthy is that one may have leisure for Divine things, as
stated above (A[4]). Wherefore the theological virtues as well as the
virtue of religion, the acts of which consist in being occupied about
Divine things, are preferable to virginity. Moreover, martyrs work more
mightily in order to cleave to God---since for this end they hold their
own life in contempt; and those who dwell in monasteries---since for this
end they give up their own will and all that they may possess---than
virgins who renounce venereal pleasure for that same purpose. Therefore
virginity is not simply the greatest of virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Virgins are "the more honored portion of Christ's flock,"
and "their glory more sublime" in comparison with widows and married
women.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The hundredfold fruit is ascribed to virginity, according
to Jerome [*Ep. cxxiii ad Ageruch.], on account of its superiority to
widowhood, to which the sixtyfold fruit is ascribed, and to marriage, to
which is ascribed the thirtyfold fruit. But according to Augustine (De
QQ. Evang. i, 9), "the hundredfold fruit is given to martyrs, the
sixtyfold to virgins, and the thirtyfold to married persons." Wherefore
it does not follow that virginity is simply the greatest of virtues, but
only in comparison with other degrees of chastity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[152] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Virgins "follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth," because
they imitate Christ, by integrity not only of the mind but also of the
flesh, as Augustine says (De Virgin. xxvii). Wherefore they follow the
Lamb in more ways, but this does not imply that they follow more closely,
because other virtues make us cleave to God more closely by imitation of
the mind. The "new hymn" which virgins alone sing, is their joy at having
preserved integrity of the flesh.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] Out. Para. 1/1
OF LUST (FIVE ARTICLES)
We must next consider the vice of lust which is opposed to chastity: (1)
Lust in general; (2) its species. Under the first head there are five
points of inquiry:
(1) What is the matter of lust?
(2) Whether all copulation is unlawful?
(3) Whether lust is a mortal sin?
(4) Whether lust is a capital vice?
(5) Concerning its daughters.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the matter of lust is only venereal desires and pleasures?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the matter of lust is not only venereal
desires and pleasures. For Augustine says (Confess. ii, 6) that "lust
affects to be called surfeit and abundance." But surfeit regards meat and
drink, while abundance refers to riches. Therefore lust is not properly
about venereal desires and pleasures.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 20:1): "Wine is a lustful [Douay:
'luxurious'] thing." Now wine is connected with pleasure of meat and
drink. Therefore these would seem to be the matter of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, lust is defined "as the desire of wanton pleasure"
[*Alexander of Hales, Summ. Theol. ii, cxvli]. But wanton pleasure
regards not only venereal matters but also many others. Therefore lust is
not only about venereal desires and pleasures.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, To the lustful it is said (De Vera Relig. iii [*Written
by St. Augustine]): "He that soweth in the flesh, of the flesh shall reap
corruption." Now the sowing of the flesh refers to venereal pleasures.
Therefore these belong to lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As Isidore says (Etym. x), "a lustful man is one who is
debauched with pleasures." Now venereal pleasures above all debauch a
man's mind. Therefore lust is especially concerned with such like
pleasures.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Even as temperance chiefly and properly applies to
pleasures of touch, yet consequently and by a kind of likeness is
referred to other matters, so too, lust applies chiefly to venereal
pleasures, which more than anything else work the greatest havoc in a
man's mind, yet secondarily it applies to any other matters pertaining to
excess. Hence a gloss on Gal. 5:19 says "lust is any kind of surfeit."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Wine is said to be a lustful thing, either in the sense in
which surfeit in any matter is ascribed to lust, or because the use of
too much wine affords an incentive to venereal pleasure.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Although wanton pleasure applies to other matters, the name
of lust has a special application to venereal pleasures, to which also
wantonness is specially applicable, as Augustine remarks (De Civ. xiv,
15,16).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether no venereal act can be without sin?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that no venereal act can be without sin. For
nothing but sin would seem to hinder virtue. Now every venereal act is a
great hindrance to virtue. For Augustine says (Soliloq. i, 10): "I
consider that nothing so casts down the manly mind from its height as the
fondling of a woman, and those bodily contacts." Therefore, seemingly, no
venereal act is without sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, any excess that makes one forsake the good of reason is
sinful, because virtue is corrupted by "excess" and "deficiency" as
stated in Ethic. ii, 2. Now in every venereal act there is excess of
pleasure, since it so absorbs the mind, that "it is incompatible with the
act of understanding," as the Philosopher observes (Ethic. vii, 11); and
as Jerome [*Origen, Hom. vi in Num.; Cf. Jerome, Ep. cxxiii ad Ageruch.]
states, rendered the hearts of the prophets, for the moment, insensible
to the spirit of prophecy. Therefore no venereal act can be without sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the cause is more powerful than its effect. Now original
sin is transmitted to children by concupiscence, without which no
venereal act is possible, as Augustine declares (De Nup. et Concup. i,
24). Therefore no venereal act can be without sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xxv): "This is a
sufficient answer to heretics, if only they will understand that no sin
is committed in that which is against neither nature, nor morals, nor a
commandment": and he refers to the act of sexual intercourse between the
patriarchs of old and their several wives. Therefore not every venereal
act is a sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, A sin, in human acts, is that which is against the order
of reason. Now the order of reason consists in its ordering everything to
its end in a fitting manner. Wherefore it is no sin if one, by the
dictate of reason, makes use of certain things in a fitting manner and
order for the end to which they are adapted, provided this end be
something truly good. Now just as the preservation of the bodily nature
of one individual is a true good, so, too, is the preservation of the
nature of the human species a very great good. And just as the use of
food is directed to the preservation of life in the individual, so is the
use of venereal acts directed to the preservation of the whole human
race. Hence Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xvi): "What food is to a
man's well being, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare of the whole
human race." Wherefore just as the use of food can be without sin, if it
be taken in due manner and order, as required for the welfare of the
body, so also the use of venereal acts can be without sin, provided they
be performed in due manner and order, in keeping with the end of human
procreation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: A thing may be a hindrance to virtue in two ways. First, as
regards the ordinary degree of virtue, and as to this nothing but sin is
an obstacle to virtue. Secondly, as regards the perfect degree of virtue,
and as to this virtue may be hindered by that which is not a sin, but a
lesser good. In this way sexual intercourse casts down the mind not from
virtue, but from the height, i.e. the perfection of virtue. Hence
Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. viii): "Just as that was good which
Martha did when busy about serving holy men, yet better still that which
Mary did in hearing the word of God: so, too, we praise the good of
Susanna's conjugal chastity, yet we prefer the good of the widow Anna,
and much more that of the Virgin Mary."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As stated above (Q[152], A[2], ad 2; FS, Q[64], A[2]), the
mean of virtue depends not on quantity but on conformity with right
reason: and consequently the exceeding pleasure attaching to a venereal
act directed according to reason, is not opposed to the mean of virtue.
Moreover, virtue is not concerned with the amount of pleasure experienced
by the external sense, as this depends on the disposition of the body;
what matters is how much the interior appetite is affected by that
pleasure. Nor does it follow that the act in question is contrary to
virtue, from the fact that the free act of reason in considering
spiritual things is incompatible with the aforesaid pleasure. For it is
not contrary to virtue, if the act of reason be sometimes interrupted for
something that is done in accordance with reason, else it would be
against virtue for a person to set himself to sleep. That venereal
concupiscence and pleasure are not subject to the command and moderation
of reason, is due to the punishment of the first sin, inasmuch as the
reason, for rebelling against God, deserved that its body should rebel
against it, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii, 13).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii, 13), "the child,
shackled with original sin, is born of fleshly concupiscence (which is
not imputed as sin to the regenerate) as of a daughter of sin." Hence it
does not follow that the act in question is a sin, but that it contains
something penal resulting from the first sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the lust that is about venereal acts can be a sin?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that lust about venereal acts cannot be a sin. For
the venereal act consists in the emission of semen which is the surplus
from food, according to the Philosopher (De Gener. Anim. i, 18). But
there is no sin attaching to the emission of other superfluities.
Therefore neither can there be any sin in venereal acts.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, everyone can lawfully make what use he pleases of what
is his. But in the venereal act a man uses only what is his own, except
perhaps in adultery or rape. Therefore there can be no sin in venereal
acts, and consequently lust is no sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, every sin has an opposite vice. But, seemingly, no vice
is opposed to lust. Therefore lust is not a sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[3] OTC Para. 1/2
On the contrary, The cause is more powerful than its effect. Now wine is
forbidden on account of lust, according to the saying of the Apostle
(Eph. 5:18), "Be not drunk with wine wherein is lust [Douay: 'luxury']."
Therefore lust is forbidden.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[3] OTC Para. 2/2
Further, it is numbered among the works of the flesh: Gal. 5:19 [Douay:
'luxury'].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The more necessary a thing is, the more it behooves one
to observe the order of reason in its regard; wherefore the more sinful
it becomes if the order of reason be forsaken. Now the use of venereal
acts, as stated in the foregoing Article, is most necessary for the
common good, namely the preservation of the human race. Wherefore there
is the greatest necessity for observing the order of reason in this
matter: so that if anything be done in this connection against the
dictate of reason's ordering, it will be a sin. Now lust consists
essentially in exceeding the order and mode of reason in the matter of
venereal acts. Wherefore without any doubt lust is a sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As the Philosopher says in the same book (De Gener. Anim.
i, 18), "the semen is a surplus that is needed." For it is said to be
superfluous, because it is the residue from the action of the nutritive
power, yet it is needed for the work of the generative power. But the
other superfluities of the human body are such as not to be needed, so
that it matters not how they are emitted, provided one observe the
decencies of social life. It is different with the emission of semen,
which should be accomplished in a manner befitting the end for which it
is needed.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As the Apostle says (1 Cor. 6:20) in speaking against lust,
"You are bought with a great price: glorify and bear God in your body."
Wherefore by inordinately using the body through lust a man wrongs God
Who is the Supreme Lord of our body. Hence Augustine says (De Decem.
Chord. 10 [*Serm. ix (xcvi de Temp.)]): "God Who thus governs His
servants for their good, not for His, made this order and commandment,
lest unlawful pleasures should destroy His temple which thou hast begun
to be."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The opposite of lust is not found in many, since men are
more inclined to pleasure. Yet the contrary vice is comprised under
insensibility, and occurs in one who has such a dislike for sexual
intercourse as not to pay the marriage debt.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether lust is a capital vice?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that lust is not a capital vice. For lust is apparently
the same as "uncleanness," according to a gloss on Eph. 5:3 (Cf. 2 Cor.
12:21). But uncleanness is a daughter of gluttony, according to Gregory
(Moral. xxxi, 45). Therefore lust is not a capital vice.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Isidore says (De Summo Bono ii, 39) that "as pride of
mind leads to the depravity of lust, so does humility of mind safeguard
the chastity of the flesh." Now it is seemingly contrary to the nature of
a capital vice to arise from another vice. Therefore lust is not a
capital vice.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, lust is caused by despair, according to Eph. 4:19, "Who
despairing, have given themselves up to lasciviousness." But despair is
not a capital vice; indeed, it is accounted a daughter of sloth, as
stated above (Q[35], A[4], ad 2). Much less, therefore, is lust a capital
vice.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) places lust among the capital
vices.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[148], A[5]; FS, Q[84], AA[3],4), a
capital vice is one that has a very desirable end, so that through desire
for that end, a man proceeds to commit many sins, all of which are said
to arise from that vice as from a principal vice. Now the end of lust is
venereal pleasure, which is very great. Wherefore this pleasure is very
desirable as regards the sensitive appetite, both on account of the
intensity of the pleasure, and because such like concupiscence is
connatural to man. Therefore it is evident that lust is a capital vice.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated above (Q[148], A[6]), according to some, the
uncleanness which is reckoned a daughter of gluttony is a certain
uncleanness of the body, and thus the objection is not to the point. If,
however, it denote the uncleanness of lust, we must reply that it is
caused by gluttony materially---in so far as gluttony provides the bodily
matter of lust---and not under the aspect of final cause, in which
respect chiefly the capital vices are said to be the cause of others.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As stated above (Q[132], A[4], ad 1), when we were treating
of vainglory, pride is accounted the common mother of all sins, so that
even the capital vices originate therefrom.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Certain persons refrain from lustful pleasures chiefly
through hope of the glory to come, which hope is removed by despair, so
that the latter is a cause of lust, as removing an obstacle thereto, not
as its direct cause; whereas this is seemingly necessary for a capital
vice.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the daughters of lust are fittingly described?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the daughters of lust are unfittingly reckoned
to be "blindness of mind, thoughtlessness, inconstancy, rashness,
self-love, hatred of God, love of this world and abhorrence or despair of
a future world." For mental blindness, thoughtlessness and rashness
pertain to imprudence, which is to be found in every sin, even as
prudence is in every virtue. Therefore they should not be reckoned
especially as daughters of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, constancy is reckoned a part of fortitude, as stated
above (Q[128], ad 6; Q[137], A[3]). But lust is contrary, not to
fortitude but to temperance. Therefore inconstancy is not a daughter of
lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, "Self-love extending to the contempt of God" is the
origin of every sin, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 28). Therefore
it should not be accounted a daughter of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[5] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, Isidore [*QQ. in Deut., qu. xvi] mentions four, namely,
"obscene," "scurrilous," "wanton" and "foolish talking." There the
aforesaid enumeration would seem to be superfluous.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, stands the authority of Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[5] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, When the lower powers are strongly moved towards their
objects, the result is that the higher powers are hindered and disordered
in their acts. Now the effect of the vice of lust is that the lower
appetite, namely the concupiscible, is most vehemently intent on its
object, to wit, the object of pleasure, on account of the vehemence of
the pleasure. Consequently the higher powers, namely the reason and the
will, are most grievously disordered by lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[5] Body Para. 2/3
Now the reason has four acts in matters of action. First there is simple
understanding, which apprehends some end as good, and this act is
hindered by lust, according to Dan. 13:56, "Beauty hath deceived thee,
and lust hath perverted thy heart." In this respect we have "blindness of
mind." The second act is counsel about what is to be done for the sake of
the end: and this is also hindered by the concupiscence of lust. Hence
Terence says (Eunuch., act 1, sc. 1), speaking of lecherous love: "This
thing admits of neither counsel nor moderation, thou canst not control it
by counseling." In this respect there is "rashness," which denotes
absence of counsel, as stated above (Q[53], A[3]). The third act is
judgment about the things to be done, and this again is hindered by lust.
For it is said of the lustful old men (Dan. 13:9): "They perverted their
own mind . . . that they might not . . . remember just judgments." In
this respect there is "thoughtlessness." The fourth act is the reason's
command about the thing to be done, and this also is impeded by lust, in
so far as through being carried away by concupiscence, a man is hindered
from doing what his reason ordered to be done. [To this "inconstancy"
must be referred.] [*The sentence in brackets is omitted in the Leonine
edition.] Hence Terence says (Eunuch., act 1, sc. 1) of a man who
declared that he would leave his mistress: "One little false tear will
undo those words."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[5] Body Para. 3/3
On the part of the will there results a twofold inordinate act. One is
the desire for the end, to which we refer "self-love," which regards the
pleasure which a man desires inordinately, while on the other hand there
is "hatred of God," by reason of His forbidding the desired pleasure. The
other act is the desire for the things directed to the end. With regard
to this there is "love of this world," whose pleasures a man desires to
enjoy, while on the other hand there is "despair of a future world,"
because through being held back by carnal pleasures he cares not to
obtain spiritual pleasures, since they are distasteful to him.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 5), intemperance
is the chief corruptive of prudence: wherefore the vices opposed to
prudence arise chiefly from lust, which is the principal species of
intemperance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The constancy which is a part of fortitude regards
hardships and objects of fear; but constancy in refraining from pleasures
pertains to continence which is a part of temperance, as stated above
(Q[143]). Hence the inconstancy which is opposed thereto is to be
reckoned a daughter of lust. Nevertheless even the first named
inconstancy arises from lust, inasmuch as the latter enfeebles a man's
heart and renders it effeminate, according to Osee 4:11, "Fornication and
wine and drunkenness take away the heart [Douay: 'understanding']."
Vegetius, too, says (De Re Milit. iii) that "the less a man knows of the
pleasures of life, the less he fears death." Nor is there any need, as we
have repeatedly stated, for the daughters of a capital vice to agree with
it in matter (cf. Q[35], A[4], ad 2; Q[118], A[8], ad 1; Q[148], A[6]).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Self-love in respect of any goods that a man desires for
himself is the common origin of all sins; but in the special point of
desiring carnal pleasures for oneself, it is reckoned a daughter of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[153] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The sins mentioned by Isidore are inordinate external acts,
pertaining in the main to speech; wherein there is a fourfold
inordinateness. First, on account of the matter, and to this we refer
"obscene words": for since "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth
speaketh" (Mt. 12:34), the lustful man, whose heart is full of lewd
concupiscences, readily breaks out into lewd words. Secondly, on account
of the cause: for, since lust causes thoughtlessness and rashness, the
result is that it makes a man speak without weighing or giving a thought
to his words. which are described as "scurrilous." Thirdly, on account
of the end: for since the lustful man seeks pleasure, he directs his
speech thereto, and so gives utterance to "wanton words." Fourthly, on
account of the sentiments expressed by his words, for through causing
blindness of mind, lust perverts a man's sentiments, and so he gives way
"to foolish talking," for instance, by expressing a preference for the
pleasures he desires to anything else.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE PARTS OF LUST (TWELVE ARTICLES)
We must now consider the parts of lust, under which head there are
twelve points of inquiry:
(1) Into what parts is lust divided?
(2) Whether simple fornication is a mortal sin?
(3) Whether it is the greatest of sins?
(4) Whether there is mortal sin in touches, kisses and such like
seduction?
(5) Whether nocturnal pollution is a mortal sin?
(6) Of seduction;
(7) Of rape;
(8) Of adultery;
(9) Of incest;
(10) Of sacrilege;
(11) Of the sin against nature;
(12) Of the order of gravity in the aforesaid sins.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether six species are fittingly assigned to lust?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that six species are unfittingly assigned to lust,
namely, "simple fornication, adultery, incest, seduction, rape, and the
unnatural vice." For diversity of matter does not diversify the species.
Now the aforesaid division is made with regard to diversity of matter,
according as the woman with whom a man has intercourse is married or a
virgin, or of some other condition. Therefore it seems that the species
of lust are diversified in this way.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, seemingly the species of one vice are not differentiated
by things that belong to another vice. Now adultery does not differ from
simple fornication, save in the point of a man having intercourse with
one who is another's, so that he commits an injustice. Therefore it seems
that adultery should not be reckoned a species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, just as a man may happen to have intercourse with a
woman who is bound to another man by marriage, so may it happen that a
man has intercourse with a woman who is bound to God by vow. Therefore
sacrilege should be reckoned a species of lust, even as adultery is.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, a married man sins not only if he be with another woman,
but also if he use his own wife inordinately. But the latter sin is
comprised under lust. Therefore it should be reckoned among the species
thereof.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[1] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, the Apostle says (2 Cor. 12:21): "Lest again, when I
come, God humble me among you, and I mourn many of them /that sinned
before, and have not done penance for the uncleanness and fornication and
lasciviousness that they have committed." Therefore it seems that also
uncleanness and lasciviousness should be reckoned species of lust, as
well as fornication.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[1] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1
OBJ 6: Further, the thing divided is not to be reckoned among its parts.
But lust is reckoned together with the aforesaid: for it is written (Gal.
5:19): "The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication,
uncleanness, immodesty, lust [Douay: 'luxury']." Therefore it seems that
fornication is unfittingly reckoned a species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The aforesaid division is given in the Decretals 36,
qu. i [*Append. Grat. ad can. Lex illa].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[1] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that As stated above (Q[153], A[3]), the sin of lust consists
in seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance with right reason. This
may happen in two ways. First, in respect of the matter wherein this
pleasure is sought; secondly, when, whereas there is due matter, other
due circumstances are not observed. And since a circumstance, as such,
does not specify a moral act, whose species is derived from its object
which is also its matter, it follows that the species of lust must be
assigned with respect to its matter or object.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[1] Body Para. 2/3
Now this same matter may be discordant with right reason in two ways.
First, because it is inconsistent with the end of the venereal act. In
this way, as hindering the begetting of children, there is the "vice
against nature," which attaches to every venereal act from which
generation cannot follow; and, as hindering the due upbringing and
advancement of the child when born, there is "simple fornication," which
is the union of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman. Secondly, the
matter wherein the venereal act is consummated may be discordant with
right reason in relation to other persons; and this in two ways. First,
with regard to the woman, with whom a man has connection, by reason of
due honor not being paid to her; and thus there is "incest," which
consists in the misuse of a woman who is related by consanguinity or
affinity. Secondly, with regard to the person under whose authority the
woman is placed: and if she be under the authority of a husband, it is
"adultery," if under the authority of her father, it is "seduction," in
the absence of violence, and "rape" if violence be employed.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[1] Body Para. 3/3
These species are differentiated on the part of the woman rather than of
the man, because in the venereal act the woman is passive and is by way
of matter, whereas the man is by way of agent; and it has been stated
above (OBJ[1]) that the aforesaid species are assigned with regard to a
difference of matter.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The aforesaid diversity of matter is connected with a
formal difference of object, which difference results from different
modes of opposition to right reason, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As stated above (FS, Q[18], A[7]), nothing hinders the
deformities of different vices concurring in the one act, and in this way
adultery is comprised under lust and injustice. Nor is this deformity of
injustice altogether accidental to lust: since the lust that obeys
concupiscence so far as to lead to injustice, is thereby shown to be more
grievous.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Since a woman, by vowing continence, contracts a spiritual
marriage with God, the sacrilege that is committed in the violation of
such a woman is a spiritual adultery. In like manner, the other kinds of
sacrilege pertaining to lustful matter are reduced to other species of
lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The sin of a husband with his wife is not connected with
undue matter, but with other circumstances, which do not constitute the
species of a moral act, as stated above (FS, Q[18], A[2]).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[1] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: As a gloss says on this passage, "uncleanness" stands for
lust against nature, while "lasciviousness" is a man's abuse of boys,
wherefore it would appear to pertain to seduction. We may also reply that
"lasciviousness" relates to certain acts circumstantial to the venereal
act, for instance kisses, touches, and so forth.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[1] R.O. 6 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 6: According to a gloss on this passage "lust" there signifies
any kind of excess.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether simple fornication is a mortal sin?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that simple fornication is not a mortal sin. For
things that come under the same head would seem to be on a par with one
another. Now fornication comes under the same head as things that are not
mortal sins: for it is written (Acts 15:29): "That you abstain from
things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled,
and from fornication." But there is not mortal sin in these observances,
according to 1 Tim. 4:4, "Nothing is rejected that is received with
thanksgiving." Therefore fornication is not a mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, no mortal sin is the matter of a Divine precept. But the
Lord commanded (Osee 1:2): "Go take thee a wife of fornications, and have
of her children of fornications." Therefore fornication is not a mortal
sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, no mortal sin is mentioned in Holy Writ without
disapprobation. Yet simple fornication is mentioned without
disapprobation by Holy Writ in connection with the patriarchs. Thus we
read (Gn. 16:4) that Abraham went in to his handmaid Agar; and further
on (Gn. 30:5,9) that Jacob went in to Bala and Zelpha the handmaids of
his wives; and again (Gn. 38:18) that Juda was with Thamar whom he
thought to be a harlot. Therefore simple fornication is not a mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, every mortal sin is contrary to charity. But simple
fornication is not contrary to charity, neither as regards the love of
God, since it is not a sin directly against. God, nor as regards the love
of our neighbor, since thereby no one is injured. Therefore simple
fornication is not a mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, every mortal sin leads to eternal perdition. But simple
fornication has not this result: because a gloss of Ambrose [*The
quotation is from the Gloss of Peter Lombard, who refers it to St.
Ambrose: whereas it is from Hilary the deacon] on 1 Tim. 4:8, "Godliness
is profitable to all things," says: "The whole of Christian teaching is
summed up in mercy and godliness: if a man conforms to this, even though
he gives way to the inconstancy of the flesh, doubtless he will be
punished, but he will not perish." Therefore simple fornication is not a
mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1
OBJ 6: Further, Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xvi) that "what food is
to the well-being of the body, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare
of the human race." But inordinate use of food is not always a mortal
sin. Therefore neither is all inordinate sexual intercourse; and this
would seem to apply especially to simple fornication, which is the least
grievous of the aforesaid species.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] OTC Para. 1/3
On the contrary, It is written (Tob. 4:13): "Take heed to keep thyself .
. from all fornication, and beside thy wife never endure to know a
crime." Now crime denotes a mortal sin. Therefore fornication and all
intercourse with other than one's wife is a mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] OTC Para. 2/3
Further, nothing but mortal sin debars a man from God's kingdom. But
fornication debars him, as shown by the words of the Apostle (Gal. 5:21),
who after mentioning fornication and certain other vices, adds: "They who
do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." Therefore simple
fornication is a mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] OTC Para. 3/3
Further, it is written in the Decretals (XXII, qu. i, can.
Praedicandum): "They should know that the same penance is to be enjoined
for perjury as for adultery, fornication, and wilful murder and other
criminal offenses." Therefore simple fornication is a criminal or mortal
sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Without any doubt we must hold simple fornication to be a
mortal sin, notwithstanding that a gloss [*St. Augustine, QQ. in Deut.,
qu. 37] on Dt. 23:17, says: "This is a prohibition against going with
whores, whose vileness is venial." For instead of "venial" it should be
"venal," since such is the wanton's trade. In order to make this evident,
we must take note that every sin committed directly against human life is
a mortal sin. Now simple fornication implies an inordinateness that
tends to injure the life of the offspring to be born of this union. For
we find in all animals where the upbringing of the offspring needs care
of both male and female, that these come together not indeterminately,
but the male with a certain female, whether one or several; such is the
case with all birds: while, on the other hand, among those animals, where
the female alone suffices for the offspring's upbringing, the union is
indeterminate, as in the case of dogs and like animals. Now it is evident
that the upbringing of a human child requires not only the mother's care
for his nourishment, but much more the care of his father as guide and
guardian, and under whom he progresses in goods both internal and
external. Hence human nature rebels against an indeterminate union of the
sexes and demands that a man should be united to a determinate woman and
should abide with her a long time or even for a whole lifetime. Hence it
is that in the human race the male has a natural solicitude for the
certainty of offspring, because on him devolves the upbringing of the
child: and this certainly would cease if the union of sexes were
indeterminate.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] Body Para. 2/3
This union with a certain definite woman is called matrimony; which for
the above reason is said to belong to the natural law. Since, however,
the union of the sexes is directed to the common good of the whole human
race, and common goods depend on the law for their determination, as
stated above (FS, Q[90], A[2]), it follows that this union of man and
woman, which is called matrimony, is determined by some law. What this
determination is for us will be stated in the Third Part of this work
(XP, Q[50], seqq.), where we shall treat of the sacrament of matrimony.
Wherefore, since fornication is an indeterminate union of the sexes, as
something incompatible with matrimony, it is opposed to the good of the
child's upbringing, and consequently it is a mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] Body Para. 3/3
Nor does it matter if a man having knowledge of a woman by fornication,
make sufficient provision for the upbringing of the child: because a
matter that comes under the determination of the law is judged according
to what happens in general, and not according to what may happen in a
particular case.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Fornication is reckoned in conjunction with these things,
not as being on a par with them in sinfulness, but because the matters
mentioned there were equally liable to cause dispute between Jews and
Gentiles, and thus prevent them from agreeing unanimously. For among the
Gentiles, fornication was not deemed unlawful, on account of the
corruption of natural reason: whereas the Jews, taught by the Divine law,
considered it to be unlawful. The other things mentioned were loathsome
to the Jews through custom introduced by the law into their daily life.
Hence the Apostles forbade these things to the Gentiles, not as though
they were unlawful in themselves, but because they were loathsome to the
Jews, as stated above (FS, Q[103], A[4], ad 3).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Fornication is said to be a sin, because it is contrary to
right reason. Now man's reason is right, in so far as it is ruled by the
Divine Will, the first and supreme rule. Wherefore that which a man does
by God's will and in obedience to His command, is not contrary to right
reason, though it may seem contrary to the general order of reason: even
so, that which is done miraculously by the Divine power is not contrary
to nature, though it be contrary to the usual course of nature. Therefore
just as Abraham did not sin in being willing to slay his innocent son,
because he obeyed God, although considered in itself it was contrary to
right human reason in general, so, too, Osee sinned not in committing
fornication by God's command. Nor should such a copulation be strictly
called fornication, though it be so called in reference to the general
course of things. Hence Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8): "When God
commands a thing to be done against the customs or agreement of any
people, though it were never done by them heretofore, it is to be done";
and afterwards he adds: "For as among the powers of human society, the
greater authority is obeyed in preference to the lesser, so must God in
preference to all."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Abraham and Jacob went in to their handmaidens with no
purpose of fornication, as we shall show further on when we treat of
matrimony (XP, Q[65], A[5], ad 2). As to Juda there is no need to excuse
him, for he also caused Joseph to be sold.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Simple fornication is contrary to the love of our neighbor,
because it is opposed to the good of the child to be born, as we have
shown, since it is an act of generation accomplished in a manner
disadvantageous to the future child.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: A person, who, while given to works of piety, yields to the
inconstancy of the flesh, is freed from eternal loss, in so far as these
works dispose him to receive the grace to repent, and because by such
works he makes satisfaction for his past inconstancy; but not so as to be
freed by pious works, if he persist in carnal inconstancy impenitent
until death.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] R.O. 6 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 6: One copulation may result in the begetting of a man,
wherefore inordinate copulation, which hinders the good of the future
child, is a mortal sin as to the very genus of the act, and not only as
to the inordinateness of concupiscence. On the other hand, one meal does
not hinder the good of a man's whole life, wherefore the act of gluttony
is not a mortal sin by reason of its genus. It would, however, be a
mortal sin, if a man were knowingly to partake of a food which would
alter the whole condition of his life, as was the case with Adam.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[2] R.O. 6 Para. 2/2
Nor is it true that fornication is the least of the sins comprised under
lust, for the marriage act that is done out of sensuous pleasure is a
lesser sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether fornication is the most grievous of sins?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that fornication is the most grievous of sins. For
seemingly a sin is the more grievous according as it proceeds from a
greater sensuous pleasure. Now the greatest sensuous pleasure is in
fornication, for a gloss on 1 Cor. 7:9 says that the "flame of sensuous
pleasure is most fierce in lust." Therefore it seems that fornication is
the gravest of sins.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a sin is the more grievous that is committed against a
person more closely united to the sinner: thus he sins more grievously
who strikes his father than one who strikes a stranger. Now according to
1 Cor. 6:18, "He that committeth fornication sinneth against his own
body," which is most intimately connected with a man. Therefore it seems
that fornication is the most grievous of sins.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the greater a good is, the graver would seem to be the
sin committed against it. Now the sin of fornication is seemingly opposed
to the good of the whole human race, as appears from what was said in the
foregoing Article. It is also against Christ, according to 1 Cor. 6:15,
"Shall I . . . take the members of Christ, and make them the members of a
harlot?" Therefore fornication is the most grievous of sins.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxxiii, 12) that the sins of the
flesh are less grievous than spiritual sins.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The gravity of a sin may be measured in two ways, first
with regard to the sin in itself, secondly with regard to some accident.
The gravity of a sin is measured with regard to the sin itself, by reason
of its species, which is determined according to the good to which that
sin is opposed. Now fornication is contrary to the good of the child to
be born. Wherefore it is a graver sin, as to its species, than those sins
which are contrary to external goods, such as theft and the like; while
it is less grievous than those which are directly against God, and sins
that are injurious to the life of one already born, such as murder.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The sensual pleasure that aggravates a sin is that which is
in the inclination of the will. But the sensual pleasure that is in the
sensitive appetite, lessens sin, because a sin is the less grievous
according as it is committed under the impulse of a greater passion. It
is in this way that the greatest sensual pleasure is in fornication.
Hence Augustine says (De Agone Christiano [*Serm. ccxciii; ccl de Temp.;
see Appendix to St. Augustine's works]) that of all a Christian's
conflicts, the most difficult combats are those of chastity; wherein the
fight is a daily one, but victory rare: and Isidore declares (De Summo
Bono ii, 39) that "mankind is subjected to the devil by carnal lust more
than by anything else," because, to wit, the vehemence of this passion is
more difficult to overcome.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The fornicator is said to sin against his own body, not
merely because the pleasure of fornication is consummated in the flesh,
which is also the case in gluttony, but also because he acts against the
good of his own body by an undue resolution and defilement thereof, and
an undue association with another. Nor does it follow from this that
fornication is the most grievous sin, because in man reason is of greater
value than the body, wherefore if there be a sin more opposed to reason,
it will be more grievous.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The sin of fornication is contrary to the good of the human
race, in so far as it is prejudicial to the individual begetting of the
one man that may be born. Now one who is already an actual member of the
human species attains to the perfection of the species more than one who
is a man potentially, and from this point of view murder is a more
grievous sin than fornication and every kind of lust, through being more
opposed to the good of the human species. Again, a Divine good is greater
than the good of the human race: and therefore those sins also that are
against God are more grievous. Moreover, fornication is a sin against
God, not directly as though the fornicator intended to offend God, but
consequently, in the same way as all mortal sins. And just as the members
of our body are Christ's members, so too, our spirit is one with Christ,
according to 1 Cor. 6:17, "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit."
Wherefore also spiritual sins are more against Christ than fornication is.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there can be mortal sin in touches and kisses?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that there is no mortal sin in touches and kisses.
For the Apostle says (Eph. 5:3): "Fornication and all uncleanness, or
covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh
saints," then he adds: "Or obscenity" (which a gloss refers to "kissing
and fondling"), "or foolish talking" (as "soft speeches"), "or
scurrility" (which "fools call geniality---i.e. jocularity"), and
afterwards he continues (Eph. 5:5): "For know ye this and understand that
no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is the serving of
idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God," thus
making no further mention of obscenity, as neither of foolish talking or
scurrility. Therefore these are not mortal sins.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, fornication is stated to be a mortal sin as being
prejudicial to the good of the future child's begetting and upbringing.
But these are not affected by kisses and touches or blandishments.
Therefore there is no mortal sin in these.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, things that are mortal sins in themselves can never be
good actions. Yet kisses, touches, and the like can be done sometimes
without sin. Therefore they are not mortal sins in themselves.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[4] OTC Para. 1/2
On the contrary, A lustful look is less than a touch, a caress or a
kiss. But according to Mt. 5:28, "Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust
after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." Much
more therefore are lustful kisses and other like things mortal sins.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[4] OTC Para. 2/2
Further, Cyprian says (Ad Pompon, de Virgin., Ep. lxii), "By their very
intercourse, their blandishments, their converse, their embraces, those
who are associated in a sleep that knows neither honor nor shame,
acknowledge their disgrace and crime." Therefore by doing these things a
man is guilty of a crime, that is, of mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, A thing is said to be a mortal works. /sin in two ways.
First, by reason of its species, and in this way a kiss, caress, or touch
does not, of its very nature, imply a mortal sin, for it is possible to
do such things without lustful pleasure, either as being the custom of
one's country, or on account of some obligation or reasonable cause.
Secondly, a thing is said to be a mortal sin by reason of its cause: thus
he who gives an alms, in order to lead someone into heresy, sins mortally
on account of his corrupt intention. Now it has been stated above (FS,
Q[74], A[8]), that it is a mortal sin not only to consent to the act, but
also to the delectation of a mortal sin. Wherefore since fornication is a
mortal sin, and much more so the other kinds of lust, it follows that in
such like sins not only consent to the act but also consent to the
pleasure is a mortal sin. Consequently, when these kisses and caresses
are done for this delectation, it follows that they are mortal sins, and
only in this way are they said to be lustful. Therefore in so far as they
are lustful, they are mortal sins.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The Apostle makes no further mention of these three because
they are not sinful except as directed to those that he had mentioned
before.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Although kisses and touches do not by their very nature
hinder the good of the human offspring, they proceed from lust, which is
the source of this hindrance: and on this account they are mortally
sinful.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: This argument proves that such things are not mortal sins
in their species.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether nocturnal pollution is a mortal sin?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that nocturnal pollution is a sin. For the same
things are the matter of merit and demerit. Now a man may merit while he
sleeps, as was the case with Solomon, who while asleep obtained the gift
of wisdom from the Lord (3 Kgs. 3:2, Par. 1). Therefore a man may demerit
while asleep; and thus nocturnal pollution would seem to be a sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, whoever has the use of reason can sin. Now a man has the
use of reason while asleep, since in our sleep we frequently discuss
matters, choose this rather than that, consenting to one thing, or
dissenting to another. Therefore one may sin while asleep, so that
nocturnal pollution is not prevented by sleep from being a sin, seeing
that it is a sin according to its genus.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is useless to reprove and instruct one who cannot act
according to or against reason. Now man, while asleep, is instructed and
reproved by God, according to Job 33:15,16, "By a dream in a vision by
night, when deep sleep is wont to lay hold of men [*Vulg.: 'When deep
sleep falleth upon men.' St. Thomas is apparently quoting from memory, as
the passage is given correctly above, Q[95], A[6], OBJ[1]] . . . Then He
openeth the ears of men, and teaching instructeth them in what they are
to learn." Therefore a man, while asleep, can act according to or against
his reason, and this is to do good or sinful actions, and thus it seems
that nocturnal pollution is a sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 15): "When the same
image that comes into the mind of a speaker presents itself to the mind
of the sleeper, so that the latter is unable to distinguish the imaginary
from the real union of bodies, the flesh is at once moved, with the
result that usually follows such motions; and yet there is as little sin
in this as there is in speaking and therefore thinking about such things
while one is awake."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[5] Body Para. 1/5
I answer that, Nocturnal pollution may be considered in two ways. First,
in itself; and thus it has not the character of a sin. For every sin
depends on the judgment of reason, since even the first movement of the
sensuality has nothing sinful in it, except in so far as it can be
suppressed by reason; wherefore in the absence of reason's judgment,
there is no sin in it. Now during sleep reason has not a free judgment.
For there is no one who while sleeping does not regard some of the images
formed by his imagination as though they were real, as stated above in
the FP, Q[84], A[8], ad 2. Wherefore what a man does while he sleeps and
is deprived of reason's judgment, is not imputed to him as a sin, as
neither are the actions of a maniac or an imbecile.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[5] Body Para. 2/5
Secondly, nocturnal pollution may be considered with reference to its
cause. This may be threefold. One is a bodily cause. For when there is
excess of seminal humor in the body, or when the humor is disintegrated
either through overheating of the body or some other disturbance, the
sleeper dreams things that are connected with the discharge of this
excessive or disintegrated humor: the same thing happens when nature is
cumbered with other superfluities, so that phantasms relating to the
discharge of those superfluities are formed in the imagination.
Accordingly if this excess of humor be due to a sinful cause (for
instance excessive eating or drinking), nocturnal pollution has the
character of sin from its cause: whereas if the excess or disintegration
of these superfluities be not due to a sinful cause, nocturnal pollution
is not sinful, neither in itself nor in its cause.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[5] Body Para. 3/5
A second cause of nocturnal pollution is on the part of the soul and the
inner man: for instance when it happens to the sleeper on account of some
previous thought. For the thought which preceded while he was awake, is
sometimes purely speculative, for instance when one thinks about the
sins of the flesh for the purpose of discussion; while sometimes it is
accompanied by a certain emotion either of concupiscence or of
abhorrence. Now nocturnal pollution is more apt to arise from thinking
about carnal sins with concupiscence for such pleasures, because this
leaves its trace and inclination in the soul, so that the sleeper is more
easily led in his imagination to consent to acts productive of pollution.
In this sense the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 13) that "in so far as
certain movements in some degree pass" from the waking state to the state
of sleep, "the dreams of good men are better than those of any other
people": and Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 15) that "even during
sleep, the soul may have conspicuous merit on account of its good
disposition." Thus it is evident that nocturnal pollution may be sinful
on the part of its cause. on the other hand, it may happen that nocturnal
pollution ensues after thoughts about carnal acts, though they were
speculative, or accompanied by abhorrence, and then it is not sinful,
neither in itself nor in its cause.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[5] Body Para. 4/5
The third cause is spiritual and external; for instance when by the work
of a devil the sleeper's phantasms are disturbed so as to induce the
aforesaid result. Sometimes this is associated with a previous sin,
namely the neglect to guard against the wiles of the devil. Hence the
words of the hymn at even: "Our enemy repress, that so our bodies no
uncleanness know" [*Translation W. K. Blount].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[5] Body Para. 5/5
On the other hand, this may occur without any fault on man's part, and
through the wickedness of the devil alone. Thus we read in the
Collationes Patrum (Coll. xxii, 6) of a man who was ever wont to suffer
from nocturnal pollution on festivals, and that the devil brought this
about in order to prevent him from receiving Holy Communion. Hence it is
manifest that nocturnal pollution is never a sin, but is sometimes the
result of a previous sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Solomon did not merit to receive wisdom from God while he
was asleep. He received it in token of his previous desire. It is for
this reason that his petition is stated to have been pleasing to God (3
Kgs. 3:10), as Augustine observes (Gen. ad lit. xii, 15).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The use of reason is more or less hindered in sleep,
according as the inner sensitive powers are more or less overcome by
sleep, on account of the violence or attenuation of the evaporations.
Nevertheless it is always hindered somewhat, so as to be unable to elicit
a judgment altogether free, as stated in the FP, Q[84], A[8], ad 2.
Therefore what it does then is not imputed to it as a sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Reason's apprehension is not hindered during sleep to the
same extent as its judgment, for this is accomplished by reason turning
to sensible objects, which are the first principles of human thought.
Hence nothing hinders man's reason during sleep from apprehending anew
something arising out of the traces left by his previous thoughts and
phantasms presented to him, or again through Divine revelation, or the
interference of a good or bad angel.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether seduction should be reckoned a species of lust?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that seduction should not be reckoned a species of
lust. For seduction denotes the unlawful violation of a virgin, according
to the Decretals (XXXVI, qu. 1) [*Append. Grat. ad can. Lex illa]. But
this may occur between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman, which
pertains to fornication. Therefore seduction should not be reckoned a
species of lust, distinct from fornication.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Patriarch. [*De Abraham i, 4]): "Let no
man be deluded by human laws: all seduction is adultery." Now a species
is not contained under another that is differentiated in opposition to
it. Therefore since adultery is a species of lust, it seems that
seduction should not be reckoned a species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, to do a person an injury would seem to pertain to
injustice rather than to lust. Now the seducer does an injury to another,
namely the violated maiden's father, who "can take the injury as personal
to himself" [*Gratian, ad can. Lex illa], and sue the seducer for
damages. Therefore seduction should not be reckoned a species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Seduction consists properly in the venereal act whereby
a virgin is violated. Therefore, since lust is properly about venereal
actions, it would seem that seduction is a species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, When the matter of a vice has a special deformity, we
must reckon it to be a determinate species of that vice. Now lust is a
sin concerned with venereal matter, as stated above (Q[153], A[1]). And a
special deformity attaches to the violation of a virgin who is under her
father's care: both on the part of the maid, who through being violated
without any previous compact of marriage is both hindered from
contracting a lawful marriage and is put on the road to a wanton life
from which she was withheld lest she should lose the seal of virginity:
and on the part of the father, who is her guardian, according to Ecclus.
42:11, "Keep a sure watch over a shameless daughter, lest at any time she
make thee become a laughing-stock to thy enemies." Therefore it is
evident that seduction which denotes the unlawful violation of a virgin,
while still under the guardianship of her parents, is a determinate
species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Although a virgin is free from the bond of marriage, she is
not free from her father's power. Moreover, the seal of virginity is a
special obstacle to the intercourse of fornication, in that it should be
removed by marriage only. Hence seduction is not simple fornication,
since the latter is intercourse with harlots, women, namely, who are no
longer virgins, as a gloss observes on 2 Cor. 12:, "And have not done
penance for the uncleanness and fornication," etc.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Ambrose here takes seduction in another sense, as
applicable in a general way to any sin of lust. Wherefore seduction, in
the words quoted, signifies the intercourse between a married man and any
woman other than his wife. This is clear from his adding: "Nor is it
lawful for the husband to do what the wife may not." In this sense, too,
we are to understand the words of Num. 5:13: "If [Vulg.: 'But'] the
adultery is secret, and cannot be provided by witnesses, because she was
not found in adultery [stupro]."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Nothing prevents a sin from having a greater deformity
through being united to another sin. Now the sin of lust obtains a
greater deformity from the sin of injustice, because the concupiscence
would seem to be more inordinate, seeing that it refrains not from the
pleasurable object so that it may avoid an injustice. In fact a twofold
injustice attaches to it. One is on the part of the virgin, who, though
not violated by force, is nevertheless seduced, and thus the seducer is
bound to compensation. Hence it is written (Ex. 22:16,17): "If a man
seduce a virgin not yet espoused, and lie with her, he shall endow her
and have her to wife. If the maid's father will not give her to him, he
shall give money according to the dowry, which virgins are wont to
receive." The other injury is done to the maid's father: wherefore the
seducer is bound by the Law to a penalty in his regard. For it is written
(Dt. 22:28,29): "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not
espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment:
he that lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sicles of
silver, and shall have her to wife, and because he hath humbled her, he
may not put her away all the days of his life": and this, lest he should
prove to have married her in mockery, as Augustine observes. [*QQ. in
Dt., qu. xxxiv.]
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether rape is a species of lust, distinct from seduction?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that rape is not a species of lust, distinct from
seduction. For Isidore says (Etym. v, 26) that "seduction [stuprum], or
rape, properly speaking, is unlawful intercourse, and takes its name from
its causing corruption: wherefore he that is guilty of rape is a
seducer." Therefore it seems that rape should not be reckoned a species
of lust distinct from seduction.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, rape, apparently, implies violence. For it is stated in
the Decretals (XXXVI, qu. 1 [*Append. Grat. ad can. Lex illa]) that "rape
is committed when a maid is taken away by force from her father's house
that after being violated she may be taken to wife." But the employment
of force is accidental to lust, for this essentially regards the
pleasure of intercourse. Therefore it seems that rape should not be
reckoned a determinate species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the sin of lust is curbed by marriage: for it is written
(1 Cor. 7:2): "For fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife."
Now rape is an obstacle to subsequent marriage, for it was enacted in the
council of Meaux: "We decree that those who are guilty of rape, or of
abducting or seducing women, should not have those women in marriage,
although they should have subsequently married them with the consent of
their parents." Therefore rape is not a determinate species of lust
distinct from seduction.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[7] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, a man may have knowledge of his newly married wife
without committing a sin of lust. Yet he may commit rape if he take her
away by force from her parents' house, and have carnal knowledge of her.
Therefore rape should not be reckoned a determinate species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Rape is unlawful sexual intercourse, as Isidore states
(Etym. v, 26). But this pertains to the sin of lust. Therefore rape is a
species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[7] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Rape, in the sense in which we speak of it now, is a
species of lust: and sometimes it coincides with seduction; sometimes
there is rape without seduction, and sometimes seduction without rape.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[7] Body Para. 2/3
They coincide when a man employs force in order unlawfully to violate a
virgin. This force is employed sometimes both towards the virgin and
towards her father; and sometimes towards the father and not to the
virgin, for instance if she allows herself to be taken away by force from
her father's house. Again, the force employed in rape differs in another
way, because sometimes a maid is taken away by force from her parents'
house, and is forcibly violated: while sometimes, though taken away by
force, she is not forcibly violated, but of her own consent, whether by
act of fornication or by the act of marriage: for the conditions of rape
remain no matter how force is employed. There is rape without seduction
if a man abduct a widow or one who is not a virgin. Hence Pope Symmachus
says [*Ep. v ad Caesarium; Cf. can. Raptores xxxvi, qu. 2], "We abhor
abductors whether of widows or of virgins on account of the heinousness
of their crime."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[7] Body Para. 3/3
There is seduction without rape when a man, without employing force,
violates a virgin unlawfully.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Since rape frequently coincides with seduction, the one is
sometimes used to signify the other.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The employment of force would seem to arise from the
greatness of concupiscence, the result being that a man does not fear to
endanger himself by offering violence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: The rape of a maiden who is promised in marriage is to be
judged differently from that of one who is not so promised. For one who
is promised in marriage must be restored to her betrothed, who has a
right to her in virtue of their betrothal: whereas one that is not
promised to another must first of all be restored to her father's care,
and then the abductor may lawfully marry her with her parents' consent.
Otherwise the marriage is unlawful, since whosoever steals a thing he is
bound to restore it. Nevertheless rape does not dissolve a marriage
already contracted, although it is an impediment to its being contracted.
As to the decree of the council in question, it was made in abhorrence of
this crime, and has been abrogated. Wherefore Jerome [*The quotation is
from Can. Tria. xxxvi, qu. 2] declares the contrary: "Three kinds of
lawful marriage," says he, "are mentioned in Holy Writ. The first is that
of a chaste maiden given away lawfully in her maidenhood to a man. The
second is when a man finds a maiden in the city, and by force has carnal
knowledge of her. If the father be willing, the man shall endow her
according to the father's estimate, and shall pay the price of her purity
[*Cf. Dt. 22:23-29]. The third is, when the maiden is taken away from
such a man, and is given to another at the father's will."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
We may also take this decree to refer to those who are promised to
others in marriage, especially if the betrothal be expressed by words in
the present tense.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[7] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The man who is just married has, in virtue of the
betrothal, a certain right in her: wherefore, although he sins by using
violence, he is not guilty of the crime of rape. Hence Pope Gelasius says
[*Can. Lex illa, xxvii, qu. 2; xxxvi, qu. 1]: "This law of bygone rulers
stated that rape was committed when a maiden, with regard to whose
marriage nothing had so far been decided, was taken away by force."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether adultery is determinate species of lust, distinct from the other
species?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that adultery is not a determinate species of lust,
distinct from the other species. For adultery takes its name from a man
having intercourse "with a woman who is not his own [ad alteram],"
according to a gloss [*St. Augustine: Serm. li, 13 de Divers. lxiii] on
Ex. 20:14. Now a woman who is not one's own may be of various conditions,
namely either a virgin, or under her father's care, or a harlot, or of
any other description. Therefore it seems that adultery is not a species
of lust distinct from the others.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Jerome says [*Contra Jovin. i]: "It matters not for what
reason a man behaves as one demented. Hence Sixtus the Pythagorean says
in his Maxims: He that is insatiable of his wife is an adulterer," and in
like manner one who is over enamored of any woman. Now every kind of lust
includes a too ardent love. Therefore adultery is in every kind of lust:
and consequently it should not be reckoned a species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, where there is the same kind of deformity, there would
seem to be the same species of sin. Now, apparently, there is the same
kind of deformity in seduction and adultery: since in either case a woman
is violated who is under another person's authority. Therefore adultery
is not a determinate species of lust, distinct from the others.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Pope Leo [*St. Augustine, De Bono Conjug. iv; Cf.
Append. Grat. ad can. Ille autem. xxxii, qu. 5] says that "adultery is
sexual intercourse with another man or woman in contravention of the
marriage compact, whether through the impulse of one's own lust, or with
the consent of the other party." Now this implies a special deformity of
lust. Therefore adultery is a determinate species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[8] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Adultery, as its name implies, "is access to another's
marriage-bed [ad alienum torum]" [*Cf. Append. Gratian, ad can. Ille
autem. xxxii, qu. 1]. By so doing a man is guilty of a twofold offense
against chastity and the good of human procreation. First, by accession
to a woman who is not joined to him in marriage, which is contrary to the
good of the upbringing of his own children. Secondly, by accession to a
woman who is united to another in marriage, and thus he hinders the good
of another's children. The same applies to the married woman who is
corrupted by adultery. Wherefore it is written (Ecclus. 23:32,33): "Every
woman . . . that leaveth her husband . . . shall be guilty of sin. For
first she hath been unfaithful to the law of the Most High" (since there
it is commanded: "Thou shalt not commit adultery"); "and secondly, she
hath offended against her husband," by making it uncertain that the
children are his: "thirdly, she hath fornicated in adultery, and hath
gotten children of another man," which is contrary to the good of her
offspring. The first of these, however, is common to all mortal sins,
while the two others belong especially to the deformity of adultery.
Hence it is manifest that adultery is a determinate species of lust,
through having a special deformity in venereal acts.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: If a married man has intercourse with another woman, his
sin may be denominated either with regard to him, and thus it is always
adultery, since his action is contrary to the fidelity of marriage, or
with regard to the woman with whom he has intercourse; and thus sometimes
it is adultery, as when a married man has intercourse with another's
wife; and sometimes it has the character of seduction, or of some other
sin, according to various conditions affecting the woman with whom he has
intercourse: and it has been stated above (A[1]) that the species of lust
correspond to the various conditions of women.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Matrimony is specially ordained for the good of human
offspring, as stated above (A[2]). But adultery is specially opposed to
matrimony, in the point of breaking the marriage faith which is due
between husband and wife. And since the man who is too ardent a lover of
his wife acts counter to the good of marriage if he use her indecently,
although he be not unfaithful, he may in a sense be called an adulterer;
and even more so than he that is too ardent a lover of another woman.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The wife is under her husband's authority, as united to him
in marriage: whereas the maid is under her father's authority, as one who
is to be married by that authority. Hence the sin of adultery is contrary
to the good of marriage in one way, and the sin of seduction in another;
wherefore they are reckoned to differ specifically. Of other matters
concerning adultery we shall speak in the Third Part [*XP, Q[59], A[3];
XP, QQ[60],62], when we treat of matrimony.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[9] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether incest is a determinate species of lust?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[9] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that incest is not a determinate species of lust.
For incest [*'Incestus' is equivalent to 'in-castus = 'unchaste'] takes
its name from being a privation of chastity. But all kinds of lust are
opposed to chastity. Therefore it seems that incest is not a species of
lust, but is lust itself in general.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[9] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is stated in the Decretals (XXXVI, qu. 1 [*Cf.
Append. Grat. ad can. Lex illa]) that "incest is intercourse between a
man and a woman related by consanguinity or affinity." Now affinity
differs from consanguinity. Therefore it is not one but several species
of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[9] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, that which does not, of itself, imply a deformity, does
not constitute a determinate species of vice. But intercourse between
those who are related by consanguinity or affinity does not, of itself,
contain any deformity, else it would never have been lawful. Therefore
incest is not a determinate species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[9] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The species of lust are distinguished according to the
various conditions of women with whom a man has unlawful intercourse. Now
incest implies a special condition on the part of the woman, because it
is unlawful intercourse with a woman related by consanguinity or affinity
as stated (OBJ[2]). Therefore incest is a determinate species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[9] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, As stated above (AA[1],6) wherever we find something
incompatible with the right use of venereal actions, there must needs be
a determinate species of lust. Now sexual intercourse with women related
by consanguinity or affinity is unbecoming to venereal union on three
counts. First, because man naturally owes a certain respect to his
parents and therefore to his other blood relations, who are descended in
near degree from the same parents: so much so indeed that among the
ancients, as Valerius Maximus relates [*Dict. Fact. Memor. ii, 1], it was
not deemed right for a son to bathe with his father, lest they should
see one another naked. Now from what has been said (Q[142], A[4]: Q[151],
A[4]), it is evident that in venereal acts there is a certain
shamefulness inconsistent with respect, wherefore men are ashamed of
them. Wherefore it is unseemly that such persons should be united in
venereal intercourse. This reason seems to be indicated (Lev. 18:7) where
we read: "She is thy mother, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness," and
the same is expressed further on with regard to others.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[9] Body Para. 2/4
The second reason is because blood relations must needs live in close
touch with one another. Wherefore if they were not debarred from venereal
union, opportunities of venereal intercourse would be very frequent and
thus men's minds would be enervated by lust. Hence in the Old Law [*Lev.
18] the prohibition was apparently directed specially to those persons
who must needs live together.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[9] Body Para. 3/4
The third reason is, because this would hinder a man from having many
friends: since through a man taking a stranger to wife, all his wife's
relations are united to him by a special kind of friendship, as though
they were of the same blood as himself. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ.
Dei xv, 16): "The demands of charity are most perfectly satisfied by men
uniting together in the bonds that the various ties of friendship
require, so that they may live together in a useful and becoming amity;
nor should one man have many relationships in one, but each should have
one."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[9] Body Para. 4/4
Aristotle adds another reason (2 Polit. ii): for since it is natural
that a man should have a liking for a woman of his kindred, if to this be
added the love that has its origin in venereal intercourse, his love
would be too ardent and would become a very great incentive to lust: and
this is contrary to chastity. Hence it is evident that incest is a
determinate species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Unlawful intercourse between persons related to one another
would be most prejudicial to chastity, both on account of the
opportunities it affords, and because of the excessive ardor of love, as
stated in the Article. Wherefore the unlawful intercourse between such
persons is called "incest" antonomastically.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Persons are related by affinity through one who is related
by consanguinity: and therefore since the one depends on the other,
consanguinity and affinity entail the same kind of unbecomingness.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[9] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: There is something essentially unbecoming and contrary to
natural reason in sexual intercourse between persons related by blood,
for instance between parents and children who are directly and
immediately related to one another, since children naturally owe their
parents honor. Hence the Philosopher instances a horse (De Animal. ix,
47) which covered its own mother by mistake and threw itself over a
precipice as though horrified at what it had done, because some animals
even have a natural respect for those that have begotten them. There is
not the same essential unbecomingness attaching to other persons who are
related to one another not directly but through their parents: and, as to
this, becomingness or unbecomingness varies according to custom, and
human or Divine law: because, as stated above (A[2]), sexual intercourse,
being directed to the common good, is subject to law. Wherefore, as
Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv, 16), whereas the union of brothers and
sisters goes back to olden times, it became all the more worthy of
condemnation when religion forbade it.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[10] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether sacrilege can be a species of lust?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[10] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that sacrilege cannot be a species of lust. For the
same species is not contained under different genera that are not
subalternated to one another. Now sacrilege is a species of irreligion,
as stated above (Q[99], A[2]). Therefore sacrilege cannot be reckoned a
species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[10] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the Decretals (XXXVI, qu. 1 [*Append. Grat. ad can. Lex
illa]), do not place sacrilege among other sins which are reckoned
species of lust. Therefore it would seem not to be a species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[10] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, something derogatory to a sacred thing may be done by
the other kinds of vice, as well as by lust. But sacrilege is not
reckoned a species of gluttony, or of any other similar vice. Therefore
neither should it be reckoned a species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[10] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv, 16) that "if it is
wicked, through covetousness, to go beyond one's earthly bounds, how much
more wicked is it through venereal lust to transgress the bounds of
morals!" Now to go beyond one's earthly bounds in sacred matters is a sin
of sacrilege. Therefore it is likewise a sin of sacrilege to overthrow
the bounds of morals through venereal desire in sacred matters. But
venereal desire pertains to lust. Therefore sacrilege is a species of
lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[10] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (FS, Q[18], AA[6],7), the act of a virtue
or vice, that is directed to the end of another virtue or vice, assumes
the latter's species: thus, theft committed for the sake of adultery,
passes into the species of adultery. Now it is evident that as Augustine
states (De Virgin. 8), the observance of chastity, by being directed to
the worship of God, becomes an act of religion, as in the case of those
who vow and keep chastity. Wherefore it is manifest that lust also, by
violating something pertaining to the worship of God, belongs to the
species of sacrilege: and in this way sacrilege may be accounted a
species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Lust, by being directed to another vice as its end, becomes
a species of that vice: and so a species of lust may be also a species of
irreligion, as of a higher genus.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The enumeration referred to, includes those sins which are
species of lust by their very nature: whereas sacrilege is a species of
lust in so far as it is directed to another vice as its end, and may
coincide with the various species of lust. For unlawful intercourse
between persons mutually united by spiritual relationship, is a sacrilege
after the manner of incest. Intercourse with a virgin consecrated to God,
inasmuch as she is the spouse of Christ, is sacrilege resembling
adultery. If the maiden be under her father's authority, it will be
spiritual seduction; and if force be employed it will be spiritual rape,
which kind of rape even the civil law punishes more severely than others.
Thus the Emperor Justinian says [*Cod. i, iii de Episc. et Cler. 5]: "If
any man dare, I will not say to rape, but even to tempt a consecrated
virgin with a view to marriage, he shall be liable to capital punishment."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Sacrilege is committed on a consecrated thing. Now a
consecrated thing is either a consecrated person, who is desired for
sexual intercourse, and thus it is a kind of lust, or it is desired for
possession, and thus it is a kind of injustice. Sacrilege may also come
under the head of anger, for instance, if through anger an injury be done
to a consecrated person. Again, one may commit a sacrilege by partaking
gluttonously of sacred food. Nevertheless, sacrilege is ascribed more
specially to lust which is opposed to chastity for the observance of
which certain persons are specially consecrated.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[11] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the unnatural vice is a species of lust?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[11] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the unnatural vice is not a species of lust.
For no mention of the vice against nature is made in the enumeration
given above (A[1], OBJ[1]). Therefore it is not a species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[11] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, lust is contrary to virtue; and so it is comprised under
vice. But the unnatural vice is comprised not under vice, but under
bestiality, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 5). Therefore the
unnatural vice is not a species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[11] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, lust regards acts directed to human generation, as
stated above (Q[153], A[2]): Whereas the unnatural vice concerns acts
from which generation cannot follow. Therefore the unnatural vice is not
a species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[11] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is reckoned together with the other species of lust
(2 Cor. 12:21) where we read: "And have not done penance for the
uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness," where a gloss says:
"Lasciviousness, i.e., unnatural lust."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[11] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (AA[6],9) wherever there occurs a special
kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there
is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First,
through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all
lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the
natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this
is called "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First,
by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal
pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call
"effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and
this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex,
male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rm. 1:27):
and this is called the "vice of sodomy." Fourthly, by not observing the
natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other
monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[11] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: There we enumerated the species of lust that are not
contrary to human nature: wherefore the unnatural vice was omitted.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[11] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Bestiality differs from vice, for the latter is opposed to
human virtue by a certain excess in the same matter as the virtue, and
therefore is reducible to the same genus.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[11] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The lustful man intends not human generation but venereal
pleasures. It is possible to have this without those acts from which
human generation follows: and it is that which is sought in the unnatural
vice.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[12] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the unnatural vice is the greatest sin among the species of lust?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[12] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the unnatural vice is not the greatest sin
among the species of lust. For the more a sin is contrary to charity the
graver it is. Now adultery, seduction and rape which are injurious to our
neighbor are seemingly more contrary to the love of our neighbor, than
unnatural sins, by which no other person is injured. Therefore the
unnatural sin is not the greatest among the species of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[12] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, sins committed against God would seem to be the most
grievous. Now sacrilege is committed directly against God, since it is
injurious to the Divine worship. Therefore sacrilege is a graver sin than
the unnatural vice.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[12] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, seemingly, a sin is all the more grievous according as
we owe a greater love to the person against whom that sin is committed.
Now the order of charity requires that a man love more those persons who
are united to him---and such are those whom he defiles by incest---than
persons who are not connected with him, and whom in certain cases he
defiles by the unnatural vice. Therefore incest is a graver sin than the
unnatural vice.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[12] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, if the unnatural vice is most grievous, the more it is
against nature the graver it would seem to be. Now the sin of
uncleanness or effeminacy would seem to be most contrary to nature, since
it would seem especially in accord with nature that agent and patient
should be distinct from one another. Hence it would follow that
uncleanness is the gravest of unnatural vices. But this is not true.
Therefore unnatural vices are not the most grievous among sins of lust.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[12] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De adult. conjug. [*The quotation is
from Cap. Adulterii xxxii, qu. 7. Cf. Augustine, De Bono Conjugali,
viii.]) that "of all these," namely the sins belonging to lust, "that
which is against nature is the worst."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[12] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, In every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the
principle on which the rest depend. Now the principles of reason are
those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes
things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things
according as it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and
in practical matters. Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most
grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge
of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most
grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature.
Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has
been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it
follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. After it comes
incest, which, as stated above (A[9]), is contrary to the natural respect
which we owe persons related to us.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[12] Body Para. 2/2
With regard to the other species of lust they imply a transgression
merely of that which is determined by right reason, on the
presupposition, however, of natural principles. Now it is more against
reason to make use of the venereal act not only with prejudice to the
future offspring, but also so as to injure another person besides.
Wherefore simple fornication, which is committed without injustice to
another person, is the least grave among the species of lust. Then, it is
a greater injustice to have intercourse with a woman who is subject to
another's authority as regards the act of generation, than as regards
merely her guardianship. Wherefore adultery is more grievous than
seduction. And both of these are aggravated by the use of violence. Hence
rape of a virgin is graver than seduction, and rape of a wife than
adultery. And all these are aggravated by coming under the head of
sacrilege, as stated above (A[10], ad 2).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[12] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Just as the ordering of right reason proceeds from man, so
the order of nature is from God Himself: wherefore in sins contrary to
nature, whereby the very order of nature is violated, an injury is done
to God, the Author of nature. Hence Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8):
"Those foul offenses that are against nature should be everywhere and at
all times detested and punished, such as were those of the people of
Sodom, which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of
the same crime, by the law of God which hath not so made men that they
should so abuse one another. For even that very intercourse which should
be between God and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is
the Author, is polluted by the perversity of lust."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[12] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Vices against nature are also against God, as stated above
(ad 1), and are so much more grievous than the depravity of sacrilege, as
the order impressed on human nature is prior to and more firm than any
subsequently established order.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[12] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The nature of the species is more intimately united to each
individual, than any other individual is. Wherefore sins against the
specific nature are more grievous.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[154] A[12] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Gravity of a sin depends more on the abuse of a thing than
on the omission of the right use. Wherefore among sins against nature,
the lowest place belongs to the sin of uncleanness, which consists in the
mere omission of copulation with another. While the most grievous is the
sin of bestiality, because use of the due species is not observed. Hence
a gloss on Gn. 37:2, "He accused his brethren of a most wicked crime,"
says that "they copulated with cattle." After this comes the sin of
sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed. Lastly comes the
sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more
grievous if the abuse regards the "vas" than if it affects the manner of
copulation in respect of other circumstances.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] Out. Para. 1/1
POTENTIAL PARTS OF TEMPERANCE, AND CONTRARY VICES (QQ[155]-170)
OF CONTINENCE (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must next consider the potential parts of temperance: (1) continence;
(2) clemency; (3) modesty. Under the first head we must consider
continence and incontinence. With regard to continence there are four
points of inquiry:
(1) Whether continence is a virtue?
(2) What is its matter?
(3) What is its subject?
(4) Of its comparison with temperance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether continence is a virtue?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that continence is not a virtue. For species and
genus are not co-ordinate members of the same division. But continence is
co-ordinated with virtue, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 1,9).
Therefore continence is not a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, no one sins by using a virtue, since, according to
Augustine (De Lib. Arb. ii, 18,19), "a virtue is a thing that no one
makes ill use of." Yet one may sin by containing oneself: for instance,
if one desire to do a good, and contain oneself from doing it. Therefore
continence is not a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, no virtue withdraws man from that which is lawful, but
only from unlawful things: for a gloss on Gal. 5:23, "Faith, modesty,"
etc., says that by continence a man refrains even from things that are
lawful. Therefore continence is not a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Every praiseworthy habit would seem to be a virtue. Now
such is continence, for Andronicus says [*De Affectibus] that "continence
is a habit unconquered by pleasure." Therefore continence is a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[1] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The word "continence" is taken by various people in two
ways. For some understand continence to denote abstention from all
venereal pleasure: thus the Apostle joins continence to chastity (Gal.
5:23). In this sense perfect continence is virginity in the first place,
and widowhood in the second. Wherefore the same applies to continence
understood thus, as to virginity which we have stated above (Q[152], A[3]
) to be a virtue. Others, however, understand continence as signifying
that whereby a man resists evil desires, which in him are vehement. In
this sense the Philosopher takes continence (Ethic. vii, 7), and thus
also it is used in the Conferences of the Fathers (Collat. xii, 10,11).
In this way continence has something of the nature of a virtue, in so
far, to wit, as the reason stands firm in opposition to the passions,
lest it be led astray by them: yet it does not attain to the perfect
nature of a moral virtue, by which even the sensitive appetite is subject
to reason so that vehement passions contrary to reason do not arise in
the sensitive appetite. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 9) that
"continence is not a virtue but a mixture," inasmuch as it has something
of virtue, and somewhat falls short of virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[1] Body Para. 2/2
If, however, we take virtue in a broad sense, for any principle of
commendable actions, we may say that continence is a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The Philosopher includes continence in the same division
with virtue in so far as the former falls short of virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Properly speaking, man is that which is according to
reason. Wherefore from the very fact that a man holds [tenet se] to that
which is in accord with reason, he is said to contain himself. Now
whatever pertains to perversion of reason is not according to reason.
Hence he alone is truly said to be continent who stands to that which is
in accord with right reason, and not to that which is in accord with
perverse reason. Now evil desires are opposed to right reason, even as
good desires are opposed to perverse reason. Wherefore he is properly and
truly continent who holds to right reason, by abstaining from evil
desires, and not he who holds to perverse reason, by abstaining from good
desires: indeed, the latter should rather be said to be obstinate in evil.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The gloss quoted takes continence in the first sense, as
denoting a perfect virtue, which refrains not merely from unlawful goods,
but also from certain lawful things that are lesser goods, in order to
give its whole attention to the more perfect goods.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether desires for pleasures of touch are the matter of continence?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that desires for pleasures of touch are not the
matter of continence. For Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 46): "General
decorum by its consistent form and the perfection of what is virtuous is
restrained* in its every action." [*"Continentem" according to St.
Thomas' reading; St. Ambrose wrote "concinentem = harmonious"].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, continence takes its name from a man standing for the
good of right reason, as stated above (A[1], ad 2). Now other passions
lead men astray from right reason with greater vehemence than the desire
for pleasures of touch: for instance, the fear of mortal dangers, which
stupefies a man, and anger which makes him behave like a madman, as
Seneca remarks [*De Ira i, 1]. Therefore continence does not properly
regard the desires for pleasures of touch.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Tully says (De Invent. Rhet. ii, 54): "It is continence
that restrains cupidity with the guiding hand of counsel." Now cupidity
is generally used to denote the desire for riches rather than the desire
for pleasures of touch, according to 1 Tim. 6:10, "Cupidity [Douay: 'The
desire of money'] ({philargyria}), is the root of all evils." Therefore
continence is not properly about the desires for pleasures of touch
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, there are pleasures of touch not only in venereal
matters but also in eating. But continence is wont to be applied only to
the use of venereal matters. Therefore the desire for pleasures of touch
is not its proper matter.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[2] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, among pleasures of touch some are not human but bestial,
both as regards food---for instance, the pleasure of eating human flesh;
and as regards venereal matters---for instance the abuse of animals or
boys. But continence is not about such like things, as stated in Ethic.
vii, 5. Therefore desires for pleasures of touch are not the proper
matter of continence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 4) that "continence
and incontinence are about the same things as temperance and
intemperance." Now temperance and intemperance are about the desires for
pleasures of touch, as stated above (Q[141], A[4]). Therefore continence
and incontinence are also about that same matter.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Continence denotes, by its very name, a certain curbing,
in so far as a man contains himself from following his passions. Hence
continence is properly said in reference to those passions which urge a
man towards the pursuit of something, wherein it is praiseworthy that
reason should withhold man from pursuing: whereas it is not properly
about those passions, such as fear and the like, which denote some kind
of withdrawal: since in these it is praiseworthy to remain firm in
pursuing what reason dictates, as stated above (Q[123], AA[3],4). Now it
is to be observed that natural inclinations are the principles of all
supervening inclinations, as stated above (FP, Q[60], A[2]). Wherefore
the more they follow the inclination of nature, the more strongly do the
passions urge to the pursuance of an object. Now nature inclines chiefly
to those things that are necessary to it, whether for the maintenance of
the individual, such as food, or for the maintenance of the species, such
as venereal acts, the pleasures of which pertain to the touch. Therefore
continence and incontinence refer properly to desires for pleasures of
touch.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Just as temperance may be used in a general sense in
connection with any matter; but is properly applied to that matter
wherein it is best for man to be curbed: so, too, continence properly
speaking regards that matter wherein it is best and most difficult to
contain oneself, namely desires for pleasures of touch, and yet in a
general sense and relatively may be applied to any other matter: and in
this sense Ambrose speaks of continence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Properly speaking we do not speak of continence in relation
to fear, but rather of firmness of mind which fortitude implies. As to
anger, it is true that it begets an impulse to the pursuit of something,
but this impulse follows an apprehension of the soul---in so far as a man
apprehends that someone has injured him---rather than an inclination of
nature. Wherefore a man may be said to be continent of anger, relatively
but not simply.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: External goods, such as honors, riches and the like, as the
Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 4), seem to be objects of choice in
themselves indeed, but not as being necessary for the maintenance of
nature. Wherefore in reference to such things we speak of a person as
being continent or incontinent, not simply, but relatively, by adding
that they are continent or incontinent in regard to wealth, or honor and
so forth. Hence Tully either understood continence in a general sense, as
including relative continence, or understood cupidity in a restricted
sense as denoting desire for pleasures of touch.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Venereal pleasures are more vehement than pleasures of the
palate: wherefore we are wont to speak of continence and incontinence in
reference to venereal matters rather than in reference to food; although
according to the Philosopher they are applicable to both.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[2] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: Continence is a good of the human reason: wherefore it
regards those passions which can be connatural to man. Hence the
Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 5) that "if a man were to lay hold of a
child with desire of eating him or of satisfying an unnatural passion
whether he follow up his desire or not, he is said to be continent [*See
A[4]], not absolutely, but relatively."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the subject of continence is the concupiscible power?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the subject of continence is the concupiscible
power. For the subject of a virtue should be proportionate to the
virtue's matter. Now the matter of continence, as stated (A[2]), is
desires for the pleasures of touch, which pertain to the concupiscible
power. Therefore continence is in the concupiscible power.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, "Opposites are referred to one same thing" [*Categ.
viii]. But incontinence is in the concupiscible, whose passions overcome
reason, for Andronicus says [*De Affectibus] that "incontinence is the
evil inclination of the concupiscible, by following which it chooses
wicked pleasures in disobedience to reason." Therefore continence is
likewise in the concupiscible.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the subject of a human virtue is either the reason, or
the appetitive power, which is divided into the will, the concupiscible
and the irascible. Now continence is not in the reason, for then it would
be an intellectual virtue; nor is it in the will, since continence is
about the passions which are not in the will; nor again is it in the
irascible, because it is not properly about the passions of the
irascible, as stated above (A[2], ad 2). Therefore it follows that it is
in the concupiscible.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Every virtue residing in a certain power removes the
evil act of that power. But continence does not remove the evil act of
the concupiscible: since "the continent man has evil desires," according
to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 9). Therefore continence is not in the
concupiscible power.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Every virtue while residing in a subject, makes that
subject have a different disposition from that which it has while
subjected to the opposite vice. Now the concupiscible has the same
disposition in one who is continent and in one who is incontinent, since
in both of them it breaks out into vehement evil desires. Wherefore it is
manifest that continence is not in the concupiscible as its subject.
Again the reason has the same disposition in both, since both the
continent and the incontinent have right reason, and each of them, while
undisturbed by passion, purposes not to follow his unlawful desires. Now
the primary difference between them is to be found in their choice: since
the continent man, though subject to vehement desires, chooses not to
follow them, because of his reason; whereas the incontinent man chooses
to follow them, although his reason forbids. Hence continence must needs
reside in that power of the soul, whose act it is to choose; and that is
the will, as stated above (FS, Q[13], A[1]).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Continence has for its matter the desires for pleasures of
touch, not as moderating them (this belongs to temperance which is in the
concupiscible), but its business with them is to resist them. For this
reason it must be in another power, since resistance is of one thing
against another.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The will stands between reason and the concupiscible, and
may be moved by either. In the continent man it is moved by the reason,
in the incontinent man it is moved by the concupiscible. Hence continence
may be ascribed to the reason as to its first mover, and incontinence to
the concupiscible power: though both belong immediately to the will as
their proper subject.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Although the passions are not in the will as their subject,
yet it is in the power of the will to resist them: thus it is that the
will of the continent man resists desires.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether continence is better than temperance?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that continence is better than temperance. For it
is written (Ecclus. 26:20): "No price is worthy of a continent soul."
Therefore no virtue can be equalled to continence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the greater the reward a virtue merits, the greater the
virtue. Now continence apparently merits the greater reward; for it is
written (2 Tim. 2:5): "He . . . is not crowned, except he strive
lawfully," and the continent man, since he is subject to vehement evil
desires, strives more than the temperate man, in whom these things are
not vehement. Therefore continence is a greater virtue than temperance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the will is a more excellent power than the
concupiscible. But continence is in the will, whereas temperance is in
the concupiscible, as stated above (A[3]). Therefore continence is a
greater virtue than temperance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Tully (De Invent. Rhet. ii, 54) and Andronicus [*De
Affectibus] reckon continence to be annexed to temperance, as to a
principal virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), continence has a twofold
signification. In one way it denotes cessation from all venereal
pleasures; and if continence be taken in this sense, it is greater than
temperance considered absolutely, as may be gathered from what we said
above (Q[152], A[5]) concerning the preeminence of virginity over
chastity considered absolutely. In another way continence may be taken as
denoting the resistance of the reason to evil desires when they are
vehement in a man: and in this sense temperance is far greater than
continence, because the good of a virtue derives its praise from that
which is in accord with reason. Now the good of reason flourishes more in
the temperate man than in the continent man, because in the former even
the sensitive appetite is obedient to reason, being tamed by reason so to
speak, whereas in the continent man the sensitive appetite strongly
resists reason by its evil desires. Hence continence is compared to
temperance, as the imperfect to the perfect.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The passage quoted may be understood in two ways. First in
reference to the sense in which continence denotes abstinence from all
things venereal: and thus it means that "no price is worthy of a
continent soul," in the genus of chastity the fruitfulness of the flesh
is the purpose of marriage is equalled to the continence of virginity or
of widowhood, as stated above (Q[152], AA[4],5). Secondly it may be
understood in reference to the general sense in which continence denotes
any abstinence from things unlawful: and thus it means that "no price is
worthy of a continent soul," because its value is not measured with gold
or silver, which are appreciable according to weight.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The strength or weakness of concupiscence may proceed from
two causes. For sometimes it is owing to a bodily cause: because some
people by their natural temperament are more prone to concupiscence than
others; and again opportunities for pleasure which inflame the
concupiscence are nearer to hand for some people than for others. Such
like weakness of concupiscence diminishes merit, whereas strength of
concupiscence increases it. on the other hand, weakness or strength of
concupiscence arises from a praiseworthy spiritual cause, for instance
the vehemence of charity, or the strength of reason, as in the case of a
temperate man. In this way weakness of concupiscence, by reason of its
cause, increases merit, whereas strength of concupiscence diminishes it.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[155] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The will is more akin to the reason than the concupiscible
power is. Wherefore the good of reason---on account of which virtue is
praised by the very fact that it reaches not only to the will but also to
the concupiscible power, as happens in the temperate man---is shown to be
greater than if it reach only to the will, as in the case of one who is
continent.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] Out. Para. 1/1
OF INCONTINENCE (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider incontinence: and under this head there are four
points of inquiry:
(1) Whether incontinence pertains to the soul or to the body?
(2) Whether incontinence is a sin?
(3) The comparison between incontinence and intemperance;
(4) Which is the worse, incontinence in anger, or incontinence in desire?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether incontinence pertains to the soul or to the body?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that incontinence pertains not to the soul but to
the body. For sexual diversity comes not from the soul but from the body.
Now sexual diversity causes diversity of incontinence: for the
Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 5) that women are not described either as
continent or as incontinent. Therefore incontinence pertains not to the
soul but to the body.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, that which pertains to the soul does not result from
the temperament of the body. But incontinence results from the bodily
temperament: for the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7) that "it is
especially people of a quick or choleric and atrabilious temper whose
incontinence is one of unbridled desire." Therefore incontinence regards
the body.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, victory concerns the victor rather than the vanquished.
Now a man is said to be incontinent, because "the flesh lusteth against
the spirit," and overcomes it. Therefore incontinence pertains to the
flesh rather than to the soul.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Man differs from beast chiefly as regards the soul. Now
they differ in respect of continence and incontinence, for we ascribe
neither continence nor incontinence to the beasts, as the Philosopher
states (Ethic. vii, 3). Therefore incontinence is chiefly on the part of
the soul.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Things are ascribed to their direct causes rather than to
those which merely occasion them. Now that which is on the part of the
body is merely an occasional cause of incontinence; since it is owing to
a bodily disposition that vehement passions can arise in the sensitive
appetite which is a power of the organic body. Yet these passions,
however vehement they be, are not the sufficient cause of incontinence,
but are merely the occasion thereof, since, so long as the use of reason
remains, man is always able to resist his passions. If, however, the
passions gain such strength as to take away the use of reason
altogether---as in the case of those who become insane through the
vehemence of their passions---the essential conditions of continence or
incontinence cease, because such people do not retain the judgment of
reason, which the continent man follows and the incontinent forsakes.
From this it follows that the direct cause of incontinence is on the part
of the soul, which fails to resist a passion by the reason. This happens
in two ways, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 7): first, when
the soul yields to the passions, before the reason has given its counsel;
and this is called "unbridled incontinence" or "impetuosity": secondly,
when a man does not stand to what has been counselled, through holding
weakly to reason's judgment; wherefore this kind of incontinence is
called "weakness." Hence it is manifest that incontinence pertains
chiefly to the soul.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The human soul is the form of the body, and has certain
powers which make use of bodily organs. The operations of these organs
conduce somewhat to those operations of the soul which are accomplished
without bodily instruments, namely to the acts of the intellect and of
the will, in so far as the intellect receives from the senses, and the
will is urged by passions of the sensitive appetite. Accordingly, since
woman, as regards the body, has a weak temperament, the result is that
for the most part, whatever she holds to, she holds to it weakly;
although in /rare cases the opposite occurs, according to Prov. 31:10,
"Who shall find a valiant woman?" And since small and weak things "are
accounted as though they were not" [*Aristotle, Phys. ii, 5] the
Philosopher speaks of women as though they had not the firm judgment of
reason, although the contrary happens in some women. Hence he states that
"we do not describe women as being continent, because they are
vacillating" through being unstable of reason, and "are easily led" so
that they follow their passions readily.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: It is owing to the impulse of passion that a man at once
follows his passion before his reason counsels him. Now the impulse of
passion may arise either from its quickness, as in bilious persons [*Cf.
FS, Q[46], A[5]], or from its vehemence, as in the melancholic, who on
account of their earthy temperament are most vehemently aroused. Even so,
on the other hand, a man fails to stand to that which is counselled,
because he holds to it in weakly fashion by reason of the softness of his
temperament, as we have stated with regard to woman (ad 1). This is also
the case with phlegmatic temperaments, for the same reason as in women.
And these results are due to the fact that the bodily temperament is an
occasional but not a sufficient cause of incontinence, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: In the incontinent man concupiscence of the flesh overcomes
the spirit, not necessarily, but through a certain negligence of the
spirit in not resisting strongly.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether incontinence is a sin?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that incontinence is not a sin. For as Augustine
says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 18): "No man sins in what he cannot avoid." Now
no man can by himself avoid incontinence, according to Wis. 8:21, "I know
[Vulg.: 'knew'] that I could not . . . be continent, except God gave it."
Therefore incontinence is not a sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, apparently every sin originates in the reason. But the
judgment of reason is overcome in the incontinent man. Therefore
incontinence is not a sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, no one sins in loving God vehemently. Now a man becomes
incontinent through the vehemence of divine love: for Dionysius says
(Div. Nom. iv) that "Paul, through incontinence of divine love,
exclaimed: I live, now not I" (Gal. 2:20). Therefore incontinence is not
a sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is numbered together with other sins (2 Tim. 3:3)
where it is written: "Slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful," etc.
Therefore incontinence is a sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Incontinence about a matter may be considered in two
ways. First it may be considered properly and simply: and thus
incontinence is about concupiscences of pleasures of touch, even as
intemperance is, as we have said in reference to continence (Q[155], A[2]
). In this way incontinence is a sin for two reasons: first, because the
incontinent man goes astray from that which is in accord with reason;
secondly, because he plunges into shameful pleasures. Hence the
Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 4) that "incontinence is censurable not
only because it is wrong"---that is, by straying from reason---"but also
because it is wicked"---that is, by following evil desires. Secondly,
incontinence about a matter is considered, properly---inasmuch as it is a
straying from reason---but not simply; for instance when a man does not
observe the mode of reason in his desire for honor, riches, and so forth,
which seem to be good in themselves. About such things there is
incontinence, not simply but relatively, even as we have said above in
reference to continence (Q[155], A[2], ad 3). In this way incontinence is
a sin, not from the fact that one gives way to wicked desires, but
because one fails to observe the mode of reason even in the desire for
things that are of themselves desirable.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
Thirdly, incontinence is said to be about a matter, not properly, but
metaphorically. for instance about the desires for things of which one
cannot make an evil use, such as the desire for virtue. A man may be said
to be incontinent in these matters metaphorically, because just as the
incontinent man is entirely led by his evil desire, even so is a man
entirely led by his good desire which is in accord with reason. Such like
incontinence is no sin, but pertains to the perfection of virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Man can avoid sin and do good, yet not without God's help,
according to Jn. 15:5: "Without Me you can do nothing." Wherefore the
fact that man needs God's help in order to be continent, does not show
incontinence to be no sin, for, as stated in Ethic. iii, 3, "what we can
do by means of a friend we do, in a way, ourselves."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The judgment of reason is overcome in the incontinent man,
not necessarily, for then he would commit no sin, but through a certain
negligence on account of his not standing firm in resisting the passion
by holding to the judgment formed by his reason.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: This argument takes incontinence metaphorically and not
properly.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the incontinent man sins more gravely than the intemperate?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the incontinent man sins more gravely than the
intemperate. For, seemingly, the more a man acts against his conscience,
the more gravely he sins, according to Lk. 12:47, "That servant who knew
the will of his lord . . . and did not . . . shall be beaten with many
stripes." Now the incontinent man would seem to act against his
conscience more than the intemperate because, according to Ethic. vii, 3,
the incontinent man, though knowing how wicked are the things he desires,
nevertheless acts through passion, whereas the intemperate man judges
what he desires to be good. Therefore the incontinent man sins more
gravely than the intemperate.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, apparently, the graver a sin is, the more incurable it
is: wherefore the sins against the Holy Ghost, being most grave, are
declared to be unpardonable. Now the sin of incontinence would appear to
be more incurable than the sin of intemperance. For a person's sin is
cured by admonishment and correction, which seemingly are no good to the
incontinent man, since he knows he is doing wrong, and does wrong
notwithstanding: whereas it seems to the intemperate man that he is doing
well, so that it were good for him to be admonished. Therefore it would
appear that the incontinent man sins more gravely than the intemperate.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the more eagerly man sins, the more grievous his sin.
Now the incontinent sins more eagerly than the intemperate, since the
incontinent man has vehement passions and desires, which the intemperate
man does not always have. Therefore the incontinent man sins more gravely
than the intemperate.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Impenitence aggravates every sin: wherefore Augustine
says (De Verb. Dom. serm. xi, 12,13) that "impenitence is a sin against
the Holy Ghost." Now according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 8) "the
intemperate man is not inclined to be penitent, for he holds on to his
choice: but every incontinent man is inclined to repentance." Therefore
the intemperate man sins more gravely than the incontinent.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, According to Augustine [*De Duab. Anim. x, xi] sin is
chiefly an act of the will, because "by the will we sin and live aright"
[*Retract. i, 9]. Consequently where there is a greater inclination of
the will to sin, there is a graver sin. Now in the intemperate man, the
will is inclined to sin in virtue of its own choice, which proceeds from
a habit acquired through custom: whereas in the incontinent man, the will
is inclined to sin through a passion. And since passion soon passes,
whereas a habit is "a disposition difficult to remove," the result is
that the incontinent man repents at once, as soon as the passion has
passed; but not so the intemperate man; in fact he rejoices in having
sinned, because the sinful act has become connatural to him by reason of
his habit. Wherefore in reference to such persons it is written (Prov.
2:14) that "they are glad when they have done evil, and rejoice in most
wicked things." Hence it follows that "the intemperate man is much worse
than the incontinent," as also the Philosopher declares (Ethic. vii, 7).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Ignorance in the intellect sometimes precedes the
inclination of the appetite and causes it, and then the greater the
ignorance, the more does it diminish or entirely excuse the sin, in so
far as it renders it involuntary. On the other hand, ignorance in the
reason sometimes follows the inclination of the appetite, and then such
like ignorance, the greater it is, the graver the sin, because the
inclination of the appetite is shown thereby to be greater. Now in both
the incontinent and the intemperate man, ignorance arises from the
appetite being inclined to something, either by passion, as in the
incontinent, or by habit, as in the intemperate. Nevertheless greater
ignorance results thus in the intemperate than in the incontinent. In one
respect as regards duration, since in the incontinent man this ignorance
lasts only while the passion endures, just as an attack of intermittent
fever lasts as long as the humor is disturbed: whereas the ignorance of
the intemperate man endures without ceasing, on account of the endurance
of the habit, wherefore it is likened to phthisis or any chronic disease,
as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 8). In another respect the ignorance
of the intemperate man is greater as regards the thing ignored. For the
ignorance of the incontinent man regards some particular detail of choice
(in so far as he deems that he must choose this particular thing now):
whereas the intemperate man's ignorance is about the end itself, inasmuch
as he judges this thing good, in order that he may follow his desires
without being curbed. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7,8) that
"the incontinent man is better than the intemperate, because he retains
the best principle [*{To beltiston, e arche}, 'the best thing, i.e. the
principle']," to wit, the right estimate of the end.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Mere knowledge does not suffice to cure the incontinent
man, for he needs the inward assistance of grace which quenches
concupiscence, besides the application of the external remedy of
admonishment and correction, which induce him to begin to resist his
desires, so that concupiscence is weakened, as stated above (Q[142], A[2]
). By these same means the intemperate man can be cured. But his curing
is more difficult, for two reasons. The first is on the part of reason,
which is corrupt as regards the estimate of the last end, which holds the
same position as the principle in demonstrations. Now it is more
difficult to bring back to the truth one who errs as to the principle;
and it is the same in practical matters with one who errs in regard to
the end. The other reason is on the part of the inclination of the
appetite: for in the intemperate man this proceeds from a habit, which is
difficult to remove, whereas the inclination of the incontinent man
proceeds from a passion, which is more easily suppressed.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The eagerness of the will, which increases a sin, is
greater in the intemperate man than in the incontinent, as explained
above. But the eagerness of concupiscence in the sensitive appetite is
sometimes greater in the incontinent man, because he does not sin except
through vehement concupiscence, whereas the intemperate man sins even
through slight concupiscence and sometimes forestalls it. Hence the
Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7) that we blame more the intemperate man,
"because he pursues pleasure without desiring it or with calm," i.e.
slight desire. "For what would he have done if he had desired it with
passion?"
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the incontinent in anger is worse than the incontinent in desire?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the incontinent in anger is worse than the
incontinent in desire. For the more difficult it is to resist the
passion, the less grievous, apparently is incontinence: wherefore the
Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7): "It is not wonderful, indeed it is
pardonable if a person is overcome by strong and overwhelming pleasures
or pains." Now, "as Heraclitus says, it is more difficult to resist
desire than anger" [*Ethic. ii. 3]. Therefore incontinence of desire is
less grievous than incontinence of anger.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, one is altogether excused from sin if the passion be so
vehement as to deprive one of the judgment of reason, as in the case of
one who becomes demented through passion. Now he that is incontinent in
anger retains more of the judgment of reason, than one who is incontinent
in desire: since "anger listens to reason somewhat, but desire does not"
as the Philosopher states (Ethic. vii, 6). Therefore the incontinent in
anger is worse than the incontinent in desire.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the more dangerous a sin the more grievous it is. Now
incontinence of anger would seem to be more dangerous, since it leads a
man to a greater sin, namely murder, for this is a more grievous sin than
adultery, to which incontinence of desire leads. Therefore incontinence
of anger is graver than incontinence of desire.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 6) that "incontinence
of anger is less disgraceful than incontinence of desire."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The sin of incontinence may be considered in two ways.
First, on the part of the passion which occasions the downfall of reason.
In this way incontinence of desire is worse than incontinence of anger,
because the movement of desire is more inordinate than the movement of
anger. There are four reasons for this, and the Philosopher indicates
them, Ethic. vii, 6: First, because the movement of anger partakes
somewhat of reason, since the angry man tends to avenge the injury done
to him, and reason dictates this in a certain degree. Yet he does not
tend thereto perfectly, because he does not intend the due mode of
vengeance. on the other hand, the movement of desire is altogether in
accord with sense and nowise in accord with reason. Secondly, because the
movement of anger results more from the bodily temperament owing to the
quickness of the movement of the bile which tends to anger. Hence one who
by bodily temperament is disposed to anger is more readily angry than one
who is disposed to concupiscence is liable to be concupiscent: wherefore
also it happens more often that the children of those who are disposed to
anger are themselves disposed to anger, than that the children of those
who are disposed to concupiscence are also disposed to concupiscence. Now
that which results from the natural disposition of the body is deemed
more deserving of pardon. Thirdly, because anger seeks to work openly,
whereas concupiscence is fain to disguise itself and creeps in by
stealth. Fourthly, because he who is subject to concupiscence works with
pleasure, whereas the angry man works as though forced by a certain
previous displeasure.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
Secondly, the sin of incontinence may be considered with regard to the
evil into which one falls through forsaking reason; and thus incontinence
of anger is, for the most part, more grievous, because it leads to things
that are harmful to one's neighbor.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It is more difficult to resist pleasure perseveringly than
anger, because concupiscence is enduring. But for the moment it is more
difficult to resist anger, on account of its impetuousness.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Concupiscence is stated to be without reason, not as though
it destroyed altogether the judgment of reason, but because nowise does
it follow the judgment of reason: and for this reason it is more
disgraceful.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[156] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers incontinence with regard to its
result.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] Out. Para. 1/1
OF CLEMENCY AND MEEKNESS (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must next consider clemency and meekness, and the contrary vices.
Concerning the virtues themselves there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether clemency and meekness are altogether identical?
(2) Whether each of them is a virtue?
(3) Whether each is a part of temperance?
(4) Of their comparison with the other virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether clemency and meekness are absolutely the same?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that clemency and meekness are absolutely the same.
For meekness moderates anger, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv,
5). Now anger is "desire of vengeance" [*Aristotle, Rhet. ii, 2]. Since,
then, clemency "is leniency of a superior in inflicting punishment on an
inferior," as Seneca states (De Clementia ii, 3), and vengeance is taken
by means of punishment, it would seem that clemency and meekness are the
same.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Tully says (De Invent. Rhet. ii, 54) that "clemency is a
virtue whereby the mind is restrained by kindness when unreasonably
provoked to hatred of a person," so that apparently clemency moderates
hatred. Now, according to Augustine [*Ep. ccxi], hatred is caused by
anger; and this is the matter of meekness and clemency. Therefore
seemingly clemency and meekness are absolutely the same.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the same vice is not opposed to different virtues. But
the same vice, namely cruelty, is opposed to meekness and clemency.
Therefore it seems that meekness and clemency are absolutely the same.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, According to the aforesaid definition of Seneca (OBJ[1]
) "clemency is leniency of a superior towards an inferior": whereas
meekness is not merely of superior to inferior, but of each to everyone.
Therefore meekness and clemency are not absolutely the same.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[1] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated in Ethic. ii, 3, a moral virtue is "about
passions and actions." Now internal passions are principles of external
actions, and are likewise obstacles thereto. Wherefore virtues that
moderate passions, to a certain extent, concur towards the same effect as
virtues that moderate actions, although they differ specifically. Thus it
belongs properly to justice to restrain man from theft, whereunto he is
inclined by immoderate love or desire of money, which is restrained by
liberality; so that liberality concurs with justice towards the effect,
which is abstention from theft. This applies to the case in point;
because through the passion of anger a man is provoked to inflict a too
severe punishment, while it belongs directly to clemency to mitigate
punishment, and this might be prevented by excessive anger.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[1] Body Para. 2/2
Consequently meekness, in so far as it restrains the onslaught of anger,
concurs with clemency towards the same effect; yet they differ from one
another, inasmuch as clemency moderates external punishment, while
meekness properly mitigates the passion of anger.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Meekness regards properly the desire itself of vengeance;
whereas clemency regards the punishment itself which is applied
externally for the purpose of vengeance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Man's affections incline to the moderation of things that
are unpleasant to him in themselves. Now it results from one man loving
another that he takes no pleasure in the latter's punishment in itself,
but only as directed to something else, for instance justice, or the
correction of the person punished. Hence love makes one quick to mitigate
punishment ---and this pertains to clemency---while hatred is an obstacle
to such mitigation. For this reason Tully says that "the mind provoked to
hatred" that is to punish too severely, "is restrained by clemency," from
inflicting too severe a punishment, so that clemency directly moderates
not hatred but punishment.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The vice of anger, which denotes excess in the passion of
anger, is properly opposed to meekness, which is directly concerned with
the passion of anger; while cruelty denotes excess in punishing.
Wherefore Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 4) that "those are called cruel
who have reason for punishing, but lack moderation in punishing." Those
who delight in a man's punishment for its own sake may be called savage
or brutal, as though lacking the human feeling that leads one man to love
another.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether both clemency and meekness are virtues?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that neither clemency nor meekness is a virtue. For
no virtue is opposed to another virtue. Yet both of these are apparently
opposed to severity, which is a virtue. Therefore neither clemency nor
meekness is a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, "Virtue is destroyed by excess and defect" [*Ethic. ii,
2]. But both clemency and meekness consist in a certain decrease; for
clemency decreases punishment, and meekness decreases anger. Therefore
neither clemency nor meekness is a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, meekness or mildness is included (Mt. 5:4) among the
beatitudes, and (Gal. 5:23) among the fruits. Now the virtues differ from
the beatitudes and fruits. Therefore they are not comprised under virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 5): "Every good man is
conspicuous for his clemency and meekness." Now it is virtue properly
that belongs to a good man, since "virtue it is that makes its possessor
good, and renders his works good also" (Ethic. ii, 6). Therefore clemency
and meekness are virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The nature of moral virtue consists in the subjection of
appetite to reason, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. i, 13). Now this
is verified both in clemency and in meekness. For clemency, in mitigating
punishment, "is guided by reason," according to Seneca (De Clementia ii,
5), and meekness, likewise, moderates anger according to right reason, as
stated in Ethic. iv, 5. Wherefore it is manifest that both clemency and
meekness are virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Meekness is not directly opposed to severity; for meekness
is about anger. On the other hand, severity regards the external
infliction of punishment, so that accordingly it would seem rather to be
opposed to clemency, which also regards external punishing, as stated
above (A[1]). Yet they are not really opposed to one another, since they
are both according to right reason. For severity is inflexible in the
infliction of punishment when right reason requires it; while clemency
mitigates punishment also according to right reason, when and where this
is requisite. Wherefore they are not opposed to one another as they are
not about the same thing.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 5), "the habit
that observes the mean in anger is unnamed; so that the virtue is
denominated from the diminution of anger, and is designated by the name
of meekness." For the virtue is more akin to diminution than to excess,
because it is more natural to man to desire vengeance for injuries done
to him, than to be lacking in that desire, since "scarcely anyone
belittles an injury done to himself," as Sallust observes [*Cf. Q[120]].
As to clemency, it mitigates punishment, not in respect of that which is
according to right reason, but as regards that which is according to
common law, which is the object of legal justice: yet on account of some
particular consideration, it mitigates the punishment, deciding, as it
were, that a man is not to be punished any further. Hence Seneca says (De
Clementia ii, 1): "Clemency grants this, in the first place, that those
whom she sets free are declared immune from all further punishment; and
remission of punishment due amounts to a pardon." Wherefore it is clear
that clemency is related to severity as equity [the Greek 'epieikeia'
[*Cf. Q[120]]] to legal justice, whereof severity is a part, as regards
the infliction of punishment in accordance with the law. Yet clemency
differs from equity, as we shall state further on (A[3], ad 1).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The beatitudes are acts of virtue: while the fruits are
delights in virtuous acts. Wherefore nothing hinders meekness being
reckoned both virtue, and beatitude and fruit.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the aforesaid virtues are parts of temperance?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the aforesaid virtues are not parts of
temperance. For clemency mitigates punishment, as stated above (A[2]).
But the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 10) ascribes this to equity, which
pertains to justice, as stated above (Q[120], A[2]). Therefore seemingly
clemency is not a part of temperance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, temperance is concerned with concupiscences; whereas
meekness and clemency regard, not concupiscences, but anger and
vengeance. Therefore they should not be reckoned parts of temperance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 4): "A man may be said to
be of unsound mind when he takes pleasure in cruelty." Now this is
opposed to clemency and meekness. Since then an unsound mind is opposed
to prudence, it seems that clemency and meekness are parts of prudence
rather than of temperance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 3) that "clemency is
temperance of the soul in exercising the power of taking revenge." Tully
also (De Invent. Rhet. ii, 54) reckons clemency a part of temperance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Parts are assigned to the principal virtues, in so far as
they imitate them in some secondary matter as to the mode whence the
virtue derives its praise and likewise its name. Thus the mode and name
of justice consist in a certain "equality," those of fortitude in a
certain "strength of mind," those of temperance in a certain "restraint,"
inasmuch as it restrains the most vehement concupiscences of the
pleasures of touch. Now clemency and meekness likewise consist in a
certain restraint, since clemency mitigates punishment, while meekness
represses anger, as stated above (AA[1],2). Therefore both clemency and
meekness are annexed to temperance as principal virtue, and accordingly
are reckoned to be parts thereof.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Two points must be considered in the mitigation of
punishment. one is that punishment should be mitigated in accordance with
the lawgiver's intention, although not according to the letter of the
law; and in this respect it pertains to equity. The other point is a
certain moderation of a man's inward disposition, so that he does not
exercise his power of inflicting punishment. This belongs properly to
clemency, wherefore Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 3) that "it is
temperance of the soul in exercising the power of taking revenge." This
moderation of soul comes from a certain sweetness of disposition, whereby
a man recoils from anything that may be painful to another. Wherefore
Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 3) that "clemency is a certain smoothness
of the soul"; for, on the other hand, there would seem to be a certain
roughness of soul in one who fears not to pain others.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The annexation of secondary to principal virtues depends on
the mode of virtue, which is, so to speak, a kind of form of the virtue,
rather than on the matter. Now meekness and clemency agree with
temperance in mode, as stated above, though they agree not in matter.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: "Unsoundness" is corruption of "soundness." Now just as
soundness of body is corrupted by the body lapsing from the condition due
to the human species, so unsoundness of mind is due to the mind lapsing
from the disposition due to the human species. This occurs both in
respect of the reason, as when a man loses the use of reason, and in
respect of the appetitive power, as when a man loses that humane feeling
whereby "every man is naturally friendly towards all other men" (Ethic.
viii, 1). The unsoundness of mind that excludes the use of reason is
opposed to prudence. But that a man who takes pleasure in the punishment
of others is said to be of unsound mind, is because he seems on this
account to be devoid of the humane feeling which gives rise to clemency.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether clemency and meekness are the greatest virtues?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that clemency and meekness are the greatest
virtues. For virtue is deserving of praise chiefly because it directs man
to happiness that consists in the knowledge of God. Now meekness above
all directs man to the knowledge of God: for it is written (James 1:21):
"With meekness receive the ingrafted word," and (Ecclus. 5:13): "Be meek
to hear the word" of God. Again, Dionysius says (Ep. viii ad Demophil.)
that "Moses was deemed worthy of the Divine apparition on account of his
great meekness." Therefore meekness is the greatest of virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, seemingly a virtue is all the greater according as it is
more acceptable to God and men. Now meekness would appear to be most
acceptable to God. For it is written (Ecclus. 1:34,35): "That which is
agreeable" to God is "faith and meekness"; wherefore Christ expressly
invites us to be meek like unto Himself (Mt. 11:29), where He says:
"Learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart"; and Hilary declares
[*Comment. in Matth. iv, 3] that "Christ dwells in us by our meekness of
soul." Again, it is most acceptable to men; wherefore it is written
(Ecclus. 3:19): "My son, do thy works in meekness, and thou shalt be
beloved above the glory of men": for which reason it is also declared
(Prov. 20:28) that the King's "throne is strengthened by clemency."
Therefore meekness and clemency are the greatest of virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 2) that "the
meek are they who yield to reproaches, and resist not evil, but overcome
evil by good." Now this seems to pertain to mercy or piety which would
seem to be the greatest of virtues: because a gloss of Ambrose [*Hilary
the deacon] on 1 Tim. 4:8, "Piety [Douay: 'Godliness'] is profitable to
all things," observes that "piety is the sum total of the Christian
religion." Therefore meekness and clemency are the greatest virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, They are not reckoned as principal virtues, but are
annexed to another, as to a principal, virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Nothing prevents certain virtues from being greatest, not
indeed simply, nor in every respect, but in a particular genus. It is
impossible for clemency or meekness to be absolutely the greatest
virtues, since they owe their praise to the fact that they withdraw a man
from evil, by mitigating anger or punishment. Now it is more perfect to
obtain good than to lack evil. Wherefore those virtues like faith, hope,
charity, and likewise prudence and justice, which direct one to good
simply, are absolutely greater virtues than clemency and meekness.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
Yet nothing prevents clemency and meekness from having a certain
restricted excellence among the virtues which resist evil inclinations.
For anger, which is mitigated by meekness, is, on account of its
impetuousness, a very great obstacle to man's free judgment of truth:
wherefore meekness above all makes a man self-possessed. Hence it is
written (Ecclus. 10:31): "My son, keep thy soul in meekness." Yet the
concupiscences of the pleasures of touch are more shameful, and harass
more incessantly, for which reason temperance is more rightly reckoned as
a principal virtue. as stated above (Q[141], A[7], ad 2). As to clemency,
inasmuch as it mitigates punishment, it would seem to approach nearest to
charity, the greatest of the virtues, since thereby we do good towards
our neighbor, and hinder his evil.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Meekness disposes man to the knowledge of God, by removing
an obstacle; and this in two ways. First, because it makes man
self-possessed by mitigating his anger, as stated above; secondly,
because it pertains to meekness that a man does not contradict the words
of truth, which many do through being disturbed by anger. Wherefore
Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 7): "To be meek is not to
contradict Holy Writ, whether we understand it, if it condemn our evil
ways, or understand it not, as though we might know better and have a
clearer insight of the truth."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Meekness and clemency make us acceptable to God and men, in
so far as they concur with charity, the greatest of the virtues, towards
the same effect, namely the mitigation of our neighbor's evils.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[157] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Mercy and piety agree indeed with meekness and clemency by
concurring towards the same effect, namely the mitigation of our
neighbor's evils. Nevertheless they differ as to motive. For piety
relieves a neighbor's evil through reverence for a superior, for instance
God or one's parents: mercy relieves a neighbor's evil, because this evil
is displeasing to one, in so far as one looks upon it as affecting
oneself, as stated above (Q[30], A[2]): and this results from friendship
which makes friends rejoice and grieve for the same things: meekness does
this, by removing anger that urges to vengeance, and clemency does this
through leniency of soul, in so far as it judges equitable that a person
be no further punished.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] Out. Para. 1/1
OF ANGER (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We must next consider the contrary vices: (1) Anger that is opposed to
meekness; (2) Cruelty that is opposed to clemency. Concerning anger there
are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is lawful to be angry?
(2) Whether anger is a sin?
(3) Whether it is a mortal sin?
(4) Whether it is the most grievous of sins?
(5) Of its species;
(6) Whether anger is a capital vice?
(7) Of its daughters;
(8) Whether it has a contrary vice?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is lawful to be angry?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it cannot be lawful to be angry. For Jerome in
his exposition on Mt. 5:22, "Whosoever is angry with his brother," etc.
says: "Some codices add 'without cause.' However, in the genuine codices
the sentence is unqualified, and anger is forbidden altogether."
Therefore it is nowise lawful to be angry.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) "The soul's evil
is to be without reason." Now anger is always without reason: for the
Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 6) that "anger does not listen perfectly to
reason"; and Gregory says (Moral. v, 45) that "when anger sunders the
tranquil surface of the soul, it mangles and rends it by its riot"; and
Cassian says (De Inst. Caenob. viii, 6): "From whatever cause it arises,
the angry passion boils over and blinds the eye of the mind." Therefore
it is always evil to be angry.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, anger is "desire for vengeance" [*Aristotle, Rhet. ii,
2] according to a gloss on Lev. 19:17, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother
in thy heart." Now it would seem unlawful to desire vengeance, since this
should be left to God, according to Dt. 32:35, "Revenge is Mine."
Therefore it would seem that to be angry is always an evil.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, all that makes us depart from likeness to God is evil.
Now anger always makes us depart from likeness to God, since God judges
with tranquillity according to Wis. 12:18. Therefore to be angry is
always an evil.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Chrysostom [*Hom. xi in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely
ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says: "He that is angry without cause,
shall be in danger; but he that is angry with cause, shall not be in
danger: for without anger, teaching will be useless, judgments unstable,
crimes unchecked." Therefore to be angry is not always an evil.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Properly speaking anger is a passion of the sensitive
appetite, and gives its name to the irascible power, as stated above (FS,
Q[46], A[1]) when we were treating of the passions. Now with regard to
the passions of the soul, it is to be observed that evil may be found in
them in two ways. First by reason of the passion's very species, which is
derived from the passion's object. Thus envy, in respect of its species,
denotes an evil, since it is displeasure at another's good, and such
displeasure is in itself contrary to reason: wherefore, as the
Philosopher remarks (Ethic. ii, 6), "the very mention of envy denotes
something evil." Now this does not apply to anger, which is the desire
for revenge, since revenge may be desired both well and ill. Secondly,
evil is found in a passion in respect of the passion's quantity, that is
in respect of its excess or deficiency; and thus evil may be found in
anger, when, to wit, one is angry, more or less than right reason
demands. But if one is angry in accordance with right reason, one's anger
is deserving of praise.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The Stoics designated anger and all the other passions as
emotions opposed to the order of reason; and accordingly they deemed
anger and all other passions to be evil, as stated above (FS, Q[24], A[2]
) when we were treating of the passions. It is in this sense that Jerome
considers anger; for he speaks of the anger whereby one is angry with
one's neighbor, with the intent of doing him a wrong.---But, according to
the Peripatetics, to whose opinion Augustine inclines (De Civ. Dei ix,
4), anger and the other passions of the soul are movements of the
sensitive appetite, whether they be moderated or not, according to
reason: and in this sense anger is not always evil.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Anger may stand in a twofold relation to reason. First,
antecedently; in this way it withdraws reason from its rectitude, and has
therefore the character of evil. Secondly, consequently, inasmuch as the
movement of the sensitive appetite is directed against vice and in
accordance with reason, this anger is good, and is called "zealous
anger." Wherefore Gregory says (Moral. v, 45): "We must beware lest, when
we use anger as an instrument of virtue, it overrule the mind, and go
before it as its mistress, instead of following in reason's train, ever
ready, as its handmaid, to obey." This latter anger, although it hinder
somewhat the judgment of reason in the execution of the act, does not
destroy the rectitude of reason. Hence Gregory says (Moral. v, 45) that
"zealous anger troubles the eye of reason, whereas sinful anger blinds
it." Nor is it incompatible with virtue that the deliberation of reason
be interrupted in the execution of what reason has deliberated: since art
also would be hindered in its act, if it were to deliberate about what
has to be done, while having to act.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: It is unlawful to desire vengeance considered as evil to
the man who is to be punished, but it is praiseworthy to desire vengeance
as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice; and to this the
sensitive appetite can tend, in so far as it is moved thereto by the
reason: and when revenge is taken in accordance with the order of
judgment, it is God's work, since he who has power to punish "is God's
minister," as stated in Rm. 13:4.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: We can and ought to be like to God in the desire for good;
but we cannot be altogether likened to Him in the mode of our desire,
since in God there is no sensitive appetite, as in us, the movement of
which has to obey reason. Wherefore Gregory says (Moral. v, 45) that
"anger is more firmly erect in withstanding vice, when it bows to the
command of reason."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether anger is a sin?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that anger is not a sin. For we demerit by sinning.
But "we do not demerit by the passions, even as neither do we incur blame
thereby," as stated in Ethic. ii, 5. Consequently no passion is a sin.
Now anger is a passion as stated above (FS, Q[46], A[1]) in the treatise
on the passions. Therefore anger is not a sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, in every sin there is conversion to some mutable good.
But in anger there is conversion not to a mutable good, but to a person's
evil. Therefore anger is not a sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, "No man sins in what he cannot avoid," as Augustine
asserts [*De Lib. Arb. iii, 18]. But man cannot avoid anger, for a gloss
on Ps. 4:5, "Be ye angry and sin not," says: "The movement of anger is
not in our power." Again, the Philosopher asserts (Ethic. vii, 6) that
"the angry man acts with displeasure." Now displeasure is contrary to the
will. Therefore anger is not a sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, sin is contrary to nature, according to Damascene [*De
Fide Orth. ii, 4,30]. But it is not contrary to man's nature to be angry,
and it is the natural act of a power, namely the irascible; wherefore
Jerome says in a letter [*Ep. xii ad Anton. Monach.] that "to be angry is
the property of man." Therefore it is not a sin to be angry.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Eph. 4:31): "Let all indignation and
anger [*Vulg.: 'Anger and indignation'] . . . be put away from you."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Anger, as stated above (A[1]), is properly the name of a
passion. A passion of the sensitive appetite is good in so far as it is
regulated by reason, whereas it is evil if it set the order of reason
aside. Now the order of reason, in regard to anger, may be considered in
relation to two things. First, in relation to the appetible object to
which anger tends, and that is revenge. Wherefore if one desire revenge
to be taken in accordance with the order of reason, the desire of anger
is praiseworthy, and is called "zealous anger" [*Cf. Greg., Moral. v,
45]. On the other hand, if one desire the taking of vengeance in any way
whatever contrary to the order of reason, for instance if he desire the
punishment of one who has not deserved it, or beyond his deserts, or
again contrary to the order prescribed by law, or not for the due end,
namely the maintaining of justice and the correction of defaults, then
the desire of anger will be sinful, and this is called sinful anger.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
Secondly, the order of reason in regard to anger may be considered in
relation to the mode of being angry, namely that the movement of anger
should not be immoderately fierce, neither internally nor externally; and
if this condition be disregarded, anger will not lack sin, even though
just vengeance be desired.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Since passion may be either regulated or not regulated by
reason, it follows that a passion considered absolutely does not include
the notion of merit or demerit, of praise or blame. But as regulated by
reason, it may be something meritorious and deserving of praise; while on
the other hand, as not regulated by reason, it may be demeritorious and
blameworthy. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 5) that "it is he
who is angry in a certain way, that is praised or blamed."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The angry man desires the evil of another, not for its own
sake but for the sake of revenge, towards which his appetite turns as to
a mutable good.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Man is master of his actions through the judgment of his
reason, wherefore as to the movements that forestall that judgment, it is
not in man's power to prevent them as a whole, i.e. so that none of them
arise, although his reason is able to check each one, if it arise.
Accordingly it is stated that the movement of anger is not in man's
power, to the extent namely that no such movement arise. Yet since this
movement is somewhat in his power, it is not entirely sinless if it be
inordinate. The statement of the Philosopher that "the angry man acts
with displeasure," means that he is displeased, not with his being angry,
but with the injury which he deems done to himself: and through this
displeasure he is moved to seek vengeance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The irascible power in man is naturally subject to his
reason, wherefore its act is natural to man, in so far as it is in accord
with reason, and in so far as it is against reason, it is contrary to
man's nature.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether all anger is a mortal sin?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that all anger is a mortal sin. For it is written
(Job 5:2): "Anger killeth the foolish man [*Vulg.: 'Anger indeed killeth
the foolish']," and he speaks of the spiritual killing, whence mortal sin
takes its name. Therefore all anger is a mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, nothing save mortal sin is deserving of eternal
condemnation. Now anger deserves eternal condemnation; for our Lord said
(Mt. 5:22): "Whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of
the judgment": and a gloss on this passage says that "the three things
mentioned there, namely judgment, council, and hell-fire, signify in a
pointed manner different abodes in the state of eternal damnation
corresponding to various sins." Therefore anger is a mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, whatsoever is contrary to charity is a mortal sin. Now
anger is of itself contrary to charity, as Jerome declares in his
commentary on Mt. 5:22, "Whosoever is angry with his brother," etc. where
he says that this is contrary to the love of your neighbor. Therefore
anger is a mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, A gloss on Ps. 4:5, "Be ye angry and sin not," says:
"Anger is venial if it does not proceed to action."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The movement of anger may be inordinate and sinful in two
ways, as stated above (A[2]). First, on the part of the appetible object,
as when one desires unjust revenge; and thus anger is a mortal sin in the
point of its genus, because it is contrary to charity and justice.
Nevertheless such like anger may happen to be a venial sin by reason of
the imperfection of the act. This imperfection is considered either in
relation to the subject desirous of vengeance, as when the movement of
anger forestalls the judgment of his reason; or in relation to the
desired object, as when one desires to be avenged in a trifling matter,
which should be deemed of no account, so that even if one proceeded to
action, it would not be a mortal sin, for instance by pulling a child
slightly by the hair, or by some other like action. Secondly, the
movement of anger may be inordinate in the mode of being angry, for
instance, if one be too fiercely angry inwardly, or if one exceed in the
outward signs of anger. In this way anger is not a mortal sin in the
point of its genus; yet it may happen to be a mortal sin, for instance if
through the fierceness of his anger a man fall away from the love of God
and his neighbor.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It does not follow from the passage quoted that all anger
is a mortal sin, but that the foolish are killed spiritually by anger,
because, through not checking the movement of anger by their reason, they
fall into mortal sins, for instance by blaspheming God or by doing injury
to their neighbor.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Our Lord said this of anger, by way of addition to the
words of the Law: "Whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the
judgment" (Mt. 5:21). Consequently our Lord is speaking here of the
movement of anger wherein a man desires the killing or any grave injury
of his neighbor: and should the consent of reason be given to this
desire, without doubt it will be a mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: In the case where anger is contrary to charity, it is a
mortal sin, but it is not always so, as appears from what we have said.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether anger is the most grievous sin?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that anger is the most grievous sin. For Chrysostom
says [*Hom. xlviii in Joan.] that "nothing is more repulsive than the
look of an angry man, and nothing uglier than a ruthless* face, and most
of all than a cruel soul." [*'Severo'. The correct text is 'Si vero.' The
translation would then run thus . . . 'and nothing uglier.' And if his
'face is ugly, how much uglier is his soul!']. Therefore anger is the
most grievous sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the more hurtful a sin is, the worse it would seem to
be; since, according to Augustine (Enchiridion xii), "a thing is said to
be evil because it hurts." Now anger is most hurtful, because it deprives
man of his reason, whereby he is master of himself; for Chrysostom says
(Hom. xlviii in Joan.) that "anger differs in no way from madness; it is
a demon while it lasts, indeed more troublesome than one harassed by a
demon." Therefore anger is the most grievous sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, inward movements are judged according to their outward
effects. Now the effect of anger is murder, which is a most grievous sin.
Therefore anger is a most grievous sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Anger is compared to hatred as the mote to the beam;
for Augustine says in his Rule (Ep. ccxi): "Lest anger grow into hatred
and a mote become a beam." Therefore anger is not the most grievous sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (AA[1],2), the inordinateness of anger is
considered in a twofold respect, namely with regard to an undue object,
and with regard to an undue mode of being angry. As to the appetible
object which it desires, anger would seem to be the least of sins, for
anger desires the evil of punishment for some person, under the aspect of
a good that is vengeance. Hence on the part of the evil which it desires
the sin of anger agrees with those sins which desire the evil of our
neighbor, such as envy and hatred; but while hatred desires absolutely
another's evil as such, and the envious man desires another's evil
through desire of his own glory, the angry man desires another's evil
under the aspect of just revenge. Wherefore it is evident that hatred is
more grievous than envy, and envy than anger: since it is worse to desire
evil as an evil, than as a good; and to desire evil as an external good
such as honor or glory, than under the aspect of the rectitude of
justice. On the part of the good, under the aspect of which the angry man
desires an evil, anger concurs with the sin of concupiscence that tends
to a good. In this respect again, absolutely speaking. the sin of anger
is apparently less grievous than that of concupiscence, according as the
good of justice, which the angry man desires, is better than the
pleasurable or useful good which is desired by the subject of
concupiscence. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 4) that "the
incontinent in desire is more disgraceful than the incontinent in anger."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
On the other hand, as to the inordinateness which regards the mode of
being angry, anger would seem to have a certain pre-eminence on account
of the strength and quickness of its movement, according to Prov. 27:4,
"Anger hath no mercy, nor fury when it breaketh forth: and who can bear
the violence of one provoked?" Hence Gregory says (Moral. v, 45): "The
heart goaded by the pricks of anger is convulsed, the body trembles, the
tongue entangles itself, the face is inflamed, the eyes are enraged and
fail utterly to recognize those whom we know: the tongue makes sounds
indeed, but there is no sense in its utterance."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Chrysostom is alluding to the repulsiveness of the outward
gestures which result from the impetuousness of anger.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers the inordinate movement of anger,
that results from its impetuousness, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Murder results from hatred and envy no less than from
anger: yet anger is less grievous, inasmuch as it considers the aspect of
justice, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the Philosopher suitably assigns the species of anger?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the species of anger are unsuitably assigned
by the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 5) where he says that some angry persons
are "choleric," some "sullen," and some "ill-tempered" or "stern."
According to him, a person is said to be "sullen" whose anger "is
appeased with difficulty and endures a long time." But this apparently
pertains to the circumstance of time. Therefore it seems that anger can
be differentiated specifically in respect also of the other circumstances.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, he says (Ethic. iv, 5) that "ill-tempered" or "stern"
persons "are those whose anger is not appeased without revenge, or
punishment." Now this also pertains to the unquenchableness of anger.
Therefore seemingly the ill-tempered is the same as bitterness.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, our Lord mentions three degrees of anger, when He says
(Mt. 5:22): "Whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of
the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in
danger of the council, and whosoever shall say" to his brother, "Thou
fool." But these degrees are not referable to the aforesaid species.
Therefore it seems that the above division of anger is not fitting.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory of Nyssa [*Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxi] says
"there are three species of irascibility," namely, "the anger which is
called wrath [*'Fellea,' i.e. like gall. But in FS, Q[46], A[8], St.
Thomas quoting the same authority has {Cholos} which we render 'wrath'],"
and "ill-will" which is a disease of the mind, and "rancour." Now these
three seem to coincide with the three aforesaid. For "wrath" he describes
as "having beginning and movement," and the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 5)
ascribes this to "choleric" persons: "ill-will" he describes as "an anger
that endures and grows old," and this the Philosopher ascribes to
"sullenness"; while he describes "rancour" as "reckoning the time for
vengeance," which tallies with the Philosopher's description of the
"ill-tempered." The same division is given by Damascene (De Fide Orth.
ii, 16). Therefore the aforesaid division assigned by the Philosopher is
not unfitting.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[5] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The aforesaid distinction may be referred either to the
passion, or to the sin itself of anger. We have already stated when
treating of the passions (FS, Q[46], A[8]) how it is to be applied to the
passion of anger. And it would seem that this is chiefly what Gregory of
Nyssa and Damascene had in view. Here, however, we have to take the
distinction of these species in its application to the sin of anger, and
as set down by the Philosopher.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[5] Body Para. 2/2
For the inordinateness of anger may be considered in relation to two
things. First, in relation to the origin of anger, and this regards
"choleric" persons, who are angry too quickly and for any slight cause.
Secondly, in relation to the duration of anger, for that anger endures
too long; and this may happen in two ways. In one way, because the cause
of anger, to wit, the inflicted injury, remains too long in a man's
memory, the result being that it gives rise to a lasting displeasure,
wherefore he is "grievous" and "sullen" to himself. In another way, it
happens on the part of vengeance, which a man seeks with a stubborn
desire: this applies to "ill-tempered" or "stern" people, who do not put
aside their anger until they have inflicted punishment.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It is not time, but a man's propensity to anger, or his
pertinacity in anger, that is the chief point of consideration in the
aforesaid species.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Both "sullen" and "ill-tempered" people have a
long-lasting anger, but for different reasons. For a "sullen" person has
an abiding anger on account of an abiding displeasure, which he holds
locked in his breast; and as he does not break forth into the outward
signs of anger, others cannot reason him out of it, nor does he of his
own accord lay aside his anger, except his displeasure wear away with
time and thus his anger cease. On the other hand, the anger of
"ill-tempered" persons is long-lasting on account of their intense desire
for revenge, so that it does not wear out with time, and can be quelled
only by revenge.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The degrees of anger mentioned by our Lord do not refer to
the different species of anger, but correspond to the course of the human
act [*Cf. FS, Q[46], A[8], OBJ[3]]. For the first degree is an inward
conception, and in reference to this He says: "Whosoever is angry with
his brother." The second degree is when the anger is manifested by
outward signs, even before it breaks out into effect; and in reference to
this He says: "Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca!" which is an
angry exclamation. The third degree is when the sin conceived inwardly
breaks out into effect. Now the effect of anger is another's hurt under
the aspect of revenge; and the least of hurts is that which is done by a
mere word; wherefore in reference to this He says: "Whosoever shall say
to his brother Thou fool!" Consequently it is clear that the second adds
to the first, and the third to both the others; so that, if the first is
a mortal sin, in the case referred to by our Lord, as stated above (A[3],
ad 2), much more so are the others. Wherefore some kind of condemnation
is assigned as corresponding to each one of them. In the first case
"judgment" is assigned, and this is the least severe, for as Augustine
says [*Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 9], "where judgment is to be delivered,
there is an opportunity for defense": in the second case "council" is
assigned, "whereby the judges deliberate together on the punishment to be
inflicted": to the third case is assigned "hell-fire," i.e. "decisive
condemnation."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether anger should be reckoned among the capital vices?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that anger should not be reckoned among the capital
sins. For anger is born of sorrow which is a capital vice known by the
name of sloth. Therefore anger should not be reckoned a capital vice.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, hatred is a graver sin than anger. Therefore it should
be reckoned a capital vice rather than anger.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a gloss on Prov. 29:22, "An angry [Douay: 'passionate']
man provoketh quarrels," says: "Anger is the door to all vices: if it be
closed, peace is ensured within to all the virtues; if it be opened, the
soul is armed for every crime." Now no capital vice is the origin of all
sins, but only of certain definite ones. Therefore anger should not be
reckoned among the capital vices.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) places anger among the
capital vices.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (FS, Q[84], A[3],4), a capital vice is
defined as one from which many vices arise. Now there are two reasons for
which many vices can arise from anger. The first is on the part of its
object which has much of the aspect of desirability, in so far as revenge
is desired under the aspect of just or honest*, which is attractive by
its excellence, as stated above (A[4]). [*Honesty must be taken here in
its broad sense as synonymous with moral goodness, from the point of view
of decorum; Cf. Q[145], A[1]]. The second is on the part of its
impetuosity, whereby it precipitates the mind into all kinds of
inordinate action. Therefore it is evident that anger is a capital vice.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The sorrow whence anger arises is not, for the most part,
the vice of sloth, but the passion of sorrow, which results from an
injury inflicted.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As stated above (Q[118], A[7]; Q[148], A[5]; Q[153], A[4];
FS, Q[84], A[4]), it belongs to the notion of a capital vice to have a
most desirable end, so that many sins are committed through the desire
thereof. Now anger, which desires evil under the aspect of good, has a
more desirable end than hatred has, since the latter desires evil under
the aspect of evil: wherefore anger is more a capital vice than hatred is.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Anger is stated to be the door to the vices accidentally,
that is by removing obstacles, to wit by hindering the judgment of
reason, whereby man is withdrawn from evil. It is, however, directly the
cause of certain special sins, which are called its daughters.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether six daughters are fittingly assigned to anger?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that six daughters are unfittingly assigned to
anger, namely "quarreling, swelling of the mind, contumely, clamor,
indignation and blasphemy." For blasphemy is reckoned by Isidore [*QQ. in
Deut., qu. xvi] to be a daughter of pride. Therefore it should not be
accounted a daughter of anger.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, hatred is born of anger, as Augustine says in his rule
(Ep. ccxi). Therefore it should be placed among the daughters of anger.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, "a swollen mind" would seem to be the same as pride. Now
pride is not the daughter of a vice, but "the mother of all vices," as
Gregory states (Moral. xxxi, 45). Therefore swelling of the mind should
not be reckoned among the daughters of anger.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) assigns these daughters to
anger.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[7] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Anger may be considered in three ways. First, as
consisting in thought, and thus two vices arise from anger. one is on the
part of the person with whom a man is angry, and whom he deems unworthy
[indignum] of acting thus towards him, and this is called "indignation."
The other vice is on the part of the man himself, in so far as he devises
various means of vengeance, and with such like thoughts fills his mind,
according to Job 15:2, "Will a wise man . . . fill his stomach with
burning heat?" And thus we have "swelling of the mind."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[7] Body Para. 2/3
Secondly, anger may be considered, as expressed in words: and thus a
twofold disorder arises from anger. One is when a man manifests his anger
in his manner of speech, as stated above (A[5], ad 3) of the man who says
to his brother, "Raca": and this refers to "clamor," which denotes
disorderly and confused speech. The other disorder is when a man breaks
out into injurious words, and if these be against God, it is "blasphemy,"
if against one's neighbor, it is "contumely."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[7] Body Para. 3/3
Thirdly, anger may be considered as proceeding to deeds; and thus anger
gives rise to "quarrels," by which we are to understand all manner of
injuries inflicted on one's neighbor through anger.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The blasphemy into which a man breaks out deliberately
proceeds from pride, whereby a man lifts himself up against God: since,
according to Ecclus. 10:14, "the beginning of the pride of man is to fall
off from God," i.e. to fall away from reverence for Him is the first part
of pride [*Cf. Q[162], A[7], ad 2]; and this gives rise to blasphemy. But
the blasphemy into which a man breaks out through a disturbance of the
mind, proceeds from anger.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Although hatred sometimes arises from anger, it has a
previous cause, from which it arises more directly, namely displeasure,
even as, on the other hand, love is born of pleasure. Now through
displeasure, a man is moved sometimes to anger, sometimes to hatred.
Wherefore it was fitting to reckon that hatred arises from sloth rather
than from anger.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Swelling of the mind is not taken here as identical with
pride, but for a certain effort or daring attempt to take vengeance; and
daring is a vice opposed to fortitude.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there is a vice opposed to anger resulting from lack of anger?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that there. is not a vice opposed to anger,
resulting from lack of anger. For no vice makes us like to God. Now by
being entirely without anger, a man becomes like to God, Who judges "with
tranquillity" (Wis. 12:18). Therefore seemingly it is not a vice to be
altogether without anger.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is not a vice to lack what is altogether useless.
But the movement of anger is useful for no purpose, as Seneca proves in
the book he wrote on anger (De Ira i, 9, seqq.). Therefore it seems that
lack of anger is not a vice.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv), "man's evil is to
be without reason." Now the judgment of reason remains unimpaired, if all
movement of anger be done away. Therefore no lack of anger amounts to a
vice.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Chrysostom [*Hom. xi in Matth. in the Opus Imperfectum,
falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says: "He who is not angry,
whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed
of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but
even the good to do wrong."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[8] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Anger may be understood in two ways. In one way, as a
simple movement of the will, whereby one inflicts punishment, not through
passion, but in virtue of a judgment of the reason: and thus without
doubt lack of anger is a sin. This is the sense in which anger is taken
in the saying of Chrysostom, for he says (Hom. xi in Matth., in the Opus
Imperfectum, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom): "Anger, when it
has a cause, is not anger but judgment. For anger, properly speaking,
denotes a movement of passion": and when a man is angry with reason, his
anger is no longer from passion: wherefore he is said to judge, not to be
angry. In another way anger is taken for a movement of the sensitive
appetite, which is with passion resulting from a bodily transmutation.
This movement is a necessary sequel, in man, to the movement of his will,
since the lower appetite necessarily follows the movement of the higher
appetite, unless there be an obstacle. Hence the movement of anger in the
sensitive appetite cannot be lacking altogether, unless the movement of
the will be altogether lacking or weak. Consequently lack of the passion
of anger is also a vice, even as the lack of movement in the will
directed to punishment by the judgment of reason.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: He that is entirely without anger when he ought to be
angry, imitates God as to lack of passion, but not as to God's punishing
by judgment.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The passion of anger, like all other movements of the
sensitive appetite, is useful, as being conducive to the more prompt
execution [*Cf. FS, Q[24], A[3]] of reason's dictate: else, the sensitive
appetite in man would be to no purpose, whereas "nature does nothing
without purpose" [*Aristotle, De Coelo i, 4].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[158] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: When a man acts inordinately, the judgment of his reason is
cause not only of the simple movement of the will but also of the passion
in the sensitive appetite, as stated above. Wherefore just as the removal
of the effect is a sign that the cause is removed, so the lack of anger
is a sign that the judgment of reason is lacking.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] Out. Para. 1/1
OF CRUELTY (TWO ARTICLES)
We must now consider cruelty, under which head there are two points of
inquiry:
(1) Whether cruelty is opposed to clemency?
(2) Of its comparison with savagery or brutality.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether cruelty is opposed to clemency?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that cruelty is not opposed to clemency. For Seneca
says (De Clementia ii, 4) that "those are said to be cruel who exceed in
punishing," which is contrary to justice. Now clemency is reckoned a
part, not of justice but of temperance. Therefore apparently cruelty is
not opposed to clemency.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Jer. 6:23): "They are cruel, and will
have no mercy"; so that cruelty would seem opposed to mercy. Now mercy is
not the same as clemency, as stated above (Q[157], A[4], ad 3). Therefore
cruelty is not opposed to clemency.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, clemency is concerned with the infliction of punishment,
as stated above (Q[157], A[1]): whereas cruelty applies to the withdrawal
of beneficence, according to Prov. 11:17, "But he that is cruel casteth
off even his own kindred." Therefore cruelty is not opposed to clemency.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 4) that "the opposite of
clemency is cruelty, which is nothing else but hardness of heart in
exacting punishment."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Cruelty apparently takes its name from "cruditas"
[rawness]. Now just as things when cooked and prepared are wont to have
an agreeable and sweet savor, so when raw they have a disagreeable and
bitter taste. Now it has been stated above (Q[157], A[3], ad 1; A[4], ad
3) that clemency denotes a certain smoothness or sweetness of soul,
whereby one is inclined to mitigate punishment. Hence cruelty is directly
opposed to clemency.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Just as it belongs to equity to mitigate punishment
according to reason, while the sweetness of soul which inclines one to
this belongs to clemency: so too, excess in punishing, as regards the
external action, belongs to injustice; but as regards the hardness of
heart, which makes one ready to increase punishment, belongs to cruelty.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Mercy and clemency concur in this, that both shun and
recoil from another's unhappiness, but in different ways. For it belongs
to mercy [*Cf. Q[30], A[1]] to relieve another's unhappiness by a
beneficent action, while it belongs to clemency to mitigate another's
unhappiness by the cessation of punishment. And since cruelty denotes
excess in exacting punishment, it is more directly opposed to clemency
than to mercy; yet on account of the mutual likeness of these virtues,
cruelty is sometimes taken for mercilessness.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Cruelty is there taken for mercilessness, which is lack of
beneficence. We may also reply that withdrawal of beneficence is in
itself a punishment.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether cruelty differs from savagery or brutality?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that cruelty differs not from savagery or
brutality. For seemingly one vice is opposed in one way to one virtue.
Now both savagery and cruelty are opposed to clemency by way of excess.
Therefore it would seem that savagery and cruelty are the same.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Isidore says (Etym. x) that "severity is as it were
savagery with verity, because it holds to justice without attending to
piety": so that savagery would seem to exclude that mitigation of
punishment in delivering judgment which is demanded by piety. Now this
has been stated to belong to cruelty (A[1], ad 1). Therefore cruelty is
the same as savagery.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, just as there is a vice opposed to a virtue by way of
excess, so is there a vice opposed to it by way of deficiency, which
latter is opposed both to the virtue which is the mean, and to the vice
which is in excess. Now the same vice pertaining to deficiency is opposed
to both cruelty and savagery, namely remission or laxity. For Gregory
says (Moral. xx, 5): "Let there be love, but not that which enervates,
let there be severity, but without fury, let there be zeal without
unseemly savagery, let there be piety without undue clemency." Therefore
savagery is the same as cruelty.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 4) that "a man who is
angry without being hurt, or with one who has not offended him, is not
said to be cruel, but to be brutal or savage."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, "Savagery" and "brutality" take their names from a
likeness to wild beasts which are also described as savage. For animals
of this kind attack man that they may feed on his body, and not for some
motive of justice the consideration of which belongs to reason alone.
Wherefore, properly speaking, brutality or savagery applies to those who
in inflicting punishment have not in view a default of the person
punished, but merely the pleasure they derive from a man's torture.
Consequently it is evident that it is comprised under bestiality: for
such like pleasure is not human but bestial, and resulting as it does
either from evil custom, or from a corrupt nature, as do other bestial
emotions. On the other hand, cruelty not only regards the default of the
person punished, but exceeds in the mode of punishing: wherefore cruelty
differs from savagery or brutality, as human wickedness differs from
bestiality, as stated in Ethic. vii, 5.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Clemency is a human virtue; wherefore directly opposed to
it is cruelty which is a form of human wickedness. But savagery or
brutality is comprised under bestiality, wherefore it is directly opposed
not to clemency, but to a more excellent virtue, which the Philosopher
(Ethic. vii, 5) calls "heroic" or "god-like," which according to us,
would seem to pertain to the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Consequently we may
say that savagery is directly opposed to the gift of piety.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: A severe man is not said to be simply savage, because this
implies a vice; but he is said to be "savage as regards the truth," on
account of some likeness to savagery which is not inclined to mitigate
punishment.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[159] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Remission of punishment is not a vice, except it disregard
the order of justice, which requires a man to be punished on account of
his offense, and which cruelty exceeds. On the other hand, cruelty
disregards this order altogether. Wherefore remission of punishment is
opposed to cruelty, but not to savagery.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] Out. Para. 1/1
OF MODESTY (TWO ARTICLES)
We must now consider modesty: and (1) Modesty in general; (2) Each of
its species. Under the first head there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether modesty is a part of temperance?
(2) What is the matter of modesty?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether modesty is a part of temperance?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that modesty is not a part of temperance. For
modesty is denominated from mode. Now mode is requisite in every virtue:
since virtue is directed to good; and "good," according to Augustine (De
Nat. Boni 3), "consists in mode, species, and order." Therefore modesty
is a general virtue, and consequently should not be reckoned a part of
temperance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, temperance would seem to be deserving of praise chiefly
on account of its moderation. Now this gives modesty its name. Therefore
modesty is the same as temperance, and not one of its parts.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, modesty would seem to regard the correction of our
neighbor, according to 2 Tim. 2:24,25, "The servant of the Lord must not
wrangle, but be mild towards all men . . . with modesty admonishing them
that resist the truth." Now admonishing wrong-doers is an act of justice
or of charity, as stated above (Q[33], A[1]). Therefore seemingly modesty
is a part of justice rather than of temperance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Tully (De Invent. Rhet. ii, 54) reckons modesty as a
part of temperance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[141], A[4]; Q[157], A[3]), temperance
brings moderation into those things wherein it is most difficult to be
moderate, namely the concupiscences of pleasures of touch. Now whenever
there is a special virtue about some matter of very great moment, there
must needs be another virtue about matters of lesser import: because the
life of man requires to be regulated by the virtues with regard to
everything: thus it was stated above (Q[134], A[3], ad 1), that while
magnificence is about great expenditure, there is need in addition for
liberality, which is concerned with ordinary expenditure. Hence there is
need for a virtue to moderate other lesser matters where moderation is
not so difficult. This virtue is called modesty, and is annexed to
temperance as its principal.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: When a name is common to many it is sometimes appropriated
to those of the lowest rank; thus the common name of angel is
appropriated to the lowest order of angels. In the same way, mode which
is observed by all virtues in common, is specially appropriated to the
virtue which prescribes the mode in the slightest things.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Some things need tempering on account of their strength,
thus we temper strong wine. But moderation is necessary in all things:
wherefore temperance is more concerned with strong passions, and modesty
about weaker passions.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Modesty is to be taken there for the general moderation
which is necessary in all virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether modesty is only about outward actions?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that modesty is only about outward actions. For the
inward movements of the passions cannot be known to other persons. Yet
the Apostle enjoins (Phil. 4:5): "Let your modesty be known to all men."
Therefore modesty is only about outward actions.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the virtues that are about the passions are
distinguished from justice which is about operations. Now modesty is
seemingly one virtue. Therefore, if it be about outward works, it will
not be concerned with inward passions.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, no one same virtue is both about things pertaining to
the appetite---which is proper to the moral virtues---and about things
pertaining to knowledge---which is proper to the intellectual
virtues---and again about things pertaining to the irascible and
concupiscible faculties. Therefore, if modesty be one virtue, it cannot
be about all these things.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, In all these things it is necessary to observe the
"mode" whence modesty takes its name. Therefore modesty is about all of
them.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[2] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), modesty differs from temperance,
in that temperance moderates those matters where restraint is most
difficult, while modesty moderates those that present less difficulty.
Authorities seem to have had various opinions about modesty. For wherever
they found a special kind of good or a special difficulty of moderation,
they withdrew it from the province of modesty, which they confined to
lesser matters. Now it is clear to all that the restraint of pleasures of
touch presents a special difficulty: wherefore all distinguished
temperance from modesty.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[2] Body Para. 2/3
In addition to this, moreover, Tully (De Invent. Rhet. ii, 54)
considered that there was a special kind of good in the moderation of
punishment; wherefore he severed clemency also from modesty, and held
modesty to be about the remaining ordinary matters that require
moderation. These seemingly are of four kinds. one is the movement of the
mind towards some excellence, and this is moderated by "humility." The
second is the desire of things pertaining to knowledge, and this is
moderated by "studiousness" which is opposed to curiosity. The third
regards bodily movements and actions, which require to be done becomingly
and honestly [*Cf. Q[145], A[1]], whether we act seriously or in play.
The fourth regards outward show, for instance in dress and the like.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[2] Body Para. 3/3
To some of these matters, however, other authorities appointed certain
special virtues: thus Andronicus [*De Affectibus] mentions "meekness,
simplicity, humility," and other kindred virtues, of which we have spoken
above (Q[143]); while Aristotle (Ethic. ii, 7) assigned {eutrapelia} to
pleasures in games, as stated above (FS, Q[60], A[5]). All these are
comprised under modesty as understood by Tully; and in this way modesty
regards not only outward but also inward actions.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The Apostle speaks of modesty as regarding externals.
Nevertheless the moderation of the inner man may be shown by certain
outward signs.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: Various virtues assigned by various authorities are
comprised under modesty. Wherefore nothing prevents modesty from
regarding matters which require different virtues. Yet there is not so
great a difference between the various parts of modesty, as there is
between justice, which is about operations, and temperance, which is
about passions, because in actions and passions that present no great
difficulty on the part of the matter, but only on the part of moderation,
there is but one virtue, one namely for each kind of moderation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[160] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
Wherefore the Reply to the Third Objection also is clear.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] Out. Para. 1/2
OF HUMILITY (SIX ARTICLES)
We must consider next the species of modesty: (1) Humility, and pride
which is opposed to it; (2) Studiousness, and its opposite, Curiosity;
(3) Modesty as affecting words or deeds; (4) Modesty as affecting outward
attire.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] Out. Para. 2/2
Concerning humility there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether humility is a virtue?
(2) Whether it resides in the appetite, or in the judgment of reason?
(3) Whether by humility one ought to subject oneself to all men?
(4) Whether it is a part of modesty or temperance?
(5) Of its comparison with the other virtues;
(6) Of the degrees of humility.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether humility is a virtue?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that humility is not a virtue. For virtue conveys
the notion of a penal evil, according to Ps. 104:18, "They humbled his
feet in fetters." Therefore humility is not a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, virtue and vice are mutually opposed. Now humility
seemingly denotes a vice, for it is written (Ecclus. 19:23): "There is
one that humbleth himself wickedly." Therefore humility is not a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, no virtue is opposed to another virtue. But humility is
apparently opposed to the virtue of magnanimity, which aims at great
things, whereas humility shuns them. Therefore it would seem that
humility is not a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, virtue is "the disposition of that which is perfect"
(Phys. vii, text. 17). But humility seemingly belongs to the imperfect:
wherefore it becomes not God to be humble, since He can be subject to
none. Therefore it seems that humility is not a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[1] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, every moral virtue is about actions and passions,
according to Ethic. ii, 3. But humility is not reckoned by the
Philosopher among the virtues that are about passions, nor is it
comprised under justice which is about actions. Therefore it would seem
not to be a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Origen commenting on Lk. 1:48, "He hath regarded the
humility of His handmaid," says (Hom. viii in Luc.): "One of the virtues,
humility, is particularly commended in Holy Writ; for our Saviour said:
'Learn of Me, because I am meek, and humble of heart.'"
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (FS, Q[23], A[2]) when we were treating
of the passions, the difficult good has something attractive to the
appetite, namely the aspect of good, and likewise something repulsive to
the appetite, namely the difficulty of obtaining it. In respect of the
former there arises the movement of hope, and in respect of the latter,
the movement of despair. Now it has been stated above (FS, Q[61], A[2])
that for those appetitive movements which are a kind of impulse towards
an object, there is need of a moderating and restraining moral virtue,
while for those which are a kind of recoil, there is need, on the part
of the appetite, of a moral virtue to strengthen it and urge it on.
Wherefore a twofold virtue is necessary with regard to the difficult
good: one, to temper and restrain the mind, lest it tend to high things
immoderately; and this belongs to the virtue of humility: and another to
strengthen the mind against despair, and urge it on to the pursuit of
great things according to right reason; and this is magnanimity.
Therefore it is evident that humility is a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Isidore observes (Etym. x), "a humble man is so called
because he is, as it were, 'humo acclinis'" [*Literally, 'bent to the
ground'], i.e. inclined to the lowest place. This may happen in two ways.
First, through an extrinsic principle, for instance when one is cast down
by another, and thus humility is a punishment. Secondly, through an
intrinsic principle: and this may be done sometimes well, for instance
when a man, considering his own failings, assumes the lowest place
according to his mode: thus Abraham said to the Lord (Gn. 18:27), "I will
speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes." In this way humility is a
virtue. Sometimes, however, this may be ill-done, for instance when man,
"not understanding his honor, compares himself to senseless beasts, and
becomes like to them" (Ps. 48:13).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As stated (ad 1), humility, in so far as it is a virtue,
conveys the notion of a praiseworthy self-abasement to the lowest place.
Now this is sometimes done merely as to outward signs and pretense:
wherefore this is "false humility," of which Augustine says in a letter
(Ep. cxlix) that it is "grievous pride," since to wit, it would seem to
aim at excellence of glory. Sometimes, however, this is done by an inward
movement of the soul, and in this way, properly speaking, humility is
reckoned a virtue, because virtue does not consist externals, but chiefly
in the inward choice of the mind, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. ii,
5).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Humility restrains the appetite from aiming at great things
against right reason: while magnanimity urges the mind to great things in
accord with right reason. Hence it is clear that magnanimity is not
opposed to humility: indeed they concur in this, that each is according
to right reason.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: A thing is said to be perfect in two ways. First
absolutely; such a thing contains no defect, neither in its nature nor in
respect of anything else, and thus God alone is perfect. To Him humility
is fitting, not as regards His Divine nature, but only as regards His
assumed nature. Secondly, a thing may be said to be perfect in a
restricted sense, for instance in respect of its nature or state or time.
Thus a virtuous man is perfect: although in comparison with God his
perfection is found wanting, according to the word of Is. 40:17, "All
nations are before Him as if they had no being at all." In this way
humility may be competent to every man.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[1] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: The Philosopher intended to treat of virtues as directed to
civic life, wherein the subjection of one man to another is defined
according to the ordinance of the law, and consequently is a matter of
legal justice. But humility, considered as a special virtue, regards
chiefly the subjection of man to God, for Whose sake he humbles himself
by subjecting himself to others.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether humility has to do with the appetite?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that humility concerns, not the appetite but the
judgment of reason. Because humility is opposed to pride. Now pride
concerns things pertaining to knowledge: for Gregory says (Moral. xxxiv,
22) that "pride, when it extends outwardly to the body, is first of all
shown in the eyes": wherefore it is written (Ps. 130:1), "Lord, my heart
is not exalted, nor are my eyes lofty." Now eyes are the chief aids to
knowledge. Therefore it would seem that humility is chiefly concerned
with knowledge, whereby one thinks little of oneself.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Augustine says (De Virginit. xxxi) that "almost the
whole of Christian teaching is humility." Consequently nothing contained
in Christian teaching is incompatible with humility. Now Christian
teaching admonishes us to seek the better things, according to 1 Cor.
12:31, "Be zealous for the better gifts." Therefore it belongs to
humility to restrain not the desire of difficult things but the estimate
thereof.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it belongs to the same virtue both to restrain excessive
movement, and to strengthen the soul against excessive withdrawal: thus
fortitude both curbs daring and fortifies the soul against fear. Now it
is magnanimity that strengthens the soul against the difficulties that
occur in the pursuit of great things. Therefore if humility were to curb
the desire of great things, it would follow that humility is not a
distinct virtue from magnanimity, which is evidently false. Therefore
humility is concerned, not with the desire but with the estimate of great
things.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, Andronicus [*De Affectibus] assigns humility to outward
show; for he says that humility is "the habit of avoiding excessive
expenditure and parade." Therefore it is not concerned with the movement
of the appetite.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Poenit. [*Serm. cccli]) that "the
humble man is one who chooses to be an abject in the house of the Lord,
rather than to dwell in the tents of sinners." But choice concerns the
appetite. Therefore humility has to do with the appetite rather than with
the estimative power.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), it belongs properly to humility,
that a man restrain himself from being borne towards that which is above
him. For this purpose he must know his disproportion to that which
surpasses his capacity. Hence knowledge of one's own deficiency belongs
to humility, as a rule guiding the appetite. Nevertheless humility is
essentially in the appetite itself; and consequently it must be said that
humility, properly speaking, moderates the movement of the appetite.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Lofty eyes are a sign of pride, inasmuch as it excludes
respect and fear: for fearing and respectful persons are especially wont
to lower the eyes, as though not daring to compare themselves with
others. But it does not follow from this that humility is essentially
concerned with knowledge.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: It is contrary to humility to aim at greater things through
confiding in one's own powers: but to aim at greater things through
confidence in God's help, is not contrary to humility; especially since
the more one subjects oneself to God, the more is one exalted in God's
sight. Hence Augustine says (De Virginit. xxxi): "It is one thing to
raise oneself to God, and another to raise oneself up against God. He
that abases himself before Him, him He raiseth up; he that raises himself
up against Him, him He casteth down."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: In fortitude there is the same reason for restraining
daring and for strengthening the soul against fear: since the reason in
both cases is that man should set the good of reason before dangers of
death. But the reason for restraining presumptuous hope which pertains to
humility is not the same as the reason for strengthening the soul against
despair. Because the reason for strengthening the soul against despair is
the acquisition of one's proper good lest man, by despair, render himself
unworthy of a good which was competent to him; while the chief reason for
suppressing presumptuous hope is based on divine reverence, which shows
that man ought not to ascribe to himself more than is competent to him
according to the position in which God has placed him. Wherefore humility
would seem to denote in the first place man's subjection to God; and for
this reason Augustine (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 4) ascribes humility,
which he understands by poverty of spirit, to the gift of fear whereby
man reveres God. Hence it follows that the relation of fortitude to
daring differs from that of humility to hope. Because fortitude uses
daring more than it suppresses it: so that excess of daring is more like
fortitude than lack of daring is. On the other hand, humility suppresses
hope or confidence in self more than it uses it; wherefore excessive
self-confidence is more opposed to humility than lack of confidence is.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Excess in outward expenditure and parade is wont to be done
with a view of boasting, which is suppressed by humility. Accordingly
humility has to do, in a secondary way, with externals, as signs of the
inward movement of the appetite.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether one ought, by humility, to subject oneself to all men?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that one ought not, by humility, to subject
oneself to all men. For, as stated above (A[2], ad 3), humility consists
chiefly in man's subjection to God. Now one ought not to offer to a man
that which is due to God, as is the case with all acts of religious
worship. Therefore, by humility, one ought not to subject oneself to man.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Augustine says (De Nat. et Gratia xxxiv): "Humility
should take the part of truth, not of falsehood." Now some men are of the
highest rank, who cannot, without falsehood, subject themselves to their
inferiors. Therefore one ought not, by humility, to subject oneself to
all men.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further no one ought to do that which conduces to the detriment
of another's spiritual welfare. But if a man subject himself to another
by humility, this is detrimental to the person to whom he subjects
himself; for the latter might wax proud, or despise the other. Hence
Augustine says in his Rule (Ep. ccxi): "Lest through excessive humility
the superior lose his authority." Therefore a man ought not, by humility,
to subject himself to all.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Phil. 2:3): "In humility, let each
esteem others better than themselves."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, We may consider two things in man, namely that which is
God's, and that which is man's. Whatever pertains to defect is man's: but
whatever pertains to man's welfare and perfection is God's, according to
the saying of Osee 13:9, "Destruction is thy own, O Israel; thy help is
only in Me." Now humility, as stated above (A[1], ad 5; A[2], ad 3),
properly regards the reverence whereby man is subject to God. Wherefore
every man, in respect of that which is his own, ought to subject himself
to every neighbor, in respect of that which the latter has of God's: but
humility does not require a man to subject what he has of God's to that
which may seem to be God's in another. For those who have a share of
God's gifts know that they have them, according to 1 Cor. 2:12: "That we
may know the things that are given us from God." Wherefore without
prejudice to humility they may set the gifts they have received from God
above those that others appear to have received from Him; thus the
Apostle says (Eph. 3:5): "(The mystery of Christ) was not known to the
sons of men as it is now revealed to His holy apostles." In like manner.
humility does not require a man to subject that which he has of his own
to that which his neighbor has of man's: otherwise each one would have to
esteem himself a greater sinner than anyone else: whereas the Apostle
says without prejudice to humility (Gal. 2:15): "We by nature are Jews,
and not of the Gentiles, sinners." Nevertheless a man may esteem his
neighbor to have some good which he lacks himself, or himself to have
some evil which another has not: by reason of which, he may subject
himself to him with humility.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: We must not only revere God in Himself, but also that which
is His in each one, although not with the same measure of reverence as we
revere God. Wherefore we should subject ourselves with humility to all
our neighbors for God's sake, according to 1 Pt. 2:13, "Be ye subject .
. to every human creature for God's sake"; but to God alone do we owe
the worship of latria.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: If we set what our neighbor has of God's above that which
we have of our own, we cannot incur falsehood. Wherefore a gloss [*St.
Augustine, QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 71] on Phil. 2:3, "Esteem others better than
themselves," says: "We must not esteem by pretending to esteem; but we
should in truth think it possible for another person to have something
that is hidden to us and whereby he is better than we are, although our
own good whereby we are apparently better than he, be not hidden."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Humility, like other virtues, resides chiefly inwardly in
the soul. Consequently a man, by an inward act of the soul, may subject
himself to another, without giving the other man an occasion of detriment
to his spiritual welfare. This is what Augustine means in his Rule (Ep.
ccxi): "With fear, the superior should prostrate himself at your feet in
the sight of God." On the other hand, due moderation must be observed in
the outward acts of humility even as of other virtues, lest they conduce
to the detriment of others. If, however, a man does as he ought, and
others take therefrom an occasion of sin, this is not imputed to the man
who acts with humility; since he does not give scandal, although others
take it.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether humility is a part of modesty or temperance?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that humility is not a part of modesty or
temperance. For humility regards chiefly the reverence whereby one is
subject to God, as stated above (A[3]). Now it belongs to a theological
virtue to have God for its object. Therefore humility should be reckoned
a theological virtue rather than a part of temperance or modesty.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, temperance is in the concupiscible, whereas humility
would seem to be in the irascible, just as pride which is opposed to it,
and whose object is something difficult. Therefore apparently humility is
not a part of temperance or modesty.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, humility and magnanimity are about the same object, as
stated above (A[1], ad 3). But magnanimity is reckoned a part, not of
temperance but of fortitude, as stated above (Q[129], A[5]). Therefore it
would seem that humility is not a part of temperance or modesty.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Origen says (Hom. viii super Luc.): "If thou wilt hear
the name of this virtue, and what it was called by the philosophers, know
that humility which God regards is the same as what they called
{metriotes}, i.e. measure or moderation." Now this evidently pertains to
modesty or temperance. Therefore humility is a part of modesty or
temperance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[137], A[2], ad 1; Q[157], A[3], ad 2),
in assigning parts to a virtue we consider chiefly the likeness that
results from the mode of the virtue. Now the mode of temperance, whence
it chiefly derives its praise, is the restraint or suppression of the
impetuosity of a passion. Hence whatever virtues restrain or suppress,
and the actions which moderate the impetuosity of the emotions, are
reckoned parts of temperance. Now just as meekness suppresses the
movement of anger, so does humility suppress the movement of hope, which
is the movement of a spirit aiming at great things. Wherefore, like
meekness, humility is accounted a part of temperance. For this reason the
Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 3) says that a man who aims at small things in
proportion to his mode is not magnanimous but "temperate," and such a man
we may call humble. Moreover, for the reason given above (Q[160], A[2]),
among the various parts of temperance, the one under which humility is
comprised is modesty as understood by Tully (De Invent. Rhet. ii, 54),
inasmuch as humility is nothing else than a moderation of spirit:
wherefore it is written (1 Pt. 3:4): "In the incorruptibility of a quiet
and meek spirit."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The theological virtues, whose object is our last end,
which is the first principle in matters of appetite, are the causes of
all the other virtues. Hence the fact that humility is caused by
reverence for God does not prevent it from being a part of modesty or
temperance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Parts are assigned to a principal virtue by reason of a
sameness, not of subject or matter, but of formal mode, as stated above
(Q[137], A[2], ad 1; Q[157], A[3], ad 2). Consequently, although humility
is in the irascible as its subject, it is assigned as a part of modesty
or temperance by reason of its mode.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Although humility and magnanimity agree as to matter, they
differ as to mode, by reason of which magnanimity is reckoned a part of
fortitude, and humility a part of temperance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether humility is the greatest of the virtues?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that humility is the greatest of the virtues. For
Chrysostom, expounding the story of the Pharisee and the publican (Lk.
18), says [*Eclog. hom. vii de Humil. Animi.] that "if humility is such a
fleet runner even when hampered by sin that it overtakes the justice that
is the companion of pride, whither will it not reach if you couple it
with justice? It will stand among the angels by the judgment seat of
God." Hence it is clear that humility is set above justice. Now justice
is either the most exalted of all the virtues, or includes all virtues,
according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 1). Therefore humility is the
greatest of the virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm. [*S. 10, C[1]]):
"Are you thinking of raising the great fabric of spirituality? Attend
first of all to the foundation of humility." Now this would seem to
imply that humility is the foundation of all virtue. Therefore apparently
it is greater than the other virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the greater virtue deserves the greater reward. Now the
greatest reward is due to humility, since "he that humbleth himself shall
be exalted" (Lk. 14:11). Therefore humility is the greatest of virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[5] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, according to Augustine (De Vera Relig. 16), "Christ's
whole life on earth was a lesson in moral conduct through the human
nature which He assumed." Now He especially proposed His humility for our
example, saying (Mt. 11:29): "Learn of Me, because I am meek and humble
of heart." Moreover, Gregory says (Pastor. iii, 1) that the "lesson
proposed to us in the mystery of our redemption is the humility of God."
Therefore humility would seem to be the greatest of virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Charity is set above all the virtues, according to Col.
3:14, "Above all . . . things have charity." Therefore humility is not
the greatest of virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The good of human virtue pertains to the order of reason:
which order is considered chiefly in reference to the end: wherefore the
theological virtues are the greatest because they have the last end for
their object. Secondarily, however, it is considered in reference to the
ordering of the means to the end. This ordinance, as to its essence, is
in the reason itself from which it issues, but by participation it is in
the appetite ordered by the reason; and this ordinance is the effect of
justice, especially of legal justice. Now humility makes a man a good
subject to ordinance of all kinds and in all matters; while every other
virtue has this effect in some special matter. Therefore after the
theological virtues, after the intellectual virtues which regard the
reason itself, and after justice, especially legal justice, humility
stands before all others.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Humility is not set before justice, but before that justice
which is coupled with pride, and is no longer a virtue; even so, on the
other hand, sin is pardoned through humility: for it is said of the
publican (Lk. 18:14) that through the merit of his humility "he went down
into his house justified." Hence Chrysostom says [*De incompr. Nat. Dei,
Hom. v]: "Bring me a pair of two-horse chariots: in the one harness pride
with justice, in the other sin with humility: and you will see that sin
outrunning justice wins not by its own strength, but by that of humility:
while you will see the other pair beaten, not by the weakness of justice,
but by the weight and size of pride."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Just as the orderly assembly of virtues is, by reason of a
certain likeness, compared to a building, so again that which is the
first step in the acquisition of virtue is likened to the foundation,
which is first laid before the rest of the building. Now the virtues are
in truth infused by God. Wherefore the first step in the acquisition of
virtue may be understood in two ways. First by way of removing
obstacles: and thus humility holds the first place, inasmuch as it expels
pride, which "God resisteth," and makes man submissive and ever open to
receive the influx of Divine grace. Hence it is written (James 4:6): "God
resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble." In this sense
humility is said to be the foundation of the spiritual edifice. Secondly,
a thing is first among virtues directly, because it is the first step
towards God. Now the first step towards God is by faith, according to
Heb. 11:6, "He that cometh to God must believe." In this sense faith is
the foundation in a more excellent way than humility.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: To him that despises earthly things, heavenly things are
promised: thus heavenly treasures are promised to those who despise
earthly riches, according to Mt. 6:19,20, "Lay not up to yourselves
treasures on earth . . . but lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven."
Likewise heavenly consolations are promised to those who despise worldly
joys, according to Mt. 4:5, "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall
be comforted." In the same way spiritual uplifting is promised to
humility, not that humility alone merits it, but because it is proper to
it to despise earthly uplifting. Wherefore Augustine says (De Poenit.
[*Serm. cccli]): "Think not that he who humbles himself remains for ever
abased, for it is written: 'He shall be exalted.' And do not imagine that
his exaltation in men's eyes is effected by bodily uplifting."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The reason why Christ chiefly proposed humility to us, was
because it especially removes the obstacle to man's spiritual welfare
consisting in man's aiming at heavenly and spiritual things, in which he
is hindered by striving to become great in earthly things. Hence our
Lord, in order to remove an obstacle to our spiritual welfare, showed by
giving an example of humility, that outward exaltation is to be despised.
Thus humility is, as it were, a disposition to man's untrammeled access
to spiritual and divine goods. Accordingly as perfection is greater than
disposition, so charity, and other virtues whereby man approaches God
directly, are greater than humility.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether twelve degrees of humility are fittingly distinguished in the
Rule of the Blessed Benedict?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the twelve degrees of humility that are set
down in the Rule of the Blessed Benedict [*St. Thomas gives these degrees
in the reverse order to that followed by St. Benedict] are unfittingly
distinguished. The first is to be "humble not only in heart, but also to
show it in one's very person, one's eyes fixed on the ground"; the second
is "to speak few and sensible words, and not to be loud of voice"; the
third is "not to be easily moved, and disposed to laughter"; the fourth
is "to maintain silence until one is asked"; the fifth is "to do nothing
but to what one is exhorted by the common rule of the monastery"; the
sixth is "to believe and acknowledge oneself viler than all"; the seventh
is "to think oneself worthless and unprofitable for all purposes"; the
eighth is "to confess one's sin"; the ninth is "to embrace patience by
obeying under difficult and contrary circumstances"; the tenth is "to
subject oneself to a superior"; the eleventh is "not to delight in
fulfilling one's own desires"; the twelfth is "to fear God and to be
always mindful of everything that God has commanded." For among these
there are some things pertaining to the other virtues, such as obedience
and patience. Again there are some that seem to involve a false
opinion---and this is inconsistent with any virtue---namely to declare
oneself more despicable than all men, and to confess and believe oneself
to be in all ways worthless and unprofitable. Therefore these are
unfittingly placed among the degrees of humility.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, humility proceeds from within to externals, as do other
virtues. Therefore in the aforesaid degrees, those which concern outward
actions are unfittingly placed before those which pertain to inward
actions.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Anselm (De Simil. ci, seqq.) gives seven degrees of
humility, the first of which is "to acknowledge oneself contemptible";
the second, "to grieve for this"; the third, "to confess it"; the fourth,
"to convince others of this, that is to wish them to believe it"; the
fifth, "to bear patiently that this be said of us"; the sixth, "to suffer
oneself to be treated with contempt"; the seventh, "to love being thus
treated." Therefore the aforesaid degrees would seem to be too numerous.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[6] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, a gloss on Mt. 3:15 says: "Perfect humility has three
degrees. The first is to subject ourselves to those who are above us, and
not to set ourselves above our equals: this is sufficient. The second is
to submit to our equals, and not to set ourselves before our inferiors;
this is called abundant humility. The third degree is to subject
ourselves to inferiors, and in this is perfect righteousness." Therefore
the aforesaid degrees would seem to be too numerous.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[6] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, Augustine says (De Virginit. xxxi): "The measure of
humility is apportioned to each one according to his rank. It is
imperiled by pride, for the greater a man is the more liable is he to be
entrapped." Now the measure of a man's greatness cannot be fixed
according to a definite number of degrees. Therefore it would seem that
it is not possible to assign the aforesaid degrees to humility.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[6] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, As stated above (A[2]) humility has essentially to do
with the appetite, in so far as a man restrains the impetuosity of his
soul, from tending inordinately to great things: yet its rule is in the
cognitive faculty, in that we should not deem ourselves to be above what
we are. Also, the principle and origin of both these things is the
reverence we bear to God. Now the inward disposition of humility leads to
certain outward signs in words, deeds, and gestures, which manifest that
which is hidden within, as happens also with the other virtues. For "a
man is known by his look, and a wise man, when thou meetest him, by his
countenance" (Ecclus. 19:26). Wherefore the aforesaid degrees of humility
include something regarding the root of humility, namely the twelfth
degree, "that a man fear God and bear all His commandments in mind."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[6] Body Para. 2/4
Again, they include certain things with regard to the appetite, lest one
aim inordinately at one's own excellence. This is done in three ways.
First, by not following one's own will, and this pertains to the eleventh
degree; secondly, by regulating it according to one's superior judgment,
and this applies to the tenth degree; thirdly, by not being deterred from
this on account of the difficulties and hardships that come in our way,
and this belongs to the ninth degree.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[6] Body Para. 3/4
Certain things also are included referring to the estimate a man forms
in acknowledging his own deficiency, and this in three ways. First by
acknowledging and avowing his own shortcomings; this belongs to the
eighth degree: secondly, by deeming oneself incapable of great things,
and this pertains to the seventh degree: thirdly, that in this respect
one should put others before oneself, and this belongs to the sixth
degree.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[6] Body Para. 4/4
Again, some things are included that refer to outward signs. One of
these regards deeds, namely that in one's work one should not depart from
the ordinary way; this applies to the fifth degree. Two others have
reference to words, namely that one should not be in a hurry to speak,
which pertains to the fourth degree, and that one be not immoderate in
speech, which refers to the second. The others have to do with outward
gestures, for instance in restraining haughty looks, which regards the
first, and in outwardly checking laughter and other signs of senseless
mirth, and this belongs to the third degree.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It is possible, without falsehood, to deem and avow oneself
the most despicable of men, as regards the hidden faults which we
acknowledge in ourselves, and the hidden gifts of God which others have.
Hence Augustine says (De Virginit. lii): "Bethink you that some persons
are in some hidden way better than you, although outwardly you are better
than they." Again, without falsehood one may avow and believe oneself in
all ways unprofitable and useless in respect of one's own capability, so
as to refer all one's sufficiency to God, according to 2 Cor. 3:5, "Not
that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves as of ourselves:
but our sufficiency is from God." And there is nothing unbecoming in
ascribing to humility those things that pertain to other virtues, since,
just as one vice arises from another, so, by a natural sequence, the act
of one virtue proceeds from the act of another.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Man arrives at humility in two ways. First and chiefly by a
gift of grace, and in this way the inner man precedes the outward man.
The other way is by human effort, whereby he first of all restrains the
outward man, and afterwards succeeds in plucking out the inward root. It
is according to this order that the degrees of humility are here
enumerated.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: All the degrees mentioned by Anselm are reducible to
knowledge, avowal, and desire of one's own abasement. For the first
degree belongs to the knowledge of one's own deficiency; but since it
would be wrong for one to love one's own failings, this is excluded by
the second degree. The third and fourth degrees regard the avowal of
one's own deficiency; namely that not merely one simply assert one's
failing, but that one convince another of it. The other three degrees
have to do with the appetite, which seeks, not outward excellence, but
outward abasement, or bears it with equanimity, whether it consist of
words or deeds. For as Gregory says (Regist. ii, 10, Ep. 36), "there is
nothing great in being humble towards those who treat us with regard, for
even worldly people do this: but we should especially be humble towards
those who make us suffer," and this belongs to the fifth and sixth
degrees: or the appetite may even go so far as lovingly to embrace
external abasement, and this pertains to the seventh degree; so that all
these degrees are comprised under the sixth and seventh mentioned above.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: These degrees refer, not to the thing itself, namely the
nature of humility, but to the degrees among men, who are either of
higher or lower or of equal degree.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[161] A[6] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: This argument also considers the degrees of humility not
according to the nature of the thing, in respect of which the aforesaid
degrees are assigned, but according to the various conditions of men.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] Out. Para. 1/1
OF PRIDE (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We must next consider pride, and (1) pride in general; (2) the first
man's sin, which we hold to have been pride. Under the first head there
are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether pride is a sin?
(2) Whether it is a special vice?
(3) Wherein does it reside as in its subject?
(4) Of its species;
(5) Whether it is a mortal sin?
(6) Whether it is the most grievous of all sins?
(7) Of its relation to other sins;
(8) Whether it should be reckoned a capital vice?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether pride is a sin?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that pride is not a sin. For no sin is the object
of God's promise. For God's promises refer to what He will do; and He is
not the author of sin. Now pride is numbered among the Divine promises:
for it is written (Is. 60:15): "I will make thee to be an everlasting
pride [Douay: 'glory'], a joy unto generation and generation." Therefore
pride is not a sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is not a sin to wish to be like unto God: for every
creature has a natural desire for this; and especially does this become
the rational creature which is made to God's image and likeness. Now it
is said in Prosper's Lib. Sent. 294, that "pride is love of one's own
excellence, whereby one is likened to God who is supremely excellent."
Hence Augustine says (Confess. ii, 6): "Pride imitates exaltedness;
whereas Thou alone art God exalted over all." Therefore pride is not a
sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a sin is opposed not only to a virtue but also to a
contrary vice, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. ii, 8). But no vice is
found to be opposed to pride. Therefore pride is not a sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Tobias 4:14): "Never suffer pride to
reign in thy mind or in thy words."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Pride [superbia] is so called because a man thereby aims
higher [supra] than he is; wherefore Isidore says (Etym. x): "A man is
said to be proud, because he wishes to appear above (super) what he
really is"; for he who wishes to overstep beyond what he is, is proud.
Now right reason requires that every man's will should tend to that which
is proportionate to him. Therefore it is evident that pride denotes
something opposed to right reason, and this shows it to have the
character of sin, because according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv, 4), "the
soul's evil is to be opposed to reason." Therefore it is evident that
pride is a sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: Pride [superbia] may be understood in two ways. First, as
overpassing [supergreditur] the rule of reason, and in this sense we say
that it is a sin. Secondly, it may simply denominate "super-abundance";
in which sense any super-abundant thing may be called pride: and it is
thus that God promises pride as significant of super-abundant good. Hence
a gloss of Jerome on the same passage (Is. 61:6) says that "there is a
good and an evil pride"; or "a sinful pride which God resists, and a
pride that denotes the glory which He bestows."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
It may also be replied that pride there signifies abundance of those
things in which men may take pride.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Reason has the direction of those things for which man has
a natural appetite; so that if the appetite wander from the rule of
reason, whether by excess or by default, it will be sinful, as is the
case with the appetite for food which man desires naturally. Now pride is
the appetite for excellence in excess of right reason. Wherefore
Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 13) that pride is the "desire for
inordinate exaltation": and hence it is that, as he asserts (De Civ. Dei
xiv, 13; xix, 12), "pride imitates God inordinately: for it hath equality
of fellowship under Him, and wishes to usurp Hi. dominion over our
fellow-creatures."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Pride is directly opposed to the virtue of humility, which,
in a way, is concerned about the same matter as magnanimity, as stated
above (Q[161], A[1], ad 3). Hence the vice opposed to pride by default is
akin to the vice of pusillanimity, which is opposed by default to
magnanimity. For just as it belongs to magnanimity to urge the mind to
great things against despair, so it belongs to humility to withdraw the
mind from the inordinate desire of great things against presumption. Now
pusillanimity, if we take it for a deficiency in pursuing great things,
is properly opposed to magnanimity by default; but if we take it for the
mind's attachment to things beneath what is becoming to a man, it is
opposed to humility by default; since each proceeds from a smallness of
mind. In the same way, on the other hand, pride may be opposed by excess,
both to magnanimity and humility, from different points of view: to
humility, inasmuch as it scorns subjection, to magnanimity, inasmuch as
it tends to great things inordinately. Since, however, pride implies a
certain elation, it is more directly opposed to humility, even as
pusillanimity, which denotes littleness of soul in tending towards great
things, is more directly opposed to magnanimity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether pride is a special sin?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that pride is not a special sin. For Augustine says
(De Nat. et Grat. xxix) that "you will find no sin that is not labelled
pride"; and Prosper says (De Vita Contempl. iii, 2) that "without pride
no sin is, or was, or ever will be possible." Therefore pride is a
general sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a gloss on Job 33:17, "That He may withdraw man from
wickedness [*Vulg.: 'From the things that he is doing, and may deliver
him from pride']," says that "a man prides himself when he transgresses
His commandments by sin." Now according to Ambrose [*De Parad. viii],
"every sin is a transgression of the Divine law, and a disobedience of
the heavenly commandments." Therefore every sin is pride.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, every special sin is opposed to a special virtue. But
pride is opposed to all the virtues, for Gregory says (Moral. xxxiv, 23):
"Pride is by no means content with the destruction of one virtue; it
raises itself up against all the powers of the soul, and like an
all-pervading and poisonous disease corrupts the whole body"; and Isidore
says (Etym. [*De Summo Bono ii, 38]) that it is "the downfall of all
virtues." Therefore pride is not a special sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, every special sin has a special matter. Now pride has a
general matter, for Gregory says (Moral. xxxiv, 23) that "one man is
proud of his gold, another of his eloquence: one is elated by mean and
earthly things, another by sublime and heavenly virtues." Therefore pride
is not a special but a general sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xxix): "If he look
into the question carefully, he will find that, according to God's law,
pride is a very different sin from other vices." Now the genus is not
different from its species. Therefore pride is not a general but a
special sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The sin of pride may be considered in two ways. First
with regard to its proper species, which it has under the aspect of its
proper object. In this way pride is a special sin, because it has a
special object: for it is inordinate desire of one's own excellence, as
stated (A[1], ad 2). Secondly, it may be considered as having a certain
influence towards other sins. In this way it has somewhat of a generic
character, inasmuch as all sins may arise from pride, in two ways. First
directly, through other sins being directed to the end of pride which is
one's own excellence, to which may be directed anything that is
inordinately desired. Secondly, indirectly and accidentally as it were,
that is by removing an obstacle, since pride makes a man despise the
Divine law which hinders him from sinning, according to Jer. 2:20, "Thou
hast broken My yoke, thou hast burst My bands, and thou saidst: I will
not serve."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
It must, however, be observed that this generic character of pride
admits of the possibility of all vices arising from pride sometimes, but
it does not imply that all vices originate from pride always. For though
one may break the commandments of the Law by any kind of sin, through
contempt which pertains to pride, yet one does not always break the
Divine commandments through contempt, but sometimes through ignorance.
and sometimes through weakness: and for this reason Augustine says (De
Nat. et Grat. xxix) that "many things are done amiss which are not done
through pride."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: These words are introduced by Augustine into his book De
Nat. et Grat., not as being his own, but as those of someone with whom he
is arguing. Hence he subsequently disproves the assertion, and shows that
not all sins are committed through pride. We might, however, reply that
these authorities must be understood as referring to the outward effect
of pride, namely the breaking of the commandments, which applies to every
sin, and not to the inward act of pride, namely contempt of the
commandment. For sin is committed, not always through contempt, but
sometimes through ignorance, sometimes through weakness, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: A man may sometimes commit a sin effectively, but not
affectively; thus he who, in ignorance, slays his father, is a parricide
effectively, but not affectively, since he did not intend it. Accordingly
he who breaks God's commandment is said to pride himself against God,
effectively always, but not always affectively.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: A sin may destroy a virtue in two ways. In one way by
direct contrariety to a virtue, and thus pride does not corrupt every
virtue, but only humility; even as every special sin destroys the special
virtue opposed to it, by acting counter thereto. In another way a sin
destroys a virtue, by making ill use of that virtue: and thus pride
destroys every virtue, in so far as it finds an occasion of pride in
every virtue, just as in everything else pertaining to excellence. Hence
it does not follow that it is a general sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Pride regards a special aspect in its object, which aspect
may be found in various matters: for it is inordinate love of one's
excellence, and excellence may be found in various things.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the subject of pride is the irascible faculty?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the subject of pride is not the irascible
faculty. For Gregory says (Moral. xxiii, 17): "A swollen mind is an
obstacle to truth, for the swelling shuts out the light." Now the
knowledge of truth pertains, not to the irascible but to the rational
faculty. Therefore pride is not in the irascible.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Gregory says (Moral. xxiv, 8) that "the proud observe
other people's conduct not so as to set themselves beneath them with
humility, but so as to set themselves above them with pride": wherefore
it would seem that pride originates in undue observation. Now observation
pertains not to the irascible but to the rational faculty.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further. pride seeks pre-eminence not only in sensible things,
but also in spiritual and intelligible things: while it consists
essentially in the contempt of God, according to Ecclus. 10:14, "The
beginning of the pride of man is to fall off from God." Now the
irascible, since it is a part of the sensitive appetite, cannot extend to
God and things intelligible. Therefore pride cannot be in the irascible.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, as stated in Prosper's Liber Sententiarum, sent. 294,
"Pride is love of one's own excellence." But love is not in the
irascible, but in the concupiscible. Therefore pride is not in the
irascible.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. ii, 49) opposes pride to the gift of
fear. Now fear belongs to the irascible. Therefore pride is in the
irascible.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The subject of any virtue or vice is to be ascertained
from its proper object: for the object of a habit or act cannot be other
than the object of the power, which is the subject of both. Now the
proper object of pride is something difficult, for pride is the desire of
one's own excellence, as stated above (AA[1],2). Wherefore pride must
needs pertain in some way to the irascible faculty. Now the irascible may
be taken in two ways. First in a strict sense, and thus it is a part of
the sensitive appetite, even as anger, strictly speaking, is a passion of
the sensitive appetite. Secondly, the irascible may be taken in a broader
sense, so as to belong also to the intellective appetite, to which also
anger is sometimes ascribed. It is thus that we attribute anger to God
and the angels, not as a passion, but as denoting the sentence of justice
pronouncing judgment. Nevertheless the irascible understood in this broad
sense is not distinct from the concupiscible power, as stated above in
the FP, Q[59], A[4]; FS, Q[82], A[5], ad 1 and 2.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
Consequently if the difficult thing which is the object of pride, were
merely some sensible object, whereto the sensitive appetite might tend,
pride would have to be in the irascible which is part of the sensitive
appetite. But since the difficult thing which pride has in view is common
both to sensible and to spiritual things, we must needs say that the
subject of pride is the irascible not only strictly so called, as a part
of the sensitive appetite, but also in its wider acceptation, as
applicable to the intellective appetite. Wherefore pride is ascribed also
to the demons.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: Knowledge of truth is twofold. One is purely speculative,
and pride hinders this indirectly by removing its cause. For the proud
man subjects not his intellect to God, that he may receive the knowledge
of truth from Him, according to Mt. 11:25, "Thou hast hid these things
from the wise and the prudent," i.e. from the proud, who are wise and
prudent in their own eyes, "and hast revealed them to little ones," i.e.
to the humble.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
Nor does he deign to learn anything from man, whereas it is written
(Ecclus. 6:34): "If thou wilt incline thy ear, thou shalt receive
instruction." The other knowledge of truth is affective, and this is
directly hindered by pride, because the proud, through delighting in
their own excellence, disdain the excellence of truth; thus Gregory says
(Moral. xxiii, 17) that "the proud, although certain hidden truths be
conveyed to their understanding, cannot realize their sweetness: and if
they know of them they cannot relish them." Hence it is written (Prov.
11:2): "Where humility is there also is wisdom."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As stated above (Q[161], AA[2], 6), humility observes the
rule of right reason whereby a man has true self-esteem. Now pride does
not observe this rule of right reason, for he esteems himself greater
than he is: and this is the outcome of an inordinate desire for his own
excellence, since a man is ready to believe what he desires very much,
the result being that his appetite is borne towards things higher than
what become him. Consequently whatsoever things lead a man to inordinate
self-esteem lead him to pride: and one of those is the observing of other
people's failings, just as, on the other hand, in the words of Gregory
(Moral. xxiii, 17), "holy men, by a like observation of other people's
virtues, set others above themselves." Accordingly the conclusion is not
that pride is in the rational faculty, but that one of its causes is in
the reason.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Pride is in the irascible, not only as a part of the
sensitive appetite, but also as having a more general signification, as
stated above.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: According to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7,9), "love
precedes all other emotions of the soul, and is their cause," wherefore
it may be employed to denote any of the other emotions. It is in this
sense that pride is said to be "love of one's own excellence," inasmuch
as love makes a man presume inordinately on his superiority over others,
and this belongs properly to pride.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the four species of pride are fittingly assigned by Gregory?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the four species of pride are unfittingly assigned
by Gregory, who says (Moral. xxiii, 6): "There are four marks by which
every kind of pride of the arrogant betrays itself; either when they
think that their good is from themselves, or if they believe it to be
from above, yet they think that it is due to their own merits; or when
they boast of having what they have not, or despise others and wish to
appear the exclusive possessors of what they have." For pride is a vice
distinct from unbelief, just as humility is a distinct virtue from faith.
Now it pertains to unbelief, if a man deem that he has not received his
good from God, or that he has the good of grace through his own merits.
Therefore this should not be reckoned a species of pride.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the same thing should not be reckoned a species of
different genera. Now boasting is reckoned a species of lying, as stated
above (Q[110], A[2]; Q[112]). Therefore it should not be accounted a
species of pride.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, some other things apparently pertain to pride, which are
not mentioned here. For Jerome [*Reference unknown] says that "nothing is
so indicative of pride as to show oneself ungrateful": and Augustine says
(De Civ. Dei xiv, 14) that "it belongs to pride to excuse oneself of a
sin one has committed." Again, presumption whereby one aims at having
what is above one, would seem to have much to do with pride. Therefore
the aforesaid division does not sufficiently account for the different
species of pride.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, we find other divisions of pride. For Anselm [*Eadmer,
De Similit. xxii, seqq.] divides the uplifting of pride, saying that
there is "pride of will, pride of speech, end pride of deed." Bernard
[*De Grad. Humil. et Superb. x, seqq.] also reckons twelve degrees of
pride, namely "curiosity, frivolity of mind, senseless mirth, boasting,
singularity, arrogance, presumption, defense of one's sins, deceitful
confession, rebelliousness, license, sinful habit." Now these apparently
are not comprised under the species mentioned by Gregory. Therefore the
latter would seem to be assigned unfittingly.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The authority of Gregory suffices.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[4] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, As stated above (AA[1],2,3), pride denotes immoderate
desire of one's own excellence, a desire, to wit, that is not in accord
with right reason. Now it must be observed that all excellence results
from a good possessed. Such a good may be considered in three ways.
First, in itself. For it is evident that the greater the good that one
has, the greater the excellence that one derives from it. Hence when a
man ascribes to himself a good greater than what he has, it follows that
his appetite tends to his own excellence in a measure exceeding his
competency: and thus we have the third species of pride, namely "boasting
of having what one has not."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[4] Body Para. 2/3
Secondly, it may be considered with regard to its cause, in so far as to
have a thing of oneself is more excellent than to have it of another.
Hence when a man esteems the good he has received of another as though he
had it of himself, the result is that his appetite is borne towards his
own excellence immoderately. Now one is cause of one's own good in two
ways, efficiently and meritoriously: and thus we have the first two
species of pride, namely "when a man thinks he has from himself that
which he has from God," or "when he believes that which he has received
from above to be due to his own merits."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[4] Body Para. 3/3
Thirdly, it may be considered with regard to the manner of having it, in
so far as a man obtains greater excellence through possessing some good
more excellently than other men; the result again being that his appetite
is borne inordinately towards his own excellence: and thus we have the
fourth species of pride, which is "when a man despises others and wishes
to be singularly conspicuous."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: A true judgment may be destroyed in two ways. First,
universally: and thus in matters of faith, a true judgment is destroyed
by unbelief. Secondly, in some particular matter of choice, and unbelief
does not do this. Thus a man who commits fornication, judges that for the
time being it is good for him to commit fornication; yet he is not an
unbeliever, as he would be, were he to say that universally fornication
is good. It is thus in the question in point: for it pertains to unbelief
to assert universally that there is a good which is not from God, or that
grace is given to men for their merits, whereas, properly speaking, it
belongs to pride and not to unbelief, through inordinate desire of one's
own excellence, to boast of one's goods as though one had them of
oneself, or of one's own merits.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Boasting is reckoned a species of lying, as regards the
outward act whereby a man falsely ascribes to himself what he has not:
but as regards the inward arrogance of the heart it is reckoned by
Gregory to be a species of pride.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The ungrateful man ascribes to himself what he has from
another: wherefore the first two species of pride pertain to ingratitude.
To excuse oneself of a sin one has committed, belongs to the third
species, since by so doing a man ascribes to himself the good of
innocence which he has not. To aim presumptuously at what is above one,
would seem to belong chiefly to the fourth species, which consists in
wishing to be preferred to others.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 4: The three mentioned by Anselm correspond to the progress of
any particular sin: for it begins by being conceived in thought, then is
uttered in word, and thirdly is accomplished in deed.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 2/3
The twelve degrees mentioned by Bernard are reckoned by way of
opposition to the twelve degrees of humility, of which we have spoken
above (Q[161], A[6]). For the first degree of humility is to "be humble
in heart, and to show it in one's very person, one's eyes fixed on the
ground": and to this is opposed "curiosity," which consists in looking
around in all directions curiously and inordinately. The second degree of
humility is "to speak few and sensible words, and not to be loud of
voice": to this is opposed "frivolity of mind," by which a man is proud
of speech. The third degree of humility is "not to be easily moved and
disposed to laughter," to which is opposed "senseless mirth." The fourth
degree of humility is "to maintain silence until one is asked," to which
is opposed "boasting". The fifth degree of humility is "to do nothing but
to what one is exhorted by the common rule of the monastery," to which is
opposed "singularity," whereby a man wishes to seem more holy than
others. The sixth degree of humility is "to believe and acknowledge
oneself viler than all," to which is opposed "arrogance," whereby a man
sets himself above others. The seventh degree of humility is "to think
oneself worthless and unprofitable for all purposes," to which is opposed
"presumption," whereby a man thinks himself capable of things that are
above him. The eighth degree of humility is "to confess one's sins," to
which is opposed "defense of one's sins." The ninth degree is "to embrace
patience by obeying under difficult and contrary circumstances," to which
is opposed "deceitful confession," whereby a man being unwilling to be
punished for his sins confesses them deceitfully. The tenth degree of
humility is "obedience," to which is opposed "rebelliousness." The
eleventh degree of humility is "not to delight in fulfilling one's own
desires"; to this is opposed "license," whereby a man delights in doing
freely whatever he will. The last degree of humility is "fear of God": to
this is opposed "the habit of sinning," which implies contempt of God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 3/3
In these twelve degrees not only are the species of pride indicated, but
also certain things that precede and follow them, as we have stated above
with regard to humility (Q[161], A[6]).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether pride is a mortal sin?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that pride is not a mortal sin. For a gloss on Ps.
7:4, "O Lord my God, if I have done this thing," says: "Namely, the
universal sin which is pride." Therefore if pride were a mortal sin, so
would every sin be.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, every mortal sin is contrary to charity. But pride is
apparently not contrary to charity, neither as to the love of God, nor as
to the love of one's neighbor, because the excellence which, by pride,
one desires inordinately, is not always opposed to God's honor, or our
neighbor's good. Therefore pride is not a mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, every mortal sin is opposed to virtue. But pride is not
opposed to virtue; on the contrary, it arises therefrom, for as Gregory
says (Moral. xxxiv, 23), "sometimes a man is elated by sublime and
heavenly virtues." Therefore pride is not a mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxxiv, 23) that "pride is a most
evident sign of the reprobate, and contrariwise, humility of the elect."
But men do not become reprobate on account of venial sins. Therefore
pride is not a venial but a mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Pride is opposed to humility. Now humility properly
regards the subjection of man to God, as stated above (Q[161], A[1], ad
5). Hence pride properly regards lack of this subjection, in so far as a
man raises himself above that which is appointed to him according to the
Divine rule or measure, against the saying of the Apostle (2 Cor. 10:13),
"But we will not glory beyond our measure; but according to the measure
of the rule which God hath measured to us." Wherefore it is written
(Ecclus. 10:14): "The beginning of the pride of man is to fall off from
God" because, to wit, the root of pride is found to consist in man not
being, in some way, subject to God and His rule. Now it is evident that
not to be subject to God is of its very nature a mortal sin, for this
consists in turning away from God: and consequently pride is, of its
genus, a mortal sin. Nevertheless just as in other sins which are mortal
by their genus (for instance fornication and adultery) there are certain
motions that are venial by reason of their imperfection (through
forestalling the judgment of reason, and being without its consent), so
too in the matter of pride it happens that certain motions of pride are
venial sins, when reason does not consent to them.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated above (A[2]) pride is a general sin, not by its
essence but by a kind of influence, in so far as all sins may have their
origin in pride. Hence it does not follow that all sins are mortal, but
only such as arise from perfect pride, which we have stated to be a
mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Pride is always contrary to the love of God, inasmuch as
the proud man does not subject himself to the Divine rule as he ought.
Sometimes it is also contrary to the love of our neighbor; when, namely,
a man sets himself inordinately above his neighbor: and this again is a
transgression of the Divine rule, which has established order among men,
so that one ought to be subject to another.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Pride arises from virtue, not as from its direct cause, but
as from an accidental cause, in so far as a man makes a virtue an
occasion for pride. And nothing prevents one contrary from being the
accidental cause of another, as stated in Phys. viii, 1. Hence some are
even proud of their humility.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether pride is the most grievous of sins?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that pride is not the most grievous of sins. For
the more difficult a sin is to avoid, the less grievous it would seem to
be. Now pride is most difficult to avoid; for Augustine says in his Rule
(Ep. ccxi), "Other sins find their vent in the accomplishment of evil
deeds, whereas pride lies in wait for good deeds to destroy them."
Therefore pride is not the most grievous of sins.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, "The greater evil is opposed to the greater good," as
the Philosopher asserts (Ethic. viii, 10). Now humility to which pride is
opposed is not the greatest of virtues, as stated above (Q[61], A[5]).
Therefore the vices that are opposed to greater virtues, such as
unbelief, despair, hatred of God, murder, and so forth, are more grievous
sins than pride.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the greater evil is not punished by a lesser evil. But
pride is sometimes punished by other sins according to Rm. 1:28, where it
is stated that on account of their pride of heart, men of science were
delivered "to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not
convenient." Therefore pride is not the most grievous of sins.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, A gloss on Ps. 118:51, "The proud did iniquitously,"
says: "The greatest sin in man is pride."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Two things are to be observed in sin, conversion to a
mutable good, and this is the material part of sin; and aversion from the
immutable good, and this gives sin its formal aspect and complement. Now
on the part of the conversion, there is no reason for pride being the
greatest of sins, because uplifting which pride covets inordinately, is
not essentially most incompatible with the good of virtue. But on the
part of the aversion, pride has extreme gravity, because in other sins
man turns away from God, either through ignorance or through weakness, or
through desire for any other good whatever; whereas pride denotes
aversion from God simply through being unwilling to be subject to God and
His rule. Hence Boethius [*Cf. Cassian, de Caenob. Inst. xii, 7] says
that "while all vices flee from God, pride alone withstands God"; for
which reason it is specially stated (James 4:6) that "God resisteth the
proud." Wherefore aversion from God and His commandments, which is a
consequence as it were in other sins, belongs to pride by its very
nature, for its act is the contempt of God. And since that which belongs
to a thing by its nature is always of greater weight than that which
belongs to it through something else, it follows that pride is the most
grievous of sins by its genus, because it exceeds in aversion which is
the formal complement of sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: A sin is difficult to avoid in two ways. First, on account
of the violence of its onslaught; thus anger is violent in its onslaught
on account of its impetuosity; and "still more difficult is it to resist
concupiscence, on account of its connaturality," as stated in Ethic. ii,
3,9. A difficulty of this kind in avoiding sin diminishes the gravity of
the sin; because a man sins the more grievously, according as he yields
to a less impetuous temptation, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv,
12,15).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
Secondly, it is difficult to avoid a sin, on account of its being
hidden. In this way it is difficult to avoid pride, since it takes
occasion even from good deeds, as stated (A[5], ad 3). Hence Augustine
says pointedly that it "lies in wait for good deeds"; and it is written
(Ps. 141:4): "In the way wherein I walked, the proud [*Cf. Ps. 139:6,
'The proud have hidden a net for me.'] [Vulg.: 'they'] have hidden a
snare for me." Hence no very great gravity attaches to the movement of
pride while creeping in secretly, and before it is discovered by the
judgment of reason: but once discovered by reason, it is easily avoided,
both by considering one's own infirmity, according to Ecclus. 10:9, "Why
is earth and ashes proud?" and by considering God's greatness, according
to Job 15:13, "Why doth thy spirit swell against God?" as well as by
considering the imperfection of the goods on which man prides himself,
according to Is. 40:6, "All flesh is grass, and all the glory thereof as
the flower of the field"; and farther on (Is. 64:6), "all our justices"
are become "like the rag of a menstruous woman."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Opposition between a vice and a virtue is inferred from the
object, which is considered on the part of conversion. In this way pride
has no claim to be the greatest of sins, as neither has humility to be
the greatest of virtues. But it is the greatest on the part of aversion,
since it brings greatness upon other sins. For unbelief, by the very fact
of its arising out of proud contempt, is rendered more grievous than if
it be the outcome of ignorance or weakness. The same applies to despair
and the like.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: Just as in syllogisms that lead to an impossible conclusion
one is sometimes convinced by being faced with a more evident absurdity,
so too, in order to overcome their pride, God punishes certain men by
allowing them to fall into sins of the flesh, which though they be less
grievous are more evidently shameful. Hence Isidore says (De Summo Bono
ii, 38) that "pride is the worst of all vices; whether because it is
appropriate to those who are of highest and foremost rank, or because it
originates from just and virtuous deeds, so that its guilt is less
perceptible. on the other hand, carnal lust is apparent to all, because
from the outset it is of a shameful nature: and yet, under God's
dispensation, it is less grievous than pride. For he who is in the
clutches of pride and feels it not, falls into the lusts of the flesh,
that being thus humbled he may rise from his abasement."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
From this indeed the gravity of pride is made manifest. For just as a
wise physician, in order to cure a worse disease, allows the patient to
contract one that is less dangerous, so the sin of pride is shown to be
more grievous by the very fact that, as a remedy, God allows men to fall
into other sins.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether pride is the first sin of all?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that pride is not the first sin of all. For the
first is maintained in all that follows. Now pride does not accompany all
sins, nor is it the origin of all: for Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat.
xx) that many things are done "amiss which are not done with pride."
Therefore pride is not the first sin of all.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 10:14) that the "beginning of . .
pride is to fall off from God." Therefore falling away from God
precedes pride.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the order of sins would seem to be according to the
order of virtues. Now, not humility but faith is the first of all
virtues. Therefore pride is not the first sin of all.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[7] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, it is written (2 Tim. 3:13): "Evil men and seducers
shall grow worse and worse"; so that apparently man's beginning of
wickedness is not the greatest of sins. But pride is the greatest of sins
as stated in the foregoing Article. Therefore pride is not the first sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[7] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, resemblance and pretense come after the reality. Now the
Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 7) that "pride apes fortitude and daring."
Therefore the vice of daring precedes the vice of pride.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 10:15): "Pride is the beginning
of all sin."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[7] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The first thing in every genus is that which is
essential. Now it has been stated above (A[6]) that aversion from God,
which is the formal complement of sin, belongs to pride essentially, and
to other sins, consequently. Hence it is that pride fulfils the
conditions of a first thing, and is "the beginning of all sins," as
stated above (FS, Q[84], A[2]), when we were treating of the causes of
sin on the part of the aversion which is the chief part of sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Pride is said to be "the beginning of all sin," not as
though every sin originated from pride, but because any kind of sin is
naturally liable to arise from pride.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: To fall off from God is said to be the beginning of pride,
not as though it were a distinct sin from pride, but as being the first
part of pride. For it has been said above (A[5]) that pride regards
chiefly subjection to God which it scorns, and in consequence it scorns
to be subject to a creature for God's sake.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: There is no need for the order of virtues to be the same as
that of vices. For vice is corruptive of virtue. Now that which is first
to be generated is the last to be corrupted. Wherefore as faith is the
first of virtues, so unbelief is the last of sins, to which sometimes man
is led by other sins. Hence a gloss on Ps. 136:7, "Rase it, rase it, even
to the foundation thereof," says that "by heaping vice upon vice a man
will lapse into unbelief," and the Apostle says (1 Tim. 1:19) that "some
rejecting a good conscience have made shipwreck concerning the faith."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[7] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Pride is said to be the most grievous of sins because that
which gives sin its gravity is essential to pride. Hence pride is the
cause of gravity in other sins. Accordingly previous to pride there may
be certain less grievous sins that are committed through ignorance or
weakness. But among the grievous sins the first is pride, as the cause
whereby other sins are rendered more grievous. And as that which is the
first in causing sins is the last in the withdrawal from sin, a gloss on
Ps. 18:13, "I shall be cleansed from the greatest sin," says: "Namely
from the sin of pride, which is the last in those who return to God, and
the first in those who withdraw from God."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[7] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: The Philosopher associates pride with feigned fortitude,
not that it consists precisely in this, but because man thinks he is more
likely to be uplifted before men, if he seem to be daring or brave.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether pride should be reckoned a capital vice?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that pride should be reckoned a capital vice, since
Isidore [*Comment. in Deut. xvi] and Cassian [*De Inst. Caenob. v, 1:
Collat. v, 2] number pride among the capital vices.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, pride is apparently the same as vainglory, since both
covet excellence. Now vainglory is reckoned a capital vice. Therefore
pride also should be reckoned a capital vice.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Augustine says (De Virginit. xxxi) that "pride begets
envy, nor is it ever without this companion." Now envy is reckoned a
capital vice, as stated above (Q[36], A[4]). Much more therefore is pride
a capital vice.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) does not include pride among
the capital vices.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[8] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (AA[2],5, ad 1) pride may be considered
in two ways; first in itself, as being a special sin; secondly, as having
a general influence towards all sins. Now the capital vices are said to
be certain special sins from which many kinds of sin arise. Wherefore
some, considering pride in the light of a special sin, numbered it
together with the other capital vices. But Gregory, taking into
consideration its general influence towards all vices, as explained above
(A[2], OBJ[3]), did not place it among the capital vices, but held it to
be the "queen and mother of all the vices." Hence he says (Moral. xxxi,
45): "Pride, the queen of vices, when it has vanquished and captured the
heart, forthwith delivers it into the hands of its lieutenants the seven
principal vices, that they may despoil it and produce vices of all kinds."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[8] Body Para. 2/2
This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Pride is not the same as vainglory, but is the cause
thereof: for pride covets excellence inordinately: while vainglory covets
the outward show of excellence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[162] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The fact that envy, which is a capital vice, arises from
pride, does not prove that pride is a capital vice, but that it is still
more principal than the capital vices themselves.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] Out. Para. 1/2
OF THE FIRST MAN'S SIN (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the first man's sin which was pride: and (1) his
sin; (2) its punishment; (3) the temptation whereby he was led to sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] Out. Para. 2/2
Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether pride was the first man's first sin?
(2) What the first man coveted by sinning?
(3) Whether his sin was more grievous than all other sins?
(4) Which sinned more grievously, the man or the woman?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether pride was the first man's first sin?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that pride was not the first man's first sin. For
the Apostle says (Rm. 5:19) that "by the disobedience of one man many
were made sinners." Now the first man's first sin is the one by which all
men were made sinners in the point of original sin. Therefore
disobedience, and not pride, was the first man's first sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Ambrose says, commenting on Lk. 4:3, "And the devil said
to Him," that the devil in tempting Christ observed the same order as in
overcoming the first man. Now Christ was first tempted to gluttony, as
appears from Mt. 4:3, where it was said to Him: "If thou be the Son of
God, command that these stones be made bread." Therefore the first man's
first sin was not pride but gluttony.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, man sinned at the devil's suggestion. Now the devil in
tempting man promised him knowledge (Gn. 3:5). Therefore inordinateness
in man was through the desire of knowledge, which pertains to curiosity.
Therefore curiosity, and not pride, was the first sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, a gloss [*St. Augustine, Gen. ad lit. xi] on 1 Tim.
2:14, "The woman being seduced was in the transgression," says: "The
Apostle rightly calls this seduction, for they were persuaded to accept a
falsehood as being true; namely that God had forbidden them to touch that
tree, because He knew that if they touched it, they would be like gods,
as though He who made them men, begrudged them the godhead . . ." Now it
pertains to unbelief to believe such a thing. Therefore man's first sin
was unbelief and not pride.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 10:15): "Pride is the beginning
of all sin." Now man's first sin is the beginning of all sin, according
to Rm. 5:12, "By one man sin entered into this world." Therefore man's
first sin was pride.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Many movements may concur towards one sin, and the
character of sin attaches to that one in which inordinateness is first
found. And it is evident that inordinateness is in the inward movement of
the soul before being in the outward act of the body; since, as Augustine
says (De Civ. Dei i, 18), the sanctity of the body is not forfeited so
long as the sanctity of the soul remains. Also, among the inward
movements, the appetite is moved towards the end before being moved
towards that which is desired for the sake of the end; and consequently
man's first sin was where it was possible for his appetite to be directed
to an inordinate end. Now man was so appointed in the state of innocence,
that there was no rebellion of the flesh against the spirit. Wherefore it
was not possible for the first inordinateness in the human appetite to
result from his coveting a sensible good, to which the concupiscence of
the flesh tends against the order of reason. It remains therefore that
the first inordinateness of the human appetite resulted from his coveting
inordinately some spiritual good. Now he would not have coveted it
inordinately, by desiring it according to his measure as established by
the Divine rule. Hence it follows that man's first sin consisted in his
coveting some spiritual good above his measure: and this pertains to
pride. Therefore it is evident that man's first sin was pride.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Man's disobedience to the Divine command was not willed by
man for his own sake, for this could not happen unless one presuppose
inordinateness in his will. It remains therefore that he willed it for
the sake of something else. Now the first thing he coveted inordinately
was his own excellence; and consequently his disobedience was the result
of his pride. This agrees with the statement of Augustine, who says (Ad
Oros [*Dial. QQ. lxv, qu. 4]) that "man puffed up with pride obeyed the
serpent's prompting, and scorned God's commands."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Gluttony also had a place in the sin of our first parents.
For it is written (Gn. 3:6): "The woman saw that the tree was good to
eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold, and she took of the
fruit thereof, and did eat." Yet the very goodness and beauty of the
fruit was not their first motive for sinning, but the persuasive words of
the serpent, who said (Gn. 3:5): "Your eyes shall be opened and you shall
be as Gods": and it was by coveting this that the woman fell into pride.
Hence the sin of gluttony resulted from the sin of pride.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The desire for knowledge resulted in our first parents from
their inordinate desire for excellence. Hence the serpent began by
saying: "You shall be as Gods," and added: "Knowing good and evil."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: According to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xi, 30), "the woman
had not believed the serpent's statement that they were debarred by God
from a good and useful thing, were her mind not already filled with the
love of her own power, and a certain proud self-presumption." This does
not mean that pride preceded the promptings of the serpent, but that as
soon as the serpent had spoken his words of persuasion, her mind was
puffed up, the result being that she believed the demon to have spoken
truly.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the first man's pride consisted in his coveting God's likeness?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the first man's pride did not consist in his
coveting the Divine likeness. For no one sins by coveting that which is
competent to him according to his nature. Now God's likeness is competent
to man according to his nature: for it is written (Gn. 1:26): "Let us
make man to our image and likeness." Therefore he did not sin by coveting
God's likeness.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it would seem that man coveted God's likeness in order
that he might obtain knowledge of good and evil: for this was the
serpent's suggestion: "You shall be as Gods knowing good and evil." Now
the desire of knowledge is natural to man, according to the saying of the
Philosopher at the beginning of his Metaphysics i, 1: "All men naturally
desire knowledge." Therefore he did not sin by coveting God's likeness.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, no wise man chooses the impossible. Now the first man
was endowed with wisdom, according to Ecclus. 17:5, "He filled them with
the knowledge of understanding." Since then every sin consists in a
deliberate act of the appetite, namely choice, it would seem that the
first man did not sin by coveting something impossible. But it is
impossible for man to be like God, according to the saying of Ex. 15:11,
"Who is like to Thee among the strong, O Lord?" Therefore the first man
did not sin by coveting God's likeness.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine commenting on Ps. 68:5 [*Enarr. in Ps. 68],
"Then did I restore [Douay: 'pay'] that which I took not away," says:
"Adam and Eve wished to rob the Godhead and they lost happiness."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[2] Body Para. 1/5
I answer that, likeness is twofold. One is a likeness of absolute
equality [*Cf. FP, Q[93], A[1]]: and such a likeness to God our first
parents did not covet, since such a likeness to God is not conceivable to
the mind, especially of a wise man.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[2] Body Para. 2/5
The other is a likeness of imitation, such as is possible for a creature
in reference to God, in so far as the creature participates somewhat of
God's likeness according to its measure. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom.
ix): "The same things are like and unlike to God; like, according as they
imitate Him, as far as He can be imitated; unlike, according as an effect
falls short of its cause." Now every good existing in a creature is a
participated likeness of the first good.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[2] Body Para. 3/5
Wherefore from the very fact that man coveted a spiritual good above his
measure, as stated in the foregoing Article, it follows that he coveted
God's likeness inordinately.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[2] Body Para. 4/5
It must, however, be observed that the proper object of the appetite is
a thing not possessed. Now spiritual good, in so far as the rational
creature participates in the Divine likeness, may be considered in
reference to three things. First, as to natural being: and this likeness
was imprinted from the very outset of their creation, both on man---of
whom it is written (Gn. 1:26) that God made man "to His image and
likeness"---and on the angel, of whom it is written (Ezech. 28:12): "Thou
wast the seal of resemblance." Secondly, as to knowledge: and this
likeness was bestowed on the angel at his creation, wherefore immediately
after the words just quoted, "Thou wast the seal of resemblance," we
read: "Full of wisdom." But the first man, at his creation, had not yet
received this likeness actually but only in potentiality. Thirdly, as to
the power of operation: and neither angel nor man received this likeness
actually at the very outset of his creation, because to each there
remained something to be done whereby to obtain happiness.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[2] Body Para. 5/5
Accordingly, while both (namely the devil and the first man) coveted
God's likeness inordinately, neither of them sinned by coveting a
likeness of nature. But the first man sinned chiefly by coveting God's
likeness as regards "knowledge of good and evil," according to the
serpent's instigation, namely that by his own natural power he might
decide what was good, and what was evil for him to do; or again that he
should of himself foreknow what good and what evil would befall him.
Secondarily he sinned by coveting God's likeness as regards his own power
of operation, namely that by his own natural power he might act so as to
obtain happiness. Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 30) that "the
woman's mind was filled with love of her own power." On the other hand,
the devil sinned by coveting God's likeness, as regards power. Wherefore
Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 13) that "he wished to enjoy his own power
rather than God's." Nevertheless both coveted somewhat to be equal to
God, in so far as each wished to rely on himself in contempt of the order
of the Divine rule.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers the likeness of nature: and man did
not sin by coveting this, as stated.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: It is not a sin to covet God's likeness as to knowledge,
absolutely; but to covet this likeness inordinately, that is, above one's
measure, this is a sin. Hence Augustine commenting on Ps. 70:18, "O God,
who is like Thee?" says: "He who desires to be of himself, even as God is
of no one, wishes wickedly to be like God. Thus did the devil, who was
unwilling to be subject to Him, and man who refused to be, as a servant,
bound by His command."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers the likeness of equality.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the sin of our first parents was more grievous than other sins?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the sin of our first parents was more grievous
than other sins. For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 15): "Great was the
wickedness in sinning, when it was so easy to avoid sin." Now it was very
easy for our first parents to avoid sin, because they had nothing within
them urging them to sin. Therefore the sin of our first parents was more
grievous than other sins.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, punishment is proportionate to guilt. Now the sin of our
first parents was most severely punished, since by it "death entered into
this world," as the Apostle says (Rm. 5:12). Therefore that sin was more
grievous than other sins.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the first in every genus is seemingly the greatest
(Metaph. ii, 4 [*Ed. Diel. i, 1]). Now the sin of our first parents was
the first among sins of men. Therefore it was the greatest.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Origen says [*Peri Archon i, 3]: "I think that a man
who stands on the highest step of perfection cannot fail or fall
suddenly: this can happen only by degrees and little by little." Now our
first parents were established on the highest and perfect grade.
Therefore their first sin was not the greatest of all sins.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, There is a twofold gravity to be observed in sin. one
results from the very species of the sin: thus we say that adultery is a
graver sin than simple fornication. The other gravity of sin results from
some circumstance of place, person, or time. The former gravity is more
essential to sin and is of greater moment: hence a sin is said to be
grave in respect of this gravity rather than of the other. Accordingly we
must say that the first man's sin was not graver than all other sins of
men, as regards the species of the sin. For though pride, of its genus,
has a certain pre-eminence over other sins, yet the pride whereby one
denies or blasphemes God is greater than the pride whereby one covets
God's likeness inordinately, such as the pride of our first parents, as
stated (A[2]).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
But if we consider the circumstances of the persons who sinned, that sin
was most grave on account of the perfection of their state. We must
accordingly conclude that this sin was most grievous relatively but not
simply.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers the gravity of sin as resulting
from the person of the sinner.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The severity of the punishment awarded to that first sin
corresponds to the magnitude of the sin, not as regards its species but
as regards its being the first sin: because it destroyed the innocence of
our original state, and by robbing it of innocence brought disorder upon
the whole human nature.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Where things are directly subordinate, the first must needs
be the greatest. Such is not the order among sins, for one follows from
another accidentally. And thus it does not follow that the first sin is
the greatest.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Adam's sin was more grievous than Eve's?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Adam's sin was more grievous than Eve's. For
it is written (1 Tim. 2:14): "Adam was not seduced, but the woman being
seduced was in the transgression": and so it would seem that the woman
sinned through ignorance, but the man through assured knowledge. Now the
latter is the graver sin, according to Lk. 12:47,48, "That servant who
knew the will of his lord . . . and did not according to his will, shall
be beaten with many stripes: but he that knew not, and did things worthy
of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." Therefore Adam's sin was
more grievous than Eve's.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Augustine says (De Decem Chordis 3 [*Serm. ix; xcvi de
Temp.]): "If the man is the head, he should live better, and give an
example of good deeds to his wife, that she may imitate him." Now he who
ought to do better, sins more grievously, if he commit a sin. Therefore
Adam sinned more grievously than Eve.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the sin against the Holy Ghost would seem to be the most
grievous. Now Adam, apparently, sinned against the Holy Ghost, because
while sinning he relied on God's mercy [*Cf. Q[21], A[2], OBJ[3]. St.
Thomas is evidently alluding to the words of Peter Lombard quoted there],
and this pertains to the sin of presumption. Therefore it seems that Adam
sinned more grievously than Eve.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Punishment corresponds to guilt. Now the woman was more
grievously punished than the man, as appears from Gn. 3. Therefore she
sinned more grievously than the man.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[4] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, As stated (A[3]), the gravity of a sin depends on the
species rather than on a circumstance of that sin. Accordingly we must
assert that, if we consider the condition attaching to these persons, the
man's sin is the more grievous, because he was more perfect than the
woman.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[4] Body Para. 2/4
As regards the genus itself of the sin, the sin of each is considered to
be equal, for each sinned by pride. Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad lit.
xi, 35): "Eve in excusing herself betrays disparity of sex, though parity
of pride."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[4] Body Para. 3/4
But as regards the species of pride, the woman sinned more grievously,
for three reasons. First, because she was more puffed up than the man.
For the woman believed in the serpent's persuasive words, namely that God
had forbidden them to eat of the tree, lest they should become like to
Him; so that in wishing to attain to God's likeness by eating of the
forbidden fruit, her pride rose to the height of desiring to obtain
something against God's will. On the other hand, the man did not believe
this to be true; wherefore he did not wish to attain to God's likeness
against God's will: but his pride consisted in wishing to attain thereto
by his own power. Secondly, the woman not only herself sinned, but
suggested sin to the man; wherefore she sinned against both God and her
neighbor. Thirdly, the man's sin was diminished by the fact that, as
Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 42), "he consented to the sin out of a
certain friendly good-will, on account of which a man sometimes will
offend God rather than make an enemy of his friend. That he ought not to
have done so is shown by the just issue of the Divine sentence."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[4] Body Para. 4/4
It is therefore evident that the woman's sin was more grievous than the
man's.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The woman was deceived because she was first of all puffed
up with pride. Wherefore her ignorance did not excuse, but aggravated her
sin, in so far as it was the cause of her being puffed up with still
greater pride.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers the circumstance of personal
condition, on account of which the man's sin was more grievous than the
woman's.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[163] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The man's reliance on God's mercy did not reach to contempt
of God's justice, wherein consists the sin against the Holy Ghost, but as
Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi [*De Civ. Dei xiv, 11]), it was due to
the fact that, "having had no experience of God's severity, he thought
the sin to be venial," i.e. easily forgiven [*Cf. FS, Q[89], A[3], ad 1].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE PUNISHMENTS OF THE FIRST MAN'S SIN (TWO ARTICLES)
We must now consider the punishments of the first sin; and under this
head there are two points of inquiry: (1) Death, which is the common
punishment; (2) the other particular punishments mentioned in Genesis.
�Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether death is the punishment of our first parents' sin?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that death is not the punishment of our first
parents' sin. For that which is natural to man cannot be called a
punishment of sin, because sin does not perfect nature but vitiates it.
Now death is natural to man: and this is evident both from the fact that
his body is composed of contraries, and because "mortal" is included in
the definition of man. Therefore death is not a punishment of our first
parents' sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, death and other bodily defects are similarly found in
man as well as in other animals, according to Eccles. 3:19, "The death of
man and of beasts is one, and the condition of them both equal." But in
dumb animals death is not a punishment of sin. Therefore neither is it so
in men.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the sin of our first parents was the sin of particular
individuals: whereas death affects the entire human nature. Therefore it
would seem that it is not a punishment of our first parents' sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, all are equally descended from our first parents.
Therefore if death were the punishment of our first parents' sin, it
would follow that all men would suffer death in equal measure. But this
is clearly untrue, since some die sooner, and some more painfully, than
others. Therefore death is not the punishment of the first sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, the evil of punishment is from God, as stated above (FP,
Q[48], A[6]; FP, Q[49], A[2]). But death, apparently, is not from God:
for it is written (Wis. 1:13): "God made not death." Therefore death is
not the punishment of the first sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1
OBJ 6: Further, seemingly, punishments are not meritorious, since merit
is comprised under good, and punishment under evil. Now death is
sometimes meritorious, as in the case of a martyr's death. Therefore it
would seem that death is not a punishment.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] Obj. 7 Para. 1/1
OBJ 7: Further, punishment would seem to be painful. But death
apparently cannot be painful, since man does not feel it when he is dead,
and he cannot feel it when he is not dying. Therefore death is not a
punishment of sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] Obj. 8 Para. 1/1
OBJ 8: Further, if death were a punishment of sin, it would have
followed sin immediately. But this is not true, for our first parents
lived a long time after their sin (Gn. 5:5). Therefore, seemingly, death
is not a punishment of sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 5:12): "By one man sin entered
into this world, and by sin death."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, If any one, on account of his fault, be deprived of a
favor bestowed on him the privation of that favor is a punishment of
that fault. Now as we stated in the FP, Q[95], A[1]; FP, Q[97], A[1], God
bestowed this favor on man, in his primitive state, that as long as his
mind was subject to God, the lower powers of his soul would be subject to
his rational mind, and his body to his soul. But inasmuch as through sin
man's mind withdrew from subjection to God, the result was that neither
were his lower powers wholly subject to his reason, whence there followed
so great a rebellion of the carnal appetite against the reason: nor was
the body wholly subject to the soul; whence arose death and other bodily
defects. For life and soundness of body depend on the body being subject
to the soul, as the perfectible is subject to its perfection.
Consequently, on the other hand, death, sickness, and all defects of the
body are due to the lack of the body's subjection to the soul.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] Body Para. 2/2
It is therefore evident that as the rebellion of the carnal appetite
against the spirit is a punishment of our first parents' sin, so also are
death and all defects of the body.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: A thing is said to be natural if it proceeds from the
principles of nature. Now the essential principles of nature are form and
matter. The form of man is his rational soul, which is, of itself,
immortal: wherefore death is not natural to man on the part of his form.
The matter of man is a body such as is composed of contraries, of which
corruptibility is a necessary consequence, and in this respect death is
natural to man. Now this condition attached to the nature of the human
body results from a natural necessity, since it was necessary for the
human body to be the organ of touch, and consequently a mean between
objects of touch: and this was impossible, were it not composed of
contraries, as the Philosopher states (De Anima ii, 11). On the other
hand, this condition is not attached to the adaptability of matter to
form because, if it were possible, since the form is incorruptible, its
matter should rather be incorruptible. In the same way a saw needs to be
of iron, this being suitable to its form and action, so that its hardness
may make it fit for cutting. But that it be liable to rust is a necessary
result of such a matter and is not according to the agent's choice; for,
if the craftsman were able, of the iron he would make a saw that would
not rust. Now God Who is the author of man is all-powerful, wherefore
when He first made man, He conferred on him the favor of being exempt
from the necessity resulting from such a matter: which favor, however,
was withdrawn through the sin of our first parents. Accordingly death is
both natural on account of a condition attaching to matter, and penal on
account of the loss of the Divine favor preserving man from death [*Cf.
FS, Q[85], A[6]].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This likeness of man to other animals regards a condition
attaching to matter, namely the body being composed of contraries. But it
does not regard the form, for man's soul is immortal, whereas the souls
of dumb animals are mortal.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Our first parents were made by God not only as particular
individuals, but also as principles of the whole human nature to be
transmitted by them to their posterity, together with the Divine favor
preserving them from death. Hence through their sin the entire human
nature, being deprived of that favor in their posterity, incurred death.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: A twofold defect arises from sin. One is by way of a
punishment appointed by a judge: and such a defect should be equal in
those to whom the sin pertains equally. The other defect is that which
results accidentally from this punishment; for instance, that one who has
been deprived of his sight for a sin he has committed, should fall down
in the road. Such a defect is not proportionate to the sin, nor does a
human judge take it into account, since he cannot foresee chance
happenings. Accordingly, the punishment appointed for the first sin and
proportionately corresponding thereto, was the withdrawal of the Divine
favor whereby the rectitude and integrity of human nature was maintained.
But the defects resulting from this withdrawal are death and other
penalties of the present life. Wherefore these punishments need not be
equal in those to whom the first sin equally appertains. Nevertheless,
since God foreknows all future events, Divine providence has so disposed
that these penalties are apportioned in different ways to various people.
This is not on account of any merits or demerits previous to this life,
as Origen held [*Peri Archon ii, 9]: for this is contrary to the words of
Rm. 9:11, "When they . . . had not done any good or evil"; and also
contrary to statements made in the FP, Q[90], A[4]; FP, Q[118], A[3],
namely that the soul is not created before the body: but either in
punishment of their parents' sins, inasmuch as the child is something
belonging to the father, wherefore parents are often punished in their
children; or again it is for a remedy intended for the spiritual welfare
of the person who suffers these penalties, to wit that he may thus be
turned away from his sins, or lest he take pride in his virtues, and that
he may be crowned for his patience.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: Death may be considered in two ways. First, as an evil of
human nature, and thus it is not of God, but is a defect befalling man
through his fault. Secondly, as having an aspect of good, namely as being
a just punishment, and thus it is from God. Wherefore Augustine says
(Retract. i, 21) that God is not the author of death, except in so far as
it is a punishment.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] R.O. 6 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 6: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii, 5), "just as the
wicked abuse not only evil but also good things, so do the righteous make
good use not only of good but also of evil things. Hence it is that both
evil men make evil use of the law, though the law is good, while good men
die well, although death is an evil." Wherefore inasmuch as holy men make
good use of death, their death is to them meritorious.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] R.O. 7 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 7: Death may be considered in two ways. First, as the
privation of life, and thus death cannot be felt, since it is the
privation of sense and life. In this way it involves not pain of sense
but pain of loss. Secondly, it may be considered as denoting the
corruption which ends in the aforesaid privation. Now we may speak of
corruption even as of generation in two ways: in one way as being the
term of alteration, and thus in the first instant in which life departs,
death is said to be present. In this way also death has no pain of sense.
In another way corruption may be taken as including the previous
alteration: thus a person is said to die, when he is in motion towards
death; just as a thing is said to be engendered, while in motion towards
the state of having been engendered: and thus death may be painful.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[1] R.O. 8 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 8: According to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. [*De Pecc. Mer. et
Rem. i, 16. Cf. Gen. ad lit. ii. 32]), "although our first parents lived
thereafter many years, they began to die on the day when they heard the
death-decree, condemning them to decline to old age."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the particular punishments of our first parents are suitably
appointed in Scripture?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the particular punishments of our first
parents are unsuitably appointed in Scripture. For that which would have
occurred even without sin should not be described as a punishment for
sin. Now seemingly there would have been "pain in child-bearing," even
had there been no sin: for the disposition of the female sex is such that
offspring cannot be born without pain to the bearer. Likewise the
"subjection of woman to man" results from the perfection of the male, and
the imperfection of the female sex. Again it belongs to the nature of the
earth "to bring forth thorns and thistles," and this would have occurred
even had there been no sin. Therefore these are unsuitable punishments of
the first sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, that which pertains to a person's dignity does not,
seemingly, pertain to his punishment. But the "multiplying of
conceptions" pertains to a woman's dignity. Therefore it should not be
described as the woman's punishment.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the punishment of our first parents' sin is transmitted
to all, as we have stated with regard to death (A[1]). But all "women's
conceptions" are not "multiplied," nor does "every man eat bread in the
sweat of his face." Therefore these are not suitable punishments of the
first sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the place of paradise was made for man. Now nothing in
the order of things should be without purpose. Therefore it would seem
that the exclusion of man from paradise was not a suitable punishment of
man.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, this place of the earthly paradise is said to be
naturally inaccessible. Therefore it was useless to put other obstacles
in the way lest man should return thither, to wit the cherubim, and the
"flaming sword turning every way."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1
OBJ 6: Further, immediately after his sin man was subject to the
necessity of dying, so that he could not be restored to immortality by
the beneficial tree of life. Therefore it was useless to forbid him to
eat of the tree of life, as instanced by the words of Gn. 3:22: "See,
lest perhaps he . . . take . . . of the tree of life . . . and live for
ever."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] Obj. 7 Para. 1/1
OBJ 7: Further, to mock the unhappy seems inconsistent with mercy and
clemency, which are most of all ascribed to God in Scripture, according
to Ps. 144:9, "His tender mercies are over all His works." Therefore God
is unbecomingly described as mocking our first parents, already reduced
through sin to unhappy straits, in the words of Gn. 3:22, "Behold Adam is
become as one of Us, knowing good and evil."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] Obj. 8 Para. 1/1
OBJ 8: Further, clothes are necessary to man, like food, according to 1
Tim. 6:8, "Having food, and wherewith to be covered, with these we are
content." Therefore just as food was appointed to our first parents
before their sin, so also should clothing have been ascribed to them.
Therefore after their sin it was unsuitable to say that God made for them
garments of skin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] Obj. 9 Para. 1/1
OBJ 9: Further, the punishment inflicted for a sin should outweigh in
evil the gain realized through the sin: else the punishment would not
deter one from sinning. Now through sin our first parents gained in this,
that their eyes were opened, according to Gn. 3:7. But this outweighs in
good all the penal evils which are stated to have resulted from sin.
Therefore the punishments resulting from our first parents' sin are
unsuitably described.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, These punishments were appointed by God, Who does all
things, "in number, weight, and measure [*Vulg.: 'Thou hast ordered all
things in measure, and number, and weight.']" (Wis. 11:21).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, As stated in the foregoing Article, on account of their
sin, our first parents were deprived of the Divine favor, whereby the
integrity of human nature was maintained in them, and by the withdrawal
of this favor human nature incurred penal defects. Hence they were
punished in two ways. In the first place by being deprived of that which
was befitting the state of integrity, namely the place of the earthly
paradise: and this is indicated (Gn. 3:23) where it is stated that "God
sent him out of the paradise of pleasure." And since he was unable, of
himself, to return to that state of original innocence, it was fitting
that obstacles should be placed against his recovering those things that
were befitting his original state, namely food (lest he should take of
the tree of life) and place; for "God placed before . . . paradise . . .
Cherubim, and a flaming sword." Secondly, they were punished by having
appointed to them things befitting a nature bereft of the aforesaid
favor: and this as regards both the body and the soul. With regard to the
body, to which pertains the distinction of sex, one punishment was
appointed to the woman and another to the man. To the woman punishment
was appointed in respect of two things on account of which she is united
to the man; and these are the begetting of children, and community of
works pertaining to family life. As regards the begetting of children,
she was punished in two ways: first in the weariness to which she is
subject while carrying the child after conception, and this is indicated
in the words (Gn. 3:16), "I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy
conceptions"; secondly, in the pain which she suffers in giving birth,
and this is indicated by the words (Gn. 3:16), "In sorrow shalt thou
bring forth." As regards family life she was punished by being subjected
to her husband's authority, and this is conveyed in the words (Gn. 3:16),
"Thou shalt be under thy husband's power."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] Body Para. 2/3
Now, just as it belongs to the woman to be subject to her husband in
matters relating to the family life, so it belongs to the husband to
provide the necessaries of that life. In this respect he was punished in
three ways. First, by the barrenness of the earth, in the words (Gn.
3:17), "Cursed is the earth in thy work." Secondly, by the cares of his
toil, without which he does not win the fruits of the earth; hence the
words (Gn. 3:17), "With labor and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the
days of thy life." Thirdly, by the obstacles encountered by the tillers
of the soil, wherefore it is written (Gn. 3:18), "Thorns and thistles
shall it bring forth to thee."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] Body Para. 3/3
Likewise a triple punishment is ascribed to them on the part of the
soul. First, by reason of the confusion they experienced at the rebellion
of the flesh against the spirit; hence it is written (Gn. 3:7): "The eyes
of them both were opened; and . . . they perceived themselves to be
naked." Secondly, by the reproach for their sin, indicated by the words
(Gn. 3:22), "Behold Adam is become as one of Us." Thirdly, by the
reminder of their coming death, when it was said to him (Gn. 3:19): "Dust
thou art and into dust thou shalt return." To this also pertains that God
made them garments of skin, as a sign of their mortality.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 1: In the state of innocence child-bearing would have been
painless: for Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 26): "Just as, in giving
birth, the mother would then be relieved not by groans of pain, but by
the instigations of maturity, so in bearing and conceiving the union of
both sexes would be one not of lustful desire but of deliberate action"
[*Cf. FP, Q[98], A[2]].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 2/3
The subjection of the woman to her husband is to be understood as
inflicted in punishment of the woman, not as to his headship (since even
before sin the man was the "head" and governor "of the woman"), but as to
her having now to obey her husband's will even against her own.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 3/3
If man had not sinned, the earth would have brought forth thorns and
thistles to be the food of animals, but not to punish man, because their
growth would bring no labor or punishment for the tiller of the soil, as
Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iii, 18). Alcuin [*Interrog. et Resp. in
Gen. lxxix], however, holds that, before sin, the earth brought forth no
thorns and thistles, whatever: but the former opinion is the better.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The multiplying of her conceptions was appointed as a
punishment to the woman, not on account of the begetting of children, for
this would have been the same even before sin, but on account of the
numerous sufferings to which the woman is subject, through carrying her
offspring after conception. Hence it is expressly stated: "I will
multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: These punishments affect all somewhat. For any woman who
conceives must needs suffer sorrows and bring forth her child with pain:
except the Blessed Virgin, who "conceived without corruption, and bore
without pain" [*St. Bernard, Serm. in Dom. inf. oct. Assum. B. V. M.],
because her conceiving was not according to the law of nature,
transmitted from our first parents. And if a woman neither conceives nor
bears, she suffers from the defect of barrenness, which outweighs the
aforesaid punishments. Likewise whoever tills the soil must needs eat his
bread in the sweat of his brow: while those who do not themselves work on
the land, are busied with other labors, for "man is born to labor" (Job
5:7): and thus they eat the bread for which others have labored in the
sweat of their brow.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Although the place of the earthly paradise avails not man
for his use, it avails him for a lesson; because he knows himself
deprived of that place on account of sin, and because by the things that
have a bodily existence in that paradise, he is instructed in things
pertaining to the heavenly paradise, the way to which is prepared for man
by Christ.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: Apart from the mysteries of the spiritual interpretation,
this place would seem to be inaccessible, chiefly on account of the
extreme heat in the middle zone by reason of the nighness of the sun.
This is denoted by the "flaming sword," which is described as "turning
every way," as being appropriate to the circular movement that causes
this heat. And since the movements of corporal creatures are set in order
through the ministry of the angels, according to Augustine (De Trin. iii,
4), it was fitting that, besides the sword turning every way, there
should be cherubim "to keep the way of the tree of life." Hence Augustine
says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 40): "It is to be believed that even in the
visible paradise this was done by heavenly powers indeed, so that there
was a fiery guard set there by the ministry of angels."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] R.O. 6 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 6: After sin, if man had ate of the tree of life, he would not
thereby have recovered immortality, but by means of that beneficial food
he might have prolonged his life. Hence in the words "And live for ever,"
"for ever" signifies "for a long time." For it was not expedient for man
to remain longer in the unhappiness of this life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] R.O. 7 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 7: According to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xi, 39), "these words
of God are not so much a mockery of our first parents as a deterrent to
others, for whose benefit these things are written, lest they be proud
likewise, because Adam not only failed to become that which he coveted to
be, but did not keep that to which he was made."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] R.O. 8 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 8: Clothing is necessary to man in his present state of
unhappiness for two reasons. First, to supply a deficiency in respect of
external harm caused by, for instance, extreme heat or cold. Secondly, to
hide his ignominy and to cover the shame of those members wherein the
rebellion of the flesh against the spirit is most manifest. Now these two
motives do not apply to the primitive state. because then man's body
could not be hurt by any outward thing, as stated in the FP, Q[97], A[2],
nor was there in man's body anything shameful that would bring confusion
on him. Hence it is written (Gn. 2:23): "And they were both naked, to wit
Adam and his wife, and were not ashamed." The same cannot be said of
food, which is necessary to entertain the natural heat, and to sustain
the body.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[164] A[2] R.O. 9 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 9: As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 31), "We must not
imagine that our first parents were created with their eyes closed,
especially since it is stated that the woman saw that the tree was fair,
and good to eat. Accordingly the eyes of both were opened so that they
saw and thought on things which had not occurred to their minds before,
this was a mutual concupiscence such as they had not hitherto."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] Out. Para. 1/1
OF OUR FIRST PARENTS' TEMPTATION (TWO ARTICLES)
We must now consider our first parents' temptation, concerning which
there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it was fitting for man to be tempted by the devil?
(2) Of the manner and order of that temptation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was fitting for man to be tempted by the devil?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it was not fitting for man to be tempted by
the devil. For the same final punishment is appointed to the angels' sin
and to man's, according to Mt. 25:41, "Go [Vulg.: 'Depart from Me'] you
cursed into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his
angels." Now the angels' first sin did not follow a temptation from
without. Therefore neither should man's first sin have resulted from an
outward temptation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, God, Who foreknows the future, knew that through the
demon's temptation man would fall into sin, and thus He knew full well
that it was not expedient for man to be tempted. Therefore it would seem
unfitting for God to allow him to be tempted.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it seems to savor of punishment that anyone should have
an assailant, just as on the other hand the cessation of an assault is
akin to a reward. Now punishment should not precede fault. Therefore it
was unfitting for man to be tempted before he sinned.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 34:11): "He that hath not been
tempted [Douay: 'tried'], what manner of things doth he know?"
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, God's wisdom "orders all things sweetly" (Wis. 8:1),
inasmuch as His providence appoints to each one that which is befitting
it according to its nature. For as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), "it
belongs to providence not to destroy, but to maintain, nature." Now it is
a condition attaching to human nature that one creature can be helped or
impeded by another. Wherefore it was fitting that God should both allow
man in the state of innocence to be tempted by evil angels, and should
cause him to be helped by good angels. And by a special favor of grace,
it was granted him that no creature outside himself could harm him
against his own will, whereby he was able even to resist the temptation
of the demon.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Above the human nature there is another that admits of the
possibility of the evil of fault: but there is not above the angelic
nature. Now only one that is already become evil through sin can tempt by
leading another into evil. Hence it was fitting that by an evil angel man
should be tempted to sin, even as according to the order of nature he is
moved forward to perfection by means of a good angel. An angel could be
perfected in good by something above him, namely by God, but he could not
thus be led into sin, because according to James 1:13, "God is not a
tempter of evils."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Just as God knew that man, through being tempted, would
fall into sin, so too He knew that man was able, by his free will, to
resist the tempter. Now the condition attaching to man's nature required
that he should be left to his own will, according to Ecclus. 15:14, "God
left" man "in the hand of his own counsel." Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad
lit. xi, 4): "It seems to me that man would have had no prospect of any
special praise, if he were able to lead a good life simply because there
was none to persuade him to lead an evil life; since both by nature he
had the power, and in his power he had the will, not to consent to the
persuader."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: An assault is penal if it be difficult to resist it: but,
in the state of innocence, man was able, without any difficulty, to
resist temptation. Consequently the tempter's assault was not a
punishment to man.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the manner and order of the first temptation was fitting?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the manner and order of the first temptation
was not fitting. For just as in the order of nature the angel was above
man, so was the man above the woman. Now sin came upon man through an
angel: therefore in like manner it should have come upon the woman
through the man; in other words the woman should have been tempted by the
man, and not the other way about.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the temptation of our first parents was by suggestion.
Now the devil is able to make suggestions to man without making use of an
outward sensible creature. Since then our first parents were endowed with
a spiritual mind, and adhered less to sensible than to intelligible
things, it would have been more fitting for man to be tempted with a
merely spiritual, instead of an outward, temptation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, one cannot fittingly suggest an evil except through some
apparent good. But many other animals have a greater appearance of good
than the serpent has. Therefore man was unfittingly tempted by the devil
through a serpent.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the serpent is an irrational animal. Now wisdom, speech,
and punishment are not befitting an irrational animal. Therefore the
serpent is unfittingly described (Gn. 3:1) as "more subtle than any of
the beasts of the earth," or as "the most prudent of all beasts"
according to another version [*The Septuagint]: and likewise is
unfittingly stated to have spoken to the woman, and to have been punished
by God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, That which is first in any genus should be
proportionate to all that follow it in that genus. Now in every kind of
sin we find the same order as in the first temptation. For, according to
Augustine (De Trin. xii, 12), it begins with the concupiscence of sin in
the sensuality, signified by the serpent; extends to the lower reason, by
pleasure, signified by the woman; and reaches to the higher reason by
consent in the sin, signified by the man. Therefore the order of the
first temptation was fitting.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Man is composed of a twofold nature, intellective and
sensitive. Hence the devil, in tempting man, made use of a twofold
incentive to sin: one on the part of the intellect, by promising the
Divine likeness through the acquisition of knowledge which man naturally
desires to have; the other on the part of sense. This he did by having
recourse to those sensible things, which are most akin to man, partly by
tempting the man through the woman who was akin to him in the same
species; partly by tempting the woman through the serpent, who was akin
to them in the same genus; partly by suggesting to them to eat of the
forbidden fruit, which was akin to them in the proximate genus.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: In the act of tempting the devil was by way of principal
agent; whereas the woman was employed as an instrument of temptation in
bringing about the downfall of the man, both because the woman was weaker
than the man, and consequently more liable to be deceived, and because,
on account of her union with man, the devil was able to deceive the man
especially through her. Now there is no parity between principal agent
and instrument, because the principal agent must exceed in power, which
is not requisite in the instrumental agent.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: A suggestion whereby the devil suggests something to man
spiritually, shows the devil to have more power against man than outward
suggestion has, since by an inward suggestion, at least, man's
imagination is changed by the devil [*Cf. FP, Q[91], A[3]]; whereas by an
outward suggestion, a change is wrought merely on an outward creature.
Now the devil had a minimum of power against man before sin, wherefore he
was unable to tempt him by inward suggestion, but only by outward
suggestion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: According to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xi, 3), "we are not to
suppose that the devil chose the serpent as his means of temptation; but
as he was possessed of the lust of deceit, he could only do so by the
animal he was allowed to use for that purpose."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 4: According to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xi, 29), "the serpent
is described as most prudent or subtle, on account of the cunning of the
devil, who wrought his wiles in it: thus, we speak of a prudent or
cunning tongue, because it is the instrument of a prudent or cunning man
in advising something prudently or cunningly. Nor indeed (Gen. ad lit.
xi, 28) did the serpent understand the sounds which were conveyed through
it to the woman; nor again are we to believe that its soul was changed
into a rational nature, since not even men, who are rational by nature,
know what they say when a demon speaks in them. Accordingly (Gen. ad lit.
xi, 29) the serpent spoke to man, even as the ass on which Balaam sat
spoke to him, except that the former was the work of a devil, whereas the
latter was the work of an angel. Hence (Gen. ad lit. xi, 36) the serpent
was not asked why it had done this, because it had not done this in its
own nature, but the devil in it, who was already condemned to everlasting
fire on account of his sin: and the words addressed to the serpent were
directed to him who wrought through the serpent."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[165] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 2/2
Moreover, as again Augustine says (Super Gen. contra Manich. ii, 17,18),
"his, that is, the devil's, punishment mentioned here is that for which
we must be on our guard against him, not that which is reserved till the
last judgment. For when it was said to him: 'Thou art cursed among all
cattle and beasts of the earth,' the cattle are set above him, not in
power, but in the preservation of their nature, since the cattle lost no
heavenly bliss, seeing that they never had it, but they continue to live
in the nature which they received." It is also said to him: "'Upon thy
breast and belly shalt thou creep,'" according to another version [*The
Septuagint] "Here the breast signifies pride, because it is there that
the impulse of the soul dominates, while the belly denotes carnal desire,
because this part of the body is softest to the touch: and on these he
creeps to those whom he wishes to deceive." The words, "'Earth shalt thou
eat all the days of thy life' may be understood in two ways. Either
'Those shall belong to thee, whom thou shalt deceive by earthly lust,'
namely sinners who are signified under the name of earth, or a third kind
of temptation, namely curiosity, is signified by these words: for to eat
earth is to look into things deep and dark." The putting of enmities
between him and the woman "means that we cannot be tempted by the devil,
except through that part of the soul which bears or reflects the likeness
of a woman. The seed of the devil is the temptation to evil, the seed of
the woman is the fruit of good works, whereby the temptation to evil is
resisted. Wherefore the serpent lies in wait for the woman's heel, that
if at any time she fall away towards what is unlawful, pleasure may seize
hold of her: and she watches his head that she may shut him out at the
very outset of the evil temptation."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] Out. Para. 1/1
OF STUDIOUSNESS (TWO ARTICLES)
We must next consider studiousness and its opposite, curiosity.
Concerning studiousness there are two points of inquiry:
(1) What is the matter of studiousness?
(2) Whether it is a part of temperance?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the proper matter of studiousness is knowledge?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that knowledge is not the proper matter of
studiousness. For a person is said to be studious because he applies
study to certain things. Now a man ought to apply study to every matter,
in order to do aright what has to be done. Therefore seemingly knowledge
is not the special matter of studiousness.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, studiousness is opposed to curiosity. Now curiosity,
which is derived from "cura" [care], may also refer to elegance of
apparel and other such things, which regard the body; wherefore the
Apostle says (Rm. 13:14): "Make not provision [curam] for the flesh in
its concupiscences."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further it is written (Jer. 6:13): "From the least of them even
to the greatest, all study [Douay: 'are given to'] covetousness." Now
covetousness is not properly about knowledge, but rather about the
possession of wealth, as stated above (Q[118], A[2]). Therefore
studiousness, which is derived from "study," is not properly about
knowledge.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Prov. 27:11): "Study wisdom, my son, and
make my heart joyful, that thou mayest give an answer to him that
reproacheth." Now study, which is commended as a virtue, is the same as
that to which the Law urges. Therefore studiousness is properly about
"knowledge."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Properly speaking, study denotes keen application of the
mind to something. Now the mind is not applied to a thing except by
knowing that thing. Wherefore the mind's application to knowledge
precedes its application to those things to which man is directed by his
knowledge. Hence study regards knowledge in the first place, and as a
result it regards any other things the working of which requires to be
directed by knowledge. Now the virtues lay claim to that matter about
which they are first and foremost; thus fortitude is concerned about
dangers of death, and temperance about pleasures of touch. Therefore
studiousness is properly ascribed to knowledge.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Nothing can be done aright as regards other matters, except
in so far as is previously directed by the knowing reason. Hence
studiousness, to whatever matter it be applied, has a prior regard for
knowledge.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Man's mind is drawn, on account of his affections, towards
the things for which he has an affection, according to Mt. 6:21, "Where
thy treasure is, there is thy heart also." And since man has special
affection for those things which foster the flesh, it follows that man's
thoughts are concerned about things that foster his flesh, so that man
seeks to know how he may best sustain his body. Accordingly curiosity is
accounted to be about things pertaining to the body by reason of things
pertaining to knowledge.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Covetousness craves the acquisition of gain, and for this
it is very necessary to be skilled in earthly things. Accordingly
studiousness is ascribed to things pertaining to covetousness.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether studiousness is a part of temperance?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that studiousness is not a part of temperance. For
a man is said to be studious by reason of his studiousness. Now all
virtuous persons without exception are called studious according to the
Philosopher, who frequently employs the term "studious" ({spoudaios}) in
this sense (Ethic. ix, 4,8,9). [*In the same sense Aristotle says in
Ethic. iii, 2, that "every vicious person is ignorant of what he ought to
do."] Therefore studiousness is a general virtue, and not a part of
temperance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, studiousness, as stated (A[1]), pertains to knowledge.
But knowledge has no connection with the moral virtues which are in the
appetitive part of the soul, and pertains rather to the intellectual
virtues which are in the cognitive part: wherefore solicitude is an act
of prudence as stated above (Q[47], A[9]). Therefore studiousness is not
a part of temperance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a virtue that is ascribed as part of a principal virtue
resembles the latter as to mode. Now studiousness does not resemble
temperance as to mode, because temperance takes its name from being a
kind of restraint, wherefore it is more opposed to the vice that is in
excess: whereas studiousness is denominated from being the application of
the mind to something, so that it would seem to be opposed to the vice
that is in default, namely, neglect of study, rather than to the vice
which is in excess, namely curiosity. wherefore, on account of its
resemblance to the latter, Isidore says (Etym. x) that "a studious man is
one who is curious to study." Therefore studiousness is not a part of
temperance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. 21): "We are forbidden
to be curious: and this is a great gift that temperance bestows." Now
curiosity is prevented by moderate studiousness. Therefore studiousness
is a part of temperance.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (Q[141], AA[3],4,5), it belongs to
temperance to moderate the movement of the appetite, lest it tend
excessively to that which is desired naturally. Now just as in respect of
his corporeal nature man naturally desires the pleasures of food and sex,
so, in respect of his soul, he naturally desires to know something; thus
the Philosopher observes at the beginning of his Metaphysics i, 1: "All
men have a natural desire for knowledge."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
The moderation of this desire pertains to the virtue of studiousness;
wherefore it follows that studiousness is a potential part of temperance,
as a subordinate virtue annexed to a principal virtue. Moreover, it is
comprised under modesty for the reason given above (Q[160], A[2]).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Prudence is the complement of all the moral virtues, as
stated in Ethic. vi, 13. Consequently, in so far as the knowledge of
prudence pertains to all the virtues, the term "studiousness," which
properly regards knowledge, is applied to all the virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The act of a cognitive power is commanded by the appetitive
power, which moves all the powers, as stated above (FS, Q[9], A[1]).
Wherefore knowledge regards a twofold good. One is connected with the act
of knowledge itself; and this good pertains to the intellectual virtues,
and consists in man having a true estimate about each thing. The other
good pertains to the act of the appetitive power, and consists in man's
appetite being directed aright in applying the cognitive power in this or
that way to this or that thing. And this belongs to the virtue of
seriousness. Wherefore it is reckoned among the moral virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[166] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 93) in order to be
virtuous we must avoid those things to which we are most naturally
inclined. Hence it is that, since nature inclines us. chiefly to fear
dangers of death, and to seek pleasures of the flesh, fortitude is
chiefly commended for a certain steadfast perseverance against such
dangers, and temperance for a certain restraint from pleasures of the
flesh. But as regards knowledge, man has contrary inclinations. For on
the part of the soul, he is inclined to desire knowledge of things; and
so it behooves him to exercise a praiseworthy restraint on this desire,
lest he seek knowledge immoderately: whereas on the part of his bodily
nature, man is inclined to avoid the trouble of seeking knowledge.
Accordingly, as regards the first inclination studiousness is a kind of
restraint, and it is in this sense that it is reckoned a part of
temperance. But as to the second inclination, this virtue derives its
praise from a certain keenness of interest in seeking knowledge of
things; and from this it takes its name. The former is more essential to
this virtue than the latter: since the desire to know directly regards
knowledge, to which studiousness is directed, whereas the trouble of
learning is an obstacle to knowledge, wherefore it is regarded by this
virtue indirectly, as by that which removes an obstacle.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] Out. Para. 1/1
OF CURIOSITY (TWO ARTICLES)
We must next consider curiosity, under which head there are two points
of inquiry:
(1) Whether the vice of curiosity can regard intellective knowledge?
(2) Whether it is about sensitive knowledge?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether curiosity can be about intellective knowledge?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that curiosity cannot be about intellective
knowledge. Because, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6), there
can be no mean and extremes in things which are essentially good. Now
intellective knowledge is essentially good: because man's perfection
would seem to consist in his intellect being reduced from potentiality to
act, and this is done by the knowledge of truth. For Dionysius says (Div.
Nom. iv) that "the good of the human soul is to be in accordance with
reason," whose perfection consists in knowing the truth. Therefore the
vice of curiosity cannot be about intellective knowledge.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, that which makes man like to God, and which he receives
from God, cannot be an evil. Now all abundance of knowledge is from God,
according to Ecclus. 1:1, "All wisdom is from the Lord God," and Wis.
7:17, "He hath given me the true knowledge of things that are, to know
the disposition of the whole world, and the virtues of the elements,"
etc. Again, by knowing the truth man is likened to God, since "all things
are naked and open to His eyes" (Heb. 4:13), and "the Lord is a God of
all knowledge" (1 Kgs. 2:3). Therefore however abundant knowledge of
truth may be, it is not evil but good. Now the desire of good is not
sinful. Therefore the vice of curiosity cannot be about the intellective
knowledge of truth.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, if the vice of curiosity can be about any kind of
intellective knowledge, it would be chiefly about the philosophical
sciences. But, seemingly, there is no sin in being intent on them: for
Jerome says (Super Daniel 1:8): "Those who refused to partake of the
king's meat and wine, lest they should be defiled, if they had considered
the wisdom and teaching of the Babylonians to be sinful, would never have
consented to learn that which was unlawful": and Augustine says (De
Doctr. Christ. ii, 40) that "if the philosophers made any true
statements, we must claim them for our own use, as from unjust
possessors." Therefore curiosity about intellective knowledge cannot be
sinful.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Jerome [*Comment. in Ep. ad Ephes. iv, 17] says: "Is it
not evident that a man who day and night wrestles with the dialectic art,
the student of natural science whose gaze pierces the heavens, walks in
vanity of understanding and darkness of mind?" Now vanity of
understanding and darkness of mind are sinful. Therefore curiosity about
intellective sciences may be sinful.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[1] Body Para. 1/5
I answer that, As stated above (Q[166], A[2], ad 2) studiousness is
directly, not about knowledge itself, but about the desire and study in
the pursuit of knowledge. Now we must judge differently of the knowledge
itself of truth, and of the desire and study in the pursuit of the
knowledge of truth. For the knowledge of truth, strictly speaking, is
good, but it may be evil accidentally, by reason of some result, either
because one takes pride in knowing the truth, according to 1 Cor. 8:1,
"Knowledge puffeth up," or because one uses the knowledge of truth in
order to sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[1] Body Para. 2/5
On the other hand, the desire or study in pursuing the knowledge of
truth may be right or wrong. First, when one tends by his study to the
knowledge of truth as having evil accidentally annexed to it, for
instance those who study to know the truth that they may take pride in
their knowledge. Hence Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. 21): "Some there
are who forsaking virtue, and ignorant of what God is, and of the majesty
of that nature which ever remains the same, imagine they are doing
something great, if with surpassing curiosity and keenness they explore
the whole mass of this body which we call the world. So great a pride is
thus begotten, that one would think they dwelt in the very heavens about
which they argue." In like manner, those who study to learn something in
order to sin are engaged in a sinful study, according to the saying of
Jer. 9:5, "They have taught their tongue to speak lies, they have labored
to commit iniquity."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[1] Body Para. 3/5
Secondly, there may be sin by reason of the appetite or study directed
to the learning of truth being itself inordinate; and this in four ways.
First, when a man is withdrawn by a less profitable study from a study
that is an obligation incumbent on him; hence Jerome says [*Epist. xxi ad
Damas]: "We see priests forsaking the gospels and the prophets, reading
stage-plays, and singing the love songs of pastoral idylls." Secondly,
when a man studies to learn of one, by whom it is unlawful to be taught,
as in the case of those who seek to know the future through the demons.
This is superstitious curiosity, of which Augustine says (De Vera Relig.
4): "Maybe, the philosophers were debarred from the faith by their sinful
curiosity in seeking knowledge from the demons."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[1] Body Para. 4/5
Thirdly, when a man desires to know the truth about creatures, without
referring his knowledge to its due end, namely, the knowledge of God.
Hence Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 29) that "in studying creatures, we
must not be moved by empty and perishable curiosity; but we should ever
mount towards immortal and abiding things."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[1] Body Para. 5/5
Fourthly, when a man studies to know the truth above the capacity of his
own intelligence, since by so doing men easily fall into error: wherefore
it is written (Ecclus. 3:22): "Seek not the things that are too high for
thee, and search not into things above thy ability . . . and in many of
His works be not curious," and further on (Ecclus. 3:26), "For . . . the
suspicion of them hath deceived many, and hath detained their minds in
vanity."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Man's good consists in the knowledge of truth; yet man's
sovereign good consists, not in the knowledge of any truth, but in the
perfect knowledge of the sovereign truth, as the Philosopher states
(Ethic. x, 7,8). Hence there may be sin in the knowledge of certain
truths, in so far as the desire of such knowledge is not directed in due
manner to the knowledge of the sovereign truth, wherein supreme happiness
consists.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Although this argument shows that the knowledge of truth is
good in itself, this does not prevent a man from misusing the knowledge
of truth for an evil purpose, or from desiring the knowledge of truth
inordinately, since even the desire for good should be regulated in due
manner.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The study of philosophy is in itself lawful and
commendable, on account of the truth which the philosophers acquired
through God revealing it to them, as stated in Rm. 1:19. Since, however,
certain philosophers misuse the truth in order to assail the faith, the
Apostle says (Col. 2:8): "Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and
vain deceit, according to the tradition of men . . . and not according to
Christ": and Dionysius says (Ep. vii ad Polycarp.) of certain
philosophers that "they make an unholy use of divine things against that
which is divine, and by divine wisdom strive to destroy the worship of
God."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the vice of curiosity is about sensitive knowledge?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the vice of curiosity is not about sensitive
knowledge. For just as some things are known by the sense of sight, so
too are some things known by the senses of touch and taste. Now the vice
concerned about objects of touch and taste is not curiosity but lust or
gluttony. Therefore seemingly neither is the vice of curiosity about
things known by the sight.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, curiosity would seem to refer to watching games;
wherefore Augustine says (Confess. vi, 8) that when "a fall occurred in
the fight, a mighty cry of the whole people struck him strongly, and
overcome by curiosity Alypius opened his eyes." But it does not seem to
be sinful to watch games, because it gives pleasure on account of the
representation, wherein man takes a natural delight, as the Philosopher
states (Poet. vi). Therefore the vice of curiosity is not about the
knowledge of sensible objects.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it would seem to pertain to curiosity to inquire into
our neighbor's actions, as Bede observes [*Comment. in 1 Jn. 2:16]. Now,
seemingly, it is not a sin to inquire into the actions of others, because
according to Ecclus. 17:12, God "gave to every one of them commandment
concerning his neighbor." Therefore the vice of curiosity does not regard
the knowledge of such like particular sensible objects.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 38) that "concupiscence
of the eyes makes men curious." Now according to Bede (Comment. in 1 Jn.
2:16) "concupiscence of the eyes refers not only to the learning of magic
arts, but also to sight-seeing, and to the discovery and dispraise of our
neighbor's faults," and all these are particular objects of sense.
Therefore since concupiscence of the eves is a sin, even as concupiscence
of the flesh and pride of life, which are members of the same division (1
Jn. 2:16), it seems that the vice of curiosity is about the knowledge of
sensible things.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The knowledge of sensible things is directed to two
things. For in the first place, both in man and in other animals, it is
directed to the upkeep of the body, because by knowledge of this kind,
man and other animals avoid what is harmful to them, and seek those
things that are necessary for the body's sustenance. In the second place,
it is directed in a manner special to man, to intellective knowledge,
whether speculative or practical. Accordingly to employ study for the
purpose of knowing sensible things may be sinful in two ways. First, when
the sensitive knowledge is not directed to something useful, but turns
man away from some useful consideration. Hence Augustine says (Confess.
x, 35), "I go no more to see a dog coursing a hare in the circus; but in
the open country, if I happen to be passing, that coursing haply will
distract me from some weighty thought, and draw me after it . . . and
unless Thou, having made me see my weakness, didst speedily admonish me,
I become foolishly dull." Secondly, when the knowledge of sensible things
is directed to something harmful, as looking on a woman is directed to
lust: even so the busy inquiry into other people's actions is directed to
detraction. on the other hand, if one be ordinately intent on the
knowledge of sensible things by reason of the necessity of sustaining
nature, or for the sake of the study of intelligible truth, this
studiousness about the knowledge of sensible things is virtuous.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Lust and gluttony are about pleasures arising from the use
of objects of touch, whereas curiosity is about pleasures arising from
the knowledge acquired through all the senses. According to Augustine
(Confess. x, 35) "it is called concupiscence of the eyes" because "the
sight is the sense chiefly used for obtaining knowledge, so that all
sensible things are said to be seen," and as he says further on: "By this
it may more evidently be discerned wherein pleasure and wherein curiosity
is the object of the senses; for pleasure seeketh objects beautiful,
melodious, fragrant, savory, soft; but curiosity, for trial's sake,
seeketh even the contraries of these, not for the sake of suffering
annoyance, but out of the lust of experiment and knowledge."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Sight-seeing becomes sinful, when it renders a man prone to
the vices of lust and cruelty on account of things he sees represented.
Hence Chrysostom says [*Hom. vi in Matth.] that such sights make men
adulterers and shameless.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[167] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: One may watch other people's actions or inquire into them,
with a good intent, either for one's own good---that is in order to be
encouraged to better deeds by the deeds of our neighbor---or for our
neighbor's good---that is in order to correct him, if he do anything
wrong, according to the rule of charity and the duty of one's position.
This is praiseworthy, according to Heb. 10:24, "Consider one another to
provoke unto charity and to good works." But to observe our neighbor's
faults with the intention of looking down upon them, or of detracting
them, or even with no further purpose than that of disturbing them, is
sinful: hence it is written (Prov. 24:15), "Lie not in wait, nor seek
after wickedness in the house of the just, nor spoil his rest."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] Out. Para. 1/1
OF MODESTY AS CONSISTING IN THE OUTWARD MOVEMENTS OF THE BODY (FOUR
ARTICLES)
We must next consider modesty as consisting in the outward movements of
the body, and under this head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether there can be virtue and vice in the outward movements of the
body that are done seriously?
(2) Whether there can be a virtue about playful actions?
(3) Of the sin consisting in excess of play;
(4) Of the sin consisting in lack of play.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether any virtue regards the outward movements of the body?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that no virtue regards the outward movements of the
body. For every virtue pertains to the spiritual beauty of the soul,
according to Ps. 44:14, "All the glory of the king's daughter is within,"
and a gloss adds, "namely, in the conscience." Now the movements of the
body are not within, but without. Therefore there can be no virtue about
them.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, "Virtues are not in us by nature," as the Philosopher
states (Ethic. ii, 1). But outward bodily movements are in man by nature,
since it is by nature that some are quick, and some slow of movement, and
the same applies to other differences of outward movements. Therefore
there is no virtue about movements of this kind.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, every moral virtue is either about actions directed to
another person, as justice, or about passions, as temperance and
fortitude. Now outward bodily movements are not directed to another
person, nor are they passions. Therefore no virtue is connected with
them.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, study should be applied to all works of virtue, as
stated above (Q[166], A[1], OBJ[1]; A[2], ad 1). Now it is censurable to
apply study to the ordering of one's outward movements: for Ambrose says
(De Offic. i, 18): "A becoming gait is one that reflects the carriage of
authority, has the tread of gravity, and the foot-print of tranquillity:
yet so that there be neither study nor affectation, but natural and
artless movement." Therefore seemingly there is no virtue about the style
of outward movements.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The beauty of honesty [*Cf. Q[145], A[1]] pertains to
virtue. Now the style of outward movements pertains to the beauty of
honesty. For Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 18): "The sound of the voice and
the gesture of the body are distasteful to me, whether they be unduly
soft and nerveless, or coarse and boorish. Let nature be our model; her
reflection is gracefulness of conduct and beauty of honesty." Therefore
there is a virtue about the style of outward movement.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[1] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Moral virtue consists in the things pertaining to man
being directed by his reason. Now it is manifest that the outward
movements of man are dirigible by reason, since the outward members are
set in motion at the command of reason. Hence it is evident that there is
a moral virtue concerned with the direction of these movements.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[1] Body Para. 2/3
Now the direction of these movements may be considered from a twofold
standpoint. First, in respect of fittingness to the person; secondly, in
respect of fittingness to externals, whether persons, business, or place.
Hence Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 18): "Beauty of conduct consists in
becoming behavior towards others, according to their sex and person," and
this regards the first. As to the second, he adds: "This is the best way
to order our behavior, this is the polish becoming to every action."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[1] Body Para. 3/3
Hence Andronicus [*De Affectibus] ascribes two things to these outward
movements: namely "taste" [ornatus] which regards what is becoming to the
person, wherefore he says that it is the knowledge of what is becoming in
movement and behavior; and "methodicalness" [bona ordinatio] which
regards what is becoming to the business in hand, and to one's
surroundings, wherefore he calls it "the practical knowledge of
separation," i.e. of the distinction of "acts."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Outward movements are signs of the inward disposition,
according to Ecclus. 19:27, "The attire of the body, and the laughter of
the teeth, and the gait of the man, show what he is"; and Ambrose says
(De Offic. i, 18) that "the habit of mind is seen in the gesture of the
body," and that "the body's movement is an index of the soul."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Although it is from natural disposition that a man is
inclined to this or that style of outward movement, nevertheless what is
lacking to nature can be supplied by the efforts of reason. Hence Ambrose
says (De Offic. i, 18): "Let nature guide the movement: and if nature
fail in any respect, surely effort will supply the defect."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated (ad 1) outward movements are indications of the
inward disposition, and this regards chiefly the passions of the soul.
Wherefore Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 18) that "from these things," i.e.
the outward movements, "the man that lies hidden in our hearts is
esteemed to be either frivolous, or boastful, or impure, or on the other
hand sedate, steady, pure, and free from blemish." It is moreover from
our outward movements that other men form their judgment about us,
according to Ecclus. 19:26, "A man is known by his look, and a wise man,
when thou meetest him, is known by his countenance." Hence moderation of
outward movements is directed somewhat to other persons, according to the
saying of Augustine in his Rule (Ep. ccxi), "In all your movements, let
nothing be done to offend the eye of another, but only that which is
becoming to the holiness of your state." Wherefore the moderation of
outward movements may be reduced to two virtues, which the Philosopher
mentions in Ethic. iv, 6,7. For, in so far as by outward movements we are
directed to other persons, the moderation of our outward movements
belongs to "friendliness or affability" [*Cf. Q[114], A[1]]. This regards
pleasure or pain which may arise from words or deeds in reference to
others with whom a man comes in contact. And, in so far as outward
movements are signs of our inward disposition, their moderation belongs
to the virtue of truthfulness [*Cf. Q[9]], whereby a man, by word and
deed, shows himself to be such as he is inwardly.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: It is censurable to study the style of one's outward
movements, by having recourse to pretense in them, so that they do not
agree with one's inward disposition. Nevertheless it behooves one to
study them, so that if they be in any way inordinate, this may be
corrected. Hence Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 18): "Let them be without
artifice, but not without correction."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there can be a virtue about games?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that there cannot be a virtue about games. For
Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 23): "Our Lord said: 'Woe to you who laugh,
for you shall weep.' Wherefore I consider that all, and not only
excessive, games should be avoided." Now that which can be done
virtuously is not to be avoided altogether. Therefore there cannot be a
virtue about games.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, "Virtue is that which God forms in us, without us," as
stated above (FS, Q[55], A[4]). Now Chrysostom says [*Hom. vi in Matth.]:
"It is not God, but the devil, that is the author of fun. Listen to what
happened to those who played: 'The people sat down to eat and drink, and
they rose up to play.'" Therefore there can be no virtue about games.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 6) that "playful actions
are not directed to something else." But it is a requisite of virtue that
the agent in choosing should "direct his action to something else," as
the Philosopher states (Ethic. ii, 4). Therefore there can be no virtue
about games.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Music. ii, 15): "I pray thee, spare
thyself at times: for it becomes a wise man sometimes to relax the high
pressure of his attention to work." Now this relaxation of the mind from
work consists in playful words or deeds. Therefore it becomes a wise and
virtuous man to have recourse to such things at times. Moreover the
Philosopher [*Ethic. ii, 7; iv, 8] assigns to games the virtue of
{eutrapelia}, which we may call "pleasantness."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[2] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, Just as man needs bodily rest for the body's refreshment,
because he cannot always be at work, since his power is finite and equal
to a certain fixed amount of labor, so too is it with his soul, whose
power is also finite and equal to a fixed amount of work. Consequently
when he goes beyond his measure in a certain work, he is oppressed and
becomes weary, and all the more since when the soul works, the body is at
work likewise, in so far as the intellective soul employs forces that
operate through bodily organs. Now sensible goods are connatural to man,
and therefore, when the soul arises above sensibles, through being intent
on the operations of reason, there results in consequence a certain
weariness of soul, whether the operations with which it is occupied be
those of the practical or of the speculative reason. Yet this weariness
is greater if the soul be occupied with the work of contemplation, since
thereby it is raised higher above sensible things; although perhaps
certain outward works of the practical reason entail a greater bodily
labor. In either case, however, one man is more soul-wearied than
another, according as he is more intensely occupied with works of reason.
Now just as weariness of the body is dispelled by resting the body, so
weariness of the soul must needs be remedied by resting the soul: and the
soul's rest is pleasure, as stated above (FS, Q[25], A[2]; FS, Q[31],
A[1], ad 2). Consequently, the remedy for weariness of soul must needs
consist in the application of some pleasure, by slackening the tension of
the reason's study. Thus in the Conferences of the Fathers xxiv, 21, it
is related of Blessed John the Evangelist, that when some people were
scandalized on finding him playing together with his disciples, he is
said to have told one of them who carried a bow to shoot an arrow. And
when the latter had done this several times, he asked him whether he
could do it indefinitely, and the man answered that if he continued doing
it, the bow would break. Whence the Blessed John drew the inference that
in like manner man's mind would break if its tension were never relaxed.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[2] Body Para. 2/4
Now such like words or deeds wherein nothing further is sought than the
soul's delight, are called playful or humorous. Hence it is necessary at
times to make use of them, in order to give rest, as it were, to the
soul. This is in agreement with the statement of the Philosopher (Ethic.
iv, 8) that "in the intercourse of this life there is a kind of rest that
is associated with games": and consequently it is sometimes necessary to
make use of such things.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[2] Body Para. 3/4
Nevertheless it would seem that in this matter there are three points
which require especial caution. The first and chief is that the pleasure
in question should not be sought in indecent or injurious deeds or words.
Wherefore Tully says (De Offic. i, 29) that "one kind of joke is
discourteous, insolent, scandalous, obscene." Another thing to be
observed is that one lose not the balance of one's mind altogether. Hence
Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 20): "We should beware lest, when we seek
relaxation of mind, we destroy all that harmony which is the concord of
good works": and Tully says (De Offic. i, 29), that, "just as we do not
allow children to enjoy absolute freedom in their games, but only that
which is consistent with good behavior, so our very fun should reflect
something of an upright mind." Thirdly, we must be careful, as in all
other human actions, to conform ourselves to persons, time, and place,
and take due account of other circumstances, so that our fun "befit the
hour and the man," as Tully says (De Offic. i, 29).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[2] Body Para. 4/4
Now these things are directed according to the rule of reason: and a
habit that operates according to reason is virtue. Therefore there can be
a virtue about games. The Philosopher gives it the name of wittiness
({eutrapelia}), and a man is said to be pleasant through having a happy
turn* of mind, whereby he gives his words and deeds a cheerful turn: and
inasmuch as this virtue restrains a man from immoderate fun, it is
comprised under modesty. [*{Eutrapelia} is derived from {trepein} = 'to
turn'].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated above, fun should fit with business and persons;
wherefore Tully says (De Invent. Rhet. i, 17) that "when the audience is
weary, it will be useful for the speaker to try something novel or
amusing, provided that joking be not incompatible with the gravity of the
subject." Now the sacred doctrine is concerned with things of the
greatest moment, according to Prov. 8:6, "Hear, for I will speak of great
things." Wherefore Ambrose does not altogether exclude fun from human
speech, but from the sacred doctrine; hence he begins by saying:
"Although jokes are at times fitting and pleasant, nevertheless they are
incompatible with the ecclesiastical rule; since how can we have recourse
to things which are not to be found in Holy Writ?"
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This saying of Chrysostom refers to the inordinate use of
fun, especially by those who make the pleasure of games their end; of
whom it is written (Wis. 15:12): "They have accounted our life a
pastime." Against these Tully says (De Offic. i, 29): "We are so begotten
by nature that we appear to be made not for play and fun, but rather for
hardships, and for occupations of greater gravity and moment."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Playful actions themselves considered in their species are
not directed to an end: but the pleasure derived from such actions is
directed to the recreation and rest of the soul, and accordingly if this
be done with moderation, it is lawful to make use of fun. Hence Tully
says (De Offic. i, 29): "It is indeed lawful to make use of play and fun,
but in the same way as we have recourse to sleep and other kinds of rest,
then only when we have done our duty by grave and serious matters."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there can be sin in the excess of play?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that there cannot be sin in the excess of play. For
that which is an excuse for sin is not held to be sinful. Now play is
sometimes an excuse for sin, for many things would be grave sins if they
were done seriously, whereas if they be done in fun, are either no sin or
but slightly sinful. Therefore it seems that there is no sin in excessive
play.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, all other vices are reducible to the seven capital
vices, as Gregory states (Moral. xxxi, 17). But excess of play does not
seem reducible to any of the capital vices. Therefore it would seem not
to be a sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, comedians especially would seem to exceed in play, since
they direct their whole life to playing. Therefore if excess of play were
a sin, all actors would be in a state of sin; moreover all those who
employ them, as well as those who make them any payment, would sin as
accomplices of their sin. But this would seem untrue; for it is related
in the Lives of the Fathers (ii. 16; viii. 63) that is was revealed to
the Blessed Paphnutius that a certain jester would be with him in the
life to come.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, A gloss on Prov. 14:13, "Laughter shall be mingled with
sorrow and mourning taketh hold of the end of joy," remarks: "A mourning
that will last for ever." Now there is inordinate laughter and inordinate
joy in excessive play. Therefore there is mortal sin therein, since
mortal sin alone is deserving of everlasting mourning.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, In all things dirigible according to reason, the
excessive is that which goes beyond, and the deficient is that which
falls short of the rule of reason. Now it has been stated (A[2]) that
playful or jesting words or deeds are dirigible according to reason.
Wherefore excessive play is that which goes beyond the rule of reason:
and this happens in two ways. First, on account of the very species of
the acts employed for the purpose of fun, and this kind of jesting,
according to Tully (De Offic. i, 29), is stated to be "discourteous,
insolent, scandalous, and obscene," when to wit a man, for the purpose of
jesting, employs indecent words or deeds, or such as are injurious to his
neighbor, these being of themselves mortal sins. And thus it is evident
that excessive play is a mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
Secondly, there may be excess in play, through lack of due
circumstances: for instance when people make use of fun at undue times
or places, or out of keeping with the matter in hand, or persons. This
may be sometimes a mortal sin on account of the strong attachment to
play, when a man prefers the pleasure he derives therefrom to the love of
God, so as to be willing to disobey a commandment of God or of the Church
rather than forego, such like amusements. Sometimes, however, it is a
venial sin, for instance where a man is not so attached to amusement as
to be willing for its sake to do anything in disobedience to God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Certain things are sinful on account of the intention
alone, because they are done in order to injure someone. Such an
intention is excluded by their being done in fun, the intention of which
is to please, not to injure: in these cases fun excuses from sin, or
diminishes it. Other things, however, are sins according to their
species, such as murder, fornication, and the like: and fun is no excuse
for these; in fact they make fun scandalous and obscene.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Excessive play pertains to senseless mirth, which Gregory
(Moral. xxxi, 17) calls a daughter of gluttony. Wherefore it is written
(Ex. 32:6): "The people sat down to eat and drink, and they rose up to
play."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated (A[2]), play is necessary for the intercourse of
human life. Now whatever is useful to human intercourse may have a lawful
employment ascribed to it. Wherefore the occupation of play-actors, the
object of which is to cheer the heart of man, is not unlawful in itself;
nor are they in a state of sin provided that their playing be moderated,
namely that they use no unlawful words or deeds in order to amuse, and
that they do not introduce play into undue matters and seasons. And
although in human affairs, they have no other occupation in reference to
other men, nevertheless in reference to themselves, and to God, they
perform other actions both serious and virtuous, such as prayer and the
moderation of their own passions and operations, while sometimes they
give alms to the poor. Wherefore those who maintain them in moderation do
not sin but act justly, by rewarding them for their services. on the
other hand, if a man spends too much on such persons, or maintains those
comedians who practice unlawful mirth, he sins as encouraging them in
their sin. Hence Augustine says (Tract. c. in Joan.) that "to give one's
property to comedians is a great sin, not a virtue"; unless by chance
some play-actor were in extreme need, in which case one would have to
assist him, for Ambrose says (De Offic. [*Quoted in Canon Pasce, dist.
86]): "Feed him that dies of hunger; for whenever thou canst save a man
by feeding him, if thou hast not fed him, thou hast slain him."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there is a sin in lack of mirth?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that there is no sin in lack of mirth. For no sin
is prescribed to a penitent. But Augustine speaking of a penitent says
(De Vera et Falsa Poenit. 15) [*Spurious]: "Let him refrain from games
and the sights of the world, if he wishes to obtain the grace of a full
pardon." Therefore there is no sin in lack of mirth.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, no sin is included in the praise given to holy men. But
some persons are praised for having refrained from mirth; for it is
written (Jer. 15:17): "I sat not in the assembly of jesters," and (Tobias
3:17): "Never have I joined myself with them that play; neither have I
made myself partaker with them that walk in lightness." Therefore there
can be no sin in the lack of mirth.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Andronicus counts austerity to be one of the virtues,
and he describes it as a habit whereby a man neither gives nor receives
the pleasures of conversation. Now this pertains to the lack of mirth.
Therefore the lack of mirth is virtuous rather than sinful.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 7; iv, 8) reckons the lack
of mirth to be a vice.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, In human affairs whatever is against reason is a sin. Now
it is against reason for a man to be burdensome to others, by offering no
pleasure to others, and by hindering their enjoyment. Wherefore Seneca
[*Martin of Braga, Formula Vitae Honestae: cap. De Continentia] says (De
Quat. Virt., cap. De Continentia): "Let your conduct be guided by wisdom
so that no one will think you rude, or despise you as a cad." Now a man
who is without mirth, not only is lacking in playful speech, but is also
burdensome to others, since he is deaf to the moderate mirth of others.
Consequently they are vicious, and are said to be boorish or rude, as the
Philosopher states (Ethic. iv, 8).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
Since, however, mirth is useful for the sake of the rest and pleasures
it affords; and since, in human life, pleasure and rest are not in quest
for their own sake, but for the sake of operation, as stated in Ethic. x,
6, it follows that "lack of mirth is less sinful than excess thereof."
Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 10): "We should make few friends
for the sake of pleasure, since but little sweetness suffices to season
life, just as little salt suffices for our meat."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Mirth is forbidden the penitent because he is called upon
to mourn for his sins. Nor does this imply a vice in default, because
this very diminishment of mirth in them is in accordance with reason.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Jeremias speaks there in accordance with the times, the
state of which required that man should mourn; wherefore he adds: "I sat
alone, because Thou hast filled me with threats." The words of Tobias 3
refer to excessive mirth; and this is evident from his adding: "Neither
have I made myself partaker with them that walk in lightness."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[168] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Austerity, as a virtue, does not exclude all pleasures, but
only such as are excessive and inordinate; wherefore it would seem to
pertain to affability, which the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 6) calls
"friendliness," or {eutrapelia}, otherwise wittiness. Nevertheless he
names and defines it thus in respect of its agreement with temperance, to
which it belongs to restrain pleasure.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] Out. Para. 1/1
OF MODESTY IN THE OUTWARD APPAREL (TWO ARTICLES)
We must now consider modesty as connected with the outward apparel, and
under this head there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether there can be virtue and vice in connection with outward
apparel?
(2) Whether women sin mortally by excessive adornment?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there can be virtue and vice in connection with outward apparel?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that there cannot be virtue and vice in connection
with outward apparel. For outward adornment does not belong to us by
nature, wherefore it varies according to different times and places.
Hence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12) that "among the ancient
Romans it was scandalous for one to wear a cloak with sleeves and
reaching to the ankles, whereas now it is scandalous for anyone hailing
from a reputable place to be without them." Now according to the
Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 1) there is in us a natural aptitude for the
virtues. Therefore there is no virtue or vice about such things.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, if there were virtue and vice in connection with outward
attire, excess in this matter would be sinful. Now excess in outward
attire is not apparently sinful, since even the ministers of the altar
use most precious vestments in the sacred ministry. Likewise it would
seem not to be sinful to be lacking in this, for it is said in praise of
certain people (Heb. 11:37): "They wandered about in sheepskins and in
goatskins." Therefore it seems that there cannot be virtue and vice in
this matter.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, every virtue is either theological, or moral, or
intellectual. Now an intellectual virtue is not conversant with matter of
this kind, since it is a perfection regarding the knowledge of truth. Nor
is there a theological virtue connected therewith, since that has God for
its object; nor are any of the moral virtues enumerated by the
Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 7), connected with it. Therefore it seems that
there cannot be virtue and vice in connection with this kind of attire.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Honesty [*Cf. Q[145]] pertains to virtue. Now a certain
honesty is observed in the outward apparel; for Ambrose says (De Offic.
i, 19): "The body should be bedecked naturally and without affectation,
with simplicity, with negligence rather than nicety, not with costly and
dazzling apparel, but with ordinary clothes, so that nothing be lacking
to honesty and necessity, yet nothing be added to increase its beauty."
Therefore there can be virtue and vice in the outward attire.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[1] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, It is not in the outward things themselves which man
uses, that there is vice, but on the part of man who uses them
immoderately. This lack of moderation occurs in two ways. First, in
comparison with the customs of those among whom one lives; wherefore
Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8): "Those offenses which are contrary to
the customs of men, are to be avoided according to the customs generally
prevailing, so that a thing agreed upon and confirmed by custom or law of
any city or nation may not be violated at the lawless pleasure of any,
whether citizen or foreigner. For any part, which harmonizeth not with
its whole, is offensive." Secondly, the lack of moderation in the use of
these things may arise from the inordinate attachment of the user, the
result being that a man sometimes takes too much pleasure in using them,
either in accordance with the custom of those among whom he dwells or
contrary to such custom. Hence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii,
12): "We must avoid excessive pleasure in the use of things, for it leads
not only wickedly to abuse the customs of those among whom we dwell, but
frequently to exceed their bounds, so that, whereas it lay hidden, while
under the restraint of established morality, it displays its deformity in
a most lawless outbreak."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[1] Body Para. 2/4
In point of excess, this inordinate attachment occurs in three ways.
First when a man seeks glory from excessive attention to dress; in so far
as dress and such like things are a kind of ornament. Hence Gregory says
(Hom. xl in Ev.): "There are some who think that attention to finery and
costly dress is no sin. Surely, if this were no fault, the word of God
would not say so expressly that the rich man who was tortured in hell had
been clothed in purple and fine linen. No one, forsooth, seeks costly
apparel" (such, namely, as exceeds his estate) "save for vainglory."
Secondly, when a man seeks sensuous pleasure from excessive attention to
dress, in so far as dress is directed to the body's comfort. Thirdly,
when a man is too solicitous [*Cf. Q[55], A[6]] in his attention to
outward apparel.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[1] Body Para. 3/4
Accordingly Andronicus [*De Affectibus] reckons three virtues in
connection with outward attire; namely "humility," which excludes the
seeking of glory, wherefore he says that humility is "the habit of
avoiding excessive expenditure and parade"; "contentment" [*Cf. Q[143],
OBJ[4]], which excludes the seeking of sensuous pleasure, wherefore he
says that "contentedness is the habit that makes a man satisfied with
what is suitable, and enables him to determine what is becoming in his
manner of life" (according to the saying of the Apostle, 1 Tim. 6:8):
"Having food and wherewith to be covered, with these let us be
content;"---and "simplicity," which excludes excessive solicitude about
such things, wherefore he says that "simplicity is a habit that makes a
man contented with what he has."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[1] Body Para. 4/4
In the point of deficiency there may be inordinate attachment in two
ways. First, through a man's neglect to give the requisite study or
trouble to the use of outward apparel. Wherefore the Philosopher says
(Ethic. vii, 7) that "it is a mark of effeminacy to let one's cloak trail
on the ground to avoid the trouble of lifting it up." Secondly, by
seeking glory from the very lack of attention to outward attire. Hence
Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12) that "not only the glare
and pomp of outward things, but even dirt and the weeds of mourning may
be a subject of ostentation, all the more dangerous as being a decoy
under the guise of God's service"; and the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv,
7) that "both excess and inordinate defect are a subject of ostentation."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Although outward attire does not come from nature, it
belongs to natural reason to moderate it; so that we are naturally
inclined to be the recipients of the virtue that moderates outward
raiment.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: Those who are placed in a position of dignity, or again the
ministers of the altar, are attired in more costly apparel than others,
not for the sake of their own glory, but to indicate the excellence of
their office or of the Divine worship: wherefore this is not sinful in
them. Hence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12): "Whoever uses
outward things in such a way as to exceed the bounds observed by the good
people among whom he dwells, either signifies something by so doing, or
is guilty of sin, inasmuch as he uses these things for sensual pleasure
or ostentation."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
Likewise there may be sin on the part of deficiency: although it is not
always a sin to wear coarser clothes than other people. For, if this be
done through ostentation or pride, in order to set oneself above others,
it is a sin of superstition; whereas, if this be done to tame the flesh,
or to humble the spirit, it belongs to the virtue of temperance. Hence
Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12): "Whoever uses transitory
things with greater restraint than is customary with those among whom he
dwells, is either temperate or superstitious." Especially, however, is
the use of coarse raiment befitting to those who by word and example urge
others to repentance, as did the prophets of whom the Apostle is speaking
in the passage quoted. Wherefore a gloss on Mt. 3:4, says: "He who
preaches penance, wears the garb of penance."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: This outward apparel is an indication of man's estate;
wherefore excess, deficiency, and mean therein, are referable to the
virtue of truthfulness, which the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 7) assigns to
deeds and words, which are indications of something connected with man's
estate.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the adornment of women is devoid of mortal sin?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the adornment of women is not devoid of mortal
sin. For whatever is contrary to a precept of the Divine law is a mortal
sin. Now the adornment of women is contrary to a precept of the Divine
law; for it is written (1 Pt. 3:3): "Whose," namely women's, "adorning,
let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold,
or the putting on of apparel." Wherefore a gloss of Cyprian says: "Those
who are clothed in silk and purple cannot sincerely put on Christ: those
who are bedecked with gold and pearls and trinkets have forfeited the
adornments of mind and body." Now this is not done without a mortal sin.
Therefore the adornment of women cannot be devoid of mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Cyprian says (De Habit. Virg.): "I hold that not only
virgins and widows, but also wives and all women without exception,
should be admonished that nowise should they deface God's work and
fabric, the clay that He has fashioned, with the aid of yellow pigments,
black powders or rouge, or by applying any dye that alters the natural
features." And afterwards he adds: "They lay hands on God, when they
strive to reform what He has formed. This is an assault on the Divine
handiwork, a distortion of the truth. Thou shalt not be able to see God,
having no longer the eyes that God made, but those the devil has unmade;
with him shalt thou burn on whose account thou art bedecked." But this is
not due except to mortal sin. Therefore the adornment of women is not
devoid of mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, just as it is unbecoming for a woman to wear man's
clothes, so is it unbecoming for her to adorn herself inordinately. Now
the former is a sin, for it is written (Dt. 22:5): "A woman shall not be
clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel."
Therefore it seems that also the excessive adornment of women is a mortal
sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: On the contrary, If this were true it would seem that the makers
of these means of adornment sin mortally.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[2] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, As regards the adornment of women, we must bear in mind
the general statements made above (A[1]) concerning outward apparel, and
also something special, namely that a woman's apparel may incite men to
lust, according to Prov. 7:10, "Behold a woman meeteth him in harlot's
attire, prepared to deceive souls."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[2] Body Para. 2/3
Nevertheless a woman may use means to please her husband, lest through
despising her he fall into adultery. Hence it is written (1 Cor. 7:34)
that the woman "that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how
she may please her husband." Wherefore if a married woman adorn herself
in order to please her husband she can do this without sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[2] Body Para. 3/3
But those women who have no husband nor wish to have one, or who are in
a state of life inconsistent with marriage, cannot without sin desire to
give lustful pleasure to those men who see them, because this is to
incite them to sin. And if indeed they adorn themselves with this
intention of provoking others to lust, they sin mortally; whereas if they
do so from frivolity, or from vanity for the sake of ostentation, it is
not always mortal, but sometimes venial. And the same applies to men in
this respect. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ccxlv ad Possid.): "I do not
wish you to be hasty in forbidding the wearing of gold or costly attire
except in the case of those who being neither married nor wishful to
marry, should think how they may please God: whereas the others think on
the things of the world, either husbands how they may please their wives,
or wives how they may please their husbands, except that it is unbecoming
for women though married to uncover their hair, since the Apostle
commands them to cover the head." Yet in this case some might be excused
from sin, when they do this not through vanity but on account of some
contrary custom: although such a custom is not to be commended.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As a gloss says on this passage, "The wives of those who
were in distress despised their husbands, and decked themselves that they
might please other men": and the Apostle forbids this. Cyprian is
speaking in the same sense; yet he does not forbid married women to adorn
themselves in order to please their husbands, lest the latter be afforded
an occasion of sin with other women. Hence the Apostle says (1 Tim. 2:9):
"Women . . . in ornate [Douay: 'decent'] apparel, adorning themselves
with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or
costly attire": whence we are given to understand that women are not
forbidden to adorn themselves soberly and moderately but to do so
excessively, shamelessly, and immodestly.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: Cyprian is speaking of women painting themselves: this is a
kind of falsification, which cannot be devoid of sin. Wherefore Augustine
says (Ep. ccxlv ad Possid.): "To dye oneself with paints in order to have
a rosier or a paler complexion is a lying counterfeit. I doubt whether
even their husbands are willing to be deceived by it, by whom alone"
(i.e. the husbands) "are they to be permitted, but not ordered, to adorn
themselves." However, such painting does not always involve a mortal sin,
but only when it is done for the sake of sensuous pleasure or in contempt
of God, and it is to like cases that Cyprian refers.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
It must, however, be observed that it is one thing to counterfeit a
beauty one has not, and another to hide a disfigurement arising from some
cause such as sickness or the like. For this is lawful, since according
to the Apostle (1 Cor. 12:23), "such as we think to be the less honorable
members of the body, about these we put more abundant honor."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated in the foregoing Article, outward apparel should
be consistent with the estate of the person, according to the general
custom. Hence it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man's clothes,
or vice versa; especially since this may be a cause of sensuous pleasure;
and it is expressly forbidden in the Law (Dt. 22) because the Gentiles
used to practice this change of attire for the purpose of idolatrous
superstition. Nevertheless this may be done sometimes without sin on
account of some necessity, either in order to hide oneself from enemies,
or through lack of other clothes, or for some similar motive.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[169] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: In the case of an art directed to the production of goods
which men cannot use without sin, it follows that the workmen sin in
making such things, as directly affording others an occasion of sin; for
instance, if a man were to make idols or anything pertaining to
idolatrous worship. But in the case of an art the products of which may
be employed by man either for a good or for an evil use, such as swords,
arrows, and the like, the practice of such an art is not sinful. These
alone should be called arts; wherefore Chrysostom says [*Hom. xlix super
Matth.]: "The name of art should be applied to those only which
contribute towards and produce necessaries and mainstays of life." In the
case of an art that produces things which for the most part some people
put to an evil use, although such arts are not unlawful in themselves,
nevertheless, according to the teaching of Plato, they should be
extirpated from the State by the governing authority. Accordingly, since
women may lawfully adorn themselves, whether to maintain the fitness of
their estate, or even by adding something thereto, in order to please
their husbands, it follows that those who make such means of adornment do
not sin in the practice of their art, except perhaps by inventing means
that are superfluous and fantastic. Hence Chrysostom says (Super Matth.)
that "even the shoemakers' and clothiers' arts stand in need of
restraint, for they have lent their art to lust, by abusing its needs,
and debasing art by art."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE PRECEPTS OF TEMPERANCE (TWO ARTICLES)
We must next consider the precepts of temperance:
(1) The precepts of temperance itself;
(2) The precepts of its parts.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the precepts of temperance are suitably given in the Divine law?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the precepts of temperance are unsuitably
given in the Divine law. Because fortitude is a greater virtue than
temperance, as stated above (Q[123], A[12]; Q[141], A[8]; FS, Q[66], A[4]
). Now there is no precept of fortitude among the precepts of the
decalogue, which are the most important among the precepts of the Law.
Therefore it was unfitting to include among the precepts of the decalogue
the prohibition of adultery, which is contrary to temperance, as stated
above (Q[154], AA[1],8).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, temperance is not only about venereal matters, but also
about pleasures of meat and drink. Now the precepts of the decalogue
include no prohibition of a vice pertaining to pleasures of meat and
drink, or to any other species of lust. Neither, therefore, should they
include a precept prohibiting adultery, which pertains to venereal
pleasure.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, in the lawgiver's intention inducement to virtue
precedes the prohibition of vice, since vices are forbidden in order that
obstacles to virtue may be removed. Now the precepts of the decalogue
are the most important in the Divine law. Therefore the precepts of the
decalogue should have included an affirmative precept directly
prescribing the virtue of temperance, rather than a negative precept
forbidding adultery which is directly opposed thereto.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, stands the authority of Scripture in the decalogue (Ex.
20:14,17).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As the Apostle says (1 Tim. 1:5), "the end of the
commandment is charity," which is enjoined upon us in the two precepts
concerning the love of God and of our neighbor. Wherefore the decalogue
contains those precepts which tend more directly to the love of God and
of our neighbor. Now among the vices opposed to temperance, adultery
would seem most of all opposed to the love of our neighbor, since thereby
a man lays hold of another's property for his own use, by abusing his
neighbor's wife. Wherefore the precepts of the decalogue include a
special prohibition of adultery, not only as committed in deed, but also
as desired in thought.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Among the species of vices opposed to fortitude there is
not one that is so directly opposed to the love of our neighbor as
adultery, which is a species of lust that is opposed to temperance. And
yet the vice of daring, which is opposed to fortitude, is wont to be
sometimes the cause of murder, which is forbidden by one of the precepts
of the decalogue: for it is written (Ecclus. 8:18): "Go not on the way
with a bold man lest he burden thee with his evils."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Gluttony is not directly opposed to the love of our
neighbor, as adultery is. Nor indeed is any other species of lust, for a
father is not so wronged by the seduction of the virgin over whom he has
no connubial right, as is the husband by the adultery of his wife, for
he, not the wife herself, has power over her body [*1 Cor. 7:4].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[122], AA[1],4) the precepts of the
decalogue are universal principles of the Divine law; hence they need to
be common precepts. Now it was not possible to give any common
affirmative precepts of temperance, because the practice of temperance
varies according to different times, as Augustine remarks (De Bono
Conjug. xv, 7), and according to different human laws and customs.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the precepts of the virtues annexed to temperance are suitably
given in the Divine law?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the precepts of the virtues annexed to
temperance are unsuitably given in the Divine law. For the precepts of
the Decalogue, as stated above (A[1], ad 3), are certain universal
principles of the whole Divine law. Now "pride is the beginning of all
sin," according to Ecclus. 10:15. Therefore among the precepts of the
Decalogue there should have been one forbidding pride.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a place before all should have been given in the
decalogue to those precepts by which men are especially induced to fulfil
the Law, because these would seem to be the most important. Now since
humility subjects man to God, it would seem most of all to dispose man to
the fulfilment of the Divine law; wherefore obedience is accounted one of
the degrees of humility, as stated above (Q[161], A[6]); and the same
apparently applies to meekness, the effect of which is that a man does
not contradict the Divine Scriptures, as Augustine observes (De Doctr.
Christ. ii, 7). Therefore it seems that the Decalogue should have
contained precepts of humility and meekness.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it was stated in the foregoing Article that adultery is
forbidden in the decalogue, because it is contrary to the love of our
neighbor. But inordinateness of outward movements, which is contrary to
modesty, is opposed to neighborly love: wherefore Augustine says in his
Rule (Ep. ccxii): "In all your movements let nothing be done to offend
the eye of any person whatever." Therefore it seems that this kind of
inordinateness should also have been forbidden by a precept of the
Decalogue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, suffices the authority of Scripture.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The virtues annexed to temperance may be considered in
two ways: first, in themselves; secondly, in their effects. Considered in
themselves they have no direct connection with the love of God or of our
neighbor; rather do they regard a certain moderation of things pertaining
to man himself. But considered in their effects, they may regard the love
of God or of our neighbor: and in this respect the decalogue contains
precepts that relate to the prohibition of the effects of the vices
opposed to the parts of temperance. Thus the effect of anger, which is
opposed to meekness, is sometimes that a man goes on to commit murder
(and this is forbidden in the Decalogue), and sometimes that he refuses
due honor to his parents, which may also be the result of pride, which
leads many to transgress the precepts of the first table.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Pride is the beginning of sin, but it lies hidden in the
heart; and its inordinateness is not perceived by all in common. Hence
there was no place for its prohibition among the precepts of the
Decalogue, which are like first self-evident principles.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Those precepts which are essentially an inducement to the
observance of the Law presuppose the Law to be already given, wherefore
they cannot be first precepts of the Law so as to have a place in the
Decalogue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[170] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Inordinate outward movement is not injurious to one's
neighbor, if we consider the species of the act, as are murder,
adultery, and theft, which are forbidden in the decalogue; but only as
being signs of an inward inordinateness, as stated above (Q[168], A[1],
ad 1,3).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] Out. Para. 1/4
TREATISE ON GRATUITOUS GRACES (QQ[171]-182)
PERTAINING TO KNOWLEDGE (QQ[171]-175)
OF PROPHECY (SIX ARTICLES)
After treating individually of all the virtues and vices that pertain to
men of all conditions and estates, we must now consider those things
which pertain especially to certain men. Now there is a triple difference
between men as regards things connected with the soul's habits and acts.
First, in reference to the various gratuitous graces, according to 1 Cor.
12:4,7: "There are diversities of graces . . . and to one . . . by the
Spirit is given the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge,"
etc. Another difference arises from the diversities of life, namely the
active and the contemplative life, which correspond to diverse purposes
of operation, wherefore it is stated (1 Cor. 12:4,7) that "there are
diversities of operations." For the purpose of operation in Martha, who
"was busy about much serving," which pertains to the active life,
differed from the purpose of operation in Mary, "who sitting . . . at the
Lord's feet, heard His word" (Lk. 10:39,40), which pertains to the
contemplative life. A third difference corresponds to the various duties
and states of life, as expressed in Eph. 4:11, "And He gave some
apostles; and some prophets; and other some evangelists; and other some
pastors and doctors": and this pertains to diversity of ministries, of
which it is written (1 Cor. 12:5): "There are diversities of ministries."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] Out. Para. 2/4
With regard to gratuitous graces, which are the first object to be
considered, it must be observed that some of them pertain to knowledge,
some to speech, and some to operation. Now all things pertaining to
knowledge may be comprised under "prophecy," since prophetic revelation
extends not only to future events relating to man, but also to things
relating to God, both as to those which are to be believed by all and are
matters of "faith," and as to yet higher mysteries, which concern the
perfect and belong to "wisdom." Again, prophetic revelation is about
things pertaining to spiritual substances, by whom we are urged to good
or evil; this pertains to the "discernment of spirits." Moreover it
extends to the direction of human acts, and this pertains to "knowledge,"
as we shall explain further on (Q[177]). Accordingly we must first of all
consider prophecy, and rapture which is a degree of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] Out. Para. 3/4
Prophecy admits of four heads of consideration: (1) its essence; (2) its
cause; (3) the mode of prophetic knowledge; (4) the division of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] Out. Para. 4/4
Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether prophecy pertains to knowledge?
(2) Whether it is a habit?
(3) Whether it is only about future contingencies?
(4) Whether a prophet knows all possible matters of prophecy?
(5) Whether a prophet distinguishes that which he perceives by the gift
of God, from that which he perceives by his own spirit?
(6) Whether anything false can be the matter of prophecy?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether prophecy pertains to knowledge?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that prophecy does not pertain to knowledge. For it
is written (Ecclus. 48:14) that after death the body of Eliseus
prophesied, and further on (Ecclus. 49:18) it is said of Joseph that "his
bones were visited, and after death they prophesied." Now no knowledge
remains in the body or in the bones after death. Therefore prophecy does
not pertain to knowledge.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (1 Cor. 14:3): "He that prophesieth,
speaketh to men unto edification." Now speech is not knowledge itself,
but its effect. Therefore it would seem that prophecy does not pertain to
knowledge.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, every cognitive perfection excludes folly and madness.
Yet both of these are consistent with prophecy; for it is written (Osee
9:7): "Know ye, O Israel, that the prophet was foolish and mad [*Vulg.:
'the spiritual man was mad']." Therefore prophecy is not a cognitive
perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, just as revelation regards the intellect, so inspiration
regards, apparently, the affections, since it denotes a kind of motion.
Now prophecy is described as "inspiration" or "revelation," according to
Cassiodorus [*Prolog. super Psalt. i]. Therefore it would seem that
prophecy does not pertain to the intellect more than to the affections.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (1 Kgs. 9:9): "For he that is now called
a prophet, in time past was called a seer." Now sight pertains to
knowledge. Therefore prophecy pertains to knowledge.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[1] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Prophecy first and chiefly consists in knowledge,
because, to wit, prophets know things that are far [procul] removed from
man's knowledge. Wherefore they may be said to take their name from
{phanos}, "apparition," because things appear to them from afar.
Wherefore, as Isidore states (Etym. vii, 8), "in the Old Testament, they
were called Seers, because they saw what others saw not, and surveyed
things hidden in mystery." Hence among heathen nations they were known as
"vates, on account of their power of mind [vi mentis]," [*The Latin
'vates' is from the Greek {phates}, and may be rendered 'soothsayer']
(Etym. viii, 7).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[1] Body Para. 2/3
Since, however, it is written (1 Cor. 12:7): "The manifestation of the
Spirit is given to every man unto profit," and further on (1 Cor. 14:12):
"Seek to abound unto the edification of the Church," it follows that
prophecy consists secondarily in speech, in so far as the prophets
declare for the instruction of others, the things they know through
being taught of God, according to the saying of Is. 21:10, "That which I
have heard of the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I have declared unto
you." Accordingly, as Isidore says (Etym. viii, 7), "prophets" may be
described as "proefatores [foretellers], because they tell from afar
[porro fantur]," that is, speak from a distance, "and foretell the truth
about things to come."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[1] Body Para. 3/3
Now those things above human ken which are revealed by God cannot be
confirmed by human reason, which they surpass as regards the operation of
the Divine power, according to Mk. 16:20, "They . . . preached
everywhere, the Lord working withal and confirming the word with signs
that followed." Hence, thirdly, prophecy is concerned with the working of
miracles, as a kind of confirmation of the prophetic utterances.
Wherefore it is written (Dt. 34:10,11): "There arose no more a prophet in
Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, in all the signs
and wonders."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: These passages speak of prophecy in reference to the third
point just mentioned, which regards the proof of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The Apostle is speaking there of the prophetic utterances.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Those prophets who are described as foolish and mad are not
true but false prophets, of whom it is said (Jer. 3:16): "Hearken not to
the words of the prophets that prophesy to you, and deceive you; they
speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord,"
and (Ezech. 13:3): "Woe to the foolish prophets, that follow their own
spirit, and see nothing."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: It is requisite to prophecy that the intention of the mind
be raised to the perception of Divine things: wherefore it is written
(Ezech. 2:1): "Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak to
thee." This raising of the intention is brought about by the motion of
the Holy Ghost, wherefore the text goes on to say: "And the Spirit
entered into me . . . and He set me upon my feet." After the mind's
intention has been raised to heavenly things, it perceives the things of
God; hence the text continues: "And I heard Him speaking to me."
Accordingly inspiration is requisite for prophecy, as regards the raising
of the mind, according to Job 32:8, "The inspiration of the Almighty
giveth understanding": while revelation is necessary, as regards the very
perception of Divine things, whereby prophecy is completed; by its means
the veil of darkness and ignorance is removed, according to Job 12:22,
"He discovereth great things out of darkness."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether prophecy is a habit?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that prophecy is a habit. For according to Ethic.
ii, 5, "there are three things in the soul, power, passion, and habit."
Now prophecy is not a power, for then it would be in all men, since the
powers of the soul are common to them. Again it is not a passion, since
the passions belong to the appetitive faculty, as stated above (FS, Q[22]
, A[2]); whereas prophecy pertains principally to knowledge, as stated in
the foregoing Article. Therefore prophecy is a habit.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, every perfection of the soul, which is not always in
act, is a habit. Now prophecy is a perfection of the soul; and it is not
always in act, else a prophet could not be described as asleep. Therefore
seemingly prophecy is a habit.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, prophecy is reckoned among the gratuitous graces. Now
grace is something in the soul, after the manner of a habit, as stated
above (FS, Q[110], A[2]). Therefore prophecy is a habit.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, A habit is something "whereby we act when we will," as
the Commentator [*Averroes or Ibn Roshd, 1120-1198] says (De Anima iii).
But a man cannot make use of prophecy when he will, as appears in the
case of Eliseus (4 Kgs. 3:15), "who on Josaphat inquiring of him
concerning the future, and the spirit of prophecy failing him, caused a
minstrel to be brought to him, that the spirit of prophecy might come
down upon him through the praise of psalmody, and fill his mind with
things to come," as Gregory observes (Hom. i super Ezech.). Therefore
prophecy is not a habit.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[2] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, As the Apostle says (Eph. 5:13), "all that is made
manifest is light," because, to wit, just as the manifestation of the
material sight takes place through material light, so too the
manifestation of intellectual sight takes place through intellectual
light. Accordingly manifestation must be proportionate to the light by
means of which it takes place, even as an effect is proportionate to its
cause. Since then prophecy pertains to a knowledge that surpasses natural
reason, as stated above (A[1]), it follows that prophecy requires an
intellectual light surpassing the light of natural reason. Hence the
saying of Micah 7:8: "When I sit in darkness, the Lord is my light." Now
light may be in a subject in two ways: first, by way of an abiding form,
as material light is in the sun, and in fire; secondly, by way of a
passion, or passing impression, as light is in the air. Now the prophetic
light is not in the prophet's intellect by way of an abiding form, else a
prophet would always be able to prophesy, which is clearly false. For
Gregory says (Hom. i super Ezech.): "Sometimes the spirit of prophecy is
lacking to the prophet, nor is it always within the call of his mind, yet
so that in its absence he knows that its presence is due to a gift."
Hence Eliseus said of the Sunamite woman (4 Kgs. 4:27): "Her soul is in
anguish, and the Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not told me." The
reason for this is that the intellectual light that is in a subject by
way of an abiding and complete form, perfects the intellect chiefly to
the effect of knowing the principle of the things manifested by that
light; thus by the light of the active intellect the intellect knows
chiefly the first principles of all things known naturally. Now the
principle of things pertaining to supernatural knowledge, which are
manifested by prophecy, is God Himself, Whom the prophets do not see in
His essence, although He is seen by the blessed in heaven, in whom this
light is by way of an abiding and complete form, according to Ps. 35:10,
"In Thy light we shall see light."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[2] Body Para. 2/3
It follows therefore that the prophetic light is in the prophet's soul
by way of a passion or transitory impression. This is indicated Ex.
33:22: "When my glory shall pass, I will set thee in a hole of the rock,"
etc., and 3 Kgs. 19:11: "Go forth and stand upon the mount before the
Lord; and behold the Lord passeth," etc. Hence it is that even as the air
is ever in need of a fresh enlightening, so too the prophet's mind is
always in need of a fresh revelation; thus a disciple who has not yet
acquired the principles of an art needs to have every detail explained to
him. Wherefore it is written (Is. 1:4): "In the morning He wakeneth my
ear, so that I may hear Him as a master." This is also indicated by the
very manner in which prophecies are uttered: thus it is stated that "the
Lord spake to such and such a prophet," or that "the word of the Lord,"
or "the hand of the Lord was made upon him."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[2] Body Para. 3/3
But a habit is an abiding form. Wherefore it is evident that, properly
speaking, prophecy is not a habit.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: This division of the Philosopher's does not comprise
absolutely all that is in the soul, but only such as can be principles of
moral actions, which are done sometimes from passion, sometimes from
habit, sometimes from mere power, as in the case of those who perform an
action from the judgment of their reason before having the habit of that
action.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
However, prophecy may be reduced to a passion, provided we understand
passion to denote any kind of receiving, in which sense the Philosopher
says (De Anima iii, 4) that "to understand is, in a way, to be passive."
For just as, in natural knowledge, the possible intellect is passive to
the light of the active intellect, so too in prophetic knowledge the
human intellect is passive to the enlightening of the Divine light.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: Just as in corporeal things, when a passion ceases, there
remains a certain aptitude to a repetition of the passion---thus wood
once ignited is more easily ignited again, so too in the prophet's
intellect, after the actual enlightenment has ceased, there remains an
aptitude to be enlightened anew---thus when the mind has once been
aroused to devotion, it is more easily recalled to its former devotion.
Hence Augustine says (De orando Deum. Ep. cxxx, 9) that our prayers need
to be frequent, "lest devotion be extinguished as soon as it is kindled."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
We might, however, reply that a person is called a prophet, even while
his prophetic enlightenment ceases to be actual, on account of his being
deputed by God, according to Jer. 1:5, "And I made thee a prophet unto
the nations."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Every gift of grace raises man to something above human
nature, and this may happen in two ways. First, as to the substance of
the act---for instance, the working of miracles, and the knowledge of the
uncertain and hidden things of Divine wisdom---and for such acts man is
not granted a habitual gift of grace. Secondly, a thing is above human
nature as to the mode but not the substance of the act---for instance to
love God and to know Him in the mirror of His creatures---and for this a
habitual gift of grace is bestowed.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether prophecy is only about future contingencies?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that prophecy is only about future contingencies.
For Cassiodorus says [*Prol. super Psalt. i] that "prophecy is a Divine
inspiration or revelation, announcing the issue of things with
unchangeable truth." Now issues pertain to future contingencies.
Therefore the prophetic revelation is about future contingencies alone.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, according to 1 Cor. 12, the grace of prophecy is
differentiated from wisdom and faith, which are about Divine things; and
from the discernment of spirits, which is about created spirits; and from
knowledge, which is about human things. Now habits and acts are
differentiated by their objects, as stated above (FS, Q[54], A[2]).
Therefore it seems that the object of prophecy is not connected with any
of the above. Therefore it follows that it is about future contingencies
alone.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, difference of object causes difference of species, as
stated above (FS, Q[54], A[2]). Therefore, if one prophecy is about
future contingencies, and another about other things, it would seem to
follow that these are different species of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. i super Ezech.) that some prophecies
are "about the future, for instance (Is. 7:14), 'Behold a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son'"; some are "about the past, as (Gn. 1:1), 'In
the beginning God created heaven and earth'"; some are "about the
present," as (1 Cor. 14:24,25), "If all prophesy, and there come in one
that believeth not . . . the secrets of his heart are made manifest."
Therefore prophecy is not about future contingencies alone.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[3] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, A manifestation made by means of a certain light can
extend to all those things that are subject to that light: thus the
body's sight extends to all colors, and the soul's natural knowledge
extends to whatever is subject to the light of the active intellect. Now
prophetic knowledge comes through a Divine light, whereby it is possible
to know all things both Divine and human, both spiritual and corporeal;
and consequently the prophetic revelation extends to them all. Thus by
the ministry of spirits a prophetic revelation concerning the perfections
of God and the angels was made to Is. 6:1, where it is written, "I saw
the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated." Moreover his prophecy
contains matters referring to natural bodies, according to the words of
Is. 40:12, "Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of His hand," etc.
It also contains matters relating to human conduct, according to Is.
58:1, "Deal thy bread to the hungry," etc.; and besides this it contains
things pertaining to future events, according to Is. 47:9, "Two things
shall come upon thee suddenly in one day, barrenness and widowhood."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[3] Body Para. 2/4
Since, however, prophecy is about things remote from our knowledge, it
must be observed that the more remote things are from our knowledge the
more pertinent they are to prophecy. Of such things there are three
degrees. One degree comprises things remote from the knowledge, either
sensitive or intellective, of some particular man, but not from the
knowledge of all men; thus a particular man knows by sense things present
to him locally, which another man does not know by human sense, since
they are removed from him. Thus Eliseus knew prophetically what his
disciple Giezi had done in his absence (4 Kgs. 5:26), and in like manner
the secret thoughts of one man are manifested prophetically to another,
according to 1 Cor. 14:25; and again in this way what one man knows by
demonstration may be revealed to another prophetically.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[3] Body Para. 3/4
The second degree comprises those things which surpass the knowledge of
all men without exception, not that they are in themselves unknowable,
but on account of a defect in human knowledge; such as the mystery of the
Trinity, which was revealed by the Seraphim saying: "Holy, Holy, Holy,"
etc. (Is. 6:3).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[3] Body Para. 4/4
The last degree comprises things remote from the knowledge of all men,
through being in themselves unknowable; such are future contingencies,
the truth of which is indeterminate. And since that which is predicated
universally and by its very nature, takes precedence of that which is
predicated in a limited and relative sense, it follows that revelation of
future events belongs most properly to prophecy, and from this prophecy
apparently takes its name. Hence Gregory says (Hom. i super Ezech.): "And
since a prophet is so called because he foretells the future, his name
loses its significance when he speaks of the past or present."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Prophecy is there defined according to its proper
signification; and it is in this sense that it is differentiated from the
other gratuitous graces.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This is evident from what has just been said. We might also
reply that all those things that are the matter of prophecy have the
common aspect of being unknowable to man except by Divine revelation;
whereas those that are the matter of "wisdom," "knowledge," and the
"interpretation of speeches," can be known by man through natural reason,
but are manifested in a higher way through the enlightening of the Divine
light. As to "faith," although it is about things invisible to man, it is
not concerned with the knowledge of the things believed, but with a man's
certitude of assent to things known by others.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The formal element in prophetic knowledge is the Divine
light, which being one, gives unity of species to prophecy, although the
things prophetically manifested by the Divine light are diverse.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether by the Divine revelation a prophet knows all that can be known
prophetically?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that by the Divine revelation a prophet knows all
that can be known prophetically. For it is written (Amos 3:7): "The Lord
God doth nothing without revealing His secret to His servants the
prophets." Now whatever is revealed prophetically is something done by
God. Therefore there is not one of them but what is revealed to the
prophet.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, "God's works are perfect" (Dt. 32:4). Now prophecy is a
"Divine revelation," as stated above (A[3]). Therefore it is perfect; and
this would not be so unless all possible matters of prophecy were
revealed prophetically, since "the perfect is that which lacks nothing"
(Phys. iii, 6). Therefore all possible matters of prophecy are revealed
to the prophet.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the Divine light which causes prophecy is more powerful
than the right of natural reason which is the cause of human science. Now
a man who has acquired a science knows whatever pertains to that science;
thus a grammarian knows all matters of grammar. Therefore it would seem
that a prophet knows all matters of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. i super Ezech.) that "sometimes the
spirit of prophecy indicates the present to the prophet's mind and nowise
the future; and sometimes it points not to the present but to the
future." Therefore the prophet does not know all matters of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Things which differ from one another need not exist
simultaneously, save by reason of some one thing in which they are
connected and on which they depend: thus it has been stated above (FS,
Q[65], AA[1],2) that all the virtues must needs exist simultaneously on
account of prudence and charity. Now all the things that are known
through some principle are connected in that principle and depend
thereon. Hence he who knows a principle perfectly, as regards all to
which its virtue extends, knows at the same time all that can be known
through that principle; whereas if the common principle is unknown, or
known only in a general way, it does not follow that one knows all those
things at the same time, but each of them has to be manifested by itself,
so that consequently some of them may be known, and some not.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
Now the principle of those things that are prophetically manifested by
the Divine light is the first truth, which the prophets do not see in
itself. Wherefore there is no need for their knowing all possible matters
of prophecy; but each one knows some of them according to the special
revelation of this or that matter.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The Lord reveals to the prophets all things that are
necessary for the instruction of the faithful; yet not all to every one,
but some to one, and some to another.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Prophecy is by way of being something imperfect in the
genus of Divine revelation: hence it is written (1 Cor. 13:8) that
"prophecies shall be made void," and that "we prophesy in part," i.e.
imperfectly. The Divine revelation will be brought to its perfection in
heaven; wherefore the same text continues (1 Cor. 113:10): "When that
which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away."
Consequently it does not follow that nothing is lacking to prophetic
revelation, but that it lacks none of those things to which prophecy is
directed.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: He who has a science knows the principles of that science,
whence whatever is pertinent to that science depends; wherefore to have
the habit of a science perfectly, is to know whatever is pertinent to
that science. But God Who is the principle of prophetic knowledge is not
known in Himself through prophecy; wherefore the comparison fails.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the prophet always distinguishes what he says by his own spirit
from what he says by the prophetic spirit?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the prophet always distinguishes what he says
by his own spirit from what he says by the prophetic spirit. For
Augustine states (Confess. vi, 13) that his mother said "she could,
through a certain feeling, which in words she could not express, discern
betwixt Divine revelations, and the dreams of her own soul." Now prophecy
is a Divine revelation, as stated above (A[3]). Therefore the prophet
always distinguishes what he says by the spirit of prophecy, from what he
says by his own spirit.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, God commands nothing impossible, as Jerome [*Pelagius.
Ep. xvi, among the supposititious works of St. Jerome] says. Now the
prophets were commanded (Jer. 23:28): "The prophet that hath a dream, let
him tell a dream; and he that hath My word, let him speak My word with
truth." Therefore the prophet can distinguish what he has through the
spirit of prophecy from what he sees otherwise.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the certitude resulting from a Divine light is greater
than that which results from the light of natural reason. Now he that has
science, by the light of natural reason knows for certain that he has it.
Therefore he that has prophecy by a Divine light is much more certain
that he has it.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. i super Ezech.): "It must be
observed that sometimes the holy prophets, when consulted, utter certain
things by their own spirit, through being much accustomed to prophesying,
and think they are speaking by the prophetic spirit."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[5] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, The prophet's mind is instructed by God in two ways: in
one way by an express revelation, in another way by a most mysterious
instinct to "which the human mind is subjected without knowing it," as
Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii, 17). Accordingly the prophet has the
greatest certitude about those things which he knows by an express
revelation, and he has it for certain that they are revealed to him by
God; wherefore it is written (Jer. 26:15): "In truth the Lord sent me to
you, to speak all these words in your hearing." Else, were he not certain
about this, the faith which relies on the utterances of the prophet would
not be certain. A sign of the prophet's certitude may be gathered from
the fact that Abraham being admonished in a prophetic vision, prepared to
sacrifice his only-begotten son, which he nowise would have done had he
not been most certain of the Divine revelation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[5] Body Para. 2/3
On the other hand, his position with regard to the things he knows by
instinct is sometimes such that he is unable to distinguish fully whether
his thoughts are conceived of Divine instinct or of his own spirit. And
those things which we know by Divine instinct are not all manifested with
prophetic certitude, for this instinct is something imperfect in the
genus of prophecy. It is thus that we are to understand the saying of
Gregory. Lest, however, this should lead to error, "they are very soon
set aright by the Holy Ghost [*For instance, cf. 2 Kgs. 7:3 seqq.], and
from Him they hear the truth, so that they reproach themselves for having
said what was untrue," as Gregory adds (Hom. i super Ezech.).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[5] Body Para. 3/3
The arguments set down in the first place consider the revelation that
is made by the prophetic spirit; wherefore the answer to all the
objections is clear.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether things known or declared prophetically can be false?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that things known or declared prophetically can be
false. For prophecy is about future contingencies, as stated above (A[3]
). Now future contingencies may possibly not happen; else they would
happen of necessity. Therefore the matter of prophecy can be false.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Isaias prophesied to Ezechias saying (Is. 38:1): "Take
order with thy house, for thou shalt surely die, and shalt not live," and
yet fifteen years were added to his life (4 Kgs. 20:6). Again the Lord
said (Jer. 18:7,8): "I will suddenly speak against a nation and against a
kingdom, to root out and to pull down and to destroy it. If that nation
against which I have spoken shall repent of their evil, I also will
repent of the evil that I have thought to do them." This is instanced in
the example of the Ninevites, according to Jn. 3:10: "The Lord [Vulg.:
'God'] had mercy with regard to the evil which He had said that He would
do to them, and He did it not." Therefore the matter of prophecy can be
false.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, in a conditional proposition, whenever the antecedent is
absolutely necessary, the consequent is absolutely necessary, because the
consequent of a conditional proposition stands in the same relation to
the antecedent, as the conclusion to the premises in a syllogism, and a
syllogism whose premises are necessary always leads to a necessary
conclusion, as we find proved in I Poster. 6. But if the matter of a
prophecy cannot be false, the following conditional proposition must
needs be true: "If a thing has been prophesied, it will be." Now the
antecedent of this conditional proposition is absolutely necessary, since
it is about the past. Therefore the consequent is also necessary
absolutely; yet this is unfitting, for then prophecy would not be about
contingencies. Therefore it is untrue that the matter of prophecy cannot
be false.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Cassiodorus says [*Prol. in Psalt. i] that "prophecy is
a Divine inspiration or revelation, announcing the issue of things with
invariable truth." Now the truth of prophecy would not be invariable, if
its matter could be false. Therefore nothing false can come under
prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As may be gathered from what has been said (AA[1],3,5),
prophecy is a kind of knowledge impressed under the form of teaching on
the prophet's intellect, by Divine revelation. Now the truth of knowledge
is the same in disciple and teacher since the knowledge of the disciple
is a likeness of the knowledge of the teacher, even as in natural things
the form of the thing generated is a likeness of the form of the
generator. Jerome speaks in this sense when he says [*Comment. in Daniel
ii, 10] that "prophecy is the seal of the Divine foreknowledge."
Consequently the same truth must needs be in prophetic knowledge and
utterances, as in the Divine knowledge, under which nothing false can
possibly come, as stated in the FP, Q[16], A[8]. Therefore nothing false
can come under prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated in the FP, Q[14], A[13] the certitude of the
Divine foreknowledge does not exclude the contingency of future singular
events, because that knowledge regards the future as present and already
determinate to one thing. Wherefore prophecy also, which is an "impressed
likeness" or "seal of the Divine foreknowledge," does not by its
unchangeable truth exclude the contingency of future things.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The Divine foreknowledge regards future things in two ways.
First, as they are in themselves, in so far, to wit, as it sees them in
their presentiality: secondly, as in their causes, inasmuch as it sees
the order of causes in relation to their effects. And though future
contingencies, considered as in themselves, are determinate to one thing,
yet, considered as in their causes, they are not so determined but that
they can happen otherwise. Again, though this twofold knowledge is always
united in the Divine intellect, it is not always united in the prophetic
revelation, because an imprint made by an active cause is not always on a
par with the virtue of that cause. Hence sometimes the prophetic
revelation is an imprinted likeness of the Divine foreknowledge, in so
far as the latter regards future contingencies in themselves: and such
things happen in the same way as foretold, for example this saying of Is.
7:14: "Behold a virgin shall conceive." Sometimes, however, the prophetic
revelation is an imprinted likeness of the Divine foreknowledge as
knowing the order of causes to effects; and then at times the event is
otherwise than foretold. Yet the prophecy does not cover a falsehood, for
the meaning of the prophecy is that inferior causes, whether they be
natural causes or human acts, are so disposed as to lead to such a
result. In this way we are to understand the saying of Is. 38:1: "Thou
shalt die, and not live"; in other words, "The disposition of thy body
has a tendency to death": and the saying of Jonas 3:4, "Yet forty days,
and Nineveh shall be destroyed," that is to say, "Its merits demand that
it should be destroyed." God is said "to repent," metaphorically,
inasmuch as He bears Himself after the manner of one who repents, by
"changing His sentence, although He changes not His counsel" [*Cf. FP,
Q[19], A[7], ad 2].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[171] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Since the same truth of prophecy is the same as the truth
of Divine foreknowledge, as stated above, the conditional proposition:
"If this was prophesied, it will be," is true in the same way as the
proposition: "If this was foreknown, it will be": for in both cases it is
impossible for the antecedent not to be. Hence the consequent is
necessary, considered, not as something future in our regard, but as
being present to the Divine foreknowledge, as stated in the FP, Q[14],
A[13], ad 2.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE CAUSE OF PROPHECY (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider the cause of prophecy. Under this head there are
six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether prophecy is natural?
(2) Whether it is from God by means of the angels?
(3) Whether a natural disposition is requisite for prophecy?
(4) Whether a good life is requisite?
(5) Whether any prophecy is from the demons?
(6) Whether prophets of the demons ever tell what is true?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether prophecy can be natural?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that prophecy can be natural. For Gregory says
(Dial. iv, 26) that "sometimes the mere strength of the soul is
sufficiently cunning to foresee certain things": and Augustine says (Gen.
ad lit. xii, 13) that the human soul, according as it is withdrawn from
the sense of the body, is able to foresee the future [*Cf. FP, Q[86],
A[4], ad 2]. Now this pertains to prophecy. Therefore the soul can
acquire prophecy naturally.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the human soul's knowledge is more alert while one wakes
than while one sleeps. Now some, during sleep, naturally foresee the
future, as the Philosopher asserts (De Somn. et Vigil. [*De Divinat. per
Somn. ii, which is annexed to the work quoted]). Much more therefore can
a man naturally foreknow the future.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, man, by his nature, is more perfect than dumb animals.
Yet some dumb animals have foreknowledge of future things that concern
them. Thus ants foreknow the coming rains, which is evident from their
gathering grain into their nest before the rain commences; and in like
manner fish foreknow a coming storm, as may be gathered from their
movements in avoiding places exposed to storm. Much more therefore can
men foreknow the future that concerns themselves, and of such things is
prophecy. Therefore prophecy comes from nature.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, it is written (Prov. 29:18): "When prophecy shall fail,
the people shall be scattered abroad"; wherefore it is evident that
prophecy is necessary for the stability of the human race. Now "nature
does not fail in necessaries" [*Aristotle, de Anima iii, 9]. Therefore it
seems that prophecy is from nature.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (2 Pt. 1:21): "For prophecy came not by
the will of man at any time, but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by
the Holy Ghost." Therefore prophecy comes not from nature, but through
the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[1] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, As stated above (Q[171], A[6], ad 2) prophetic
foreknowledge may regard future things in two ways: in one way, as they
are in themselves; in another way, as they are in their causes. Now, to
foreknow future things, as they are in themselves, is proper to the
Divine intellect, to Whose eternity all things are present, as stated in
the FP, Q[14], A[13]. Wherefore such like foreknowledge of the future
cannot come from nature, but from Divine revelation alone. On the other
hand, future things can be foreknown in their causes with a natural
knowledge even by man: thus a physician foreknows future health or death
in certain causes, through previous experimental knowledge of the order
of those causes to such effects. Such like knowledge of the future may be
understood to be in a man by nature in two ways. In one way that the
soul, from that which it holds, is able to foreknow the future, and thus
Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 13): "Some have deemed the human soul
to contain a certain power of divination." This seems to be in accord
with the opinion of Plato [*Phaed. xxvii; Civit. vi], who held that our
souls have knowledge of all things by participating in the ideas; but
that this knowledge is obscured in them by union with the body; yet in
some more, in others less, according to a difference in bodily purity.
According to this it might be said that men, whose souls are not much
obscured through union with the body, are able to foreknow such like
future things by their own knowledge. Against this opinion Augustine says
(Gen. ad lit. xii, 13): "How is it that the soul cannot always have this
power of divination, since it always wishes to have it?"
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[1] Body Para. 2/3
Since, however, it seems truer, according to the opinion of Aristotle,
that the soul acquires knowledge from sensibles, as stated in the FP,
Q[84], A[6], it is better to have recourse to another explanation, and to
hold that men have no such foreknowledge of the future, but that they can
acquire it by means of experience, wherein they are helped by their
natural disposition, which depends on the perfection of a man's
imaginative power, and the clarity of his understanding.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[1] Body Para. 3/3
Nevertheless this latter foreknowledge of the future differs in two ways
from the former, which comes through Divine revelation. First, because
the former can be about any events whatever, and this infallibly; whereas
the latter foreknowledge, which can be had naturally, is about certain
effects, to which human experience may extend. Secondly, because the
former prophecy is "according to the unchangeable truth" [*Q[171], A[3],
OBJ[1]], while the latter is not, and can cover a falsehood. Now the
former foreknowledge, and not the latter, properly belongs to prophecy,
because, as stated above (Q[171], A[3]), prophetic knowledge is of things
which naturally surpass human knowledge. Consequently we must say that
prophecy strictly so called cannot be from nature, but only from Divine
revelation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: When the soul is withdrawn from corporeal things, it
becomes more adapted to receive the influence of spiritual substances
[*Cf. FP, Q[88], A[4], ad 2], and also is more inclined to receive the
subtle motions which take place in the human imagination through the
impression of natural causes, whereas it is hindered from receiving them
while occupied with sensible things. Hence Gregory says (Dial. iv, 26)
that "the soul, at the approach of death, foresees certain future things,
by reason of the subtlety of its nature," inasmuch as it is receptive
even of slight impressions. Or again, it knows future things by a
revelation of the angels; but not by its own power, because according to
Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii, 13), "if this were so, it would be able to
foreknow the future whenever it willed," which is clearly false.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Knowledge of the future by means of dreams, comes either from the
revelation of spiritual substances, or from a corporeal cause, as stated
above (Q[95], A[6]), when we were treating of divination. Now both these
causes are more applicable to a person while asleep than while awake,
because, while awake, the soul is occupied with external sensibles, so
that it is less receptive of the subtle impressions either of spiritual
substances, or even of natural causes; although as regards the perfection
of judgment, the reason is more alert in waking than in sleeping.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Even dumb animals have no foreknowledge of future events,
except as these are foreknown in their causes, whereby their imagination
is moved more than man's, because man's imagination, especially in
waking, is more disposed according to reason than according to the
impression of natural causes. Yet reason effects much more amply in man,
that which the impression of natural causes effects in dumb animals; and
Divine grace by inspiring the prophecy assists man still more.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The prophetic light extends even to the direction of human
acts; and in this way prophecy is requisite for the government of a
people, especially in relation to Divine worship; since for this nature
is not sufficient, and grace is necessary.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether prophetic revelation comes through the angels?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that prophetic revelation does not come through the
angels. For it is written (Wis. 7:27) that Divine wisdom "conveyeth
herself into holy souls," and "maketh the friends of God, and the
prophets." Now wisdom makes the friends of God immediately. Therefore it
also makes the prophets immediately, and not through the medium of the
angels.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, prophecy is reckoned among the gratuitous graces. But
the gratuitous graces are from the Holy Ghost, according to 1 Cor. 12:4,
"There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit." Therefore the
prophetic revelation is not made by means of an angel.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Cassiodorus [*Prol. in Psalt. i] says that prophecy is a
"Divine revelation": whereas if it were conveyed by the angels, it would
be called an angelic revelation. Therefore prophecy is not bestowed by
means of the angels.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv): "Our glorious fathers
received Divine visions by means of the heavenly powers"; and he is
speaking there of prophetic visions. Therefore prophetic revelation is
conveyed by means of the angels.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rm. 13:1), "Things that are of God
are well ordered [*Vulg.: 'Those that are, are ordained of God.']." Now
the Divine ordering, according to Dionysius [*Coel. Hier. iv; Eccl. Hier.
v], is such that the lowest things are directed by middle things. Now the
angels hold a middle position between God and men, in that they have a
greater share in the perfection of the Divine goodness than men have.
Wherefore the Divine enlightenments and revelations are conveyed from God
to men by the angels. Now prophetic knowledge is bestowed by Divine
enlightenment and revelation. Therefore it is evident that it is conveyed
by the angels.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Charity which makes man a friend of God, is a perfection of
the will, in which God alone can form an impression; whereas prophecy is
a perfection of the intellect, in which an angel also can form an
impression, as stated in the FP, Q[111], A[1], wherefore the comparison
fails between the two.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The gratuitous graces are ascribed to the Holy Ghost as
their first principle: yet He works grace of this kind in men by means of
the angels.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The work of the instrument is ascribed to the principal
agent by whose power the instrument acts. And since a minister is like an
instrument, prophetic revelation, which is conveyed by the ministry of
the angels, is said to be Divine.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a natural disposition is requisite for prophecy?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that a natural disposition is requisite for
prophecy. For prophecy is received by the prophet according to the
disposition of the recipient, since a gloss of Jerome on Amos 1:2, "The
Lord will roar from Sion," says: "Anyone who wishes to make a comparison
naturally turns to those things of which he has experience, and among
which his life is spent. For example, sailors compare their enemies to
the winds, and their losses to a shipwreck. In like manner Amos, who was
a shepherd, likens the fear of God to that which is inspired by the
lion's roar." Now that which is received by a thing according to the mode
of the recipient requires a natural disposition. Therefore prophecy
requires a natural disposition.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the considerations of prophecy are more lofty than those
of acquired science. Now natural indisposition hinders the considerations
of acquired science, since many are prevented by natural indisposition
from succeeding to grasp the speculations of science. Much more therefore
is a natural disposition requisite for the contemplation of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, natural indisposition is a much greater obstacle than an
accidental impediment. Now the considerations of prophecy are hindered by
an accidental occurrence. For Jerome says in his commentary on Matthew
[*The quotation is from Origen, Hom. vi in Num.] that "at the time of the
marriage act, the presence of the Holy Ghost will not be vouchsafed, even
though it be a prophet that fulfils the duty of procreation." Much more
therefore does a natural indisposition hinder prophecy; and thus it would
seem that a good natural disposition is requisite for prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says in a homily for Pentecost (xxx in Ev.):
"He," namely the Holy Ghost, "fills the boy harpist and makes him a
Psalmist; He fills the herdsman plucking wild figs, and makes him a
prophet." Therefore prophecy requires no previous disposition, but
depends on the will alone of the Holy Ghost, of Whom it is written (1
Cor. 12:2): "All these things, one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing
to every one according as He will."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), prophecy in its true and exact
sense comes from Divine inspiration; while that which comes from a
natural cause is not called prophecy except in a relative sense. Now we
must observe that as God Who is the universal efficient cause requires
neither previous matter nor previous disposition of matter in His
corporeal effects, for He is able at the same instant to bring into being
matter and disposition and form, so neither does He require a previous
disposition in His spiritual effects, but is able to produce both the
spiritual effect and at the same time the fitting disposition as
requisite according to the order of nature. More than this, He is able at
the same time, by creation, to produce the subject, so as to dispose a
soul for prophecy and give it the prophetic grace, at the very instant of
its creation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It matters not to prophecy by what comparisons the thing
prophesied is expressed; and so the Divine operation makes no change in a
prophet in this respect. Yet if there be anything in him incompatible
with prophecy, it is removed by the Divine power.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The considerations of science proceed from a natural cause,
and nature cannot work without a previous disposition in matter. This
cannot be said of God Who is the cause of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: A natural indisposition, if not removed, might be an
obstacle to prophetic revelation, for instance if a man were altogether
deprived of the natural senses. In the same way a man might be hindered
from the act of prophesying by some very strong passion, whether of
anger, or of concupiscence as in coition, or by any other passion. But
such a natural indisposition as this is removed by the Divine power,
which is the cause of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a good life is requisite for prophecy?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that a good life is requisite for prophecy. For it
is written (Wis. 7:27) that the wisdom of God "through nations conveyeth
herself into holy souls," and "maketh the friends of God, and prophets."
Now there can be no holiness without a good life and sanctifying grace.
Therefore prophecy cannot be without a good life and sanctifying grace.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, secrets are not revealed save to a friend, according to
Jn. 15:15, "But I have called you friends, because all things whatsoever
I have heard of My Father, I have made known to you." Now God reveals His
secrets to the prophets (Amos 3:7). Therefore it would seem that the
prophets are the friends of God; which is impossible without charity.
Therefore seemingly prophecy cannot be without charity; and charity is
impossible without sanctifying grace.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is written (Mt. 7:15): "Beware of false prophets, who
come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening
wolves." Now all who are without grace are likened inwardly to a ravening
wolf, and consequently all such are false prophets. Therefore no man is a
true prophet except he be good by grace.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the Philosopher says (De Somn. et Vigil. [*Cf. De
Divinat. per Somn. i, which is annexed to the work quoted]) that "if
interpretation of dreams is from God, it is unfitting for it to be
bestowed on any but the best." Now it is evident that the gift of
prophecy is from God. Therefore the gift of prophecy is vouchsafed only
to the best men.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, To those who had said, "Lord, have we not prophesied in
Thy name?" this reply is made: "I never knew you" (Mt. 7:22,23). Now "the
Lord knoweth who are His" (2 Tim. 2:19). Therefore prophecy can be in
those who are not God's by grace.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, A good life may be considered from two points of view.
First, with regard to its inward root, which is sanctifying grace.
Secondly, with regard to the inward passions of the soul and the outward
actions. Now sanctifying grace is given chiefly in order that man's soul
may be united to God by charity. Wherefore Augustine says (De Trin. xv,
18): "A man is not transferred from the left side to the right, unless he
receive the Holy Ghost, by Whom he is made a lover of God and of his
neighbor." Hence whatever can be without charity can be without
sanctifying grace, and consequently without goodness of life. Now
prophecy can be without charity; and this is clear on two counts. First,
on account of their respective acts: for prophecy pertains to the
intellect, whose act precedes the act of the will, which power is
perfected by charity. For this reason the Apostle (1 Cor. 13) reckons
prophecy with other things pertinent to the intellect, that can be had
without charity. Secondly, on account of their respective ends. For
prophecy like other gratuitous graces is given for the good of the
Church, according to 1 Cor. 12:7, "The manifestation of the Spirit is
given to every man unto profit"; and is not directly intended to unite
man's affections to God, which is the purpose of charity. Therefore
prophecy can be without a good life, as regards the first root of this
goodness.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
If, however, we consider a good life, with regard to the passions of the
soul, and external actions, from this point of view an evil life is an
obstacle to prophecy. For prophecy requires the mind to be raised very
high in order to contemplate spiritual things, and this is hindered by
strong passions, and the inordinate pursuit of external things. Hence we
read of the sons of the prophets (4 Kgs. 4:38) that they "dwelt together
with [Vulg.: 'before']" Eliseus, leading a solitary life, as it were,
lest worldly employment should be a hindrance to the gift of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Sometimes the gift of prophecy is given to a man both for
the good of others, and in order to enlighten his own mind; and such are
those whom Divine wisdom, "conveying itself" by sanctifying grace to
their minds, "maketh the friends of God, and prophets." Others, however,
receive the gift of prophecy merely for the good of others. Hence Jerome
commenting on Mt. 7:22, says: "Sometimes prophesying, the working of
miracles, and the casting out of demons are accorded not to the merit of
those who do these things, but either to the invoking the name of Christ,
or to the condemnation of those who invoke, and for the good of those who
see and hear."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Gregory [*Hom. xxvii in Ev.] expounding this passage [*Jn.
15:15] says: "Since we love the lofty things of heaven as soon as we hear
them, we know them as soon as we love them, for to love is to know.
Accordingly He had made all things known to them, because having
renounced earthly desires they were kindled by the torches of perfect
love." In this way the Divine secrets are not always revealed to prophets.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Not all wicked men are ravening wolves, but only those
whose purpose is to injure others. For Chrysostom says [*Opus Imperf. in
Matth., Hom. xix, among the works of St. John Chrysostom, and falsely
ascribed to him] that "Catholic teachers, though they be sinners, are
called slaves of the flesh, but never ravening wolves, because they do
not purpose the destruction of Christians." And since prophecy is
directed to the good of others, it is manifest that such are false
prophets, because they are not sent for this purpose by God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: God's gifts are not always bestowed on those who are simply
the best, but sometimes are vouchsafed to those who are best as regards
the receiving of this or that gift. Accordingly God grants the gift of
prophecy to those whom He judges best to give it to.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether any prophecy comes from the demons?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that no prophecy comes from the demons. For
prophecy is "a Divine revelation," according to Cassiodorus [*Prol. in
Psalt. i]. But that which is done by a demon is not Divine. Therefore no
prophecy can be from a demon.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, some kind of enlightenment is requisite for prophetic
knowledge, as stated above (Q[171], AA[2],3). Now the demons do not
enlighten the human intellect, as stated above in the FP, Q[119], A[3].
Therefore no prophecy can come from the demons.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a sign is worthless if it betokens contraries. Now
prophecy is a sign in confirmation of faith; wherefore a gloss on Rm.
12:6, "Either prophecy to be used according to the rule of faith," says:
"Observe that in reckoning the graces, he begins with prophecy, which is
the first proof of the reasonableness of our faith; since believers,
after receiving the Spirit, prophesied." Therefore prophecy cannot be
bestowed by the demons.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (3 Kgs. 18:19): "Gather unto me all
Israel unto mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and
fifty, and the prophets of the grove four hundred, who eat at Jezebel's
table." Now these were worshippers of demons. Therefore it would seem
that there is also a prophecy from the demons.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[5] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (Q[171], A[1]), prophecy denotes
knowledge far removed from human knowledge. Now it is evident that an
intellect of a higher order can know some things that are far removed
from the knowledge of an inferior intellect. Again, above the human
intellect there is not only the Divine intellect, but also the intellects
of good and bad angels according to the order of nature. Hence the
demons, even by their natural knowledge, know certain things remote from
men's knowledge, which they can reveal to men: although those things
which God alone knows are remote simply and most of all.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[5] Body Para. 2/2
Accordingly prophecy, properly and simply, is conveyed by Divine
revelations alone; yet the revelation which is made by the demons may be
called prophecy in a restricted sense. Wherefore those men to whom
something is revealed by the demons are styled in the Scriptures as
prophets, not simply, but with an addition, for instance as "false
prophets," or "prophets of idols." Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad lit.
xii, 19): "When the evil spirit lays hold of a man for such purposes as
these," namely visions, "he makes him either devilish, or possessed, or a
false prophet."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Cassiodorus is here defining prophecy in its proper and
simple acceptation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The demons reveal what they know to men, not by
enlightening the intellect, but by an imaginary vision, or even by
audible speech; and in this way this prophecy differs from true prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The prophecy of the demons can be distinguished from Divine
prophecy by certain, and even outward, signs. Hence Chrysostom says
[*Opus Imperf. in Matth., Hom. xix, falsely ascribed to St. John
Chrysostom] that "some prophesy by the spirit of the devil, such as
diviners, but they may be discerned by the fact that the devil sometimes
utters what is false, the Holy Ghost never." Wherefore it is written (Dt.
18:21,22): "If in silent thought thou answer: How shall I know the word
that the Lord hath spoken? Thou shalt have this sign: Whatsoever that
same prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord, and it come not to
pass, that thing the Lord hath not spoken."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the prophets of the demons ever foretell the truth?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the prophets of the demons never foretell the
truth. For Ambrose [*Hilary the Deacon (Ambrosiaster) on 1 Cor. 12:3]
says that "Every truth, by whomsoever spoken, is from the Holy Ghost."
Now the prophets of the demons do not speak from the Holy Ghost, because
"there is no concord between Christ and Belial [*'What concord hath
Christ with Belial?']" (2 Cor. 6:15). Therefore it would seem that they
never foretell the truth.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, just as true prophets are inspired by the Spirit of
truth, so the prophets of the demons are inspired by the spirit of
untruth, according to 3 Kgs. 22:22, "I will go forth, and be a lying
spirit in the mouth of all his prophets." Now the prophets inspired by
the Holy Ghost never speak false, as stated above (Q[111], A[6]).
Therefore the prophets of the demons never speak truth.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is said of the devil (Jn. 8:44) that "when he
speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for the devil is a liar, and the
father thereof," i.e. of lying. Now by inspiring his prophets, the devil
speaks only of his own, for he is not appointed God's minister to declare
the truth, since "light hath no fellowship with darkness [*Vulg.: 'What
fellowship hath light with darkness?']" (2 Cor. 6:14). Therefore the
prophets of the demons never foretell the truth.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, A gloss on Num. 22:14, says that "Balaam was a diviner,
for he sometimes foreknew the future by help of the demons and the magic
art." Now he foretold many true things, for instance that which is to be
found in Num. 24:17: "A star shall rise out of Jacob, and a scepter shall
spring up from Israel." Therefore even the prophets of the demons
foretell the truth.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As the good is in relation to things, so is the true in
relation to knowledge. Now in things it is impossible to find one that is
wholly devoid of good. Wherefore it is also impossible for any knowledge
to be wholly false, without some mixture of truth. Hence Bede says
[*Comment. in Luc. xvii, 12; Cf. Augustine, QQ. Evang. ii, 40] that "no
teaching is so false that it never mingles truth with falsehood." Hence
the teaching of the demons, with which they instruct their prophets,
contains some truths whereby it is rendered acceptable. For the intellect
is led astray to falsehood by the semblance of truth, even as the will is
seduced to evil by the semblance of goodness. Wherefore Chrysostom says
[*Opus Imperf. in Matth., Hom. xix, falsely ascribed to St. John
Chrysostom]: "The devil is allowed sometimes to speak true things, in
order that his unwonted truthfulness may gain credit for his lie."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: The prophets of the demons do not always speak from the
demons' revelation, but sometimes by Divine inspiration. This was
evidently the case with Balaam, of whom we read that the Lord spoke to
him (Num. 22:12), though he was a prophet of the demons, because God
makes use even of the wicked for the profit of the good. Hence He
foretells certain truths even by the demons' prophets, both that the
truth may be rendered more credible, since even its foes bear witness to
it, and also in order that men, by believing such men, may be more easily
led on to truth. Wherefore also the Sibyls foretold many true things
about Christ.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
Yet even when the demons' prophets are instructed by the demons, they
foretell the truth, sometimes by virtue of their own nature, the author
of which is the Holy Ghost, and sometimes by revelation of the good
spirits, as Augustine declares (Gen. ad lit. xii, 19): so that even then
this truth which the demons proclaim is from the Holy Ghost.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: A true prophet is always inspired by the Spirit of truth,
in Whom there is no falsehood, wherefore He never says what is not true;
whereas a false prophet is not always instructed by the spirit of
untruth, but sometimes even by the Spirit of truth. Even the very spirit
of untruth sometimes declares true things, sometimes false, as stated
above.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[172] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Those things are called the demons' own, which they have of
themselves, namely lies and sins; while they have, not of themselves but
of God, those things which belong to them by nature: and it is by virtue
of their own nature that they sometimes foretell the truth, as stated
above (ad 1). Moreover God makes use of them to make known the truth
which is to be accomplished through them, by revealing Divine mysteries
to them through the angels, as already stated (Gen. ad lit. xii, 19; FP,
Q[109], A[4], ad 1).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE MANNER IN WHICH PROPHETIC KNOWLEDGE IS CONVEYED (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the manner in which prophetic knowledge is
conveyed, and under this head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the prophets see God's very essence?
(2) Whether the prophetic revelation is effected by the infusion of
certain species, or by the infusion of Divine light alone?
(3) Whether prophetic revelation is always accompanied by abstraction
from the sense?
(4) Whether prophecy is always accompanied by knowledge of the things
prophesied?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the prophets see the very essence of God?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the prophets see the very essence of God, for
a gloss on Is. 38:1, "Take order with thy house, for thou shalt die and
not live," says: "Prophets can read in the book of God's foreknowledge in
which all things are written." Now God's foreknowledge is His very
essence. Therefore prophets see God's very essence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. ix, 7) that "in that eternal
truth from which all temporal things are made, we see with the mind's eye
the type both of our being and of our actions." Now, of all men, prophets
have the highest knowledge of Divine things. Therefore they, especially,
see the Divine essence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, future contingencies are foreknown by the prophets "with
unchangeable truth." Now future contingencies exist thus in God alone.
Therefore the prophets see God Himself.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The vision of the Divine essence is not made void in
heaven; whereas "prophecy is made void" (1 Cor. 13:8). Therefore prophecy
is not conveyed by a vision of the Divine essence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[1] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Prophecy denotes Divine knowledge as existing afar off.
Wherefore it is said of the prophets (Heb. 11:13) that "they were
beholding . . . afar off." But those who are in heaven and in the state
of bliss see, not as from afar off, but rather, as it were, from near at
hand, according to Ps. 139:14, "The upright shall dwell with Thy
countenance." Hence it is evident that prophetic knowledge differs from
the perfect knowledge, which we shall have in heaven, so that it is
distinguished therefrom as the imperfect from the perfect, and when the
latter comes the former is made void, as appears from the words of the
Apostle (1 Cor. 13:10).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[1] Body Para. 2/3
Some, however, wishing to discriminate between prophetic knowledge and
the knowledge of the blessed, have maintained that the prophets see the
very essence of God (which they call the "mirror of eternity") [*Cf. De
Veritate, xii, 6; Sent. II, D, XI, part 2, art. 2, ad 4], not, however,
in the way in which it is the object of the blessed, but as containing
the types [*Cf. FP, Q[15]] of future events. But this is altogether
impossible. For God is the object of bliss in His very essence, according
to the saying of Augustine (Confess. v, 4): "Happy whoso knoweth Thee,
though he know not these," i.e. creatures. Now it is not possible to see
the types of creatures in the very essence of God without seeing It, both
because the Divine essence is Itself the type of all things that are
made---the ideal type adding nothing to the Divine essence save only a
relationship to the creature---and because knowledge of a thing in
itself---and such is the knowledge of God as the object of heavenly
bliss---precedes knowledge of that thing in its relation to something
else---and such is the knowledge of God as containing the types of
things. Consequently it is impossible for prophets to see God as
containing the types of creatures, and yet not as the object of bliss.
Therefore we must conclude that the prophetic vision is not the vision of
the very essence of God, and that the prophets do not see in the Divine
essence Itself the things they do see, but that they see them in certain
images, according as they are enlightened by the Divine light.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[1] Body Para. 3/3
Wherefore Dionysius (Coel. Hier. iv), in speaking of prophetic visions,
says that "the wise theologian calls that vision divine which is effected
by images of things lacking a bodily form through the seer being rapt in
divine things." And these images illumined by the Divine light have more
of the nature of a mirror than the Divine essence: since in a mirror
images are formed from other things, and this cannot be said of God. Yet
the prophet's mind thus enlightened may be called a mirror, in so far as
a likeness of the truth of the Divine foreknowledge is formed therein,
for which reason it is called the "mirror of eternity," as representing
God's foreknowledge, for God in His eternity sees all things as present
before Him, as stated above (Q[172], A[1]).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The prophets are said to read the book of God's
foreknowledge, inasmuch as the truth is reflected from God's
foreknowledge on the prophet's mind.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Man is said to see in the First Truth the type of his
existence, in so far as the image of the First Truth shines forth on
man's mind, so that he is able to know himself.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: From the very fact that future contingencies are in God
according to unalterable truth, it follows that God can impress a like
knowledge on the prophet's mind without the prophet seeing God in His
essence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether, in prophetic revelation, new species of things are impressed on
the prophet's mind, or merely a new light?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that in prophetic revelation no new species of
things are impressed on the prophet's mind, but only a new light. For a
gloss of Jerome on Amos 1:2 says that "prophets draw comparisons from
things with which they are conversant." But if prophetic vision were
effected by means of species newly impressed, the prophet's previous
experience of things would be inoperative. Therefore no new species are
impressed on the prophet's soul, but only the prophetic light.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, according to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii, 9), "it is not
imaginative but intellective vision that makes the prophet"; wherefore it
is declared (Dan. 10:1) that "there is need of understanding in a
vision." Now intellective vision, as stated in the same book (Gen. ad
lit. xii, 6) is not effected by means of images, but by the very truth of
things. Therefore it would seem that prophetic revelation is not effected
by impressing species on the soul.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, by the gift of prophecy the Holy Ghost endows man with
something that surpasses the faculty of nature. Now man can by his
natural faculties form all kinds of species of things. Therefore it would
seem that in prophetic revelation no new species of things are impressed,
but merely an intellectual light.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Osee 12:10): "I have multiplied" their
"visions, and I have used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets."
Now multiplicity of visions results, not from a diversity of intellectual
light, which is common to every prophetic vision, but from a diversity of
species, whence similitudes also result. Therefore it seems that in
prophetic revelation new species of things are impressed, and not merely
an intellectual light.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[2] Body Para. 1/7
I answer that, As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 9), "prophetic
knowledge pertains most of all to the intellect." Now two things have to
be considered in connection with the knowledge possessed by the human
mind, namely the acceptance or representation of things, and the judgment
of the things represented. Now things are represented to the human mind
under the form of species: and according to the order of nature, they
must be represented first to the senses, secondly to the imagination,
thirdly to the passive intellect, and these are changed by the species
derived from the phantasms, which change results from the enlightening
action of the active intellect. Now in the imagination there are the
forms of sensible things not only as received from the senses, but also
transformed in various ways, either on account of some bodily
transformation (as in the case of people who are asleep or out of their
senses), or through the coordination of the phantasms, at the command of
reason, for the purpose of understanding something. For just as the
various arrangements of the letters of the alphabet convey various ideas
to the understanding, so the various coordinations of the phantasms
produce various intelligible species of the intellect.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[2] Body Para. 2/7
As to the judgment formed by the human mind, it depends on the power of
the intellectual light.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[2] Body Para. 3/7
Now the gift of prophecy confers on the human mind something which
surpasses the natural faculty in both these respects, namely as to the
judgment which depends on the inflow of intellectual light, and as to the
acceptance or representation of things, which is effected by means of
certain species. Human teaching may be likened to prophetic revelation in
the second of these respects, but not in the first. For a man represents
certain things to his disciple by signs of speech, but he cannot
enlighten him inwardly as God does.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[2] Body Para. 4/7
But it is the first of these two that holds the chief place in prophecy,
since judgment is the complement of knowledge. Wherefore if certain
things are divinely represented to any man by means of imaginary
likenesses, as happened to Pharaoh (Gn. 41:1-7) and to Nabuchodonosor
(Dan. 4:1-2), or even by bodily likenesses, as happened to Balthasar
(Dan. 5:5), such a man is not to be considered a prophet, unless his mind
be enlightened for the purpose of judgment; and such an apparition is
something imperfect in the genus of prophecy. Wherefore some [*Rabbi
Moyses, Doct. Perplex. II, xxxvi] have called this "prophetic ecstasy,"
and such is divination by dreams. And yet a man will be a prophet, if his
intellect be enlightened merely for the purpose of judging of things seen
in imagination by others, as in the case of Joseph who interpreted
Pharaoh's dream. But, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 9),
"especially is he a prophet who excels in both respects, so," to wit, "as
to see in spirit likenesses significant of things corporeal, and
understand them by the quickness of his intellect."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[2] Body Para. 5/7
Now sensible forms are divinely presented to the prophet's mind,
sometimes externally by means of the senses---thus Daniel saw the writing
on the wall (Dan. 5:25)---sometimes by means of imaginary forms, either
of exclusively Divine origin and not received through the senses (for
instance, if images of colors were imprinted on the imagination of one
blind from birth), or divinely coordinated from those derived from the
senses---thus Jeremiah saw the "boiling caldron . . . from the face of
the north" (Jer. 1:13)---or by the direct impression of intelligible
species on the mind, as in the case of those who receive infused
scientific knowledge or wisdom, such as Solomon or the apostles.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[2] Body Para. 6/7
But intellectual light is divinely imprinted on the human
mind---sometimes for the purpose of judging of things seen by others, as
in the case of Joseph, quoted above, and of the apostles whose
understanding our Lord opened "that they might understand the scriptures"
(Lk. 24:45); and to this pertains the "interpretation of
speeches"---sometimes for the purpose of judging according to Divine
truth, of the things which a man apprehends in the ordinary course of
nature---sometimes for the purpose of discerning truthfully and
efficaciously what is to be done, according to Is. 63:14, "The Spirit of
the Lord was their leader."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[2] Body Para. 7/7
Hence it is evident that prophetic revelation is conveyed sometimes by
the mere infusion of light, sometimes by imprinting species anew, or by a
new coordination of species.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated above, sometimes in prophetic revelation
imaginary species previously derived from the senses are divinely
coordinated so as to accord with the truth to be revealed, and then
previous experience is operative in the production of the images, but not
when they are impressed on the mind wholly from without.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Intellectual vision is not effected by means of bodily and
individual images, but by an intelligible image. Hence Augustine says (De
Trin. ix, 11) that "the soul possesses a certain likeness of the species
known to it." Sometimes this intelligible image is, in prophetic
revelation, imprinted immediately by God, sometimes it results from
pictures in the imagination, by the aid of the prophetic light, since a
deeper truth is gathered from these pictures in the imagination by means
of the enlightenment of the higher light.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: It is true that man is able by his natural powers to form
all kinds of pictures in the imagination, by simply considering these
pictures, but not so that they be directed to the representation of
intelligible truths that surpass his intellect, since for this purpose he
needs the assistance of a supernatural light.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the prophetic vision is always accompanied by abstraction from
the senses?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the prophetic vision is always accompanied by
abstraction from the senses. For it is written (Num. 12:6): "If there be
among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I
will speak to him in a dream." Now a gloss says at the beginning of the
Psalter, "a vision that takes place by dreams and apparitions consists of
things which seem to be said or done." But when things seem to be said or
done, which are neither said nor done, there is abstraction from the
senses. Therefore prophecy is always accompanied by abstraction from the
senses.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, when one power is very intent on its own operation,
other powers are drawn away from theirs; thus men who are very intent on
hearing something fail to see what takes place before them. Now in the
prophetic vision the intellect is very much uplifted, and intent on its
act. Therefore it seems that the prophetic vision is always accompanied
by abstraction from the senses.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the same thing cannot, at the same time, tend in
opposite directions. Now in the prophetic vision the mind tends to the
acceptance of things from above, and consequently it cannot at the same
time tend to sensible objects. Therefore it would seem necessary for
prophetic revelation to be always accompanied by abstraction from the
senses.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 14:32): "The spirits of
the prophets are subject to the prophets." Now this were impossible if
the prophet were not in possession of his faculties, but abstracted from
his senses. Therefore it would seem that prophetic vision is not
accompanied by abstraction from the senses.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[3] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, As stated in the foregoing Article, the prophetic
revelation takes place in four ways: namely, by the infusion of an
intelligible light, by the infusion of intelligible species, by
impression or coordination of pictures in the imagination, and by the
outward presentation of sensible images. Now it is evident that there is
no abstraction from the senses, when something is presented to the
prophet's mind by means of sensible species---whether these be divinely
formed for this special purpose, as the bush shown to Moses (Ex. 3:2),
and the writing shown to Daniel (Dan. 5:)---or whether they be produced
by other causes; yet so that they are ordained by Divine providence to be
prophetically significant of something, as, for instance, the Church was
signified by the ark of Noah.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[3] Body Para. 2/4
Again, abstraction from the external senses is not rendered necessary
when the prophet's mind is enlightened by an intellectual light, or
impressed with intelligible species, since in us the perfect judgment of
the intellect is effected by its turning to sensible objects, which are
the first principles of our knowledge, as stated in the FP, Q[84], A[6].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[3] Body Para. 3/4
When, however, prophetic revelation is conveyed by images in the
imagination, abstraction from the senses is necessary lest the things
thus seen in imagination be taken for objects of external sensation. Yet
this abstraction from the senses is sometimes complete, so that a man
perceives nothing with his senses; and sometimes it is incomplete, so
that he perceives something with his senses, yet does not fully discern
the things he perceives outwardly from those he sees in imagination.
Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 12): "Those images of bodies
which are formed in the soul are seen just as bodily things themselves
are seen by the body, so that we see with our eyes one who is present,
and at the same time we see with the soul one who is absent, as though
we saw him with our eyes."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[3] Body Para. 4/4
Yet this abstraction from the senses takes place in the prophets without
subverting the order of nature, as is the case with those who are
possessed or out of their senses; but is due to some well-ordered cause.
This cause may be natural---for instance, sleep---or spiritual---for
instance, the intenseness of the prophets' contemplation; thus we read of
Peter (Acts 10:9) that while he was praying in the supper-room [*Vulg.:
'the house-top' or 'upper-chamber'] "he fell into an ecstasy"---or he may
be carried away by the Divine power, according to the saying of Ezechiel
1:3: "The hand of the Lord was upon him."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The passage quoted refers to prophets in whom imaginary
pictures were formed or coordinated, either while asleep, which is
denoted by the word "dream," or while awake, which is signified by the
word "vision."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: When the mind is intent, in its act, upon distant things
which are far removed from the senses, the intensity of its application
leads to abstraction from the senses; but when it is intent, in its act,
upon the coordination of or judgment concerning objects of sense, there
is no need for abstraction from the senses.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The movement of the prophetic mind results not from its own
power, but from a power acting on it from above. Hence there is no
abstraction from the senses when the prophet's mind is led to judge or
coordinate matters relating to objects of sense, but only when the mind
is raised to the contemplation of certain more lofty things.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The spirit of the prophets is said to be subject to the
prophets as regards the prophetic utterances to which the Apostle refers
in the words quoted; because, to wit, the prophets in declaring what they
have seen speak their own mind, and are not thrown off their mental
balance, like persons who are possessed, as Priscilla and Montanus
maintained. But as regards the prophetic revelation itself, it would be
more correct to say that the prophets are subject to the. spirit of
prophecy, i.e. to the prophetic gift.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether prophets always know the things which they prophesy?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the prophets always know the things which they
prophesy. For, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 9), "those to whom
signs were shown in spirit by means of the likenesses of bodily things,
had not the gift of prophecy, unless the mind was brought into action, so
that those signs were also understood by them." Now what is understood
cannot be unknown. Therefore the prophet is not ignorant of what he
prophesies.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the light of prophecy surpasses the light of natural
reason. Now one who possesses a science by his natural light, is not
ignorant of his scientific acquirements. Therefore he who utters things
by the prophetic light cannot ignore them.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, prophecy is directed for man's enlightenment; wherefore
it is written (2 Pt. 1:19): "We have the more firm prophetical word,
whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark
place." Now nothing can enlighten others unless it be lightsome in
itself. Therefore it would seem that the prophet is first enlightened so
as to know what he declares to others.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 11:51): "And this he" (Caiphas)
"spoke, not of himself, but being the High Priest of that year, he
prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation," etc. Now Caiphas knew
this not. Therefore not every prophet knows what he prophesies.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[4] Body Para. 1/5
I answer that, In prophetic revelation the prophet's mind is moved by
the Holy Ghost, as an instrument that is deficient in regard to the
principal agent. Now the prophet's mind is moved not only to apprehend
something, but also to speak or to do something; sometimes indeed to all
these three together, sometimes to two, sometimes to one only, and in
each case there may be a defect in the prophet's knowledge. For when the
prophet's mind is moved to think or apprehend a thing, sometimes he is
led merely to apprehend that thing, and sometimes he is further led to
know that it is divinely revealed to him.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[4] Body Para. 2/5
Again, sometimes the prophet's mind is moved to speak something, so that
he understands what the Holy Ghost means by the words he utters; like
David who said (2 Kgs. 23:2): "The Spirit of the Lord hath spoken by me";
while, on the other hand, sometimes the person whose mind is moved to
utter certain words knows not what the Holy Ghost means by them, as was
the case with Caiphas (Jn. 11:51).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[4] Body Para. 3/5
Again, when the Holy Ghost moves a man's mind to do something, sometimes
the latter understands the meaning of it, like Jeremias who hid his
loin-cloth in the Euphrates (Jer. 13:1-11); while sometimes he does not
understand it---thus the soldiers, who divided Christ's garments,
understood not the meaning of what they did.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[4] Body Para. 4/5
Accordingly, when a man knows that he is being moved by the Holy Ghost
to think something, or signify something by word or deed, this belongs
properly to prophecy; whereas when he is moved, without his knowing it,
this is not perfect prophecy, but a prophetic instinct. Nevertheless it
must be observed that since the prophet's mind is a defective instrument,
as stated above, even true prophets know not all that the Holy Ghost
means by the things they see, or speak, or even do.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[173] A[4] Body Para. 5/5
And this suffices for the Replies to the Objections, since the
arguments given at the beginning refer to true prophets whose minds are
perfectly enlightened from above.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE DIVISION OF PROPHECY (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider the division of prophecy, and under this head there
are six points of inquiry:
(1) The division of prophecy into its species;
(2) Whether the more excellent prophecy is that which is without
imaginative vision?
(3) The various degrees of prophecy;
(4) Whether Moses was the greatest of the prophets?
(5) Whether a comprehensor can be a prophet?
(6) Whether prophecy advanced in perfection as time went on?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether prophecy is fittingly divided into the prophecy of divine
predestination, of foreknowledge, and of denunciation?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that prophecy is unfittingly divided according to a
gloss on Mt. 1:23, "Behold a virgin shall be with child," where it is
stated that "one kind of prophecy proceeds from the Divine
predestination, and must in all respects be accomplished so that its
fulfillment is independent of our will, for instance the one in question.
Another prophecy proceeds from God's foreknowledge: and into this our
will enters. And another prophecy is called denunciation, which is
significative of God's disapproval." For that which results from every
prophecy should not be reckoned a part of prophecy. Now all prophecy is
according to the Divine foreknowledge, since the prophets "read in the
book of foreknowledge," as a gloss says on Is. 38:1. Therefore it would
seem that prophecy according to foreknowledge should not be reckoned a
species of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, just as something is foretold in denunciation, so is
something foretold in promise, and both of these are subject to
alteration. For it is written (Jer. 18:7,8): "I will suddenly speak
against a nation and against a kingdom, to root out, and to pull down,
and to destroy it. If that nation against which I have spoken shall
repent of their evil, I also will repent"---and this pertains to the
prophecy of denunciation, and afterwards the text continues in reference
to the prophecy of promise (Jer. 18:9,10): "I will suddenly speak of a
nation and of a kingdom, to build up and plant it. If it shall do evil in
My sight . . . I will repent of the good that I have spoken to do unto
it." Therefore as there is reckoned to be a prophecy of denunciation, so
should there be a prophecy of promise.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Isidore says (Etym. vii, 8): "There are seven kinds of
prophecy. The first is an ecstasy, which is the transport of the mind:
thus Peter saw a vessel descending from heaven with all manner of beasts
therein. The second kind is a vision, as we read in Isaias, who says (Is.
6:1): 'I saw the Lord sitting,' etc. The third kind is a dream: thus
Jacob in a dream, saw a ladder. The fourth kind is from the midst of a
cloud: thus God spake to Moses. The fifth kind is a voice from heaven, as
that which called to Abraham saying (Gn. 22:11): 'Lay not thy hand upon
the boy.' The sixth kind is taking up a parable, as in the example of
Balaam (Num. 23:7; 24:15). The seventh kind is the fullness of the Holy
Ghost, as in the case of nearly all the prophets." Further, he mentions
three kinds of vision; "one by the eyes of the body, another by the
soul's imagination, a third by the eyes of the mind." Now these are not
included in the aforesaid division. Therefore it is insufficient.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, stands the authority of Jerome to whom the gloss above
quoted is ascribed.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The species of moral habits and acts are distinguished
according to their objects. Now the object of prophecy is something known
by God and surpassing the faculty of man. Wherefore, according to the
difference of such things, prophecy is divided into various species, as
assigned above. Now it has been stated above (Q[71], A[6], ad 2) that the
future is contained in the Divine knowledge in two ways. First, as in its
cause: and thus we have the prophecy of "denunciation," which is not
always fulfilled. but it foretells the relation of cause to effect, which
is sometimes hindered by some other occurrence supervening. Secondly, God
foreknows certain things in themselves---either as to be accomplished by
Himself, and of such things is the prophecy of "predestination," since,
according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 30), "God predestines things
which are not in our power"---or as to be accomplished through man's
free-will, and of such is the prophecy of "foreknowledge." This may
regard either good or evil, which does not apply to the prophecy of
predestination, since the latter regards good alone. And since
predestination is comprised under foreknowledge, the gloss in the
beginning of the Psalter assigns only two species to prophecy, namely of
"foreknowledge," and of "denunciation."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Foreknowledge, properly speaking, denotes precognition of
future events in themselves, and in this sense it is reckoned a species
of prophecy. But in so far as it is used in connection with future
events, whether as in themselves, or as in their causes, it is common to
every species of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The prophecy of promise is included in the prophecy of
denunciation, because the aspect of truth is the same in both. But it is
denominated in preference from denunciation, because God is more inclined
to remit punishment than to withdraw promised blessings.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Isidore divides prophecy according to the manner of
prophesying. Now we may distinguish the manner of prophesying---either
according to man's cognitive powers, which are sense, imagination, and
intellect, and then we have the three kinds of vision mentioned both by
him and by Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii, 6,7)---or according to the
different ways in which the prophetic current is received. Thus as
regards the enlightening of the intellect there is the "fullness of the
Holy Ghost" which he mentions in the seventh place. As to the imprinting
of pictures on the imagination he mentions three, namely "dreams," to
which he gives the third place; "vision," which occurs to the prophet
while awake and regards any kind of ordinary object, and this he puts in
the second place; and "ecstasy," which results from the mind being
uplifted to certain lofty things, and to this he assigns the first place.
As regards sensible signs he reckons three kinds of prophecy, because a
sensible sign is---either a corporeal thing offered externally to the
sight, such as "a cloud," which he mentions in the fourth place---or a
"voice" sounding from without and conveyed to man's hearing---this he
puts in the fifth place---or a voice proceeding from a man, conveying
something under a similitude, and this pertains to the "parable" to which
he assigns the sixth place.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the prophecy which is accompanied by intellective and imaginative
vision is more excellent than that which is accompanied by intellective
vision alone?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the prophecy which has intellective and
imaginative vision is more excellent than that which is accompanied by
intellective vision alone. For Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 9): "He
is less a prophet, who sees in spirit nothing but the signs
representative of things, by means of the images of things corporeal: he
is more a prophet, who is merely endowed with the understanding of these
signs; but most of all is he a prophet, who excels in both ways," and
this refers to the prophet who has intellective together with imaginative
vision. Therefore this kind of prophecy is more excellent.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the greater a thing's power is, the greater the distance
to which it extends. Now the prophetic light pertains chiefly to the
mind, as stated above (Q[173], A[2]). Therefore apparently the prophecy
that extends to the imagination is greater than that which is confined to
the intellect.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Jerome (Prol. in Lib. Reg.) distinguishes the "prophets"
from the "sacred writers." Now all those whom he calls prophets (such as
Isaias, Jeremias, and the like) had intellective together with
imaginative vision: but not those whom he calls sacred writers, as
writing by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost (such as Job, David,
Solomon, and the like). Therefore it would seem more proper to call
prophets those who had intellective together with imaginative vision,
than those who had intellective vision alone.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) that "it is impossible
for the Divine ray to shine on us, except as screened round about by the
many-colored sacred veils." Now the prophetic revelation is conveyed by
the infusion of the divine ray. Therefore it seems that it cannot be
without the veils of phantasms.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, A gloss says at the beginning of the Psalter that "the
most excellent manner of prophecy is when a man prophesies by the mere
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, apart from any outward assistance of deed,
word, vision, or dream."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The excellence of the means is measured chiefly by the
end. Now the end of prophecy is the manifestation of a truth that
surpasses the faculty of man. Wherefore the more effective this
manifestation is, the more excellent the prophecy. But it is evident that
the manifestation of divine truth by means of the bare contemplation of
the truth itself, is more effective than that which is conveyed under the
similitude of corporeal things, for it approaches nearer to the heavenly
vision whereby the truth is seen in God's essence. Hence it follows that
the prophecy whereby a supernatural truth is seen by intellectual vision,
is more excellent than that in which a supernatural truth is manifested
by means of the similitudes of corporeal things in the vision of the
imagination.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
Moreover the prophet's mind is shown thereby to be more lofty: even as
in human teaching the hearer, who is able to grasp the bare intelligible
truth the master propounds, is shown to have a better understanding than
one who needs to be taken by the hand and helped by means of examples
taken from objects of sense. Hence it is said in commendation of David's
prophecy (2 Kgs. 23:3): "The strong one of Israel spoke to me," and
further on (2 Kgs. 23:4): "As the light of the morning, when the sun
riseth, shineth in the morning without clouds."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: When a particular supernatural truth has to be revealed by
means of corporeal images, he that has both, namely the intellectual
light and the imaginary vision, is more a prophet than he that has only
one, because his prophecy is more perfect; and it is in this sense that
Augustine speaks as quoted above. Nevertheless the prophecy in which the
bare intelligible truth is revealed is greater than all.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The same judgment does not apply to things that are sought
for their own sake, as to things sought for the sake of something else.
For in things sought for their own sake, the agent's power is the more
effective according as it extends to more numerous and more remote
objects; even so a physician is thought more of, if he is able to heal
more people, and those who are further removed from health. on the other
hand, in things sought only for the sake of something else, that agent
would seem to have greater power, who is able to achieve his purpose with
fewer means and those nearest to hand: thus more praise is awarded the
physician who is able to heal a sick person by means of fewer and more
gentle remedies. Now, in the prophetic knowledge, imaginary vision is
required, not for its own sake, but on account of the manifestation of
the intelligible truth. Wherefore prophecy is all the more excellent
according as it needs it less.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The fact that a particular predicate is applicable to one
thing and less properly to another, does not prevent this latter from
being simply better than the former: thus the knowledge of the blessed is
more excellent than the knowledge of the wayfarer, although faith is more
properly predicated of the latter knowledge, because faith implies an
imperfection of knowledge. In like manner prophecy implies a certain
obscurity, and remoteness from the intelligible truth; wherefore the name
of prophet is more properly applied to those who see by imaginary vision.
And yet the more excellent prophecy is that which is conveyed by
intellectual vision, provided the same truth be revealed in either case.
If, however, the intellectual light be divinely infused in a person, not
that he may know some supernatural things, but that he may be able to
judge, with the certitude of divine truth, of things that can be known by
human reason, such intellectual prophecy is beneath that which is
conveyed by an imaginary vision leading to a supernatural truth. It was
this kind of prophecy that all those had who are included in the ranks of
the prophets, who moreover were called prophets for the special reason
that they exercised the prophetic calling officially. Hence they spoke as
God's representatives, saying to the people: "Thus saith the Lord": but
not so the authors of the "sacred writings," several of whom treated more
frequently of things that can be known by human reason, not in God's
name, but in their own, yet with the assistance of the Divine light
withal.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: In the present life the enlightenment by the divine ray is
not altogether without any veil of phantasms, because according to his
present state of life it is unnatural to man not to understand without a
phantasm. Sometimes, however, it is sufficient to have phantasms
abstracted in the usual way from the senses without any imaginary vision
divinely vouchsafed, and thus prophetic vision is said to be without
imaginary vision.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the degrees of prophecy can be distinguished according to the
imaginary vision?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the degrees of prophecy cannot be
distinguished according to the imaginary vision. For the degrees of a
thing bear relation to something that is on its own account, not on
account of something else. Now, in prophecy, intellectual vision is
sought on its own account, and imaginary vision on account of something
else, as stated above (A[2], ad 2). Therefore it would seem that the
degrees of prophecy are distinguished not according to imaginary, but
only according to intellectual, vision.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, seemingly for one prophet there is one degree of
prophecy. Now one prophet receives revelation through various imaginary
visions. Therefore a difference of imaginary visions does not entail a
difference of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, according to a gloss [*Cassiodorus, super Prolog.
Hieron. in Psalt.], prophecy consists of words, deeds, dreams, and
visions. Therefore the degrees of prophecy should not be distinguished
according to imaginary vision, to which vision and dreams pertain, rather
than according to words and deeds.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The medium differentiates the degrees of knowledge:
thus science based on direct [*"Propter quid"] proofs is more excellent
than science based on indirect [*"Quia"] premises or than opinion,
because it comes through a more excellent medium. Now imaginary vision is
a kind of medium in prophetic knowledge. Therefore the degrees of
prophecy should be distinguished according to imaginary vision.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[3] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, As stated above (Q[173], A[2]), the prophecy wherein, by
the intelligible light, a supernatural truth is revealed through an
imaginary vision, holds the mean between the prophecy wherein a
supernatural truth is revealed without imaginary vision, and that wherein
through the intelligible light and without an imaginary vision, man is
directed to know or do things pertaining to human conduct. Now knowledge
is more proper to prophecy than is action; wherefore the lowest degree of
prophecy is when a man, by an inward instinct, is moved to perform some
outward action. Thus it is related of Samson (Judges 15:14) that "the
Spirit of the Lord came strongly upon him, and as the flax [*'Lina.' St.
Thomas apparently read 'ligna' ('wood')] is wont to be consumed at the
approach of fire, so the bands with which he was bound were broken and
loosed." The second degree of prophecy is when a man is enlightened by an
inward light so as to know certain things, which, however, do not go
beyond the bounds of natural knowledge: thus it is related of Solomon (3
Kgs. 4:32,33) that "he spoke . . . parables . . . and he treated about
trees from the cedar that is in Libanus unto the hyssop that cometh out
of the wall, and he discoursed of beasts and of fowls, and of creeping
things and of fishes": and all of this came from divine inspiration, for
it was stated previously (3 Kgs. 4:29): "God gave to Solomon wisdom and
understanding exceeding much."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[3] Body Para. 2/3
Nevertheless these two degrees are beneath prophecy properly so called,
because they do not attain to supernatural truth. The prophecy wherein
supernatural truth is manifested through imaginary vision is
differentiated first according to the difference between dreams which
occur during sleep, and vision which occurs while one is awake. The
latter belongs to a higher degree of prophecy, since the prophetic light
that draws the soul away to supernatural things while it is awake and
occupied with sensible things would seem to be stronger than that which
finds a man's soul asleep and withdrawn from objects of sense. Secondly
the degrees of this prophecy are differentiated according to the
expressiveness of the imaginary signs whereby the intelligible truth is
conveyed. And since words are the most expressive signs of intelligible
truth, it would seem to be a higher degree of prophecy when the prophet,
whether awake or asleep, hears words expressive of an intelligible truth,
than when he sees things significative of truth, for instance "the seven
full ears of corn" signified "seven years of plenty" (Gn. 41:22,26). In
such like signs prophecy would seem to be the more excellent, according
as the signs are more expressive, for instance when Jeremias saw the
burning of the city under the figure of a boiling cauldron (Jer. 1:13).
Thirdly, it is evidently a still higher degree of prophecy when a prophet
not only sees signs of words or deeds, but also, either awake or asleep,
sees someone speaking or showing something to him, since this proves the
prophet's mind to have approached nearer to the cause of the revelation.
Fourthly, the height of a degree of prophecy may be measured according to
the appearance of the person seen: for it is a higher degree of prophecy,
if he who speaks or shows something to the waking or sleeping prophet be
seen by him under the form of an angel, than if he be seen by him under
the form of man: and higher still is it, if he be seen by the prophet
whether asleep or awake, under the appearance of God, according to Is.
6:1, "I saw the Lord sitting."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[3] Body Para. 3/3
But above all these degrees there is a third kind of prophecy, wherein
an intelligible and supernatural truth is shown without any imaginary
vision. However, this goes beyond the bounds of prophecy properly so
called, as stated above (A[2], ad 3); and consequently the degrees of
prophecy are properly distinguished according to imaginary vision.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: We are unable to know how to distinguish the intellectual
light, except by means of imaginary or sensible signs. Hence the
difference in the intellectual light is gathered from the difference in
the things presented to the imagination.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As stated above (Q[171], A[2]), prophecy is by way, not of
an abiding habit, but of a transitory passion; wherefore there is nothing
inconsistent if one and the same prophet, at different times, receive
various degrees of prophetic revelation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The words and deeds mentioned there do not pertain to the
prophetic revelation, but to the announcement, which is made according to
the disposition of those to whom that which is revealed to the prophet is
announced; and this is done sometimes by words, sometimes by deeds. Now
this announcement, and the working of miracles, are something consequent
upon prophecy, as stated above (Q[171], A[1]).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Moses was the greatest of the prophets?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Moses was not the greatest of the prophets.
For a gloss at the beginning of the Psalter says that "David is called
the prophet by way of excellence." Therefore Moses was not the greatest
of all.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, greater miracles were wrought by Josue, who made the sun
and moon to stand still (Josue 10:12-14), and by Isaias, who made the sun
to turn back (Is. 38:8), than by Moses, who divided the Red Sea (Ex.
14:21). In like manner greater miracles were wrought by Elias, of whom it
is written (Ecclus. 48:4,5): "Who can glory like to thee? Who raisedst
up a dead man from below." Therefore Moses was not the greatest of the
prophets.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is written (Mt. 11:11) that "there hath not risen,
among them that are born of women, a greater than John the Baptist."
Therefore Moses was not greater than all the prophets.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 34:10): "There arose no more a
prophet in Israel like unto Moses."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Although in some respect one or other of the prophets was
greater than Moses, yet Moses was simply the greatest of all. For, as
stated above (A[3]; Q[171], A[1]), in prophecy we may consider not only
the knowledge, whether by intellectual or by imaginary vision, but also
the announcement and the confirmation by miracles. Accordingly Moses was
greater than the other prophets. First, as regards the intellectual
vision, since he saw God's very essence, even as Paul in his rapture did,
according to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii, 27). Hence it is written (Num.
12:8) that he saw God "plainly and not by riddles." Secondly, as regards
the imaginary vision, which he had at his call, as it were, for not only
did he hear words, but also saw one speaking to him under the form of
God, and this not only while asleep, but even when he was awake. Hence it
is written (Ex. 33:11) that "the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a
man is wont to speak to his friend." Thirdly, as regards the working of
miracles which he wrought on a whole nation of unbelievers. Wherefore it
is written (Dt. 34:10,11): "There arose no more a prophet in Israel like
unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face: in all the signs and
wonders, which He sent by him, to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, and
to all his servants, and to his whole land."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The prophecy of David approaches near to the vision of
Moses, as regards the intellectual vision, because both received a
revelation of intelligible and supernatural truth, without any imaginary
vision. Yet the vision of Moses was more excellent as regards the
knowledge of the Godhead; while David more fully knew and expressed the
mysteries of Christ's incarnation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: These signs of the prophets mentioned were greater as to
the substance of the thing done; yet the miracles of Moses were greater
as regards the way in which they were done, since they were wrought on a
whole people.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: John belongs to the New Testament, whose ministers take
precedence even of Moses, since they are spectators of a fuller
revelation, as stated in 2 Cor. 3.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there is a degree of prophecy in the blessed?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that there is a degree of prophecy in the blessed.
For, as stated above (A[4]), Moses saw the Divine essence, and yet he is
called a prophet. Therefore in like manner the blessed can be called
prophets.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, prophecy is a "divine revelation." Now divine
revelations are made even to the blessed angels. Therefore even blessed
angels can be prophets.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Christ was a comprehensor from the moment of His
conception; and yet He calls Himself a prophet (Mt. 13:57), when He says:
"A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country." Therefore even
comprehensors and the blessed can be called prophets.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[5] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, it is written of Samuel (Ecclus. 46:23): "He lifted up
his voice from the earth in prophecy to blot out the wickedness of the
nation." Therefore other saints can likewise be called prophets after
they have died.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The prophetic word is compared (2 Pt. 1:19) to a "light
that shineth in a dark place." Now there is no darkness in the blessed.
Therefore they cannot be called prophets.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[5] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Prophecy denotes vision of some supernatural truth as
being far remote from us. This happens in two ways. First, on the part of
the knowledge itself, because, to wit, the supernatural truth is not
known in itself, but in some of its effects; and this truth will be more
remote if it be known by means of images of corporeal things, than if it
be known in its intelligible effects; and such most of all is the
prophetic vision, which is conveyed by images and likenesses of corporeal
things. Secondly, vision is remote on the part of the seer, because, to
wit, he has not yet attained completely to his ultimate perfection,
according to 2 Cor. 5:6, "While we are in the body, we are absent from
the Lord."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[5] Body Para. 2/2
Now in neither of these ways are the blessed remote; wherefore they
cannot be called prophets.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This vision of Moses was interrupted after the manner of a
passion, and was not permanent like the beatific vision, wherefore he was
as yet a seer from afar. For this reason his vision did not entirely lose
the character of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The divine revelation is made to the angels, not as being
far distant, but as already wholly united to God; wherefore their
revelation has not the character of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ was at the same time comprehensor and wayfarer [*Cf.
TP, QQ[9], seqq.]. Consequently the notion of prophecy is not applicable
to Him as a comprehensor, but only as a wayfarer.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 4: Samuel had not yet attained to the state of blessedness.
Wherefore although by God's will the soul itself of Samuel foretold to
Saul the issue of the war as revealed to him by God, this pertains to the
nature of prophecy. It is not the same with the saints who are now in
heaven. Nor does it make any difference that this is stated to have been
brought about by the demons' art, because although the demons are unable
to evoke the soul of a saint, or to force it to do any particular thing,
this can be done by the power of God, so that when the demon is
consulted, God Himself declares the truth by His messenger: even as He
gave a true answer by Elias to the King's messengers who were sent to
consult the god of Accaron (4 Kgs. 1).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 2/2
It might also be replied [*The Book of Ecclesiasticus was not as yet
declared by the Church to be Canonical Scripture; Cf. FP, Q[89], A[8], ad
2] that it was not the soul of Samuel, but a demon impersonating him; and
that the wise man calls him Samuel, and describes his prediction as
prophetic, in accordance with the thoughts of Saul and the bystanders who
were of this opinion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the degrees of prophecy change as time goes on?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the degrees of prophecy change as time goes
on. For prophecy is directed to the knowledge of Divine things, as stated
above (A[2]). Now according to Gregory (Hom. in Ezech.), "knowledge of
God went on increasing as time went on." Therefore degrees of prophecy
should be distinguished according to the process of time.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, prophetic revelation is conveyed by God speaking to man;
while the prophets declared both in words and in writing the things
revealed to them. Now it is written (1 Kgs. 3:1) that before the time of
Samuel "the word of the Lord was precious," i.e. rare; and yet afterwards
it was delivered to many. In like manner the books of the prophets do not
appear to have been written before the time of Isaias, to whom it was
said (Is. 8:1): "Take thee a great book and write in it with a man's
pen," after which many prophets wrote their prophecies. Therefore it
would seem that in course of time the degree of prophecy made progress.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, our Lord said (Mt. 11:13): "The prophets and the law
prophesied until John"; and afterwards the gift of prophecy was in
Christ's disciples in a much more excellent manner than in the prophets
of old, according to Eph. 3:5, "In other generations" the mystery of
Christ "was not known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to His
holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit." Therefore it would seem that
in course of time the degree of prophecy advanced.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, As stated above (A[4]), Moses was the greatest of the
prophets, and yet he preceded the other prophets. Therefore prophecy did
not advance in degree as time went on.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[6] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, As stated above (A[2]), prophecy is directed to the
knowledge of Divine truth, by the contemplation of which we are not only
instructed in faith, but also guided in our actions, according to Ps.
42:3, "Send forth Thy light and Thy truth: they have conducted me." Now
our faith consists chiefly in two things: first, in the true knowledge of
God, according to Heb. 11:6, "He that cometh to God must believe that He
is"; secondly, in the mystery of Christ's incarnation, according to Jn.
14:1, "You believe in God, believe also in Me." Accordingly, if we speak
of prophecy as directed to the Godhead as its end, it progressed
according to three divisions of time, namely before the law, under the
law, and under grace. For before the law, Abraham and the other
patriarchs were prophetically taught things pertinent to faith in the
Godhead. Hence they are called prophets, according to Ps. 104:15, "Do no
evil to My prophets," which words are said especially on behalf of
Abraham and Isaac. Under the Law prophetic revelation of things pertinent
to faith in the Godhead was made in a yet more excellent way than
hitherto, because then not only certain special persons or families but
the whole people had to be instructed in these matters. Hence the Lord
said to Moses (Ex. 6:2,3): "I am the Lord that appeared to Abraham, to
Isaac, and to Jacob, by the name of God almighty, and My name Adonai I
did not show to them"; because previously the patriarchs had been taught
to believe in a general way in God, one and Almighty, while Moses was
more fully instructed in the simplicity of the Divine essence, when it
was said to him (Ex. 3:14): "I am Who am"; and this name is signified by
Jews in the word "Adonai" on account of their veneration for that
unspeakable name. Afterwards in the time of grace the mystery of the
Trinity was revealed by the Son of God Himself, according to Mt. 28:19:
"Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[6] Body Para. 2/4
In each state, however, the most excellent revelation was that which was
given first. Now the first revelation, before the Law, was given to
Abraham, for it was at that time that men began to stray from faith in
one God by turning aside to idolatry, whereas hitherto no such revelation
was necessary while all persevered in the worship of one God. A less
excellent revelation was made to Isaac, being founded on that which was
made to Abraham. Wherefore it was said to him (Gn. 26:24): "I am the God
of Abraham thy father," and in like manner to Jacob (Gn. 28:13): "I am
the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac." Again in the state
of the Law the first revelation which was given to Moses was more
excellent, and on this revelation all the other revelations to the
prophets were founded. And so, too, in the time of grace the entire faith
of the Church is founded on the revelation vouchsafed to the apostles,
concerning the faith in one God and three Persons, according to Mt.
16:18, "On this rock," i.e. of thy confession, "I will build My Church."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[6] Body Para. 3/4
As to the faith in Christ's incarnation, it is evident that the nearer
men were to Christ, whether before or after Him, the more fully, for the
most part, were they instructed on this point, and after Him more fully
than before, as the Apostle declares (Eph. 3:5).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[6] Body Para. 4/4
As regards the guidance of human acts, the prophetic revelation varied
not according to the course of time, but according as circumstances
required, because as it is written (Prov. 29:18), "When prophecy shall
fail, the people shall be scattered abroad." Wherefore at all times men
were divinely instructed about what they were to do, according as it was
expedient for the spiritual welfare of the elect.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The saying of Gregory is to be referred to the time before
Christ's incarnation, as regards the knowledge of this mystery.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xviii, 27), "just as in the
early days of the Assyrian kingdom promises were made most explicitly to
Abraham, so at the outset of the western Babylon," which is Rome, "and
under its sway Christ was to come, in Whom were to be fulfilled the
promises made through the prophetic oracles testifying in word and
writing to that great event to come," the promises, namely, which were
made to Abraham. "For while prophets were scarcely ever lacking to the
people of Israel from the time that they began to have kings, it was
exclusively for their benefit, not for that of the nations. But when
those prophetic writings were being set up with greater publicity, which
at some future time were to benefit the nations, it was fitting to begin
when this city," Rome to wit, "was being built, which was to govern the
nations."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
The reason why it behooved that nation to have a number of prophets
especially at the time of the kings, was that then it was not over-ridden
by other nations, but had its own king; wherefore it behooved the people,
as enjoying liberty, to have prophets to teach them what to do.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[174] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The prophets who foretold the coming of Christ could not
continue further than John, who with his finger pointed to Christ
actually present. Nevertheless as Jerome says on this passage, "This does
not mean that there were no more prophets after John. For we read in the
Acts of the apostles that Agabus and the four maidens, daughters of
Philip, prophesied." John, too, wrote a prophetic book about the end of
the Church; and at all times there have not been lacking persons having
the spirit of prophecy, not indeed for the declaration of any new
doctrine of faith, but for the direction of human acts. Thus Augustine
says (De Civ. Dei v, 26) that "the emperor Theodosius sent to John who
dwelt in the Egyptian desert, and whom he knew by his ever-increasing
fame to be endowed with the prophetic spirit: and from him he received a
message assuring him of victory."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] Out. Para. 1/1
OF RAPTURE (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider rapture. Under this head there are six points of
inquiry:
(1) Whether the soul of man is carried away to things divine?
(2) Whether rapture pertains to the cognitive or to the appetitive
power?
(3) Whether Paul when in rapture saw the essence of God?
(4) Whether he was withdrawn from his senses?
(5) Whether, when in that state, his soul was wholly separated from his
body?
(6) What did he know, and what did he not know about this matter?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the soul of man is carried away to things divine?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the soul of man is not carried away to things
divine. For some define rapture as "an uplifting by the power of a higher
nature, from that which is according to nature to that which is above
nature" [*Reference unknown; Cf. De Veritate xiii, 1]. Now it is in
accordance with man's nature that he be uplifted to things divine; for
Augustine says at the beginning of his Confessions: "Thou madest us,
Lord, for Thyself, and our heart is restless, till it rest in Thee."
Therefore man's soul is not carried away to things divine.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. viii) that "God's justice is
seen in this that He treats all things according to their mode and
dignity." But it is not in accordance with man's mode and worth that he
be raised above what he is according to nature. Therefore it would seem
that man's soul is not carried away to things divine.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, rapture denotes violence of some kind. But God rules us
not by violence or force, as Damascene says [*De Fide Orth. ii, 30].
Therefore man's soul is not carried away to things divine.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (2 Cor. 12:2): "I know a man in Christ
. . rapt even to the third heaven." On which words a gloss says: "Rapt,
that is to say, uplifted contrary to nature."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[1] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, Rapture denotes violence of a kind as stated above
(OBJ[3]); and "the violent is that which has its principle without, and
in which he that suffers violence concurs not at all" (Ethic. iii, 1).
Now everything concurs in that to which it tends in accordance with its
proper inclination, whether voluntary or natural. Wherefore he who is
carried away by some external agent, must be carried to something
different from that to which his inclination tends. This difference
arises in two ways: in one way from the end of the inclination---for
instance a stone, which is naturally inclined to be borne downwards, may
be thrown upwards; in another way from the manner of tending---for
instance a stone may be thrown downwards with greater velocity than
consistent with its natural movement.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[1] Body Para. 2/4
Accordingly man's soul also is said to be carried away, in a twofold
manner, to that which is contrary to its nature: in one way, as regards
the term of transport---as when it is carried away to punishment,
according to Ps. 49:22, "Lest He snatch you away, and there be none to
deliver you"; in another way, as regards the manner connatural to man,
which is that he should understand the truth through sensible things.
Hence when he is withdrawn from the apprehension of sensibles, he is said
to be carried away, even though he be uplifted to things whereunto he is
directed naturally: provided this be not done intentionally, as when a
man betakes himself to sleep which is in accordance with nature,
wherefore sleep cannot be called rapture, properly speaking.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[1] Body Para. 3/4
This withdrawal, whatever its term may be, may arise from a threefold
cause. First, from a bodily cause, as happens to those who suffer
abstraction from the senses through weakness: secondly, by the power of
the demons, as in those who are possessed: thirdly, by the power of God.
In this last sense we are now speaking of rapture, whereby a man is
uplifted by the spirit of God to things supernatural, and withdrawn from
his senses, according to Ezech. 8:3, "The spirit lifted me up between the
earth and the heaven, and brought me in the vision of God into Jerusalem."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[1] Body Para. 4/4
It must be observed, however, that sometimes a person is said to be
carried away, not only through being withdrawn from his senses, but also
through being withdrawn from the things to which he was attending, as
when a person's mind wanders contrary to his purpose. But this is to use
the expression in a less proper signification.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It is natural to man to tend to divine things through the
apprehension of things sensible, according to Rm. 1:20, "The invisible
things of God . . . are clearly seen, being understood by the things that
are made." But the mode, whereby a man is uplifted to divine things and
withdrawn from his senses, is not natural to man.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: It belongs to man's mode and dignity that he be uplifted to
divine things, from the very fact that he is made to God's image. And
since a divine good infinitely surpasses the faculty of man in order to
attain that good, he needs the divine assistance which is bestowed on him
in every gift of grace. Hence it is not contrary to nature, but above the
faculty of nature that man's mind be thus uplifted in rapture by God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The saying of Damascene refers to those things which a man
does by himself. But as to those things which are beyond the scope of the
free-will, man needs to be uplifted by a stronger operation, which in a
certain respect may be called force if we consider the mode of operation,
but not if we consider its term to which man is directed both by nature
and by his intention.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether rapture pertains to the cognitive rather than to the appetitive
power?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that rapture pertains to the appetitive rather than
to the cognitive power. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv): "The Divine
love causes ecstasy." Now love pertains to the appetitive power.
Therefore so does ecstasy or rapture.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Gregory says (Dial. ii, 3) that "he who fed the swine
debased himself by a dissipated mind and an unclean life; whereas Peter,
when the angel delivered him and carried him into ecstasy, was not beside
himself, but above himself." Now the prodigal son sank into the depths by
his appetite. Therefore in those also who are carried up into the heights
it is the appetite that is affected.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a gloss on Ps. 30:1, "In Thee, O Lord, have I hoped, let
me never be confounded," says in explaining the title [*Unto the end, a
psalm for David, in an ecstasy]: "{Ekstasis} in Greek signifies in Latin
'excessus mentis,' an aberration of the mind. This happens in two ways,
either through dread of earthly things or through the mind being rapt in
heavenly things and forgetful of this lower world." Now dread of earthly
things pertains to the appetite. Therefore rapture of the mind in
heavenly things, being placed in opposition to this dread, also pertains
to the appetite.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, A gloss on Ps. 115:2, "I said in my excess: Every man
is a liar," says: "We speak of ecstasy, not when the mind wanders through
fear, but when it is carried aloft on the wings of revelation." Now
revelation pertains to the intellective power. Therefore ecstasy or
rapture does also.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, We can speak of rapture in two ways. First, with regard
to the term of rapture, and thus, properly speaking, rapture cannot
pertain to the appetitive, but only to the cognitive power. For it was
stated (A[1]) that rapture is outside the inclination of the person who
is rapt; whereas the movement of the appetitive power is an inclination
to an appetible good. Wherefore, properly speaking, in desiring
something, a man is not rapt, but is moved by himself.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
Secondly, rapture may be considered with regard to its cause, and thus
it may have a cause on the part of the appetitive power. For from the
very fact that the appetite is strongly affected towards something, it
may happen, owing to the violence of his affection, that a man is carried
away from everything else. Moreover, it has an effect on the appetitive
power, when for instance a man delights in the things to which he is
rapt. Hence the Apostle said that he was rapt, not only "to the third
heaven"---which pertains to the contemplation of the intellect---but also
into "paradise," which pertains to the appetite.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Rapture adds something to ecstasy. For ecstasy means simply
a going out of oneself by being placed outside one's proper order [*Cf.
FS, Q[28], A[3]]; while rapture denotes a certain violence in addition.
Accordingly ecstasy may pertain to the appetitive power, as when a man's
appetite tends to something outside him, and in this sense Dionysius
says that "the Divine love causes ecstasy," inasmuch as it makes man's
appetite tend to the object loved. Hence he says afterwards that "even
God Himself, the cause of all things, through the overflow of His loving
goodness, goes outside Himself in His providence for all beings." But
even if this were said expressly of rapture, it would merely signify that
love is the cause of rapture.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 2: There is a twofold appetite in man; to wit, the
intellective appetite which is called the will, and the sensitive
appetite known as the sensuality. Now it is proper to man that his lower
appetite be subject to the higher appetite, and that the higher move the
lower. Hence man may become outside himself as regards the appetite, in
two ways. In one way, when a man's intellective appetite tends wholly to
divine things, and takes no account of those things whereto the sensitive
appetite inclines him; thus Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "Paul
being in ecstasy through the vehemence of Divine love" exclaimed: "I
live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 2/3
In another way, when a man tends wholly to things pertaining to the
lower appetite, and takes no account of his higher appetite. It is thus
that "he who fed the swine debased himself"; and this latter kind of
going out of oneself, or being beside oneself, is more akin than the
former to the nature of rapture because the higher appetite is more
proper to man. Hence when through the violence of his lower appetite a
man is withdrawn from the movement of his higher appetite, it is more a
case of being withdrawn from that which is proper to him. Yet, because
there is no violence therein, since the will is able to resist the
passion, it falls short of the true nature of rapture, unless perchance
the passion be so strong that it takes away entirely the use of reason,
as happens to those who are mad with anger or love.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 3/3
It must be observed. however, that both these excesses affecting the
appetite may cause an excess in the cognitive power, either because the
mind is carried away to certain intelligible objects, through being drawn
away from objects of sense, or because it is caught up into some
imaginary vision or fanciful apparition.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Just as love is a movement of the appetite with regard to
good, so fear is a movement of the appetite with regard to evil.
Wherefore either of them may equally cause an aberration of mind; and all
the more since fear arises from love, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv,
7,9).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Paul, when in rapture, saw the essence of God?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Paul, when in rapture, did not see the essence
of God. For just as we read of Paul that he was rapt to the third heaven,
so we read of Peter (Acts 10:10) that "there came upon him an ecstasy of
mind." Now Peter, in his ecstasy, saw not God's essence but an imaginary
vision. Therefore it would seem that neither did Paul see the essence of
God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the vision of God is beatific. But Paul, in his rapture,
was not beatified; else he would never have returned to the unhappiness
of this life, but his body would have been glorified by the overflow from
his soul, as will happen to the saints after the resurrection, and this
clearly was not the case. Therefore Paul when in rapture saw not the
essence of God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, according to 1 Cor. 13:10-12, faith and hope are
incompatible with the vision of the Divine essence. But Paul when in this
state had faith and hope. Therefore he saw not the essence of God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, as Augustine states (Gen. ad lit. xii, 6,7), "pictures
of bodies are seen in the imaginary vision." Now Paul is stated (2 Cor.
12:2,4) to have seen certain pictures in his rapture, for instance of the
"third heaven" and of "paradise." Therefore he would seem to have been
rapt to an imaginary vision rather than to the vision of the Divine
essence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine (Ep. CXLVII, 13; ad Paulin., de videndo Deum)
concludes that "possibly God's very substance was seen by some while yet
in this life: for instance by Moses, and by Paul who in rapture heard
unspeakable words, which it is not granted unto man to utter."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Some have said that Paul, when in rapture, saw "not the
very essence of God, but a certain reflection of His clarity." But
Augustine clearly comes to an opposite decision, not only in his book (De
videndo Deum), but also in Gen. ad lit. xii, 28 (quoted in a gloss on 2
Cor. 12:2). Indeed the words themselves of the Apostle indicate this. For
he says that "he heard secret words, which it is not granted unto man to
utter": and such would seem to be words pertaining to the vision of the
blessed, which transcends the state of the wayfarer, according to Is.
64:4, "Eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast
prepared for them that love [Vulg.: 'wait for'] Thee" [*1 Cor. 2:9].
Therefore it is more becoming to hold that he saw God in His essence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Man's mind is rapt by God to the contemplation of divine
truth in three ways. First, so that he contemplates it through certain
imaginary pictures, and such was the ecstasy that came upon Peter.
Secondly, so that he contemplates the divine truth through its
intelligible effects; such was the ecstasy of David, who said (Ps.
115:11): "I said in my excess: Every man is a liar." Thirdly, so that he
contemplates it in its essence. Such was the rapture of Paul, as also of
Moses [*Cf. Q[174], A[4]]; and not without reason, since as Moses was the
first Teacher of the Jews, so was Paul the first "Teacher of the
gentiles" [*Cf. FP, Q[68], A[4]].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The Divine essence cannot be seen by a created intellect
save through the light of glory, of which it is written (Ps. 35:10): "In
Thy light we shall see light." But this light can be shared in two ways.
First by way of an abiding form, and thus it beatifies the saints in
heaven. Secondly, by way of a transitory passion, as stated above (Q[171]
, A[2]) of the light of prophecy; and in this way that light was in Paul
when he was in rapture. Hence this vision did not beatify him simply, so
as to overflow into his body, but only in a restricted sense.
Consequently this rapture pertains somewhat to prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Since, in his rapture, Paul was beatified not as to the
habit, but only as to the act of the blessed, it follows that he had not
the act of faith at the same time, although he had the habit.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 4: In one way by the third heaven we may understand something
corporeal, and thus the third heaven denotes the empyrean [*1 Tim. 2:7;
Cf. FP, Q[12], A[11], ad 2], which is described as the "third," in
relation to the aerial and starry heavens, or better still, in relation
to the aqueous and crystalline heavens. Moreover Paul is stated to be
rapt to the "third heaven," not as though his rapture consisted in the
vision of something corporeal, but because this place is appointed for
the contemplation of the blessed. Hence the gloss on 2 Cor. 12 says that
the "third heaven is a spiritual heaven, where the angels and the holy
souls enjoy the contemplation of God: and when Paul says that he was rapt
to this heaven he means that God showed him the life wherein He is to be
seen forevermore."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 2/3
In another way the third heaven may signify a supra-mundane vision. Such
a vision may be called the third heaven in three ways. First, according
to the order of the cognitive powers. In this way the first heaven would
indicate a supramundane bodily vision, conveyed through the senses; thus
was seen the hand of one writing on the wall (Dan. 5:5); the second
heaven would be an imaginary vision such as Isaias saw, and John in the
Apocalypse; and the third heaven would denote an intellectual vision
according to Augustine's explanation (Gen. ad lit. xii, 26,28,34).
Secondly, the third heaven may be taken according to the order of things
knowable, the first heaven being "the knowledge of heavenly bodies, the
second the knowledge of heavenly spirits, the third the knowledge of God
Himself." Thirdly, the third heaven may denote the contemplation of God
according to the degrees of knowledge whereby God is seen. The first of
these degrees belongs to the angels of the lowest hierarchy [*Cf. FP,
Q[108], A[1]], the second to the angels of the middle hierarchy, the
third to the angels of the highest hierarchy, according to the gloss on 2
Cor. 12.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 3/3
And since the vision of God cannot be without delight, he says that he
was not only "rapt to the third heaven" by reason of his contemplation,
but also into "Paradise" by reason of the consequent delight.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Paul, when in rapture, was withdrawn from his senses?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Paul, when in rapture, was not withdrawn from
his senses. For Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 28): "Why should we not
believe that when so great an apostle, the teacher of the gentiles, was
rapt to this most sublime vision, God was willing to vouchsafe him a
glimpse of that eternal life which is to take the place of the present
life?" Now in that future life after the resurrection the saints will see
the Divine essence without being withdrawn from the senses of the body.
Therefore neither did such a withdrawal take place in Paul.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ was truly a wayfarer, and also enjoyed an
uninterrupted vision of the Divine essence, without, however, being
withdrawn from His senses. Therefore there was no need for Paul to be
withdrawn from his senses in order for him to see the essence of God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, after seeing God in His essence, Paul remembered what he
had seen in that vision; hence he said (2 Cor. 12:4): "He heard secret
words, which it is not granted to man to utter." Now the memory belongs
to the sensitive faculty according to the Philosopher (De Mem. et Remin.
i). Therefore it seems that Paul, while seeing the essence of God, was
not withdrawn from his senses.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 27): "Unless a man in
some way depart this life, whether by going altogether out of his body or
by turning away and withdrawing from his carnal senses, so that he truly
knows not as the Apostle said, whether he be in the body or out of the
body, he is not rapt and caught up into that vision.*" [*The text of St.
Augustine reads: "when he is rapt," etc.]
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The Divine essence cannot be seen by man through any
cognitive power other than the intellect. Now the human intellect does
not turn to intelligible objects except by means of the phantasms [*Cf.
FP, Q[84], A[7]] which it takes from the senses through the intelligible
species; and it is in considering these phantasms that the intellect
judges of and coordinates sensible objects. Hence in any operation that
requires abstraction of the intellect from phantasms, there must be also
withdrawal of the intellect from the senses. Now in the state of the
wayfarer it is necessary for man's intellect, if it see God's essence, to
be withdrawn from phantasms. For God's essence cannot be seen by means of
a phantasm, nor indeed by any created intelligible species [*Cf. FP,
Q[12], A[2]], since God's essence infinitely transcends not only all
bodies, which are represented by phantasms, but also all intelligible
creatures. Now when man's intellect is uplifted to the sublime vision of
God's essence, it is necessary that his mind's whole attention should be
summoned to that purpose in such a way that he understand naught else by
phantasms, and be absorbed entirely in God. Therefore it is impossible
for man while a wayfarer to see God in His essence without being
withdrawn from his senses.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated above (A[3], OBJ[2]), after the resurrection, in
the blessed who see God in His essence, there will be an overflow from
the intellect to the lower powers and even to the body. Hence it is in
keeping with the rule itself of the divine vision that the soul will turn
towards phantasms and sensible objects. But there is no such overflow in
those who are raptured, as stated (A[3], OBJ[2], ad 2), and consequently
the comparison fails.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The intellect of Christ's soul was glorified by the habit
of the light of glory, whereby He saw the Divine essence much more fully
than an angel or a man. He was, however, a wayfarer on account of the
passibility of His body, in respect of which He was "made a little lower
than the angels" (Heb. 2:9), by dispensation, and not on account of any
defect on the part of His intellect. Hence there is no comparison between
Him and other wayfarers.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Paul, after seeing God in His essence, remembered what he
had known in that vision, by means of certain intelligible species that
remained in his intellect by way of habit; even as in the absence of the
sensible object, certain impressions remain in the soul which it
recollects when it turns to the phantasms. And so this was the knowledge
that he was unable wholly to think over or express in words.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether, while in this state, Paul's soul was wholly separated from his
body?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that, while in this state, Paul's soul was wholly
separated from his body. For the Apostle says (2 Cor. 5:6,7): "While we
are in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, and
not by sight" [*'Per speciem,' i.e. by an intelligible species]. Now,
while in that state, Paul was not absent from the Lord, for he saw Him by
a species, as stated above (A[3]). Therefore he was not in the body.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a power of the soul cannot be uplifted above the soul's
essence wherein it is rooted. Now in this rapture the intellect, which is
a power of the soul, was withdrawn from its bodily surroundings through
being uplifted to divine contemplation. Much more therefore was the
essence of the soul separated from the body.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the forces of the vegetative soul are more material than
those of the sensitive soul. Now in order for him to be rapt to the
vision of God, it was necessary for him to be withdrawn from the forces
of the sensitive soul, as stated above (A[4]). Much more, therefore, was
it necessary for him to be withdrawn from the forces of the vegetative
soul. Now when these forces cease to operate, the soul is no longer in
any way united to the body. Therefore it would seem that in Paul's
rapture it was necessary for the soul to be wholly separated from the
body.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Ep. CXLVII, 13, ad Paulin.; de videndo
Deum): "It is not incredible that this sublime revelation" (namely, that
they should see God in His essence) "was vouchsafed certain saints,
without their departing this life so completely as to leave nothing but a
corpse for burial." Therefore it was not necessary for Paul's soul, when
in rapture, to be wholly separated from his body.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[1], OBJ[1]), in the rapture of which
we are speaking now, man is uplifted by God's power, "from that which is
according to nature to that which is above nature." Wherefore two things
have to be considered: first, what pertains to man according to nature;
secondly, what has to be done by God in man above his nature. Now, since
the soul is united to the body as its natural form, it belongs to the
soul to have a natural disposition to understand by turning to phantasms;
and this is not withdrawn by the divine power from the soul in rapture,
since its state undergoes no change, as stated above (A[3], ad 2,3). Yet,
this state remaining, actual conversion to phantasms and sensible objects
is withdrawn from the soul, lest it be hindered from being uplifted to
that which transcends all phantasms, as stated above (A[4]). Therefore it
was not necessary that his soul in rapture should be so separated from
the body as to cease to be united thereto as its form; and yet it was
necessary for his intellect to be withdrawn from phantasms and the
perception of sensible objects.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: In this rapture Paul was absent from the Lord as regards
his state, since he was still in the state of a wayfarer, but not as
regards the act by which he saw God by a species, as stated above (A[3],
ad 2,3).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: A faculty of the soul is not uplifted by the natural power
above the mode becoming the essence of the soul; but it can be uplifted
by the divine power to something higher, even as a body by the violence
of a stronger power is lifted up above the place befitting it according
to its specific nature.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The forces of the vegetative soul do not operate through
the soul being intent thereon, as do the sensitive forces, but by way of
nature. Hence in the case of rapture there is no need for withdrawal from
them, as from the sensitive powers, whose operations would lessen the
intentness of the soul on intellective knowledge.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Did Paul know whether his soul were separated from his body?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Paul was not ignorant whether his soul were
separated from his body. For he says (2 Cor. 12:2): "I know a man in
Christ rapt even to the third heaven." Now man denotes something composed
of soul and body; and rapture differs from death. Seemingly therefore he
knew that his soul was not separated from his body by death, which is the
more probable seeing that this is the common opinion of the Doctors.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it appears from the same words of the Apostle that he
knew whither he was rapt, since it was "to the third heaven." Now this
shows that he knew whether he was in the body or not, for if he knew the
third heaven to be something corporeal, he must have known that his soul
was not separated from his body, since a corporeal thing cannot be an
object of sight save through the body. Therefore it would seem that he
was not ignorant whether his soul were separated from his body.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 28) that "when in
rapture, he saw God with the same vision as the saints see Him in
heaven." Now from the very fact that the saints see God, they know
whether their soul is separated from their body. Therefore Paul too knew
this.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (2 Cor. 12:3): "Whether in the body, or
out of the body, I know not, God knoweth."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[6] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, The true answer to this question must be gathered from
the Apostle's very words, whereby he says he knew something, namely that
he was "rapt even to the third heaven," and that something he knew not,
namely "whether" he were "in the body or out of the body." This may be
understood in two ways. First, the words "whether in the body or out of
the body" may refer not to the very being of the man who was rapt (as
though he knew not whether his soul were in his body or not), but to the
mode of rapture, so that he ignored whether his body besides his soul,
or, on the other hand, his soul alone, were rapt to the third heaven.
Thus Ezechiel is stated (Ezech. 8:3) to have been "brought in the vision
of God into Jerusalem." This was the explanation of a certain Jew
according to Jerome (Prolog. super Daniel.), where he says that "lastly
our Apostle" (thus said the Jew) "durst not assert that he was rapt in
his body, but said: 'Whether in the body or out of the body, I know not.'"
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[6] Body Para. 2/4
Augustine, however, disapproves of this explanation (Gen. ad lit. xii, 3
seqq.) for this reason that the Apostle states that he knew he was rapt
even to the third heaven. Wherefore he knew it to be really the third
heaven to which he was rapt, and not an imaginary likeness of the third
heaven: otherwise if he gave the name of third heaven to an imaginary
third heaven, in the same way he might state that he was rapt in the
body, meaning, by body, an image of his body, such as appears in one's
dreams. Now if he knew it to be really the third heaven, it follows that
either he knew it to be something spiritual and incorporeal, and then his
body could not be rapt thither; or he knew it to be something corporeal,
and then his soul could not be rapt thither without his body, unless it
were separated from his body. Consequently we must explain the matter
otherwise, by saying that the Apostle knew himself to be rapt both in
soul and body, but that he ignored how his soul stood in relation to his
body, to wit, whether it were accompanied by his body or not.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[6] Body Para. 3/4
Here we find a diversity of opinions. For some say that the Apostle knew
his soul to be united to his body as its form, but ignored whether it
were abstracted from its senses, or again whether it were abstracted from
the operations of the vegetative soul. But he could not but know that it
was abstracted from the senses, seeing that he knew himself to be rapt;
and as to his being abstracted from the operation of the vegetative soul,
this was not of such importance as to require him to be so careful in
mentioning it. It follows, then, that the Apostle ignored whether his
soul were united to his body as its form, or separated from it by death.
Some, however, granting this say that the Apostle did not consider the
matter while he was in rapture, because he was wholly intent upon God,
but that afterwards he questioned the point, when taking cognizance of
what he had seen. But this also is contrary to the Apostle's words, for
he there distinguishes between the past and what happened subsequently,
since he states that at the present time he knows that he was rapt
"fourteen years ago," and that at the present time he knows not "whether
he was in the body or out of the body."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[6] Body Para. 4/4
Consequently we must assert that both before and after he ignored
whether his soul were separated from his body. Wherefore Augustine (Gen.
ad lit. xii, 5), after discussing the question at length, concludes:
"Perhaps then we must infer that he ignored whether, when he was rapt to
the third heaven, his soul was in his body (in the same way as the soul
is in the body, when we speak of a living body either of a waking or of a
sleeping man, or of one that is withdrawn from his bodily senses during
ecstasy), or whether his soul went out of his body altogether, so that
his body lay dead."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Sometimes by the figure of synecdoche a part of man,
especially the soul which is the principal part, denotes a man. or again
we might take this to mean that he whom he states to have been rapt was a
man not at the time of his rapture, but fourteen years afterwards: for he
says "I know a man," not "I know a rapt man." Again nothing hinders death
brought about by God being called rapture; and thus Augustine says (Gen.
ad lit. xii, 3): "If the Apostle doubted the matter, who of us will dare
to be certain about it?" Wherefore those who have something to say on
this subject speak with more conjecture than certainty.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The Apostle knew that either the heaven in question was
something incorporeal, or that he saw something incorporeal in that
heaven; yet this could be done by his intellect, even without his soul
being separated from his body.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[175] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Paul's vision, while he was in rapture, was like the vision
of the blessed in one respect, namely as to the thing seen; and, unlike,
in another respect, namely as to the mode of seeing, because he saw not
so perfectly as do the saints in heaven. Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad
lit. xii, 36): "Although, when the Apostle was rapt from his carnal
senses to the third heaven, he lacked that full and perfect knowledge of
things which is in the angels, in that he knew not whether he was in the
body, or out of the body, this will surely not be lacking after reunion
with the body in the resurrection of the dead, when this corruptible will
put on incorruption."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] Out. Para. 1/1
PERTAINING TO SPEECH (QQ[176]-177)
OF THE GRACE OF TONGUES (TWO ARTICLES)
We must now consider those gratuitous graces that pertain to speech, and
(1) the grace of tongues; (2) the grace of the word of wisdom and
knowledge. Under the first head there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether by the grace of tongues a man acquires the knowledge of all
languages?
(2) Of the comparison between this gift and the grace of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether those who received the gift of tongues spoke in every language?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that those who received the gift of tongues did not
speak in every language. For that which is granted to certain persons by
the divine power is the best of its kind: thus our Lord turned the water
into good wine, as stated in Jn. 2:10. Now those who had the gift of
tongues spoke better in their own language; since a gloss on Heb. 1, says
that "it is not surprising that the epistle to the Hebrews is more
graceful in style than the other epistles, since it is natural for a man
to have more command over his own than over a strange language. For the
Apostle wrote the other epistles in a foreign, namely the Greek, idiom;
whereas he wrote this in the Hebrew tongue." Therefore the apostles did
not receive the knowledge of all languages by a gratuitous grace.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, nature does not employ many means where one is
sufficient; and much less does God Whose work is more orderly than
nature's. Now God could make His disciples to be understood by all, while
speaking one tongue: hence a gloss on Acts 2:6, "Every man heard them
speak in his own tongue," says that "they spoke in every tongue, or
speaking in their own, namely the Hebrew language, were understood by
all, as though they spoke the language proper to each." Therefore it
would seem that they had not the knowledge to speak in all languages.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, all graces flow from Christ to His body, which is the
Church, according to Jn. 1:16, "Of His fullness we all have received."
Now we do not read that Christ spoke more than one language, nor does
each one of the faithful now speak save in one tongue. Therefore it would
seem that Christ's disciples did not receive the grace to the extent of
speaking in all languages.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Acts 2:4) that "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"; on which passage a gloss
of Gregory [*Hom. xxx in Ev.] says that "the Holy Ghost appeared over the
disciples under the form of fiery tongues, and gave them the knowledge of
all tongues."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Christ's first disciples were chosen by Him in order that
they might disperse throughout the whole world, and preach His faith
everywhere, according to Mt. 28:19, "Going . . . teach ye all nations."
Now it was not fitting that they who were being sent to teach others
should need to be taught by others, either as to how they should speak to
other people, or as to how they were to understand those who spoke to
them; and all the more seeing that those who were being sent were of one
nation, that of Judea, according to Is. 27:6, "When they shall rush out
from Jacob [*Vulg.: 'When they shall rush in unto Jacob,' etc.] . . .
they shall fill the face of the world with seed." Moreover those who were
being sent were poor and powerless; nor at the outset could they have
easily found someone to interpret their words faithfully to others, or to
explain what others said to them, especially as they were sent to
unbelievers. Consequently it was necessary, in this respect, that God
should provide them with the gift of tongues; in order that, as the
diversity of tongues was brought upon the nations when they fell away to
idolatry, according to Gn. 11, so when the nations were to be recalled to
the worship of one God a remedy to this diversity might be applied by the
gift of tongues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As it is written (1 Cor. 12:7), "the manifestation of the
Spirit is given to every man unto profit"; and consequently both Paul and
the other apostles were divinely instructed in the languages of all
nations sufficiently for the requirements of the teaching of the faith.
But as regards the grace and elegance of style which human art adds to a
language, the Apostle was instructed in his own, but not in a foreign
tongue. Even so they were sufficiently instructed in wisdom and
scientific knowledge, as required for teaching the faith, but not as to
all things known by acquired science, for instance the conclusions of
arithmetic and geometry.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Although either was possible, namely that, while speaking
in one tongue they should be understood by all, or that they should speak
in all tongues, it was more fitting that they should speak in all
tongues, because this pertained to the perfection of their knowledge,
whereby they were able not only to speak, but also to understand what was
said by others. Whereas if their one language were intelligible to all,
this would either have been due to the knowledge of those who understood
their speech, or it would have amounted to an illusion, since a man's
words would have had a different sound in another's ears, from that with
which they were uttered. Hence a gloss says on Acts 2:6 that "it was a
greater miracle that they should speak all kinds of tongues"; and Paul
says (1 Cor. 14:18): "I thank my God I speak with all your tongues."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ in His own person purposed preaching to only one
nation, namely the Jews. Consequently, although without any doubt He
possessed most perfectly the knowledge of all languages, there was no
need for Him to speak in every tongue. And therefore, as Augustine says
(Tract. xxxii in Joan.), "whereas even now the Holy Ghost is received,
yet no one speaks in the tongues of all nations, because the Church
herself already speaks the languages of all nations: since whoever is not
in the Church, receives not the Holy Ghost."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the gift of tongues is more excellent than the grace of prophecy?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the gift of tongues is more excellent than the
grace of prophecy. For, seemingly, better things are proper to better
persons, according to the Philosopher (Topic. iii, 1). Now the gift of
tongues is proper to the New Testament, hence we sing in the sequence of
Pentecost [*The sequence: 'Sancti Spiritus adsit nobis gratia' ascribed
to King Robert of France, the reputed author of the 'Veni Sancte
Spiritus.' Cf. Migne, Patr. Lat. tom. CXLI]: "On this day Thou gavest
Christ's apostles an unwonted gift, a marvel to all time": whereas
prophecy is more pertinent to the Old Testament, according to Heb. 1:1,
"God Who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past to the
fathers by the prophets." Therefore it would seem that the gift of
tongues is more excellent than the gift of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, that whereby we are directed to God is seemingly more
excellent than that whereby we are directed to men. Now, by the gift of
tongues, man is directed to God, whereas by prophecy he is directed to
man; for it is written (1 Cor. 14:2,3): "He that speaketh in a tongue,
speaketh not unto men, but unto God . . . but he that prophesieth,
speaketh unto men unto edification." Therefore it would seem that the
gift of tongues is more excellent than the gift of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the gift of tongues abides like a habit in the person
who has it, and "he can use it when he will"; wherefore it is written (1
Cor. 14:18): "I thank my God I speak with all your tongues." But it is
not so with the gift of prophecy, as stated above (Q[171], A[2]).
Therefore the gift of tongues would seem to be more excellent than the
gift of prophecy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the "interpretation of speeches" would seem to be
contained under prophecy, because the Scriptures are expounded by the
same Spirit from Whom they originated. Now the interpretation of speeches
is placed after "divers kinds of tongues" (1 Cor. 12:10). Therefore it
seems that the gift of tongues is more excellent than the gift of
prophecy, particularly as regards a part of the latter.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 14:5): "Greater is he that
prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The gift of prophecy surpasses the gift of tongues, in
three ways. First, because the gift of tongues regards the utterance of
certain words, which signify an intelligible truth, and this again is
signified by the phantasms which appear in an imaginary vision; wherefore
Augustine compares (Gen. ad lit. xii, 8) the gift of tongues to an
imaginary vision. On the other hand, it has been stated above (Q[173],
A[2]) that the gift of prophecy consists in the mind itself being
enlightened so as to know an intelligible truth. Wherefore, as the
prophetic enlightenment is more excellent than the imaginary vision, as
stated above (Q[174], A[2]), so also is prophecy more excellent than the
gift of tongues considered in itself. Secondly, because the gift of
prophecy regards the knowledge of things, which is more excellent than
the knowledge of words, to which the gift of tongues pertains.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
Thirdly, because the gift of prophecy is more profitable. The Apostle
proves this in three ways (1 Cor. 14); first, because prophecy is more
profitable to the edification of the Church, for which purpose he that
speaketh in tongues profiteth nothing, unless interpretation follow (1
Cor. 14:4,5). Secondly, as regards the speaker himself, for if he be
enabled to speak in divers tongues without understanding them, which
pertains to the gift of prophecy, his own mind would not be edified (1
Cor. 14:7-14). Thirdly, as to unbelievers for whose especial benefit the
gift of tongues seems to have been given; since perchance they might
think those who speak in tongues to be mad (1 Cor. 14:23), for instance
the Jews deemed the apostles drunk when the latter spoke in various
tongues (Acts 2:13): whereas by prophecies the unbeliever is convinced,
because the secrets of his heart are made manifest (Acts 2:25).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated above (Q[174], A[3], ad 1), it belongs to the
excellence of prophecy that a man is not only enlightened by an
intelligible light, but also that he should perceive an imaginary vision:
and so again it belongs to the perfection of the Holy Ghost's operation,
not only to fill the mind with the prophetic light, and the imagination
with the imaginary vision, as happened in the Old Testament, but also to
endow the tongue with external erudition, in the utterance of various
signs of speech. All this is done in the New Testament, according to 1
Cor. 14:26, "Every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a
tongue, hath a revelation," i.e. a prophetic revelation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: By the gift of prophecy man is directed to God in his mind,
which is more excellent than being directed to Him in his tongue. "He
that speaketh in a tongue "is said to speak "not unto men," i.e. to men's
understanding or profit, but unto God's understanding and praise. On the
other hand, by prophecy a man is directed both to God and to man;
wherefore it is the more perfect gift.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Prophetic revelation extends to the knowledge of all things
supernatural; wherefore from its very perfection it results that in this
imperfect state of life it cannot be had perfectly by way of habit, but
only imperfectly by way of passion. on the other hand, the gift of
tongues is confined to a certain particular knowledge, namely of human
words; wherefore it is not inconsistent with the imperfection of this
life, that it should be had perfectly and by way of habit.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[176] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The interpretation of speeches is reducible to the gift of
prophecy, inasmuch as the mind is enlightened so as to understand and
explain any obscurities of speech arising either from a difficulty in the
things signified, or from the words uttered being unknown, or from the
figures of speech employed, according to Dan. 5:16, "I have heard of
thee, that thou canst interpret obscure things, and resolve difficult
things." Hence the interpretation of speeches is more excellent than the
gift of tongues, as appears from the saying of the Apostle (1 Cor. 14:5),
"Greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues;
unless perhaps he interpret." Yet the interpretation of speeches is
placed after the gift of tongues, because the interpretation of speeches
extends even to the interpretation of divers kinds of tongues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE GRATUITOUS GRACE CONSISTING IN WORDS (TWO ARTICLES)
We must now consider the gratuitous grace that attaches to words; of
which the Apostle says (1 Cor. 12:8): "To one . . . by the Spirit is
given the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge." Under
this head there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether any gratuitous grace attaches to words?
(2) To whom is the grace becoming?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether any gratuitous grace attaches to words?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that a gratuitous grace does not attach to words.
For grace is given for that which surpasses the faculty of nature. But
natural reason has devised the art of rhetoric whereby a man is able to
speak so as to teach, please, and persuade, as Augustine says (De Doctr.
Christ. iv, 12). Now this belongs to the grace of words. Therefore it
would seem that the grace of words is not a gratuitous grace.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, all grace pertains to the kingdom of God. But the
Apostle says (1 Cor. 4:20): "The kingdom of God is not in speech, but in
power." Therefore there is no gratuitous grace connected with words.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, no grace is given through merit, since "if by grace, it
is not now of works" (Rm. 11:6). But the word is sometimes given to a man
on his merits. For Gregory says (Moral. xi, 15) in explanation of Ps.
118:43, "Take not Thou the word of truth utterly out of my mouth" that
"the word of truth is that which Almighty God gives to them that do it,
and takes away from them that do it not." Therefore it would seem that
the gift of the word is not a gratuitous grace.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, it behooves man to declare in words things pertaining to
the virtue of faith, no less than those pertaining to the gift of wisdom
or of knowledge. Therefore if the word of wisdom and the word of
knowledge are reckoned gratuitous graces, the word of faith should
likewise be placed among the gratuitous graces.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 6:5): "A gracious tongue in a
good man shall abound [Vulg.: 'aboundeth']." Now man's goodness is by
grace. Therefore graciousness in words is also by grace.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[1] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The gratuitous graces are given for the profit of others,
as stated above (FS, Q[111], AA[1],4). Now the knowledge a man receives
from God cannot be turned to another's profit, except by means of speech.
And since the Holy Ghost does not fail in anything that pertains to the
profit of the Church, He provides also the members of the Church with
speech; to the effect that a man not only speaks so as to be understood
by different people, which pertains to the gift of tongues, but also
speaks with effect, and this pertains to the grace "of the word."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[1] Body Para. 2/2
This happens in three ways. First, in order to instruct the intellect,
and this is the case when a man speaks so as "to teach." Secondly, in
order to move the affections, so that a man willingly hearkens to the
word of God. This is the case when a man speaks so as "to please" his
hearers, not indeed with a view to his own favor, but in order to draw
them to listen to God's word. Thirdly, in order that men may love that
which is signified by the word, and desire to fulfill it, and this is the
case when a man so speaks as "to sway" his hearers. In order to effect
this the Holy Ghost makes use of the human tongue as of an instrument;
but He it is Who perfects the work within. Hence Gregory says in a homily
for Pentecost (Hom. xxx in Ev.): "Unless the Holy Ghost fill the hearts
of the hearers, in vain does the voice of the teacher resound in the ears
of the body."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Even as by a miracle God sometimes works in a more
excellent way those things which nature also can work, so too the Holy
Ghost effects more excellently by the grace of words that which art can
effect in a less efficient manner.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The Apostle is speaking there of the word that relies on
human eloquence without the power of the Holy Ghost. Wherefore he says
just before (1 Cor. 4:19): "I . . . will know, not the speech of them
that are puffed up, but the power": and of himself he had already said (1
Cor. 2:4): "My speech and my preaching was not in the persuasive words of
human wisdom, but in the showing of the spirit and power."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above, the grace of the word is given to a man
for the profit of others. Hence it is withdrawn sometimes through the
fault of the hearer, and sometimes through the fault of the speaker. The
good works of either of them do not merit this grace directly, but only
remove the obstacles thereto. For sanctifying grace also is withdrawn on
account of a person's fault, and yet he does not merit it by his good
works, which, however, remove the obstacles to grace.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: As stated above, the grace of the word is directed to the
profit of others. Now if a man communicates his faith to others this is
by the word of knowledge or of wisdom. Hence Augustine says (De Trin.
xiv, 1) that "to know how faith may profit the godly and be defended
against the ungodly, is apparently what the Apostle means by knowledge."
Hence it was not necessary for him to mention the word of faith, but it
was sufficient for him to mention the word of knowledge and of wisdom.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the grace of the word of wisdom and knowledge is becoming to
women?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the grace of the word of wisdom and knowledge
is becoming even to women. For teaching is pertinent to this grace, as
stated in the foregoing Article. Now it is becoming to a woman to teach;
for it is written (Prov. 4:3,4): "I was an only son in the sight of my
mother, and she taught me [*Vulg.: 'I was my father's son, tender, and as
an only son in the sight of my mother. And he taught me.']." Therefore
this grace is becoming to women.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the grace of prophecy is greater than the grace of the
word, even as the contemplation of truth is greater than its utterance.
But prophecy is granted to women, as we read of Deborah (Judges 4:4), and
of Holda the prophetess, the wife of Sellum (4 Kgs. 22:14), and of the
four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9). Moreover the Apostle says (1 Cor.
11:5): "Every woman praying or prophesying," etc. Much more therefore
would it seem that the grace of the word is becoming to a woman.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is written (1 Pt. 4:10): "As every man hath received
grace ministering the same one to another." Now some women receive the
grace of wisdom and knowledge, which they cannot minister to others
except by the grace of the word. Therefore the grace of the word is
becoming to women.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 14:34): "Let women keep
silence in the churches," and (1 Tim. 2:12): "I suffer not a woman to
teach." Now this pertains especially to the grace of the word. Therefore
the grace of the word is not becoming to women.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Speech may be employed in two ways: in one way privately,
to one or a few, in familiar conversation, and in this respect the grace
of the word may be becoming to women; in another way, publicly,
addressing oneself to the whole church, and this is not permitted to
women. First and chiefly, on account of the condition attaching to the
female sex, whereby woman should be subject to man, as appears from Gn.
3:16. Now teaching and persuading publicly in the church belong not to
subjects but to the prelates (although men who are subjects may do these
things if they be so commissioned, because their subjection is not a
result of their natural sex, as it is with women, but of some thing
supervening by accident). Secondly, lest men's minds be enticed to lust,
for it is written (Ecclus. 9:11): "Her conversation burneth as fire."
Thirdly, because as a rule women are not perfected in wisdom, so as to be
fit to be intrusted with public teaching.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The passage quoted speaks of private teaching whereby a
father instructs his son.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The grace of prophecy consists in God enlightening the
mind, on the part of which there is no difference of sex among men,
according to Col. 3:10,11, "Putting on the new" man, "him who is renewed
unto knowledge, according to the image of Him that created him, where
there is neither male nor female [*Vulg.: 'Neither Gentile nor Jew,
circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free.'
Cf. FP, Q[93], A[6], ad 2 footnote]." Now the grace of the word pertains
to the instruction of men among whom the difference of sex is found.
Hence the comparison fails.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[177] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The recipients of a divinely conferred grace administer it
in different ways according to their various conditions. Hence women, if
they have the grace of wisdom or of knowledge, can administer it by
teaching privately but not publicly.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] Out. Para. 1/1
PERTAINING TO WORKS (QQ[178]-182)
OF THE GRACE OF MIRACLES (TWO ARTICLES)
We must next consider the grace of miracles, under which head there are
two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether there is a gratuitous grace of working miracles?
(2) To whom is it becoming?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there is a gratuitous grace of working miracles?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that no gratuitous grace is directed to the working
of miracles. For every grace puts something in the one to whom it is
given (Cf. FS, Q[90], A[1]). Now the working of miracles puts nothing in
the soul of the man who receives it since miracles are wrought at the
touch even of a dead body. Thus we read (4 Kgs. 13:21) that "some . . .
cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the
bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet."
Therefore the working of miracles does not belong to a gratuitous grace.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the gratuitous graces are from the Holy Ghost, according
to 1 Cor. 12:4, "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit."
Now the working of miracles is effected even by the unclean spirit,
according to Mt. 24:24, "There shall arise false Christs and false
prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders." Therefore it would
seem that the working of miracles does not belong to a gratuitous grace.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, miracles are divided into "signs," "wonders" or
"portents," and "virtues." [*Cf. 2 Thess. 2:9, where the Douay version
renders 'virtus' by 'power.' The use of the word 'virtue' in the sense of
a miracle is now obsolete, and the generic term 'miracle' is elsewhere
used in its stead: Cf. 1 Cor. 12:10,28; Heb. 2:4; Acts 2:22]. Therefore
it is unreasonable to reckon the "working of miracles" a gratuitous
grace, any more than the "working of signs" and "wonders."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the miraculous restoring to health is done by the power
of God. Therefore the grace of healing should not be distinguished from
the working of miracles.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[1] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, the working of miracles results from faith---either of
the worker, according to 1 Cor. 13:2, "If I should have all faith, so
that I could remove mountains," or of other persons for whose sake
miracles are wrought, according to Mt. 13:58, "And He wrought not many
miracles there, because of their unbelief." Therefore, if faith be
reckoned a gratuitous grace, it is superfluous to reckon in addition the
working of signs as another gratuitous grace.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle (1 Cor. 12:9,10) says that among other
gratuitous graces, "to another" is given "the grace of healing . . . to
another, the working of miracles."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[177], A[1]), the Holy Ghost provides
sufficiently for the Church in matters profitable unto salvation, to
which purpose the gratuitous graces are directed. Now just as the
knowledge which a man receives from God needs to be brought to the
knowledge of others through the gift of tongues and the grace of the
word, so too the word uttered needs to be confirmed in order that it be
rendered credible. This is done by the working of miracles, according to
Mk. 16:20, "And confirming the word with signs that followed": and
reasonably so. For it is natural to man to arrive at the intelligible
truth through its sensible effects. Wherefore just as man led by his
natural reason is able to arrive at some knowledge of God through His
natural effects, so is he brought to a certain degree of supernatural
knowledge of the objects of faith by certain supernatural effects which
are called miracles. Therefore the working of miracles belongs to a
gratuitous grace.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Just as prophecy extends to whatever can be known
supernaturally, so the working of miracles extends to all things that can
be done supernaturally; the cause whereof is the divine omnipotence which
cannot be communicated to any creature. Hence it is impossible for the
principle of working miracles to be a quality abiding as a habit in the
soul. On the other hand, just as the prophet's mind is moved by divine
inspiration to know something supernaturally, so too is it possible for
the mind of the miracle worker to be moved to do something resulting in
the miraculous effect which God causes by His power. Sometimes this takes
place after prayer, as when Peter raised to life the dead Tabitha (Acts
9:40): sometimes without any previous prayer being expressed, as when
Peter by upbraiding the lying Ananias and Saphira delivered them to death
(Acts 5:4,9). Hence Gregory says (Dial. ii, 30) that "the saints work
miracles, sometimes by authority, sometimes by prayer." In either case,
however, God is the principal worker, for He uses instrumentally either
man's inward movement, or his speech, or some outward action, or again
the bodily contact of even a dead body. Thus when Josue had said as
though authoritatively (Josue 10:12): "Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon,"
it is said afterwards (Josue 10:14): "There was not before or after so
long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Our Lord is speaking there of the miracles to be wrought at
the time of Antichrist, of which the Apostle says (2 Thess. 2:9) that the
coming of Antichrist will be "according to the working of Satan, in all
power, and signs, and lying wonders." To quote the words of Augustine (De
Civ. Dei xx, 19), "it is a matter of debate whether they are called signs
and lying wonders, because he will deceive the senses of mortals by
imaginary visions, in that he will seem to do what he does not, or
because, though they be real wonders, they will seduce into falsehood
them that believe." They are said to be real, because the things
themselves will be real, just as Pharaoh's magicians made real frogs and
real serpents; but they will not be real miracles, because they will be
done by the power of natural causes, as stated in the FP, Q[114], A[4];
whereas the working of miracles which is ascribed to a gratuitous grace,
is done by God's power for man's profit.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Two things may be considered in miracles. One is that which
is done: this is something surpassing the faculty of nature, and in this
respect miracles are called "virtues." The other thing is the purpose for
which miracles are wrought, namely the manifestation of something
supernatural, and in this respect they are commonly called "signs": but
on account of some excellence they receive the name of "wonder" or
"prodigy," as showing something from afar [procul].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The "grace of healing" is mentioned separately, because by
its means a benefit, namely bodily health, is conferred on man in
addition to the common benefit bestowed in all miracles, namely the
bringing of men to the knowledge of God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[1] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: The working of miracles is ascribed to faith for two
reasons. First, because it is directed to the confirmation of faith,
secondly, because it proceeds from God's omnipotence on which faith
relies. Nevertheless, just as besides the grace of faith, the grace of
the word is necessary that people may be instructed in the faith, so too
is the grace of miracles necessary that people may be confirmed in their
faith.
�Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the wicked can work miracles?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the wicked cannot work miracles. For miracles
are wrought through prayer, as stated above (A[1], ad 1). Now the prayer
of a sinner is not granted, according to Jn. 9:31, "We know that God doth
not hear sinners," and Prov. 28:9, "He that turneth away his ear from
hearing the law, his prayer shall be an abomination." Therefore it would
seem that the wicked cannot work miracles.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, miracles are ascribed to faith, according to Mt. 17:19,
"If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed you shall say to this
mountain: Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove." Now "faith
without works is dead," according to James 2:20, so that, seemingly, it
is devoid of its proper operation. Therefore it would seem that the
wicked, since they do not good works, cannot work miracles.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, miracles are divine attestations, according to Heb. 2:4,
"God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders and divers miracles":
wherefore in the Church the canonization of certain persons is based on
the attestation of miracles. Now God cannot bear witness to a falsehood.
Therefore it would seem that wicked men cannot work miracles.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the good are more closely united to God than the wicked.
But the good do not all work miracles. Much less therefore do the wicked.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:2): "If I should have all
faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am
nothing." Now whosoever has not charity is wicked, because "this gift
alone of the Holy Ghost distinguishes the children of the kingdom from
the children of perdition," as Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 18).
Therefore it would seem that even the wicked can work miracles.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[2] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Some miracles are not true but imaginary deeds, because
they delude man by the appearance of that which is not; while others are
true deeds, yet they have not the character of a true miracle, because
they are done by the power of some natural cause. Both of these can be
done by the demons, as stated above (A[1], ad 2).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[2] Body Para. 2/3
True miracles cannot be wrought save by the power of God, because God
works them for man's benefit, and this in two ways: in one way for the
confirmation of truth declared, in another way in proof of a person's
holiness, which God desires to propose as an example of virtue. In the
first way miracles can be wrought by any one who preaches the true faith
and calls upon Christ's name, as even the wicked do sometimes. In this
way even the wicked can work miracles. Hence Jerome commenting on Mt.
7:22, "Have not we prophesied in Thy name?" says: "Sometimes prophesying,
the working of miracles, and the casting out of demons are accorded not
to the merit of those who do these things, but to the invoking of
Christ's name, that men may honor God, by invoking Whom such great
miracles are wrought."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[2] Body Para. 3/3
In the second way miracles are not wrought except by the saints, since
it is in proof of their holiness that miracles are wrought during their
lifetime or after death, either by themselves or by others. For we read
(Acts 19:11,12) that "God wrought by the hand of Paul . . . miracles" and
"even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs . . .
and the diseases departed from them." In this way indeed there is nothing
to prevent a sinner from working miracles by invoking a saint; but the
miracle is ascribed not to him, but to the one in proof of whose holiness
such things are done.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated above (Q[83], A[16]) when we were treating of
prayer, the prayer of impetration relies not on merit but on God's mercy,
which extends even to the wicked, wherefore the prayers even of sinners
are sometimes granted by God. Hence Augustine says (Tract. xliv in Joan.)
that "the blind man spoke these words before he was anointed," that is,
before he was perfectly enlightened; "since God does hear sinners." When
it is said that the prayer of one who hears not the law is an
abomination, this must be understood so far as the sinner's merit is
concerned; yet it is sometimes granted, either for the spiritual welfare
of the one who prays---as the publican was heard (Lk. 18:14)---or for the
good of others and for God's glory.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Faith without works is said to be dead, as regards the
believer, who lives not, by faith, with the life of grace. But nothing
hinders a living thing from working through a dead instrument, as a man
through a stick. It is thus that God works while employing instrumentally
the faith of a sinner.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Miracles are always true witnesses to the purpose for which
they are wrought. Hence wicked men who teach a false doctrine never work
true miracles in confirmation of their teaching, although sometimes they
may do so in praise of Christ's name which they invoke, and by the power
of the sacraments which they administer. If they teach a true doctrine,
sometimes they work true miracles as confirming their teaching, but not
as an attestation of holiness. Hence Augustine says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu.
79): "Magicians work miracles in one way, good Christians in another,
wicked Christians in another. Magicians by private compact with the
demons, good Christians by their manifest righteousness, evil Christians
by the outward signs of righteousness."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[178] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: As Augustine says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 79), "the reason why
these are not granted to all holy men is lest by a most baneful error the
weak be deceived into thinking such deeds to imply greater gifts than the
deeds of righteousness whereby eternal life is obtained."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] Out. Para. 1/2
OF THE DIVISION OF LIFE INTO ACTIVE AND CONTEMPLATIVE (TWO ARTICLES)
We must next consider active and contemplative life. This consideration
will be fourfold: (1) Of the division of life into active and
contemplative; (2) Of the contemplative life; (3) Of the active life; (4)
Of the comparison between the active and the contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] Out. Para. 2/2
Under the first head there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether life is fittingly divided into active and contemplative?
(2) Whether this is an adequate division?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether life is fittingly divided into active and contemplative?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that life is not fittingly divided into active and
contemplative. For the soul is the principle of life by its essence:
since the Philosopher says (De Anima ii, 4) that "in living things to
live is to be." Now the soul is the principle of action and contemplation
by its powers. Therefore it would seem that life is not fittingly divided
into active and contemplative.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the division of that which comes afterwards is
unfittingly applied to that which comes first. Now active and
contemplative, or "speculative" and "practical," are differences of the
intellect (De Anima iii, 10); while "to live" comes before "to
understand," since "to live" comes first to living things through the
vegetative soul, as the Philosopher states (De Anima ii, 4). Therefore
life is unfittingly divided into active and contemplative.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the word "life" implies movement, according to Dionysius
(Div. Nom. vi): whereas contemplation consists rather in rest, according
to Wis. 8:16: "When I enter into my house, I shall repose myself with
her." Therefore it would seem that life is unfittingly divided into
active and contemplative.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. xiv super Ezech.): "There is a
twofold life wherein Almighty God instructs us by His holy word, the
active life and the contemplative."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[1] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Properly speaking, those things are said to live whose
movement or operation is from within themselves. Now that which is proper
to a thing and to which it is most inclined is that which is most
becoming to it from itself; wherefore every living thing gives proof of
its life by that operation which is most proper to it, and to which it is
most inclined. Thus the life of plants is said to consist in nourishment
and generation; the life of animals in sensation and movement; and the
life of men in their understanding and acting according to reason.
Wherefore also in men the life of every man would seem to be that wherein
he delights most, and on which he is most intent; thus especially does
he wish "to associate with his friends" (Ethic. ix, 12).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[1] Body Para. 2/2
Accordingly since certain men are especially intent on the contemplation
of truth, while others are especially intent on external actions, it
follows that man's life is fittingly divided into active and
contemplative.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Each thing's proper form that makes it actually "to be" is
properly that thing's principle of operation. Hence "to live" is, in
living things, "to be," because living things through having "being" from
their form, act in such and such a way.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Life in general is not divided into active and
contemplative, but the life of man, who derives his species from having
an intellect, wherefore the same division applies to intellect and human
life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: It is true that contemplation enjoys rest from external
movements. Nevertheless to contemplate is itself a movement of the
intellect, in so far as every operation is described as a movement; in
which sense the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 7) that sensation and
understanding are movements of a kind, in so far as movement is defined
"the act of a perfect thing." In this way Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv)
ascribes three movements to the soul in contemplation, namely,
"straight," "circular," and "oblique" [*Cf. Q[180], A[6]].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether life is adequately divided into active and contemplative?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that life is not adequately divided into active and
contemplative. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 5) that there are
three most prominent kinds of life, the life of "pleasure," the "civil"
which would seem to be the same as the active, and the "contemplative"
life. Therefore the division of life into active and contemplative would
seem to be inadequate.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Augustine (De Civ. Dei xix, 1,2,3,19) mentions three
kinds of life, namely the life of "leisure" which pertains to the
contemplative, the "busy" life which pertains to the active, and a third
"composed of both." Therefore it would seem that life is inadequately
divided into active and contemplative.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, man's life is diversified according to the divers
actions in which men are occupied. Now there are more than two
occupations of human actions. Therefore it would seem that life should be
divided into more kinds than the active and the contemplative.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, These two lives are signified by the two wives of
Jacob; the active by Lia, and the contemplative by Rachel: and by the two
hostesses of our Lord; the contemplative life by Mary, and the active
life by Martha, as Gregory declares (Moral. vi, 37 [*Hom. xiv in
Ezech.]). Now this signification would not be fitting if there were more
than two lives. Therefore life is adequately divided into active and
contemplative.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 2), this division applies to
the human life as derived from the intellect. Now the intellect is
divided into active and contemplative, since the end of intellective
knowledge is either the knowledge itself of truth, which pertains to the
contemplative intellect, or some external action, which pertains to the
practical or active intellect. Therefore life too is adequately divided
into active and contemplative.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The life of pleasure places its end in pleasures of the
body, which are common to us and dumb animals; wherefore as the
Philosopher says (Ethic. Ethic. i, 5), it is the life "of a beast." Hence
it is not included in this division of the life of a man into active and
contemplative.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: A mean is a combination of extremes, wherefore it is
virtually contained in them, as tepid in hot and cold, and pale in white
and black. In like manner active and contemplative comprise that which is
composed of both. Nevertheless as in every mixture one of the simples
predominates, so too in the mean state of life sometimes the
contemplative, sometimes the active element, abounds.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[179] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: All the occupations of human actions, if directed to the
requirements of the present life in accord with right reason, belong to
the active life which provides for the necessities of the present life by
means of well-ordered activity. If, on the other hand, they minister to
any concupiscence whatever, they belong to the life of pleasure, which is
not comprised under the active life. Those human occupations that are
directed to the consideration of truth belong to the contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We must now consider the contemplative life, under which head there are
eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the contemplative life pertains to the intellect only, or
also to the affections?
(2) Whether the moral virtues pertain to the contemplative life?
(3) Whether the contemplative life consists in one action or in several?
(4) Whether the consideration of any truth whatever pertains to the
contemplative life?
(5) Whether the contemplative life of man in this state can arise to the
vision of God?
(6) Of the movements of contemplation assigned by Dionysius (Div. Nom.
iv);
(7) Of the pleasure of contemplation;
(8) Of the duration of contemplation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the contemplative life has nothing to do with the affections, and
pertains wholly to the intellect?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the contemplative life has nothing to do with
the affections and pertains wholly to the intellect. For the Philosopher
says (Metaph. ii, text. 3 [*Ed Did. ia, 1]) that "the end of
contemplation is truth." Now truth pertains wholly to the intellect.
Therefore it would seem that the contemplative life wholly regards the
intellect.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Gregory says (Moral. vi, 37; Hom. xix in Ezech.) that
"Rachel, which is interpreted 'vision of the principle' [*Or rather, 'One
seeing the principle,' if derived from {rah} and {irzn}; Cf. Jerome, De
Nom. Hebr.], signifies the contemplative life." Now the vision of a
principle belongs properly to the intellect. Therefore the contemplative
life belongs properly to the intellect.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.) that it belongs to the
contemplative life, "to rest from external action." Now the affective or
appetitive power inclines to external actions. Therefore it would seem
that the contemplative life has nothing to do with the appetitive power.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.) that "the
contemplative life is to cling with our whole mind to the love of God and
our neighbor, and to desire nothing beside our Creator." Now desire and
love pertain to the affective or appetitive power, as stated above (FS,
Q[25], A[2]; FS, Q[26], A[2]). Therefore the contemplative life has also
something to do with the affective or appetitive power.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[1] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (Q[179], A[1]) theirs is said to be the
contemplative who are chiefly intent on the contemplation of truth. Now
intention is an act of the will, as stated above (FS, Q[12], A[1]),
because intention is of the end which is the object of the will.
Consequently the contemplative life, as regards the essence of the
action, pertains to the intellect, but as regards the motive cause of the
exercise of that action it belongs to the will, which moves all the other
powers, even the intellect, to their actions, as stated above (FP, Q[82],
A[4]; FS, Q[9], A[1]).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[1] Body Para. 2/2
Now the appetitive power moves one to observe things either with the
senses or with the intellect, sometimes for love of the thing seen
because, as it is written (Mt. 6:21), "where thy treasure is, there is
thy heart also," sometimes for love of the very knowledge that one
acquires by observation. Wherefore Gregory makes the contemplative life
to consist in the "love of God," inasmuch as through loving God we are
aflame to gaze on His beauty. And since everyone delights when he obtains
what he loves, it follows that the contemplative life terminates in
delight, which is seated in the affective power, the result being that
love also becomes more intense.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: From the very fact that truth is the end of contemplation,
it has the aspect of an appetible good, both lovable and delightful, and
in this respect it pertains to the appetitive power.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: We are urged to the vision of the first principle, namely
God, by the love thereof; wherefore Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.)
that "the contemplative life tramples on all cares and longs to see the
face of its Creator."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The appetitive power moves not only the bodily members to
perform external actions, but also the intellect to practice the act of
contemplation, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the moral virtues pertain to the contemplative life?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the moral virtues pertain to the contemplative
life. For Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.) that "the contemplative life
is to cling to the love of God and our neighbor with the whole mind." Now
all the moral virtues, since their acts are prescribed by the precepts of
the Law, are reducible to the love of God and of our neighbor, for "love
. . is the fulfilling of the Law" (Rm. 13:10). Therefore it would seem
that the moral virtues belong to the contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the contemplative life is chiefly directed to the
contemplation of God; for Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.) that "the
mind tramples on all cares and longs to gaze on the face of its Creator."
Now no one can accomplish this without cleanness of heart, which is a
result of moral virtue [*Cf. Q[8], A[7]]. For it is written (Mt. 5:8):
"Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God": and (Heb.
12:14): "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man
shall see God." Therefore it would seem that the moral virtues pertain to
the contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.) that "the
contemplative life gives beauty to the soul," wherefore it is signified
by Rachel, of whom it is said (Gn. 29:17) that she was "of a beautiful
countenance." Now the beauty of the soul consists in the moral virtues,
especially temperance, as Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 43,45,46). Therefore
it seems that the moral virtues pertain to the contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The moral virtues are directed to external actions. Now
Gregory says (Moral. vi [*Hom. xiv in Ezech.; Cf. A[1], OBJ[3]]) that it
belongs to the contemplative life "to rest from external action."
Therefore the moral virtues do not pertain to the contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, A thing may belong to the contemplative life in two ways,
essentially or dispositively. The moral virtues do not belong to the
contemplative life essentially, because the end of the contemplative
life is the consideration of truth: and as the Philosopher states (Ethic.
ii, 4), "knowledge," which pertains to the consideration of truth, "has
little influence on the moral virtues": wherefore he declares (Ethic. x,
8) that the moral virtues pertain to active but not to contemplative
happiness.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
On the other hand, the moral virtues belong to the contemplative life
dispositively. For the act of contemplation, wherein the contemplative
life essentially consists, is hindered both by the impetuosity of the
passions which withdraw the soul's intention from intelligible to
sensible things, and by outward disturbances. Now the moral virtues curb
the impetuosity of the passions, and quell the disturbance of outward
occupations. Hence moral virtues belong dispositively to the
contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated above (A[1]), the contemplative life has its
motive cause on the part of the affections, and in this respect the love
of God and our neighbor is requisite to the contemplative life. Now
motive causes do not enter into the essence of a thing, but dispose and
perfect it. Wherefore it does not follow that the moral virtues belong
essentially to the contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Holiness or cleanness of heart is caused by the virtues
that are concerned with the passions which hinder the purity of the
reason; and peace is caused by justice which is about operations,
according to Is. 32:17, "The work of justice shall be peace": since he
who refrains from wronging others lessens the occasions of quarrels and
disturbances. Hence the moral virtues dispose one to the contemplative
life by causing peace and cleanness of heart.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: Beauty, as stated above (Q[145], A[2]), consists in a
certain clarity and due proportion. Now each of these is found radically
in the reason; because both the light that makes beauty seen, and the
establishing of due proportion among things belong to reason. Hence since
the contemplative life consists in an act of the reason, there is beauty
in it by its very nature and essence; wherefore it is written (Wis. 8:2)
of the contemplation of wisdom: "I became a lover of her beauty."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
On the other hand, beauty is in the moral virtues by participation, in
so far as they participate in the order of reason; and especially is it
in temperance, which restrains the concupiscences which especially darken
the light of reason. Hence it is that the virtue of chastity most of all
makes man apt for contemplation, since venereal pleasures most of all
weigh the mind down to sensible objects, as Augustine says (Soliloq. i,
10).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there are various actions pertaining to the contemplative life?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that there are various actions pertaining to the
contemplative life. For Richard of St. Victor [*De Grat. Contempl. i,
3,4] distinguishes between "contemplation," "meditation," and
"cogitation." Yet all these apparently pertain to contemplation.
Therefore it would seem that there are various actions pertaining to the
contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the Apostle says (2 Cor. 3:18): "But we . . . beholding
[speculantes] the glory of the Lord with open face, are transformed into
the same clarity [*Vulg.: 'into the same image from glory to glory.']."
Now this belongs to the contemplative life. Therefore in addition to the
three aforesaid, vision [speculatio] belongs to the contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Bernard says (De Consid. v, 14) that "the first and
greatest contemplation is admiration of the Majesty." Now according to
Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 15) admiration is a kind of fear. Therefore
it would seem that several acts are requisite for the contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, "Prayer," "reading," and "meditation" [*Hugh of St.
Victor, Alleg. in N.T. iii, 4] are said to belong to the contemplative
life. Again, "hearing" belongs to the contemplative life: since it is
stated that Mary (by whom the contemplative life is signified) "sitting .
. at the Lord's feet, heard His word" (Lk. 10:39). Therefore it would
seem that several acts are requisite for the contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Life signifies here the operation on which a man is
chiefly intent. Wherefore if there are several operations of the
contemplative life, there will be, not one, but several contemplative
lives.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, We are now speaking of the contemplative life as
applicable to man. Now according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. vii) between man
and angel there is this difference, that an angel perceives the truth by
simple apprehension, whereas man arrives at the perception of a simple
truth by a process from several premises. Accordingly, then, the
contemplative life has one act wherein it is finally completed, namely
the contemplation of truth, and from this act it derives its unity. Yet
it has many acts whereby it arrives at this final act. Some of these
pertain to the reception of principles, from which it proceeds to the
contemplation of truth; others are concerned with deducing from the
principles, the truth, the knowledge of which is sought; and the last and
crowning act is the contemplation itself of the truth.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: According to Richard of St. Victor "cogitation" would seem
to regard the consideration of the many things from which a person
intends to gather one simple truth. Hence cogitation may comprise not
only the perceptions of the senses in taking cognizance of certain
effects, but also the imaginations. and again the reason's discussion of
the various signs or of anything that conduces to the truth in view:
although, according to Augustine (De Trin. xiv, 7), cogitation may
signify any actual operation of the intellect. "Meditation" would seem to
be the process of reason from certain principles that lead to the
contemplation of some truth: and "consideration" has the same meaning,
according to Bernard (De Consid. ii, 2), although, according to the
Philosopher (De Anima ii, 1), every operation of the intellect may be
called "consideration." But "contemplation" regards the simple act of
gazing on the truth; wherefore Richard says again (De Grat. Contempl. i,
4) that "contemplation is the soul's clear and free dwelling upon the
object of its gaze; meditation is the survey of the mind while occupied
in searching for the truth: and cogitation is the mind's glance which is
prone to wander."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: According to a gloss [*Cf. De Trin. xv, 8] of Augustine on
this passage, "beholding" [speculatio] denotes "seeing in a mirror
[speculo], not from a watch-tower [specula]." Now to see a thing in a
mirror is to see a cause in its effect wherein its likeness is reflected.
Hence "beholding" would seem to be reducible to meditation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Admiration is a kind of fear resulting from the
apprehension of a thing that surpasses our faculties: hence it results
from the contemplation of the sublime truth. For it was stated above
(A[1]) that contemplation terminates in the affections.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Man reaches the knowledge of truth in two ways. First, by
means of things received from another. In this way, as regards the things
he receives from God, he needs "prayer," according to Wis. 7:7, "I called
upon" God, "and the spirit of wisdom came upon me": while as regards the
things he receives from man, he needs "hearing," in so far as he receives
from the spoken word, and "reading," in so far as he receives from the
tradition of Holy Writ. Secondly, he needs to apply himself by his
personal study, and thus he requires "meditation."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the contemplative life consists in the mere contemplation of God,
or also in the consideration of any truth whatever?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the contemplative life consists not only in
the contemplation of God, but also in the consideration of any truth. For
it is written (Ps. 138:14): "Wonderful are Thy works, and my soul knoweth
right well." Now the knowledge of God's works is effected by any
contemplation of the truth. Therefore it would seem that it pertains to
the contemplative life to contemplate not only the divine truth, but also
any other.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Bernard says (De Consid. v, 14) that "contemplation
consists in admiration first of God's majesty, secondly of His judgments,
thirdly of His benefits, fourthly of His promises." Now of these four the
first alone regards the divine truth, and the other three pertain to His
effects. Therefore the contemplative life consists not only in the
contemplation of the divine truth, but also in the consideration of truth
regarding the divine effects.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Richard of St. Victor [*De Grat. Contempl. i, 6]
distinguishes six species of contemplation. The first belongs to "the
imagination alone," and consists in thinking of corporeal things. The
second is in "the imagination guided by reason," and consists in
considering the order and disposition of sensible objects. The third is
in "the reason based on the imagination"; when, to wit, from the
consideration of the visible we rise to the invisible. The fourth is in
"the reason and conducted by the reason," when the mind is intent on
things invisible of which the imagination has no cognizance. The fifth is
"above the reason," but not contrary to reason, when by divine revelation
we become cognizant of things that cannot be comprehended by the human
reason. The sixth is "above reason and contrary to reason"; when, to wit,
by the divine enlightening we know things that seem contrary to human
reason, such as the doctrine of the mystery of the Trinity. Now only the
last of these would seem to pertain to the divine truth. Therefore the
contemplation of truth regards not only the divine truth, but also that
which is considered in creatures.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, in the contemplative life the contemplation of truth is
sought as being the perfection of man. Now any truth is a perfection of
the human intellect. Therefore the contemplative life consists in the
contemplation of any truth.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. vi, 37) that "in contemplation we
seek the principle which is God."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[4] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, As stated above (A[2]), a thing may belong to the
contemplative life in two ways: principally, and secondarily, or
dispositively. That which belongs principally to the contemplative life
is the contemplation of the divine truth, because this contemplation is
the end of the whole human life. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. i, 8)
that "the contemplation of God is promised us as being the goal of all
our actions and the everlasting perfection of our joys." This
contemplation will be perfect in the life to come, when we shall see God
face to face, wherefore it will make us perfectly happy: whereas now the
contemplation of the divine truth is competent to us imperfectly, namely
"through a glass" and "in a dark manner" (1 Cor. 13:12). Hence it bestows
on us a certain inchoate beatitude, which begins now and will be
continued in the life to come; wherefore the Philosopher (Ethic. x, 7)
places man's ultimate happiness in the contemplation of the supreme
intelligible good.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[4] Body Para. 2/3
Since, however, God's effects show us the way to the contemplation of
God Himself, according to Rm. 1:20, "The invisible things of God . . .
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made," it
follows that the contemplation of the divine effects also belongs to the
contemplative life, inasmuch as man is guided thereby to the knowledge of
God. Hence Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxix) that "in the study of
creatures we must not exercise an empty and futile curiosity, but should
make them the stepping-stone to things unperishable and everlasting."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[4] Body Para. 3/3
Accordingly it is clear from what has been said (AA[1],2,3) that four
things pertain, in a certain order, to the contemplative life; first, the
moral virtues; secondly, other acts exclusive of contemplation; thirdly,
contemplation of the divine effects; fourthly, the complement of all
which is the contemplation of the divine truth itself.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: David sought the knowledge of God's works, so that he might
be led by them to God; wherefore he says elsewhere (Ps. 142:5,6): "I
meditated on all Thy works: I meditated upon the works of Thy hands: I
stretched forth my hands to Thee."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: By considering the divine judgments man is guided to the
consideration of the divine justice; and by considering the divine
benefits and promises, man is led to the knowledge of God's mercy or
goodness, as by effects already manifested or yet to be vouchsafed.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: These six denote the steps whereby we ascend by means of
creatures to the contemplation of God. For the first step consists in the
mere consideration of sensible objects; the second step consists in going
forward from sensible to intelligible objects; the third step is to judge
of sensible objects according to intelligible things; the fourth is the
absolute consideration of the intelligible objects to which one has
attained by means of sensibles; the fifth is the contemplation of those
intelligible objects that are unattainable by means of sensibles, but
which the reason is able to grasp; the sixth step is the consideration of
such intelligible things as the reason can neither discover nor grasp,
which pertain to the sublime contemplation of divine truth, wherein
contemplation is ultimately perfected.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The ultimate perfection of the human intellect is the
divine truth: and other truths perfect the intellect in relation to the
divine truth.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether in the present state of life the contemplative life can reach to
the vision of the Divine essence?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that in the present state of life the contemplative
life can reach to the vision of the Divine essence. For, as stated in Gn.
32:30, Jacob said: "I have seen God face to face, and my soul has been
saved." Now the vision of God's face is the vision of the Divine essence.
Therefore it would seem that in the present life one may come, by means
of contemplation, to see God in His essence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Gregory says (Moral. vi, 37) that "contemplative men
withdraw within themselves in order to explore spiritual things, nor do
they ever carry with them the shadows of things corporeal, or if these
follow them they prudently drive them away: but being desirous of seeing
the incomprehensible light, they suppress all the images of their limited
comprehension, and through longing to reach what is above them, they
overcome that which they are." Now man is not hindered from seeing the
Divine essence, which is the incomprehensible light, save by the
necessity of turning to corporeal phantasms. Therefore it would seem that
the contemplation of the present life can extend to the vision of the
incomprehensible light in its essence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Gregory says (Dial. ii, 35): "All creatures are small to
the soul that sees its Creator: wherefore when the man of God," the
blessed Benedict, to wit, "saw a fiery globe in the tower and angels
returning to heaven, without doubt he could only see such things by the
light of God." Now the blessed Benedict was still in this life. Therefore
the contemplation of the present life can extend to the vision of the
essence of God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.): "As long as we live
in this mortal flesh, no one reaches such a height of contemplation as to
fix the eyes of his mind on the ray itself of incomprehensible light."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[5] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 27), "no one seeing
God lives this mortal life wherein the bodily senses have their play: and
unless in some way he depart this life, whether by going altogether out
of his body, or by withdrawing from his carnal senses, he is not caught
up into that vision." This has been carefully discussed above (Q[175],
AA[4],5), where we spoke of rapture, and in the FP, Q[12], A[2], where we
treated of the vision of God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[5] Body Para. 2/2
Accordingly we must state that one may be in this life in two ways.
First, with regard to act, that is to say by actually making use of the
bodily senses, and thus contemplation in the present life can nowise
attain to the vision of God's essence. Secondly, one may be in this life
potentially and not with regard to act, that is to say, when the soul is
united to the mortal body as its form, yet so as to make use neither of
the bodily senses, nor even of the imagination, as happens in rapture;
and in this way the contemplation of the present life can attain to the
vision of the Divine essence. Consequently the highest degree of
contemplation in the present life is that which Paul had in rapture,
whereby he was in a middle state between the present life and the life to
come.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Dionysius says (Ep. i ad Caium. Monach.), "if anyone
seeing God, understood what he saw, he saw not God Himself, but something
belonging to God." And Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.): "By no means is
God seen now in His glory; but the soul sees something of lower degree,
and is thereby refreshed so that afterwards it may attain to the glory of
vision." Accordingly the words of Jacob, "I saw God face to face" do not
imply that he saw God's essence, but that he saw some shape [*Cf. FP,
Q[12], A[11], ad 1], imaginary of course, wherein God spoke to him. Or,
"since we know a man by his face, by the face of God he signified his
knowledge of Him," according to a gloss of Gregory on the same passage.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In the present state of life human contemplation is
impossible without phantasms, because it is connatural to man to see the
intelligible species in the phantasms, as the Philosopher states (De
Anima iii, 7). Yet intellectual knowledge does not consist in the
phantasms themselves, but in our contemplating in them the purity of the
intelligible truth: and this not only in natural knowledge, but also in
that which we obtain by revelation. For Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i)
that "the Divine glory shows us the angelic hierarchies under certain
symbolic figures, and by its power we are brought back to the single ray
of light," i.e. to the simple knowledge of the intelligible truth. It is
in this sense that we must understand the statement of Gregory that
"contemplatives do not carry along with them the shadows of things
corporeal," since their contemplation is not fixed on them, but on the
consideration of the intelligible truth.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: By these words Gregory does not imply that the blessed
Benedict, in that vision, saw God in His essence, but he wishes to show
that because "all creatures are small to him that sees God," it follows
that all things can easily be seen through the enlightenment of the
Divine light. Wherefore he adds: "For however little he may see of the
Creator's light, all created things become petty to him."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the operation of contemplation is fittingly divided into a
threefold movement, circular, straight and oblique?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the operation of contemplation is unfittingly
divided into a threefold movement, "circular," "straight," and "oblique"
(Div. Nom. iv). For contemplation pertains exclusively to rest, according
to Wis. 8:16, "When I go into my house, I shall repose myself with her."
Now movement is opposed to rest. Therefore the operations of the
contemplative life should not be described as movements.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the action of the contemplative life pertains to the
intellect, whereby man is like the angels. Now Dionysius describes these
movements as being different in the angels from what they are in the
soul. For he says (Div. Nom. iv) that the "circular" movement in the
angel is "according to his enlightenment by the beautiful and the good."
On the other hand, he assigns the circular movement of the soul to
several things: the first of which is the "withdrawal of the soul into
itself from externals"; the second is "a certain concentration of its
powers, whereby it is rendered free of error and of outward occupation";
and the third is "union with those things that are above it." Again, he
describes differently their respective straight movements. For he says
that the straight movement of the angel is that by which he proceeds to
the care of those things that are beneath him. On the other hand, he
describes the straight movement of the soul as being twofold: first, "its
progress towards things that are near it"; secondly, "its uplifting from
external things to simple contemplation." Further, he assigns a
different oblique movement to each. For he assigns the oblique movement
of the angels to the fact that "while providing for those who have less
they remain unchanged in relation to God": whereas he assigns the oblique
movement of the soul to the fact that "the soul is enlightened in Divine
knowledge by reasoning and discoursing." Therefore it would seem that the
operations of contemplation are unfittingly assigned according to the
ways mentioned above.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Richard of St. Victor (De Contempl. i, 5) mentions many
other different movements in likeness to the birds of the air. "For some
of these rise at one time to a great height, at another swoop down to
earth, and they do so repeatedly; others fly now to the right, now to the
left again and again; others go forwards or lag behind many times; others
fly in a circle now more now less extended; and others remain suspended
almost immovably in one place." Therefore it would seem that there are
only three movements of contemplation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, stands the authority of Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[119], A[1], ad 3), the operation of
the intellect, wherein contemplation essentially consists, is called a
movement, in so far as movement is the act of a perfect thing, according
to the Philosopher (De Anima iii, 1). Since, however, it is through
sensible objects that we come to the knowledge of intelligible things,
and since sensible operations do not take place without movement, the
result is that even intelligible operations are described as movements,
and are differentiated in likeness to various movements. Now of bodily
movements, local movements are the most perfect and come first, as proved
in Phys. viii, 7; wherefore the foremost among intelligible operations
are described by being likened to them. These movements are of three
kinds; for there is the "circular" movement, by which a thing moves
uniformly round one point as center, another is the "straight" movement,
by which a thing goes from one point to another; the third is "oblique,"
being composed as it were of both the others. Consequently, in
intelligible operations, that which is simply uniform is compared to
circular movement; the intelligible operation by which one proceeds from
one point to another is compared to the straight movement; while the
intelligible operation which unites something of uniformity with progress
to various points is compared to the oblique movement.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: External bodily movements are opposed to the quiet of
contemplation, which consists in rest from outward occupations: but the
movements of intellectual operations belong to the quiet of contemplation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: Man is like the angels in intellect generically, but the
intellective power is much higher in the angel than in man. Consequently
these movements must be ascribed to souls and angels in different ways,
according as they are differently related to uniformity. For the angelic
intellect has uniform knowledge in two respects. First, because it does
not acquire intelligible truth from the variety of composite objects;
secondly, because it understands the truth of intelligible objects not
discursively, but by simple intuition. On the other hand, the intellect
of the soul acquires intelligible truth from sensible objects, and
understands it by a certain discoursing of the reason.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
Wherefore Dionysius assigns the "circular" movement of the angels to the
fact that their intuition of God is uniform and unceasing, having neither
beginning nor end: even as a circular movement having neither beginning
nor end is uniformly around the one same center. But on the part of the
soul, ere it arrive at this uniformity, its twofold lack of uniformity
needs to be removed. First, that which arises from the variety of
external things: this is removed by the soul withdrawing from externals,
and so the first thing he mentions regarding the circular movement of the
soul is "the soul's withdrawal into itself from external objects."
Secondly, another lack of uniformity requires to be removed from the
soul, and this is owing to the discoursing of reason. This is done by
directing all the soul's operations to the simple contemplation of the
intelligible truth, and this is indicated by his saying in the second
place that "the soul's intellectual powers must be uniformly
concentrated," in other words that discoursing must be laid aside and the
soul's gaze fixed on the contemplation of the one simple truth. In this
operation of the soul there is no error, even as there is clearly no
error in the understanding of first principles which we know by simple
intuition. Afterwards these two things being done, he mentions thirdly
the uniformity which is like that of the angels, for then all things
being laid aside, the soul continues in the contemplation of God alone.
This he expresses by saying: "Then being thus made uniform unitedly,"
i.e. conformably, "by the union of its powers, it is conducted to the
good and the beautiful." The "straight" movement of the angel cannot
apply to his proceeding from one thing to another by considering them,
but only to the order of his providence, namely to the fact that the
higher angel enlightens the lower angels through the angels that are
intermediate. He indicates this when he says: "The angel's movement takes
a straight line when he proceeds to the care of things subject to him,
taking in his course whatever things are direct," i.e. in keeping with
the dispositions of the direct order. Whereas he ascribes the "straight"
movement in the soul to the soul's proceeding from exterior sensibles to
the knowledge of intelligible objects. The "oblique" movement in the
angels he describes as being composed of the straight and circular
movements, inasmuch as their care for those beneath them is in accordance
with their contemplation of God: while the "oblique" movement in the soul
he also declares to be partly straight and partly circular, in so far as
in reasoning it makes use of the light received from God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: These varieties of movement that are taken from the
distinction between above and below, right and left, forwards and
backwards, and from varying circles, are all comprised under either
straight and oblique movement, because they all denote discursions of
reason. For if the reason pass from the genus to the species, or from the
part to the whole, it will be, as he explains, from above to below: if
from one opposite to another, it will be from right to left; if from the
cause to the effect, it will be backwards and forwards; if it be about
accidents that surround a thing near at hand or far remote, the movement
will be circular. The discoursing of reason from sensible to intelligible
objects, if it be according to the order of natural reason, belongs to
the straight movement; but if it be according to the Divine
enlightenment, it will belong to the oblique movement as explained above
(ad 2). That alone which he describes as immobility belongs to the
circular movement.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
Wherefore it is evident that Dionysius describes the movement of
contemplation with much greater fulness and depth.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there is delight in contemplation?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that there is no delight in contemplation. For
delight belongs to the appetitive power; whereas contemplation resides
chiefly in the intellect. Therefore it would seem that there is no
delight in contemplation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, all strife and struggle is a hindrance to delight. Now
there is strife and struggle in contemplation. For Gregory says (Hom. xiv
in Ezech.) that "when the soul strives to contemplate God, it is in a
state of struggle; at one time it almost overcomes, because by
understanding and feeling it tastes something of the incomprehensible
light, and at another time it almost succumbs, because even while
tasting, it fails." Therefore there is no delight in contemplation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, delight is the result of a perfect operation, as stated
in Ethic. x, 4. Now the contemplation of wayfarers is imperfect,
according to 1 Cor. 13:12, "We see now through a glass in a dark manner."
Therefore seemingly there is no delight in the contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[7] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, a lesion of the body is an obstacle to delight. Now
contemplation causes a lesion of the body; wherefore it is stated (Gn.
32) that after Jacob had said (Gn. 32:30), "'I have seen God face to
face' . . . he halted on his foot (Gn. 32:31) . . . because he touched
the sinew of his thigh and it shrank" (Gn. 32:32). Therefore seemingly
there is no delight in contemplation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written of the contemplation of wisdom (Wis.
8:16): "Her conversation hath no bitterness, nor her company any
tediousness, but joy and gladness": and Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.)
that "the contemplative life is sweetness exceedingly lovable."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[7] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, There may be delight in any particular contemplation in
two ways. First by reason of the operation itself [*Cf. FS, Q[3], A[5]],
because each individual delights in the operation which befits him
according to his own nature or habit. Now contemplation of the truth
befits a man according to his nature as a rational animal: the result
being that "all men naturally desire to know," so that consequently they
delight in the knowledge of truth. And more delightful still does this
become to one who has the habit of wisdom and knowledge, the result of
which is that he contemplates without difficulty. Secondly, contemplation
may be delightful on the part of its object, in so far as one
contemplates that which one loves; even as bodily vision gives pleasure,
not only because to see is pleasurable in itself, but because one sees a
person whom one loves. Since, then, the contemplative life consists
chiefly in the contemplation of God, of which charity is the motive, as
stated above (AA[1],2, ad 1), it follows that there is delight in the
contemplative life, not only by reason of the contemplation itself, but
also by reason of the Divine love.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[7] Body Para. 2/2
In both respects the delight thereof surpasses all human delight, both
because spiritual delight is greater than carnal pleasure, as stated
above (FS, Q[31], A[5]), when we were treating of the passions, and
because the love whereby God is loved out of charity surpasses all love.
Hence it is written (Ps. 33:9): "O taste and see that the Lord is sweet."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Although the contemplative life consists chiefly in an act
of the intellect, it has its beginning in the appetite, since it is
through charity that one is urged to the contemplation of God. And since
the end corresponds to the beginning, it follows that the term also and
the end of the contemplative life has its being in the appetite, since
one delights in seeing the object loved, and the very delight in the
object seen arouses a yet greater love. Wherefore Gregory says (Hom. xiv
in Ezech.) that "when we see one whom we love, we are so aflame as to
love him more." And this is the ultimate perfection of the contemplative
life, namely that the Divine truth be not only seen but also loved.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Strife or struggle arising from the opposition of an
external thing, hinders delight in that thing. For a man delights not in
a thing against which he strives: but in that for which he strives; when
he has obtained it, other things being equal, he delights yet more:
wherefore Augustine says (Confess. viii, 3) that "the more peril there
was in the battle, the greater the joy in the triumph." But there is no
strife or struggle in contemplation on the part of the truth which we
contemplate, though there is on the part of our defective understanding
and our corruptible body which drags us down to lower things, according
to Wis. 9:15, "The corruptible body ss a load upon the soul, and the
earthly habitation presseth down the mind that museth upon many things."
Hence it is that when man attains to the contemplation of truth, he loves
it yet more, while he hates the more his own deficiency and the weight of
his corruptible body, so as to say with the Apostle (Rm. 7:24): "Unhappy
man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"
Wherefore Gregory say (Hom. xiv in Ezech.): "When God is once known by
desire and understanding, He withers all carnal pleasure in us."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The contemplation of God in this life is imperfect in
comparison with the contemplation in heaven; and in like manner the
delight of the wayfarer's contemplation is imperfect as compared with the
delight of contemplation in heaven, of which it is written (Ps. 35:9):
"Thou shalt make them drink of the torrent of Thy pleasure." Yet, though
the contemplation of Divine things which is to be had by wayfarers is
imperfect, it is more delightful than all other contemplation however
perfect, on account of the excellence of that which is contemplated.
Hence the Philosopher says (De Part. Animal. i, 5): "We may happen to
have our own little theories about those sublime beings and godlike
substances, and though we grasp them but feebly, nevertheless so
elevating is the knowledge that they give us more delight than any of
those things that are round about us": and Gregory says in the same sense
(Hom. xiv in Ezech.): "The contemplative life is sweetness exceedingly
lovable; for it carries the soul away above itself, it opens heaven and
discovers the spiritual world to the eyes of the mind."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[7] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: After contemplation Jacob halted with one foot, "because we
need to grow weak in the love of the world ere we wax strong in the love
of God," as Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.). "Thus when we have known
the sweetness of God, we have one foot sound while the other halts; since
every one who halts on one foot leans only on that foot which is sound."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the contemplative life is continuous?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the contemplative life is not continuous. For
the contemplative life consists essentially in things pertaining to the
intellect. Now all the intellectual perfections of this life will be made
void, according to 1 Cor. 13:8, "Whether prophecies shall be made void,
or tongues shall cease, or knowledge shall be destroyed." Therefore the
contemplative life is made void.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a man tastes the sweetness of contemplation by snatches
and for a short time only: wherefore Augustine says (Confess. x, 40),
"Thou admittest me to a most unwonted affection in my inmost soul, to a
strange sweetness . . . yet through my grievous weight I sink down
again." Again, Gregory commenting on the words of Job 4:15, "When a
spirit passed before me," says (Moral. v, 33): "The mind does not remain
long at rest in the sweetness of inward contemplation, for it is recalled
to itself and beaten back by the very immensity of the light." Therefore
the contemplative life is not continuous.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, that which is not connatural to man cannot be
continuous. Now the contemplative life, according to the Philosopher
(Ethic. x, 7), "is better than the life which is according to man."
Therefore seemingly the contemplative life is not continuous.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord said (Lk. 10:42): "Mary hath chosen the best
part, which shall not be taken away from her," since as Gregory says
(Hom. xiv in Ezech.), "the contemplative life begins here so that it may
be perfected in our heavenly home."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[8] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, A thing may be described as continuous in two ways:
first, in regard to its nature; secondly, in regard to us. It is evident
that in regard to itself contemplative life is continuous for two
reasons: first, because it is about incorruptible and unchangeable
things; secondly, because it has no contrary, for there is nothing
contrary to the pleasure of contemplation, as stated in Topic. i, 13. But
even in our regard contemplative life is continuous---both because it is
competent to us in respect of the incorruptible part of the soul, namely
the intellect, wherefore it can endure after this life---and because in
the works of the contemplative life we work not with our bodies, so that
we are the more able to persevere in the works thereof, as the
Philosopher observes (Ethic. x, 7).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The manner of contemplation is not the same here as in
heaven: yet the contemplative life is said to remain by reason of
charity, wherein it has both its beginning and its end. Gregory speaks in
this sense (Hom. xiv in Ezech.): "The contemplative life begins here, so
as to be perfected in our heavenly home, because the fire of love which
begins to burn here is aflame with a yet greater love when we see Him
Whom we love."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: No action can last long at its highest pitch. Now the
highest point of contemplation is to reach the uniformity of Divine
contemplation, according to Dionysius [*Cf. Coel. Hier. iii], and as we
have stated above (A[6], ad 2). Hence although contemplation cannot last
long in this respect, it can be of long duration as regards the other
contemplative acts.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[180] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The Philosopher declares the contemplative life to be above
man, because it befits us "so far as there is in us something divine"
(Ethic. x, 7), namely the intellect, which is incorruptible and
impassible in itself, wherefore its act can endure longer.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE ACTIVE LIFE (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the active life, under which head there are four
points of inquiry:
(1) Whether all the works of the moral virtues pertain to the active
life?
(2) Whether prudence pertains to the active life?
(3) Whether teaching pertains to the active life?
(4) Of the duration of the active life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether all the actions of the moral virtues pertain to the active life?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the acts of the moral virtues do not all
pertain to the active life. For seemingly the active life regards only
our relations with other persons: hence Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.)
that "the active life is to give bread to the hungry," and after
mentioning many things that regard our relations with other people he
adds finally, "and to give to each and every one whatever he needs." Now
we are directed in our relations to others, not by all the acts of moral
virtues, but only by those of justice and its parts, as stated above
(Q[58], AA[2],8; FS, Q[60], AA[2],3). Therefore the acts of the moral
virtues do not all pertain to the active life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.) that Lia who was
blear-eyed but fruitful signifies the active life: which "being occupied
with work, sees less, and yet since it urges one's neighbor both by word
and example to its imitation it begets a numerous offspring of good
deeds." Now this would seem to belong to charity, whereby we love our
neighbor, rather than to the moral virtues. Therefore seemingly the acts
of moral virtue do not pertain to the active life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as stated above (Q[180], A[2]), the moral virtues
dispose one to the contemplative life. Now disposition and perfection
belong to the same thing. Therefore it would seem that the moral virtues
do not pertain to the active life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Isidore says (De Summo Bono iii, 15): "In the active
life all vices must first of all be extirpated by the practice of good
works, in order that in the contemplative life the mind's eye being
purified one may advance to the contemplation of the Divine light." Now
all vices are not extirpated save by acts of the moral virtues. Therefore
the acts of the moral virtues pertain to the active life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[1] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (Q[179], A[1]) the active and the
contemplative life differ according to the different occupations of men
intent on different ends: one of which occupations is the consideration
of the truth; and this is the end of the contemplative life, while the
other is external work to which the active life is directed.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[1] Body Para. 2/2
Now it is evident that the moral virtues are directed chiefly, not to
the contemplation of truth but to operation. Wherefore the Philosopher
says (Ethic. ii, 4) that "for virtue knowledge is of little or no avail."
Hence it is clear that the moral virtues belong essentially to the active
life; for which reason the Philosopher (Ethic. x, 8) subordinates the
moral virtues to active happiness.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The chief of the moral virtues is justice by which one man
is directed in his relations towards another, as the Philosopher proves
(Ethic. v, 1). Hence the active life is described with reference to our
relations with other people, because it consists in these things, not
exclusively, but principally.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: It is possible, by the acts of all the moral virtues, for
one to direct one's neighbor to good by example: and this is what Gregory
here ascribes to the active life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: Even as the virtue that is directed to the end of another
virtue passes, as it were, into the species of the latter virtue, so
again when a man makes use of things pertaining to the active life,
merely as dispositions to contemplation, such things are comprised under
the contemplative life. On the other hand, when we practice the works of
the moral virtues, as being good in themselves, and not as dispositions
to the contemplative life, the moral virtues belong to the active life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
It may also be replied, however, that the active life is a disposition
to the contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether prudence pertains to the active life?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that prudence does not pertain to the active life.
For just as the contemplative life belongs to the cognitive power, so the
active life belongs to the appetitive power. Now prudence belongs not to
the appetitive but to the cognitive power. Therefore prudence does not
belong to the active life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.) that the "active life
being occupied with work, sees less," wherefore it is signified by Lia
who was blear-eyed. But prudence requires clear eyes, so that one may
judge aright of what has to be done. Therefore it seems that prudence
does not pertain to the active life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, prudence stands between the moral and the intellectual
virtues. Now just as the moral virtues belong to the active life, as
stated above (A[1]), so do the intellectual virtues pertain to the
contemplative life. Therefore it would seem that prudence pertains
neither to the active nor to the contemplative life, but to an
intermediate kind of life, of which Augustine makes mention (De Civ. Dei
xix, 2,3,19).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 8) that prudence
pertains to active happiness, to which the moral virtues belong.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 3; FS, Q[18], A[6]), if one
thing be directed to another as its end, it is drawn, especially in moral
matters, to the species of the thing to which it is directed: for
instance "he who commits adultery that he may steal, is a thief rather
than an adulterer," according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 2). Now it is
evident that the knowledge of prudence is directed to the works of the
moral virtues as its end, since it is "right reason applied to action"
(Ethic. vi, 5); so that the ends of the moral virtues are the principles
of prudence, as the Philosopher says in the same book. Accordingly, as it
was stated above (A[1], ad 3) that the moral virtues in one who directs
them to the quiet of contemplation belong to the contemplative life, so
the knowledge of prudence, which is of itself directed to the works of
the moral virtues, belongs directly to the active life, provided we take
prudence in its proper sense as the Philosopher speaks of it.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
If, however, we take it in a more general sense, as comprising any kind
of human knowledge, then prudence, as regards a certain part thereof,
belongs to the contemplative life. In this sense Tully (De Offic. i, 5)
says that "the man who is able most clearly and quickly to grasp the
truth and to unfold his reasons, is wont to be considered most prudent
and wise."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Moral works take their species from their end, as stated
above (FS, Q[18], AA[4],6), wherefore the knowledge pertaining to the
contemplative life is that which has its end in the very knowledge of
truth; whereas the knowledge of prudence, through having its end in an
act of the appetitive power, belongs to the active life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: External occupation makes a man see less in intelligible
things, which are separated from sensible objects with which the works of
the active life are concerned. Nevertheless the external occupation of
the active life enables a man to see more clearly in judging of what is
to be done, which belongs to prudence, both on account of experience, and
on account of the mind's attention, since "brains avail when the mind is
attentive" as Sallust observes [*Bell. Catilin., LI].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Prudence is said to be intermediate between the
intellectual and the moral virtues because it resides in the same subject
as the intellectual virtues, and has absolutely the same matter as the
moral virtues. But this third kind of life is intermediate between the
active and the contemplative life as regards the things about which it is
occupied, because it is occupied sometimes with the contemplation of the
truth, sometimes with eternal things.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether teaching is a work of the active or of the contemplative life?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that teaching is a work not of the active but of
the contemplative life. For Gregory says (Hom. v in Ezech.) that "the
perfect who have been able to contemplate heavenly goods, at least
through a glass, proclaim them to their brethren, whose minds they
inflame with love for their hidden beauty." But this pertains to
teaching. Therefore teaching is a work of the contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, act and habit would seem to be referable to the same
kind of life. Now teaching is an act of wisdom: for the Philosopher says
(Metaph. i, 1) that "to be able to teach is an indication of knowledge."
Therefore since wisdom or knowledge pertain to the contemplative life, it
would seem that teaching also belongs to the contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, prayer, no less than contemplation, is an act of the
contemplative life. Now prayer, even when one prays for another, belongs
to the contemplative life. Therefore it would seem that it belongs also
to the contemplative life to acquaint another, by teaching him, of the
truth we have meditated.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.): "The active life is
to give bread to the hungry, to teach the ignorant the words of wisdom."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The act of teaching has a twofold object. For teaching is
conveyed by speech, and speech is the audible sign of the interior
concept. Accordingly one object of teaching is the matter or object of
the interior concept; and as to this object teaching belongs sometimes to
the active, sometimes to the contemplative life. It belongs to the active
life, when a man conceives a truth inwardly, so as to be directed thereby
in his outward action; but it belongs to the contemplative life when a
man conceives an intelligible truth, in the consideration and love
whereof he delights. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. Serm. civ, 1):
"Let them choose for themselves the better part," namely the
contemplative life, "let them be busy with the word, long for the
sweetness of teaching, occupy themselves with salutary knowledge," thus
stating clearly that teaching belongs to the contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
The other object of teaching is on the part of the speech heard, and
thus the object of teaching is the hearer. As to this object all doctrine
belongs to the active life to which external actions pertain.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The authority quoted speaks expressly of doctrine as to its
matter, in so far as it is concerned with the consideration and love of
truth.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Habit and act have a common object. Hence this argument
clearly considers the matter of the interior concept. For it pertains to
the man having wisdom and knowledge to be able to teach, in so far as he
is able to express his interior concept in words, so as to bring another
man to understand the truth.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: He who prays for another does nothing towards the man for
whom he prays, but only towards God Who is the intelligible truth;
whereas he who teaches another does something in his regard by external
action. Hence the comparison fails.
�Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the active life remains after this life?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the active life remains after this life. For
the acts of the moral virtues belong to the active life, as stated above
(A[1]). But the moral virtues endure after this life according to
Augustine (De Trin. xiv, 9). Therefore the active life remains after this
life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, teaching others belongs to the active life, as stated
above (A[3]). But in the life to come when "we shall be like the angels,"
teaching will be possible: even as apparently it is in the angels of whom
one "enlightens, cleanses, and perfects" [*Coel. Hier. iii, viii]
another, which refers to the "receiving of knowledge," according to
Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii). Therefore it would seem that the active life
remains after this life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the more lasting a thing is in itself, the more is it
able to endure after this life. But the active life is seemingly more
lasting in itself: for Gregory says (Hom. v in Ezech.) that "we can
remain fixed in the active life, whereas we are nowise able to maintain
an attentive mind in the contemplative life." Therefore the active life
is much more able than the contemplative to endure after this life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.): "The active life
ends with this world, but the contemplative life begins here, to be
perfected in our heavenly home."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), the active life has its end in
external actions: and if these be referred to the quiet of contemplation,
for that very reason they belong to the contemplative life. But in the
future life of the blessed the occupation of external actions will cease,
and if there be any external actions at all, these will be referred to
contemplation as their end. For, as Augustine says at the end of De
Civitate Dei xxii, 30, "there we shall rest and we shall see, we shall
see and love, we shall love and praise." And he had said before (De Civ.
Dei xxii, 30) that "there God will be seen without end, loved without
wearying, praised without tiring: such will be the occupation of all, the
common love, the universal activity."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated above (Q[136], A[1], ad 1), the moral virtues
will remain not as to those actions which are about the means, but as to
the actions which are about the end. Such acts are those that conduce to
the quiet of contemplation, which in the words quoted above Augustine
denotes by "rest," and this rest excludes not only outward disturbances
but also the inward disturbance of the passions.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 2: The contemplative life, as stated above (Q[180], A[4]),
consists chiefly in the contemplation of God, and as to this, one angel
does not teach another, since according to Mt. 18:10, "the little ones'
angels," who belong to the lower order, "always see the face of the
Father"; and so, in the life to come, no man will teach another of God,
but "we shall" all "see Him as He is" (1 Jn. 3:2). This is in keeping
with the saying of Jeremias 31:34: "They shall teach no more every man
his neighbor . . . saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the
least of them even to the greatest."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 2/3
But as regards things pertaining to the "dispensation of the mysteries
of God," one angel teaches another by cleansing, enlightening, and
perfecting him: and thus they have something of the active life so long
as the world lasts, from the fact that they are occupied in administering
to the creatures below them. This is signified by the fact that Jacob saw
angels "ascending" the ladder---which refers to contemplation---and
"descending" ---which refers to action. Nevertheless, as Gregory remarks
(Moral. ii, 3), "they do not wander abroad from the Divine vision, so as
to be deprived of the joys of inward contemplation." Hence in them the
active life does not differ from the contemplative life as it does in us
for whom the works of the active life are a hindrance to contemplation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 3/3
Nor is the likeness to the angels promised to us as regards the
administering to lower creatures, for this is competent to us not by
reason of our natural order, as it is to the angels, but by reason of our
seeing God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[181] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: That the durability of the active life in the present state
surpasses the durability of the contemplative life arises not from any
property of either life considered in itself, but from our own
deficiency, since we are withheld from the heights of contemplation by
the weight of the body. Hence Gregory adds (Moral. ii, 3) that "the mind
through its very weakness being repelled from that immense height recoils
on itself."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE ACTIVE LIFE IN COMPARISON WITH THE CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE (FOUR
ARTICLES)
We must now consider the active life in comparison with the
contemplative life, under which head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Which of them is of greater import or excellence?
(2) Which of them has the greater merit?
(3) Whether the contemplative life is hindered by the active life?
(4) Of their order.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the active life is more excellent than the contemplative?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the active life is more excellent than the
contemplative. For "that which belongs to better men would seem to be
worthier and better," as the Philosopher says (Top. iii, 1). Now the
active life belongs to persons of higher rank, namely prelates, who are
placed in a position of honor and power; wherefore Augustine says (De
Civ. Dei xix, 19) that "in our actions we must not love honor or power in
this life." Therefore it would seem that the active life is more
excellent than the contemplative.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, in all habits and acts, direction belongs to the more
important; thus the military art, being the more important, directs the
art of the bridle-maker [*Ethic. i, 1]. Now it belongs to the active life
to direct and command the contemplative, as appears from the words
addressed to Moses (Ex. 19:21), "Go down and charge the people, lest they
should have a mind to pass the" fixed "limits to see the Lord." Therefore
the active life is more excellent than the contemplative.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, no man should be taken away from a greater thing in
order to be occupied with lesser things: for the Apostle says (1 Cor.
12:31): "Be zealous for the better gifts." Now some are taken away from
the state of the contemplative life to the occupations of the active
life, as in the case of those who are transferred to the state of
prelacy. Therefore it would seem that the active life is more excellent
than the contemplative.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Our Lord said (Lk. 10:42): "Mary hath chosen the best
part, which shall not be taken away from her." Now Mary figures the
contemplative life. Therefore the contemplative life is more excellent
than the active.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[1] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Nothing prevents certain things being more excellent in
themselves, whereas they are surpassed by another in some respect.
Accordingly we must reply that the contemplative life is simply more
excellent than the active: and the Philosopher proves this by eight
reasons (Ethic. x, 7,8). The first is, because the contemplative life
becomes man according to that which is best in him, namely the intellect,
and according to its proper objects, namely things intelligible; whereas
the active life is occupied with externals. Hence Rachael, by whom the
contemplative life is signified, is interpreted "the vision of the
principle," [*Or rather, 'One seeing the principle,' if derived from
{rah} and {irzn}; Cf. Jerome, De Nom. Hebr.] whereas as Gregory says
(Moral. vi, 37) the active life is signified by Lia who was blear-eyed.
The second reason is because the contemplative life can be more
continuous, although not as regards the highest degree of contemplation,
as stated above (Q[180], A[8], ad 2; Q[181], A[4], ad 3), wherefore Mary,
by whom the contemplative life is signified, is described as "sitting"
all the time "at the Lord's feet." Thirdly, because the contemplative
life is more delightful than the active; wherefore Augustine says (De
Verb. Dom. Serm. ciii) that "Martha was troubled, but Mary feasted."
Fourthly, because in the contemplative life man is more self-sufficient,
since he needs fewer things for that purpose; wherefore it was said (Lk.
10:41): "Martha, Martha, thou art careful and art troubled about many
things." Fifthly, because the contemplative life is loved more for its
own sake, while the active life is directed to something else. Hence it
is written (Ps. 36:4): "One thing I have asked of the Lord, this will I
seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my
life, that I may see the delight of the Lord." Sixthly, because the
contemplative life consists in leisure and rest, according to Ps. 45:11,
"Be still and see that I am God." Seventhly, because the contemplative
life is according to Divine things, whereas active life is according to
human things; wherefore Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. Serm. civ): "'In
the beginning was the Word': to Him was Mary hearkening: 'The Word was
made flesh': Him was Martha serving." Eighthly, because the contemplative
life is according to that which is most proper to man, namely his
intellect; whereas in the works of the active life the lower powers also,
which are common to us and brutes, have their part; wherefore (Ps. 35:7)
after the words, "Men and beasts Thou wilt preserve, O Lord," that which
is special to man is added (Ps. 35:10): "In Thy light we shall see light."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[1] Body Para. 2/3
Our Lord adds a ninth reason (Lk. 10:42) when He says: "Mary hath chosen
the best part, which shall not be taken away from her," which words
Augustine (De Verb. Dom. Serm. ciii) expounds thus: "Not---Thou hast
chosen badly but---She has chosen better. Why better? Listen---because it
shall not be taken away from her. But the burden of necessity shall at
length be taken from thee: whereas the sweetness of truth is eternal."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[1] Body Para. 3/3
Yet in a restricted sense and in a particular case one should prefer the
active life on account of the needs of the present life. Thus too the
Philosopher says (Topic. iii, 2): "It is better to be wise than to be
rich, yet for one who is in need, it is better to be rich . . ."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Not only the active life concerns prelates, they should
also excel in the contemplative life; hence Gregory says (Pastor. ii, 1):
"A prelate should be foremost in action, more uplifted than others in
contemplation."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The contemplative life consists in a certain liberty of
mind. For Gregory says (Hom. iii in Ezech.) that "the contemplative life
obtains a certain freedom of mind, for it thinks not of temporal but of
eternal things." And Boethius says (De Consol. v, 2): "The soul of man
must needs be more free while it continues to gaze on the Divine mind,
and less so when it stoops to bodily things." Wherefore it is evident
that the active life does not directly command the contemplative life,
but prescribes certain works of the active life as dispositions to the
contemplative life; which it accordingly serves rather than commands.
Gregory refers to this when he says (Hom. iii in Ezech.) that "the active
life is bondage, whereas the contemplative life is freedom."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Sometimes a man is called away from the contemplative life
to the works of the active life, on account of some necessity of the
present life, yet not so as to be compelled to forsake contemplation
altogether. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19): "The love of
truth seeks a holy leisure, the demands of charity undertake an honest
toil," the work namely of the active life. "If no one imposes this burden
upon us we must devote ourselves to the research and contemplation of
truth, but if it be imposed on us, we must bear it because charity
demands it of us. Yet even then we must not altogether forsake the
delights of truth, lest we deprive ourselves of its sweetness, and this
burden overwhelm us." Hence it is clear that when a person is called from
the contemplative life to the active life, this is done by way not of
subtraction but of addition.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the active life is of greater merit than the contemplative?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the active life is of greater merit than the
contemplative. For merit implies relation to meed; and meed is due to
labor, according to 1 Cor. 3:8, "Every man shall receive his own reward
according to his own labor." Now labor is ascribed to the active life,
and rest to the contemplative life; for Gregory says (Hom. xiv in
Ezech.): "Whosoever is converted to God must first of all sweat from
labor, i.e. he must take Lia, that afterwards he may rest in the embraces
of Rachel so as to see the principle." Therefore the active life is of
greater merit than the contemplative.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the contemplative life is a beginning of the happiness
to come; wherefore Augustine commenting on Jn. 21:22, "So I will have him
to remain till I come," says (Tract. cxxiv in Joan.): "This may be
expressed more clearly: Let perfect works follow Me conformed to the
example of My passion, and let contemplation begun here remain until I
come, that it may be perfected when I shall come." And Gregory says (Hom.
xiv in Ezech.) that "contemplation begins here, so as to be perfected in
our heavenly home." Now the life to come will be a state not of meriting
but of receiving the reward of our merits. Therefore the contemplative
life would seem to have less of the character of merit than the active,
but more of the character of reward.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xii in Ezech.) that "no sacrifice is
more acceptable to God than zeal for souls." Now by the zeal for souls a
man turns to the occupations of the active life. Therefore it would seem
that the contemplative life is not of greater merit than the active.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. vi, 37): "Great are the merits of
the active life, but greater still those of the contemplative."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (FS, Q[114], A[4]), the root of merit is
charity; and, while, as stated above (Q[25], A[1]), charity consists in
the love of God and our neighbor, the love of God is by itself more
meritorious than the love of our neighbor, as stated above (Q[27], A[8]).
Wherefore that which pertains more directly to the love of God is
generically more meritorious than that which pertains directly to the
love of our neighbor for God's sake. Now the contemplative life pertains
directly and immediately to the love of God; for Augustine says (De Civ.
Dei xix, 19) that "the love of" the Divine "truth seeks a holy leisure,"
namely of the contemplative life, for it is that truth above all which
the contemplative life seeks, as stated above (Q[181], A[4], ad 2). On
the other hand, the active life is more directly concerned with the love
of our neighbor, because it is "busy about much serving" (Lk. 10:40).
Wherefore the contemplative life is generically of greater merit than the
active life. This is moreover asserted by Gregory (Hom. iii in Ezech.):
"The contemplative life surpasses in merit the active life, because the
latter labors under the stress of present work," by reason of the
necessity of assisting our neighbor, "while the former with heartfelt
relish has a foretaste of the coming rest," i.e. the contemplation of God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
Nevertheless it may happen that one man merits more by the works of the
active life than another by the works of the contemplative life. For
instance through excess of Divine love a man may now and then suffer
separation from the sweetness of Divine contemplation for the time being,
that God's will may be done and for His glory's sake. Thus the Apostle
says (Rm. 9:3): "I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my
brethren"; which words Chrysostom expounds as follows (De Compunct. i, 7
[*Ad Demetr. de Compunct. Cordis.]): "His mind was so steeped in the love
of Christ that, although he desired above all to be with Christ, he
despised even this, because thus he pleased Christ."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: External labor conduces to the increase of the accidental
reward; but the increase of merit with regard to the essential reward
consists chiefly in charity, whereof external labor borne for Christ's
sake is a sign. Yet a much more expressive sign thereof is shown when a
man, renouncing whatsoever pertains to this life, delights to occupy
himself entirely with Divine contemplation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In the state of future happiness man has arrived at
perfection, wherefore there is no room for advancement by merit; and if
there were, the merit would be more efficacious by reason of the greater
charity. But in the present life contemplation is not without some
imperfection, and can always become more perfect; wherefore it does not
remove the idea of merit, but causes a yet greater merit on account of
the practice of greater Divine charity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: A sacrifice is rendered to God spiritually when something
is offered to Him; and of all man's goods, God specially accepts that of
the human soul when it is offered to Him in sacrifice. Now a man ought to
offer to God, in the first place, his soul, according to Ecclus. 30:24,
"Have pity on thy own soul, pleasing God"; in the second place, the souls
of others, according to Apoc. 22:17, "He that heareth, let him say:
Come." And the more closely a man unites his own or another's soul to
God, the more acceptable is his sacrifice to God; wherefore it is more
acceptable to God that one apply one's own soul and the souls of others
to contemplation than to action. Consequently the statement that "no
sacrifice is more acceptable to God than zeal for souls," does not mean
that the merit of the active life is preferable to the merit of the
contemplative life, but that it is more meritorious to offer to God one's
own soul and the souls of others, than any other external gifts.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the contemplative life is hindered by the active life?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the contemplative life is hindered by the
active life. For the contemplative life requires a certain stillness of
mind, according to Ps. 45:11, "Be still, and see that I am God"; whereas
the active life involves restlessness, according to Lk. 10:41, "Martha,
Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things." Therefore the
active life hinders the contemplative.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, clearness of vision is a requisite for the contemplative
life. Now active life is a hindrance to clear vision; for Gregory says
(Hom. xiv in Ezech.) that it "is blear-eyed and fruitful, because the
active life, being occupied with work, sees less." Therefore the active
life hinders the contemplative.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, one contrary hinders the other. Now the active and the
contemplative life are apparently contrary to one another, since the
active life is busy about many things, while the contemplative life
attends to the contemplation of one; wherefore they differ in opposition
to one another. Therefore it would seem that the contemplative life is
hindered by the active.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. vi, 37): "Those who wish to hold
the fortress of contemplation, must first of all train in the camp of
action."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The active life may be considered from two points of
view. First, as regards the attention to and practice of external works:
and thus it is evident that the active life hinders the contemplative, in
so far as it is impossible for one to be busy with external action, and
at the same time give oneself to Divine contemplation. Secondly, active
life may be considered as quieting and directing the internal passions of
the soul; and from this point of view the active life is a help to the
contemplative, since the latter is hindered by the inordinateness of the
internal passions. Hence Gregory says (Moral. vi, 37): "Those who wish to
hold the fortress of contemplation must first of all train in the camp of
action. Thus after careful study they will learn whether they no longer
wrong their neighbor, whether they bear with equanimity the wrongs their
neighbors do to them, whether their soul is neither overcome with joy in
the presence of temporal goods, nor cast down with too great a sorrow
when those goods are withdrawn. In this way they will known when they
withdraw within themselves, in order to explore spiritual things, whether
they no longer carry with them the shadows of the things corporeal, or,
if these follow them, whether they prudently drive them away." Hence the
work of the active life conduces to the contemplative, by quelling the
interior passions which give rise to the phantasms whereby contemplation
is hindered.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
This suffices for the Replies to the Objections; for these arguments
consider the occupation itself of external actions, and not the effect
which is the quelling of the passions.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the active life precedes the contemplative?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the active life does not precede the
contemplative. For the contemplative life pertains directly to the love
of God; while the active life pertains to the love of our neighbor. Now
the love of God precedes the love of our neighbor, since we love our
neighbor for God's sake. Seemingly therefore the contemplative life also
precedes the active life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.): "It should be
observed that while a well-ordered life proceeds from action to
contemplation, sometimes it is useful for the soul to turn from the
contemplative to the active life." Therefore the active is not simply
prior to the contemplative.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it would seem that there is not necessarily any order
between things that are suitable to different subjects. Now the active
and the contemplative life are suitable to different subjects; for
Gregory says (Moral. vi, 37): "Often those who were able to contemplate
God so long as they were undisturbed have fallen when pressed with
occupation; and frequently they who might live advantageously occupied
with the service of their fellow-creatures are killed by the sword of
their inaction."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, A thing is said to precede in two ways. First, with
regard to its nature; and in this way the contemplative life precedes the
active, inasmuch as it applies itself to things which precede and are
better than others, wherefore it moves and directs the active life. For
the higher reason which is assigned to contemplation is compared to the
lower reason which is assigned to action, and the husband is compared to
his wife, who should be ruled by her husband, as Augustine says (De Trin.
xii, 3,7,12).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
Secondly, a thing precedes with regard to us, because it comes first in
the order of generation. In this way the active precedes the
contemplative life, because it disposes one to it, as stated above (A[1];
Q[181], A[1], ad 3); and, in the order of generation, disposition
precedes form, although the latter precedes simply and according to its
nature.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: The contemplative life is directed to the love of God, not
of any degree, but to that which is perfect; whereas the active life is
necessary for any degree of the love of our neighbor. Hence Gregory says
(Hom. iii in Ezech.): "Without the contemplative life it is possible to
enter the heavenly kingdom, provided one omit not the good actions we are
able to do; but we cannot enter therein without the active life, if we
neglect to do the good we can do."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
From this it is also evident that the active precedes the contemplative
life, as that which is common to all precedes, in the order of
generation, that which is proper to the perfect.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Progress from the active to the contemplative life is
according to the order of generation; whereas the return from the
contemplative life to the active is according to the order of direction,
in so far as the active life is directed by the contemplative. Even thus
habit is acquired by acts, and by the acquired habit one acts yet more
perfectly, as stated in Ethic. ii, 7.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[182] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: He that is prone to yield to his passions on account of his
impulse to action is simply more apt for the active life by reason of his
restless spirit. Hence Gregory says (Moral. vi, 37) that "there be some
so restless that when they are free from labor they labor all the more,
because the more leisure they have for thought, the worse interior
turmoil they have to bear." Others, on the contrary, have the mind
naturally pure and restful, so that they are apt for contemplation, and
if they were to apply themselves wholly to action, this would be
detrimental to them. Wherefore Gregory says (Moral. vi, 37) that "some
are so slothful of mind that if they chance to have any hard work to do
they give way at the very outset." Yet, as he adds further on, "often . .
love stimulates slothful souls to work, and fear restrains souls that
are disturbed in contemplation." Consequently those who are more adapted
to the active life can prepare themselves for the contemplative by the
practice of the active life; while none the less, those who are more
adapted to the contemplative life can take upon themselves the works of
the active life, so as to become yet more apt for contemplation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] Out. Para. 1/2
TREATISE ON THE STATES OF LIFE (QQ[183]-189)
OF MAN'S VARIOUS DUTIES AND STATES IN GENERAL (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must next consider man's various states and duties. We shall consider
(1) man's duties and states in general; (2) the state of the perfect in
particular.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] Out. Para. 2/2
Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) What constitutes a state among men?
(2) Whether among men there should be various states and duties?
(3) Of the diversity of duties;
(4) Of the diversity of states.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the notion of a state denotes a condition of freedom or servitude?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the notion of a state does not denote a
condition of freedom or servitude. For "state" takes its name from
"standing." Now a person is said to stand on account of his being
upright; and Gregory says (Moral. vii, 17): "To fall by speaking harmful
words is to forfeit entirely the state of righteousness." But a man
acquires spiritual uprightness by submitting his will to God; wherefore a
gloss on Ps. 32:1, "Praise becometh the upright," says: "The upright are
those who direct their heart according to God's will." Therefore it would
seem that obedience to the Divine commandments suffices alone for the
notion of a state.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the word "state" seems to denote immobility according to
1 Cor. 15:48, "Be ye steadfast [stabiles] and immovable"; wherefore
Gregory says (Hom. xxi in Ezech.): "The stone is foursquare, and is
stable on all sides, if no disturbance will make it fall." Now it is
virtue that enables us "to act with immobility," according to Ethic. ii,
4. Therefore it would seem that a state is acquired by every virtuous
action.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the word "state" seems to indicate height of a kind;
because to stand is to be raised upwards. Now one man is made higher than
another by various duties; and in like manner men are raised upwards in
various ways by various grades and orders. Therefore the mere difference
of grades, orders, or duties suffices for a difference of states.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is thus laid down in the Decretals (II, qu. vi, can.
Si Quando): "Whenever anyone intervene in a cause where life or state is
at stake he must do so, not by a proxy, but in his own person"; and
"state" here has reference to freedom or servitude. Therefore it would
seem that nothing differentiates a man's state, except that which refers
to freedom or servitude.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, "State," properly speaking, denotes a kind of position,
whereby a thing is disposed with a certain immobility in a manner
according with its nature. For it is natural to man that his head should
be directed upwards, his feet set firmly on the ground, and his other
intermediate members disposed in becoming order; and this is not the case
if he lie down, sit, or recline, but only when he stands upright: nor
again is he said to stand, if he move, but only when he is still. Hence
it is again that even in human acts, a matter is said to have stability
[statum] in reference to its own disposition in the point of a certain
immobility or restfulness. Consequently matters which easily change and
are extrinsic to them do not constitute a state among men, for instance
that a man be rich or poor, of high or low rank, and so forth. Wherefore
in the civil law [*Dig. I, IX, De Senatoribus] (Lib. Cassius ff. De
Senatoribus) it is said that if a man be removed from the senate, he is
deprived of his dignity rather than of his state. But that alone
seemingly pertains to a man's state, which regards an obligation binding
his person, in so far, to wit, as a man is his own master or subject to
another, not indeed from any slight or unstable cause, but from one that
is firmly established; and this is something pertaining to the nature of
freedom or servitude. Therefore state properly regards freedom or
servitude whether in spiritual or in civil matters.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Uprightness as such does not pertain to the notion of
state, except in so far as it is connatural to man with the addition of a
certain restfulness. Hence other animals are said to stand without its
being required that they should be upright; nor again are men said to
stand, however upright their position be, unless they be still.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Immobility does not suffice for the notion of state; since
even one who sits or lies down is still, and yet he is not said to stand.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Duty implies relation to act; while grades denote an order
of superiority and inferiority. But state requires immobility in that
which regards a condition of the person himself.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there should be different duties or states in the Church?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that there should not be different duties or states
in the Church. For distinction is opposed to unity. Now the faithful of
Christ are called to unity according to Jn. 17:21,22: "That they . . .
may be one in Us . . . as We also are one." Therefore there should not be
a distinction of duties and states in the Church.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, nature does not employ many means where one suffices.
But the working of grace is much more orderly than the working of nature.
Therefore it were more fitting for things pertaining to the operations of
grace to be administered by the same persons, so that there would not be
a distinction of duties and states in the Church.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the good of the Church seemingly consists chiefly in
peace, according to Ps. 147:3, "Who hath placed peace in thy borders,"
and 2 Cor. 13:11, "Have peace, and the God of peace . . . shall be with
you." Now distinction is a hindrance to peace, for peace would seem to
result from likeness, according to Ecclus. 13:19, "Every beast loveth its
like," while the Philosopher says (Polit. vii, 5) that "a little
difference causes dissension in a state." Therefore it would seem that
there ought not to be a distinction of states and duties in the Church.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written in praise of the Church (Ps. 44:10) that
she is "surrounded with variety": and a gloss on these words says that
"the Queen," namely the Church, "is bedecked with the teaching of the
apostles, the confession of martyrs, the purity of virgins, the
sorrowings of penitents."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The difference of states and duties in the Church regards
three things. In the first place it regards the perfection of the Church.
For even as in the order of natural things, perfection, which in God is
simple and uniform, is not to be found in the created universe except in
a multiform and manifold manner, so too, the fulness of grace, which is
centered in Christ as head, flows forth to His members in various ways,
for the perfecting of the body of the Church. This is the meaning of the
Apostle's words (Eph. 4:11,12): "He gave some apostles, and some
prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors
for the perfecting of the saints." Secondly, it regards the need of those
actions which are necessary in the Church. For a diversity of actions
requires a diversity of men appointed to them, in order that all things
may be accomplished without delay or confusion; and this is indicated by
the Apostle (Rm. 12:4,5), "As in one body we have many members, but all
the members have not the same office, so we being many are one body in
Christ." Thirdly, this belongs to the dignity and beauty of the Church,
which consist in a certain order; wherefore it is written (3 Kgs. 10:4,5)
that "when the queen of Saba saw all the wisdom of Solomon . . . and the
apartments of his servants, and the order of his ministers . . . she had
no longer any spirit in her." Hence the Apostle says (2 Tim. 2:20) that
"in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also
of wood and of earth."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The distinction of states and duties is not an obstacle to
the unity of the Church, for this results from the unity of faith,
charity, and mutual service, according to the saying of the Apostle (Eph.
4:16): "From whom the whole body being compacted," namely by faith, "and
fitly joined together," namely by charity, "by what every joint
supplieth," namely by one man serving another.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Just as nature does not employ many means where one
suffices, so neither does it confine itself to one where many are
required, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Cor. 12:17), "If the
whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing?" Hence there was
need in the Church, which is Christ's body, for the members to be
differentiated by various duties, states, and grades.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Just as in the natural body the various members are held
together in unity by the power of the quickening spirit, and are
dissociated from one another as soon as that spirit departs, so too in
the Church's body the peace of the various members is preserved by the
power of the Holy Spirit, Who quickens the body of the Church, as stated
in Jn. 6:64. Hence the Apostle says (Eph. 4:3): "Careful to keep the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Now a man departs from this
unity of spirit when he seeks his own; just as in an earthly kingdom
peace ceases when the citizens seek each man his own. Besides, the peace
both of mind and of an earthly commonwealth is the better preserved by a
distinction of duties and states, since thereby the greater number have a
share in public actions. Wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor. 12:24,25)
that "God hath tempered [the body] together that there might be no schism
in the body, but the members might be mutually careful one for another."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether duties differ according to their actions?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that duties do not differ according to their
actions. For there are infinite varieties of human acts both in
spirituals and in temporals. Now there can be no certain distinction
among things that are infinite in number. Therefore human duties cannot
be differentiated according to a difference of acts.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the active and the contemplative life differ according
to their acts, as stated above (Q[179], A[1]). But the distinction of
duties seems to be other than the distinction of lives. Therefore duties
do not differ according to their acts.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, even ecclesiastical orders, states, and grades seemingly
differ according to their acts. If, then, duties differ according to
their acts it would seem that duties, grades, and states differ in the
same way. Yet this is not true, since they are divided into their
respective parts in different ways. Therefore duties do not differ
according to their acts.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Isidore says (Etym. vi, 19) that "officium [duty] takes
its name from 'efficere' [to effect], as though it were instead of
'efficium,' by the change of one letter for the sake of the sound." But
effecting pertains to action. Therefore duties differ according to their
acts.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[2]), difference among the members of
the Church is directed to three things: perfection, action, and beauty;
and according to these three we may distinguish a threefold distinction
among the faithful. One, with regard to perfection, and thus we have the
difference of states, in reference to which some persons are more perfect
than others. Another distinction regards action and this is the
distinction of duties: for persons are said to have various duties when
they are appointed to various actions. A third distinction regards the
order of ecclesiastical beauty: and thus we distinguish various grades
according as in the same state or duty one person is above another. Hence
according to a variant text [*The Septuagint] it is written (Ps. 47:4):
"In her grades shall God be known."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The material diversity of human acts is infinite. It is not
thus that duties differ, but by their formal diversity which results from
diverse species of acts, and in this way human acts are not infinite.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Life is predicated of a thing absolutely: wherefore
diversity of acts which are becoming to man considered in himself. But
efficiency, whence we have the word "office" (as stated above), denotes
action tending to something else according to Metaph. ix, text. 16 [*Ed.
Did. viii, 8]. Hence offices differ properly in respect of acts that are
referred to other persons; thus a teacher is said to have an office, and
so is a judge, and so forth. Wherefore Isidore says (Etym. vi, 19) that
"to have an office is to be officious," i.e. harmful "to no one, but to
be useful to all."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Differences of state, offices and grades are taken from
different things, as stated above (A[1], ad 3). Yet these three things
may concur in the same subject: thus when a person is appointed to a
higher action, he attains thereby both office and grade, and sometimes,
besides this, a state of perfection, on account of the sublimity of the
act, as in the case of a bishop. The ecclesiastical orders are
particularly distinct according to divine offices. For Isidore says
(Etym. vi): "There are various kinds of offices; but the foremost is that
which relates to sacred and Divine things."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the difference of states applies to those who are beginning,
progressing, or perfect?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the difference of states does not apply to
those who are beginning, progressing, or perfect. For "diverse genera
have diverse species and differences" [*Aristotle, Categ. ii]. Now this
difference of beginning, progress, and perfection is applied to the
degrees of charity, as stated above (Q[24], A[9]), where we were treating
of charity. Therefore it would seem that the differences of states should
not be assigned in this manner.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, as stated above (A[1]), state regards a condition of
servitude or freedom, which apparently has no connection with the
aforesaid difference of beginning, progress, and perfection. Therefore it
is unfitting to divide state in this way.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the distinction of beginning, progress, and perfection
seems to refer to "more" and "less," and this seemingly implies the
notion of grades. But the distinction of grades differs from that of
states, as we have said above (AA[2],3). Therefore state is unfittingly
divided according to beginning, progress, and perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxiv, 11): "There are three states
of the converted, the beginning, the middle, and the perfection"; and
(Hom. xv in Ezech.): "Other is the beginning of virtue, other its
progress, and other still its perfection."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]) state regards freedom or
servitude. Now in spiritual things there is a twofold servitude and a
twofold freedom: for there is the servitude of sin and the servitude of
justice; and there is likewise a twofold freedom, from sin, and from
justice, as appears from the words of the Apostle (Rm. 6:20,22), "When
you were the servants of sin, you were free men to justice . . . but now
being made free from sin," you are . . . "become servants to God."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
Now the servitude of sin or justice consists in being inclined to evil
by a habit of sin, or inclined to good by a habit of justice: and in like
manner freedom from sin is not to be overcome by the inclination to sin,
and freedom from justice is not to be held back from evil for the love of
justice. Nevertheless, since man, by his natural reason, is inclined to
justice, while sin is contrary to natural reason, it follows that freedom
from sin is true freedom which is united to the servitude of justice,
since they both incline man to that which is becoming to him. In like
manner true servitude is the servitude of sin, which is connected with
freedom from justice, because man is thereby hindered from attaining that
which is proper to him. That a man become the servant of justice or sin
results from his efforts, as the Apostle declares (Rm. 6:16): "To whom
you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you
obey, whether it be of sin unto death, or of obedience unto justice." Now
in every human effort we can distinguish a beginning, a middle, and a
term; and consequently the state of spiritual servitude and freedom is
differentiated according to these things, namely, the beginning---to
which pertains the state of beginners---the middle, to which pertains the
state of the proficient---and the term, to which belongs the state of the
perfect.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Freedom from sin results from charity which "is poured
forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, Who is given to us" (Rm. 5:5).
Hence it is written (2 Cor. 3:17): "Where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is liberty." Wherefore the same division applies to charity as to
the state of those who enjoy spiritual freedom.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Men are said to be beginners, proficient, and perfect (so
far as these terms indicate different states), not in relation to any
occupation whatever, but in relation to such occupations as pertain to
spiritual freedom or servitude, as stated above (A[1]).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[183] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As already observed (A[3], ad 3), nothing hinders grade and
state from concurring in the same subject. For even in earthly affairs
those who are free, not only belong to a different state from those who
are in service, but are also of a different grade.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] Out. Para. 1/3
OF THE STATE OF PERFECTION IN GENERAL (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We must now consider those things that pertain to the state of
perfection whereto the other states are directed. For the consideration
of offices in relation to other acts belongs to the legislator; and in
relation to the sacred ministry it comes under the consideration of
orders of which we shall treat in the Third Part [*XP, Q[34]].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] Out. Para. 2/3
Concerning the state of the perfect, a three-fold consideration presents
itself: (1) The state of perfection in general; (2) Things relating to
the perfection of bishops; (3) Things relating to the perfection of
religious.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] Out. Para. 3/3
Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether perfection bears any relation to charity?
(2) Whether one can be perfect in this life?
(3) Whether the perfection of this life consists chiefly in observing
the counsels or the commandments?
(4) Whether whoever is perfect is in the state of perfection?
(5) Whether especially prelates and religious are in the state of
perfection?
(6) Whether all prelates are in the state of perfection?
(7) Which is the more perfect, the episcopal or the religious state?
(8) The comparison between religious and parish priests and archdeacons.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the perfection of the Christian life consists chiefly in charity?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the perfection of the Christian life does not
consist chiefly in charity. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 14:20): "In
malice be children, but in sense be perfect." But charity regards not the
senses but the affections. Therefore it would seem that the perfection of
the Christian life does not chiefly consist in charity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further,'it is written (Eph. 6:13): "Take unto you the armor of
God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all
things perfect"; and the text continues (Eph. 6:14,16), speaking of the
armor of God: "Stand therefore having your loins girt about with truth,
and having on the breast-plate of justice . . . in all things taking the
shield of faith." Therefore the perfection of the Christian life consists
not only in charity, but also in other virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, virtues like other habits, are specified by their acts.
Now it is written (James 1:4) that "patience hath a perfect work."
Therefore seemingly the state of perfection consists more specially in
patience.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Col. 3:14): "Above all things have
charity, which is the bond of perfection," because it binds, as it were,
all the other virtues together in perfect unity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, A thing is said to be perfect in so far as it attains its
proper end, which is the ultimate perfection thereof. Now it is charity
that unites us to God, Who is the last end of the human mind, since "he
that abideth in charity abideth in God, and God in him" (1 Jn. 4:16).
Therefore the perfection of the Christian life consists radically in
charity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The perfection of the human senses would seem to consist
chiefly in their concurring together in the unity of truth, according to
1 Cor. 1:10, "That you be perfect in the same mind [sensu], and in the
same judgment." Now this is effected by charity which operates consent in
us men. Wherefore even the perfection of the senses consists radically in
the perfection of charity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: A man may be said to be perfect in two ways. First, simply:
and this perfection regards that which belongs to a thing's nature, for
instance an animal may be said to be perfect when it lacks nothing in the
disposition of its members and in such things as are necessary for an
animal's life. Secondly, a thing is said to be perfect relatively: and
this perfection regards something connected with the thing externally,
such as whiteness or blackness or something of the kind. Now the
Christian life consists chiefly in charity whereby the soul is united to
God; wherefore it is written (1 Jn. 3:14): "He that loveth not abideth in
death." Hence the perfection of the Christian life consists simply in
charity, but in the other virtues relatively. And since that which is
simply, is paramount and greatest in comparison with other things, it
follows that the perfection of charity is paramount in relation to the
perfection that regards the other virtues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Patience is stated to have a perfect work in relation to
charity, in so far as it is an effect of the abundance of charity that a
man bears hardships patiently, according to Rm. 8:35, "Who . . . shall
separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? Or distress?" etc.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether any one can be perfect in this life?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that none can be perfect in this life. For the
Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:10): "When that which is perfect is come, that
which is in part shall be done away." Now in this life that which is in
part is not done away; for in this life faith and hope, which are in
part, remain. Therefore none can be perfect in this life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, "The perfect is that which lacks nothing" (Phys. iii,
6). Now there is no one in this life who lacks nothing; for it is written
(James 3:2): "In many things we all offend"; and (Ps. 138:16): "Thy eyes
did see my imperfect being." Therefore none is perfect in this life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the perfection of the Christian life, as stated (A[1]),
relates to charity, which comprises the love of God and of our neighbor.
Now, neither as to the love of God can one have perfect charity in this
life, since according to Gregory (Hom. xiv in Ezech.) "the furnace of
love which begins to burn here, will burn more fiercely when we see Him
Whom we love"; nor as to the love of our neighbor, since in this life we
cannot love all our neighbors actually, even though we love them
habitually; and habitual love is imperfect. Therefore it seems that no
one can be perfect in this life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Divine law does not prescribe the impossible. Yet
it prescribes perfection according to Mt. 5:48, "Be you . . . perfect, as
also your heavenly Father is perfect." Therefore seemingly one can be
perfect in this life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[2] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), the perfection of the Christian
life consists in charity. Now perfection implies a certain universality
because according to Phys. iii, 6, "the perfect is that which lacks
nothing." Hence we may consider a threefold perfection. One is absolute,
and answers to a totality not only on the part of the lover, but also on
the part of the object loved, so that God be loved as much as He is
lovable. Such perfection as this is not possible to any creature, but is
competent to God alone, in Whom good is wholly and essentially.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[2] Body Para. 2/3
Another perfection answers to an absolute totality on the part of the
lover, so that the affective faculty always actually tends to God as much
as it possibly can; and such perfection as this is not possible so long
as we are on the way, but we shall have it in heaven.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[2] Body Para. 3/3
The third perfection answers to a totality neither on the part of the
object served, nor on the part of the lover as regards his always
actually tending to God, but on the part of the lover as regards the
removal of obstacles to the movement of love towards God, in which sense
Augustine says (QQ. LXXXIII, qu. 36) that "carnal desire is the bane of
charity; to have no carnal desires is the perfection of charity." Such
perfection as this can be had in this life, and in two ways. First, by
the removal from man's affections of all that is contrary to charity,
such as mortal sin; and there can be no charity apart from this
perfection, wherefore it is necessary for salvation. Secondly, by the
removal from man's affections not only of whatever is contrary to
charity, but also of whatever hinders the mind's affections from tending
wholly to God. Charity is possible apart from this perfection, for
instance in those who are beginners and in those who are proficient.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The Apostle is speaking there of heavenly perfection which
is not possible to those who are on the way.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Those who are perfect in this life are said to "offend in
many things" with regard to venial sins, which result from the weakness
of the present life: and in this respect they have an "imperfect being"
in comparison with the perfection of heaven.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As the conditions of the present life do not allow of a man
always tending actually to God, so neither does it allow of his tending
actually to each individual neighbor; but it suffices for him to tend to
all in common and collectively, and to each individual habitually and
according to the preparedness of his mind. Now in the love of our
neighbor, as in the love of God we may observe a twofold perfection: one
without which charity is impossible, and consisting in one's having in
one's affections nothing that is contrary to the love of one's neighbor;
and another without which it is possible to have charity. The latter
perfection may be considered in three ways. First, as to the extent of
love, through a man loving not only his friends and acquaintances but
also strangers and even his enemies, for as Augustine says (Enchiridion
lxxiii) this is a mark of the perfect children of God. Secondly, as to
the intensity of love, which is shown by the things which man despises
for his neighbor's sake, through his despising not only external goods
for the sake of his neighbor, but also bodily hardships and even death,
according to Jn. 15:13, "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man
lay down his life for his friends." Thirdly, as to the effect of love, so
that a man will surrender not only temporal but also spiritual goods and
even himself, for his neighbor's sake, according to the words of the
Apostle (2 Cor. 12:15), "But I most gladly will spend and be spent myself
for your souls."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether, in this life, perfection consists in the observance of the
commandments or of the counsels?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that, in this life, perfection consists in the
observance not of the commandments but of the counsels. For our Lord said
(Mt. 19:21): "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell all [Vulg.: 'what'] thou
hast, and give to the poor . . . and come, follow Me." Now this is a
counsel. Therefore perfection regards the counsels and not the precepts.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, all are bound to the observance of the commandments,
since this is necessary for salvation. Therefore, if the perfection of
the Christian life consists in observing the commandments, it follows
that perfection is necessary for salvation, and that all are bound
thereto; and this is evidently false.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the perfection of the Christian life is gauged according
to charity, as stated above (A[1]). Now the perfection of charity,
seemingly, does not consist in the observance of the commandments, since
the perfection of charity is preceded both by its increase and by its
beginning, as Augustine says (Super Canonic. Joan. Tract. ix). But the
beginning of charity cannot precede the observance of the commandments,
since according to Jn. 14:23, "If any one love Me, he will keep My word."
Therefore the perfection of life regards not the commandments but the
counsels.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 6:5): "Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with thy whole heart," and (Lev. 19:18): "Thou shalt love thy
neighbor [Vulg.: 'friend'] as thyself"; and these are the commandments of
which our Lord said (Mt. 22:40): "On these two commandments dependeth the
whole law and the prophets." Now the perfection of charity, in respect of
which the Christian life is said to be perfect, consists in our loving
God with our whole heart, and our neighbor as ourselves. Therefore it
would seem that perfection consists in the observance of the precepts.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Perfection is said to consist in a thing in two ways: in
one way, primarily and essentially; in another, secondarily and
accidentally. Primarily and essentially the perfection of the Christian
life consists in charity, principally as to the love of God, secondarily
as to the love of our neighbor, both of which are the matter of the chief
commandments of the Divine law, as stated above. Now the love of God and
of our neighbor is not commanded according to a measure, so that what is
in excess of the measure be a matter of counsel. This is evident from the
very form of the commandment, pointing, as it does, to perfection---for
instance in the words, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole
heart": since "the whole" is the same as "the perfect," according to the
Philosopher (Phys. iii, 6), and in the words, "Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself," since every one loves himself most. The reason of
this is that "the end of the commandment is charity," according to the
Apostle (1 Tim. 1:5); and the end is not subject to a measure, but only
such things as are directed to the end, as the Philosopher observes
(Polit. i, 3); thus a physician does not measure the amount of his
healing, but how much medicine or diet he shall employ for the purpose of
healing. Consequently it is evident that perfection consists essentially
in the observance of the commandments; wherefore Augustine says (De Perf.
Justit. viii): "Why then should not this perfection be prescribed to man,
although no man has it in this life?"
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
Secondarily and instrumentally, however, perfection consists in the
observance of the counsels, all of which, like the commandments, are
directed to charity; yet not in the same way. For the commandments, other
than the precepts of charity, are directed to the removal of things
contrary to charity, with which, namely, charity is incompatible, whereas
the counsels are directed to the removal of things that hinder the act of
charity, and yet are not contrary to charity, such as marriage, the
occupation of worldly business, and so forth. Hence Augustine says
(Enchiridion cxxi): "Whatever things God commands, for instance, 'Thou
shalt not commit adultery,' and whatever are not commanded, yet suggested
by a special counsel, for instance, 'It is good for a man not to touch a
woman,' are then done aright when they are referred to the love of God,
and of our neighbor for God's sake, both in this world and in the world
to come." Hence it is that in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. i,
cap. vii) the abbot Moses says: "Fastings, watchings, meditating on the
Scriptures, penury and loss of all one's wealth, these are not perfection
but means to perfection, since not in them does the school of perfection
find its end, but through them it achieves its end," and he had already
said that "we endeavor to ascend by these steps to the perfection of
charity."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: In this saying of our Lord something is indicated as being
the way to perfection by the words, "Go, sell all thou hast, and give to
the poor"; and something else is added wherein perfection consists, when
He said, "And follow Me." Hence Jerome in his commentary on Mt. 19:27,
says that "since it is not enough merely to leave, Peter added that
which is perfect: 'And have followed Thee'"; and Ambrose, commenting on
Lk. 5:27, "Follow Me," says: "He commands him to follow, not with steps
of the body, but with devotion of the soul, which is the effect of
charity." Wherefore it is evident from the very way of speaking that the
counsels are means of attaining to perfection, since it is thus
expressed: "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell," etc., as though He said:
"By so doing thou shalt accomplish this end."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says (De Perf. Justit. viii) "the perfection
of charity is prescribed to man in this life, because one runs not right
unless one knows whither to run. And how shall we know this if no
commandment declares it to us?" And since that which is a matter of
precept can be fulfilled variously, one does not break a commandment
through not fulfilling it in the best way, but it is enough to fulfil it
in any way whatever. Now the perfection of Divine love is a matter of
precept for all without exception, so that even the perfection of heaven
is not excepted from this precept, as Augustine says (De Perf. Justit.
viii [*Cf. De Spir. et Lit. XXXVI]), and one escapes transgressing the
precept, in whatever measure one attains to the perfection of Divine
love. The lowest degree of Divine love is to love nothing more than God,
or contrary to God, or equally with God, and whoever fails from this
degree of perfection nowise fulfils the precept. There is another degree
of the Divine love, which cannot be fulfilled so long as we are on the
way, as stated above (A[2]), and it is evident that to fail from this is
not to be a transgressor of the precept; and in like manner one does not
transgress the precept, if one does not attain to the intermediate
degrees of perfection, provided one attain to the lowest.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Just as man has a certain perfection of his nature as soon
as he is born, which perfection belongs to the very essence of his
species, while there is another perfection which he acquires by growth,
so again there is a perfection of charity which belongs to the very
essence of charity, namely that man love God above all things, and love
nothing contrary to God, while there is another perfection of charity
even in this life, whereto a man attains by a kind of spiritual growth,
for instance when a man refrains even from lawful things, in order more
freely to give himself to the service of God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether whoever is perfect is in the state of perfection?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that whoever is perfect is in the state of
perfection. For, as stated above (A[3], ad 3), just as bodily perfection
is reached by bodily growth, so spiritual perfection is acquired by
spiritual growth. Now after bodily growth one is said to have reached the
state of perfect age. Therefore seemingly also after spiritual growth,
when one has already reached spiritual perfection, one is in the state of
perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, according to Phys. v, 2, movement "from one contrary to
another" has the same aspect as "movement from less to more." Now when a
man is changed from sin to grace, he is said to change his state, in so
far as the state of sin differs from the state of grace. Therefore it
would seem that in the same manner, when one progresses from a lesser to
a greater grace, so as to reach the perfect degree, one is in the state
of perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a man acquires a state by being freed from servitude.
But one is freed from the servitude of sin by charity, because "charity
covereth all sins" (Prov. 10:12). Now one is said to be perfect on
account of charity, as stated above (A[1]). Therefore, seemingly, whoever
has perfection, for this very reason has the state of perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Some are in the state of perfection, who are wholly
lacking in charity and grace, for instance wicked bishops or religious.
Therefore it would seem that on the other hand some have the perfection
of life, who nevertheless have not the state of perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[4] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, As stated above (Q[183], A[1]), state properly regards a
condition of freedom or servitude. Now spiritual freedom or servitude may
be considered in man in two ways: first, with respect to his internal
actions; secondly, with respect to his external actions. And since
according to 1 Kgs. 16:7, "man seeth those things that appear, but the
Lord beholdeth the heart," it follows that with regard to man's internal
disposition we consider his spiritual state in relation to the Divine
judgment, while with regard to his external actions we consider man's
spiritual state in relation to the Church. It is in this latter sense
that we are now speaking of states, namely in so far as the Church
derives a certain beauty from the variety of states [*Cf. Q[183], A[2]].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[4] Body Para. 2/3
Now it must be observed, that so far as men are concerned, in order that
any one attain to a state of freedom or servitude there is required first
of all an obligation or a release. For the mere fact of serving someone
does not make a man a slave, since even the free serve, according to Gal.
5:13, "By charity of the spirit serve one another": nor again does the
mere fact of ceasing to serve make a man free, as in the case of a
runaway slave; but properly speaking a man is a slave if he be bound to
serve, and a man is free if he be released from service. Secondly, it is
required that the aforesaid obligation be imposed with a certain
solemnity; even as a certain solemnity is observed in other matters which
among men obtain a settlement in perpetuity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[4] Body Para. 3/3
Accordingly, properly speaking, one is said to be in the state of
perfection, not through having the act of perfect love, but through
binding himself in perpetuity and with a certain solemnity to those
things that pertain to perfection. Moreover it happens that some persons
bind themselves to that which they do not keep, and some fulfil that to
which they have not bound themselves, as in the case of the two sons (Mt.
21:28,30), one of whom when his father said: "Work in my vineyard,"
answered: "I will not," and "afterwards . . . he went," while the other
"answering said: I go . . . and he went not." Wherefore nothing hinders
some from being perfect without being in the state of perfection, and
some in the state of perfection without being perfect.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: By bodily growth a man progresses in things pertaining to
nature, wherefore he attains to the state of nature; especially since
"what is according to nature is," in a way, "unchangeable" [*Ethic. v,
7], inasmuch as nature is determinate to one thing. In like manner by
inward spiritual growth a man reaches the state of perfection in relation
to the Divine judgment. But as regards the distinctions of ecclesiastical
states, a man does not reach the state of perfection except by growth in
respect of external actions.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This argument also regards the interior state. Yet when a
man passes from sin to grace, he passes from servitude to freedom; and
this does not result from a mere progress in grace, except when a man
binds himself to things pertaining to grace.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Again this argument considers the interior state.
Nevertheless, although charity causes the change of condition from
spiritual servitude to spiritual freedom, an increase of charity has not
the same effect.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether religious and prelates are in the state of perfection?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that prelates and religious are not in the state of
perfection. For the state of perfection differs from the state of the
beginners and the proficient. Now no class of men is specially assigned
to the state of the proficient or of the beginners. Therefore it would
seem that neither should any class of men be assigned to the state of
perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the outward state should answer to the inward, else one
is guilty of lying, "which consists not only in false words, but also in
deceitful deeds," according to Ambrose in one of his sermons (xxx de
Tempore). Now there are many prelates and religious who have not the
inward perfection of charity. Therefore, if all religious and prelates
are in the state of perfection, it would follow that all of them that are
not perfect are in mortal sin, as deceivers and liars.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as stated above (A[1]), perfection is measured according
to charity. Now the most perfect charity would seem to be in the martyrs,
according to Jn. 15:13, "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man
lay down his life for his friends": and a gloss on Heb. 12:4, "For you
have not yet resisted unto blood," says: "In this life no love is more
perfect than that to which the holy martyrs attained, who strove against
sin even unto blood." Therefore it would seem that the state of
perfection should be ascribed to the martyrs rather than to religious and
bishops.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) ascribes perfection to
bishops as being perfecters, and (Eccl. Hier. vi) to religious (whom he
calls monks or {therapeutai}, i.e. servants of God) as being perfected.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[5] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (A[4]), there is required for the state
of perfection a perpetual obligation to things pertaining to perfection,
together with a certain solemnity. Now both these conditions are
competent to religious and bishops. For religious bind themselves by vow
to refrain from worldly affairs, which they might lawfully use, in order
more freely to give themselves to God, wherein consists the perfection of
the present life. Hence Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi), speaking of
religious: "Some call them {therapeutai}," i.e. servants, "on account of
their rendering pure service and homage to God; others call them
{monachoi}" [*i.e. solitaries; whence the English word 'monk'], "on
account of the indivisible and single-minded life which by their being
wrapped in," i.e. contemplating, "indivisible things, unites them in a
Godlike union and a perfection beloved of God" [*Cf. Q[180], A[6]].
Moreover, the obligation in both cases is undertaken with a certain
solemnity of profession and consecration; wherefore Dionysius adds (Eccl.
Hier. vi): "Hence the holy legislation in bestowing perfect grace on them
accords them a hallowing invocation."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[5] Body Para. 2/2
In like manner bishops bind themselves to things pertaining to
perfection when they take up the pastoral duty, to which it belongs that
a shepherd "lay down his life for his sheep," according to Jn. 10:15.
Wherefore the Apostle says (1 Tim. 6:12): "Thou . . . hast confessed a
good confession before many witnesses," that is to say, "when he was
ordained," as a gloss says on this passage. Again, a certain solemnity of
consecration is employed together with the aforesaid profession,
according to 2 Tim. 1:6: "Stir up the grace of God which is in thee by
the imposition of my hands," which the gloss ascribes to the grace of the
episcopate. And Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v) that "when the high
priest," i.e. the bishop, "is ordained, he receives on his head the most
holy imposition of the sacred oracles, whereby it is signified that he is
a participator in the whole and entire hierarchical power, and that not
only is he the enlightener in all things pertaining to his holy
discourses and actions, but that he also confers this on others."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Beginning and increase are sought not for their own sake,
but for the sake of perfection; hence it is only to the state of
perfection that some are admitted under certain obligations and with
solemnity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Those who enter the state of perfection do not profess to
be perfect, but to tend to perfection. Hence the Apostle says (Phil.
3:12): "Not as though I had already attained, or were already perfect;
but I follow after, if I may by any means apprehend": and afterwards
(Phil. 3:15): "Let us therefore as many as are perfect, be thus minded."
Hence a man who takes up the state of perfection is not guilty of lying
or deceit through not being perfect, but through withdrawing his mind
from the intention of reaching perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Martyrdom is the most perfect act of charity. But an act of
perfection does not suffice to make the state of perfection, as stated
above (A[4]).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether all ecclesiastical prelates are in the state of perfection?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that all ecclesiastical prelates are in a state of
perfection. For Jerome commenting on Titus 1:5, "Ordain . . . in every
city," etc. says: "Formerly priest was the same as bishop," and
afterwards he adds: "Just as priests know that by the custom of the
Church they are subject to the one who is placed over them, so too,
bishops should recognize that, by custom rather than by the very
ordinance of our Lord, they are above the priests, and are together the
rightful governors of the Church." Now bishops are in the state of
perfection. Therefore those priests also are who have the cure of souls.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, just as bishops together with their consecration receive
the cure of souls, so also do parish priests and archdeacons, of whom a
gloss on Acts 6:3, "Brethren, look ye out . . . seven men of good
reputation," says: "The apostles decided here to appoint throughout the
Church seven deacons, who were to be of a higher degree, and as it were
the supports of that which is nearest to the altar." Therefore it would
seem that these also are in the state of perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, just as bishops are bound to "lay down their life for
their sheep," so too are parish priests and archdeacons. But this belongs
to the perfection of charity, as stated above (A[2], ad 3). Therefore it
would seem that parish priests and archdeacons also are in the state of
perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v): "The order of pontiffs
is consummative and perfecting, that of the priests is illuminative and
light-giving, that of the ministers is cleansing and discretive." Hence
it is evident that perfection is ascribed to bishops only.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[6] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, In priests and deacons having cure of souls two things
may be considered, namely their order and their cure. Their order is
directed to some act in the Divine offices. Wherefore it has been stated
above (Q[183], A[3], ad 3) that the distinction of orders is comprised
under the distinction of offices. Hence by receiving a certain order a
man receives the power of exercising certain sacred acts, but he is not
bound on this account to things pertaining to perfection, except in so
far as in the Western Church the receiving of a sacred order includes the
taking of a vow of continence, which is one of the things pertaining to
perfection, as we shall state further on (Q[186], A[4]). Therefore it is
clear that from the fact that a man receives a sacred order a man is not
placed simply in the state of perfection, although inward perfection is
required in order that one exercise such acts worthily.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[6] Body Para. 2/2
In like manner, neither are they placed in the state of perfection on
the part of the cure which they take upon themselves. For they are not
bound by this very fact under the obligation of a perpetual vow to retain
the cure of souls; but they can surrender it---either by entering
religion, even without their bishop's permission (cf. Decret. xix, qu. 2,
can. Duae sunt)---or again an archdeacon may with his bishop's permission
resign his arch-deaconry or parish, and accept a simple prebend without
cure, which would be nowise lawful, if he were in the state of
perfection; for "no man putting his hand to the plough and looking back
is fit for the kingdom of God" (Lk. 9:62). On the other hand bishops,
since they are in the state of perfection, cannot abandon the episcopal
cure, save by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff (to whom alone it
belongs also to dispense from perpetual vows), and this for certain
causes, as we shall state further on (Q[185], A[4]). Wherefore it is
manifest that not all prelates are in the state of perfection, but only
bishops.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: We may speak of priest and bishop in two ways. First, with
regard to the name: and thus formerly bishops and priests were not
distinct. For bishops are so called "because they watch over others," as
Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei xix, 19); while the priests according to
the Greek are "elders." [*Referring to the Greek {episkopos} and
{presbyteros} from which the English 'bishop' and 'priest' are derived.]
Hence the Apostle employs the term "priests" in reference to both, when
he says (1 Tim. 5:17): "Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy
of double honor"; and again he uses the term "bishops" in the same way,
wherefore addressing the priests of the Church of Ephesus he says (Acts
20:28): "Take heed to yourselves" and "to the whole flock, wherein the
Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
But as regards the thing signified by these terms, there was always a
difference between them, even at the time of the apostles. This is clear
on the authority of Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v), and of a gloss on Lk.
10:1, "After these things the Lord appointed," etc. which says: "Just as
the apostles were made bishops, so the seventy-two disciples were made
priests of the second order." Subsequently, however, in order to avoid
schism, it became necessary to distinguish even the terms, by calling the
higher ones bishops and the lower ones priests. But to assert that
priests nowise differ from bishops is reckoned by Augustine among
heretical doctrines (De Heres. liii), where he says that the Arians
maintained that "no distinction existed between a priest and a bishop."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Bishops have the chief cure of the sheep of their diocese,
while parish priests and archdeacons exercise an inferior ministry under
the bishops. Hence a gloss on 1 Cor. 12:28, "to one, helps, to another,
governments [*Vulg.: 'God hath set some in the church . . . helps,
governments,' etc.]," says: "Helps, namely assistants to those who are in
authority," as Titus was to the Apostle, or as archdeacons to the bishop;
"governments, namely persons of lesser authority, such as priests who
have to instruct the people": and Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v) that
"just as we see the whole hierarchy culminating in Jesus, so each office
culminates in its respective godlike hierarch or bishop." Also it is said
(XVI, qu. i, can. Cunctis): "Priests and deacons must all take care not
to do anything without their bishop's permission." Wherefore it is
evident that they stand in relation to their bishop as wardens or mayors
to the king; and for this reason, just as in earthly governments the king
alone receives a solemn blessing, while others are appointed by simple
commission, so too in the Church the episcopal cure is conferred with the
solemnity of consecration, while the archdeacon or parish priest receives
his cure by simple appointment; although they are consecrated by
receiving orders before having a cure.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As parish priests and archdeacons have not the chief cure,
but a certain ministry as committed to them by the bishop, so the
pastoral office does not belong to them in chief, nor are they bound to
lay down their life for the sheep, except in so far as they have a share
in their cure. Hence we should say that they have an office pertaining to
perfection rather than that they attain the state of perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the religious state is more perfect than that of prelates?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the religious state is more perfect than that
of prelates. For our Lord said (Mt. 19:21): "If thou wilt be perfect, go"
and "sell" all [Vulg.: 'what'] "thou hast, and give to the poor"; and
religious do this. But bishops are not bound to do so; for it is said
(XII, qu. i, can. Episcopi de rebus): "Bishops, if they wish, may
bequeath to their heirs their personal or acquired property, and whatever
belongs to them personally." Therefore religious are in a more perfect
state than bishops.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, perfection consists more especially in the love of God
than in the love of our neighbor. Now the religious state is directly
ordered to the love of God, wherefore it takes its name from "service and
homage to God," as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi); [*Quoted above A[5]]
whereas the bishop's state would seem to be ordered to the love of our
neighbor, of whose cure he is the "warden," and from this he takes his
name, as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei. xix, 19). Therefore it would
seem that the religious state is more perfect than that of bishops.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the religious state is directed to the contemplative
life, which is more excellent than the active life to which the episcopal
state is directed. For Gregory says (Pastor. i, 7) that "Isaias wishing
to be of profit to his neighbor by means of the active life desired the
office of preaching, whereas Jeremias, who was fain to hold fast to the
love of his Creator, exclaimed against being sent to preach." Therefore
it would seem that the religious state is more perfect than the episcopal
state.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is not lawful for anyone to pass from a more
excellent to a less excellent state; for this would be to look back [*Cf.
Lk. 9:62]. Yet a man may pass from the religious to the episcopal state,
for it is said (XVIII, qu. i, can. Statutum) that "the holy ordination
makes a monk to be a bishop." Therefore the episcopal state is more
perfect than the religious.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[7] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16), "the agent is
ever more excellent than the patient." Now in the genus of perfection
according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v, vi), bishops are in the position
of "perfecters," whereas religious are in the position of being
"perfected"; the former of which pertains to action, and the latter to
passion. Whence it is evident that the state of perfection is more
excellent in bishops than in religious.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Renunciation of one's possessions may be considered in two
ways. First, as being actual: and thus it is not essential, but a means,
to perfection, as stated above (A[3]). Hence nothing hinders the state of
perfection from being without renunciation of one's possessions, and the
same applies to other outward practices. Secondly, it may be considered
in relation to one's preparedness, in the sense of being prepared to
renounce or give away all: and this belongs directly to perfection. Hence
Augustine says (De QQ. Evang. ii, qu. 11): "Our Lord shows that the
children of wisdom understand righteousness to consist neither in eating
nor in abstaining, but in bearing want patiently." Wherefore the Apostle
says (Phil. 4:12): "I know . . . both to abound and to suffer need." Now
bishops especially are bound to despise all things for the honor of God
and the spiritual welfare of their flock, when it is necessary for them
to do so, either by giving to the poor of their flock, or by suffering
"with joy the being stripped of" their "own goods" [*Heb. 10:34].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: That bishops are busy about things pertaining to the love
of their neighbor, arises out of the abundance of their love of God.
Hence our Lord asked Peter first of all whether he loved Him, and
afterwards committed the care of His flock to him. And Gregory says
(Pastor. i, 5): "If the pastoral care is a proof of love, he who refuses
to feed God's flock, though having the means to do so, is convicted of
not loving the supreme Pastor." And it is a sign of greater love if a man
devotes himself to others for his friend's sake, than if he be willing
only to serve his friend.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Gregory says (Pastor. ii, 1), "a prelate should be
foremost in action, and more uplifted than others in contemplation,"
because it is incumbent on him to contemplate, not only for his own sake,
but also for the purpose of instructing others. Hence Gregory applies
(Hom. v in Ezech.) the words of Ps. 144:7, "They shall publish the memory
. . of Thy sweetness," to perfect men returning after their
contemplation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether parish priests and archdeacons are more perfect than religious?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that also parish priests and archdeacons are more
perfect than religious. For Chrysostom says in his Dialogue (De Sacerdot.
vi): "Take for example a monk, such as Elias, if I may exaggerate
somewhat, he is not to be compared with one who, cast among the people
and compelled to carry the sins of many, remains firm and strong." A
little further on he says: "If I were given the choice, where would I
prefer to please, in the priestly office, or in the monastic solitude,
without hesitation I should choose the former." Again in the same book
(ch. 5) he says: "If you compare the toils of this project, namely of the
monastic life, with a well-employed priesthood, you will find them as far
distant from one another as a common citizen is from a king." Therefore
it would seem that priests who have the cure of souls are more perfect
than religious.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Augustine says (ad Valerium, Ep. xxi): "Let thy
religious prudence observe that in this life, and especially at these
times, there is nothing so difficult, so onerous, so perilous as the
office of bishop, priest, or deacon; while in God's sight there is no
greater blessing, if one engage in the fight as ordered by our
Commander-in-chief." Therefore religious are not more perfect than
priests or deacons.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Augustine says (Ep. lx, ad Aurel.): "It would be most
regrettable, were we to exalt monks to such a disastrous degree of pride,
and deem the clergy deserving of such a grievous insult," as to assert
that 'a bad monk is a good clerk,' "since sometimes even a good monk
makes a bad clerk." And a little before this he says that "God's
servants," i.e. monks, "must not be allowed to think that they may easily
be chosen for something better," namely the clerical state, "if they
should become worse thereby," namely by leaving the monastic state.
Therefore it would seem that those who are in the clerical state are more
perfect than religious.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, it is not lawful to pass from a more perfect to a less
perfect state. Yet it is lawful to pass from the monastic state to a
priestly office with a cure attached, as appears (XVI, qu. i, can. Si
quis monachus) from a decree of Pope Gelasius, who says: "If there be a
monk, who by the merit of his exemplary life is worthy of the priesthood,
and the abbot under whose authority he fights for Christ his King, ask
that he be made a priest, the bishop shall take him and ordain him in
such place as he shall choose fitting." And Jerome says (Ad Rustic.
Monach., Ep. cxxv): "In the monastery so live as to deserve to be a
clerk." Therefore parish priests and archdeacons are more perfect than
religious.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, bishops are in a more perfect state than religious, as
shown above (A[7]). But parish priests and archdeacons. through having
cure of souls, are more like bishops than religious are. Therefore they
are more perfect.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1
OBJ 6: Further, virtue "is concerned with the difficult and the good"
(Ethic. ii, 3). Now it is more difficult to lead a good life in the
office of parish priest or archdeacon than in the religious state.
Therefore parish priests and archdeacons have more perfect virtue than
religious.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is stated (XIX, qu. ii, cap. Duce): "If a man while
governing the people in his church under the bishop and leading a secular
life is inspired by the Holy Ghost to desire to work out his salvation in
a monastery or under some canonical rule, since he is led by a private
law, there is no reason why he should be constrained by a public law."
Now a man is not led by the law of the Holy Ghost, which is here called a
"private law," except to something more perfect. Therefore it would seem
that religious are more perfect than archdeacons or parish priests.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] Body Para. 1/5
I answer that, When we compare things in the point of super-eminence, we
look not at that in which they agree, but at that wherein they differ.
Now in parish priests and archdeacons three things may be considered,
their state, their order, and their office. It belongs to their state
that they are seculars, to their order that they are priests or deacons,
to their office that they have the cure of souls committed to them.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] Body Para. 2/5
Accordingly, if we compare these with one who is a religious by state, a
deacon or priest by order, having the cure of souls by office, as many
monks and canons regular have, this one will excel in the first point,
and in the other points he will be equal. But if the latter differ from
the former in state and office, but agree in order, such as religious
priests and deacons not having the cure of souls, it is evident that the
latter will be more excellent than the former in state, less excellent in
office, and equal in order.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] Body Para. 3/5
We must therefore consider which is the greater, preeminence of state or
of office; and here, seemingly, we should take note of two things,
goodness and difficulty. Accordingly, if we make the comparison with a
view to goodness, the religious state surpasses the office of parish
priest or archdeacon, because a religious pledges his whole life to the
quest of perfection, whereas the parish priest or archdeacon does not
pledge his whole life to the cure of souls, as a bishop does, nor is it
competent to him, as it is to a bishop, to exercise the cure of souls in
chief, but only in certain particulars regarding the cure of souls
committed to his charge, as stated above (A[6], ad 2). Wherefore the
comparison of their religious state with their office is like the
comparisons of the universal with the particular, and of a holocaust with
a sacrifice which is less than a holocaust according to Gregory (Hom. xx
in Ezech.). Hence it is said (XIX, qu. i, can. Clerici qui monachorum.):
"Clerics who wish to take the monastic vows through being desirous of a
better life must be allowed by their bishops the free entrance into the
monastery."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] Body Para. 4/5
This comparison, however, must be considered as regarding the genus of
the deed; for as regards the charity of the doer it happens sometimes
that a deed which is of less account in its genus is of greater merit if
it be done out of greater charity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] Body Para. 5/5
On the other hand, if we consider the difficulty of leading a good life
in religion, and in the office of one having the cure of souls, in this
way it is more difficult to lead a good life together with the exercise
of the cure of souls, on account of outward dangers: although the
religious life is more difficult as regards the genus of the deed, by
reason of the strictness of religious observance. If, however, the
religious is also without orders, as in the case of religious lay
brethren, then it is evident that the pre-eminence of order excels in the
point of dignity, since by holy orders a man is appointed to the most
august ministry of serving Christ Himself in the sacrament of the altar.
For this requires a greater inward holiness than that which is requisite
for the religious state, since as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi) the
monastic order must follow the priestly orders, and ascend to Divine
things in imitation of them. Hence, other things being equal, a cleric
who is in holy orders, sins more grievously if he do something contrary
to holiness than a religious who is not in holy orders: although a
religious who is not in orders is bound to regular observance to which
persons in holy orders are not bound.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: We might answer briefly these quotations from Chrysostom by
saying that he speaks not of a priest of lesser order who has the cure of
souls, but of a bishop, who is called a high-priest; and this agrees with
the purpose of that book wherein he consoles himself and Basil in that
they were chosen to be bishops. We may, however, pass this over and reply
that he speaks in view of the difficulty. For he had already said: "When
the pilot is surrounded by the stormy sea and is able to bring the ship
safely out of the tempest, then he deserves to be acknowledged by all as
a perfect pilot"; and afterwards he concludes, as quoted, with regard to
the monk, "who is not to be compared with one who, cast among the people
. . remains firm"; and he gives the reason why, because "both in the
calm end in the storm he piloted himself to safety." This proves nothing
more than that the state of one who has the cure of souls is fraught with
more danger than the monastic state; and to keep oneself innocent in face
of a greater peril is proof of greater virtue. on the other hand, it also
indicates greatness of virtue if a man avoid dangers by entering
religion; hence he does not say that "he would prefer the priestly office
to the monastic solitude," but that "he would rather please" in the
former than in the latter, since this is a proof of greater virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This passage quoted from Augustine also clearly refers to
the question of difficulty which proves the greatness of virtue in those
who lead a good life, as stated above (ad 1).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Augustine there compares monks with clerics as regards the
pre-eminence of order, not as regards the distinction between religious
and secular life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] R.O. 4 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 4: Those who are taken from the religious state to receive the
cure of souls, being already in sacred orders, attain to something they
had not hitherto, namely the office of the cure, yet they do not put
aside what they had already. For it is said in the Decretals (XVI, qu. i,
can. De Monachis): "With regard to those monks who after long residence
in a monastery attain to the order of clerics, we bid them not to lay
aside their former purpose."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] R.O. 4 Para. 2/2
On the other hand, parish priests and archdeacons, when they enter
religion, resign their cure, in order to enter the state of perfection.
This very fact shows the excellence of the religious life. When religious
who are not in orders are admitted to the clerical state and to the
sacred orders, they are clearly promoted to something better, as stated:
this is indicated by the very way in which Jerome expresses himself: "So
live in the monastery as to deserve to be a clerk."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: Parish priests and archdeacons are more like bishops than
religious are, in a certain respect, namely as regards the cure of souls
which they have subordinately; but as regards the obligation in
perpetuity, religious are more like a bishop, as appears from what we
have said above (AA[5],6).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[184] A[8] R.O. 6 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 6: The difficulty that arises from the arduousness of the deed
adds to the perfection of virtue; but the difficulty that results from
outward obstacles sometimes lessens the perfection of virtue---for
instance, when a man loves not virtue so much as to wish to avoid the
obstacles to virtue, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Cor.
9:25), "Everyone that striveth for the mastery refraineth himself from
all things": and sometimes it is a sign of perfect virtue---for instance,
when a man forsakes not virtue, although he is hindered in the practice
of virtue unawares or by some unavoidable cause. In the religious state
there is greater difficulty arising from the arduousness of deeds;
whereas for those who in any way at all live in the world, there is
greater difficulty resulting from obstacles to virtue, which obstacles
the religious has had the foresight to avoid.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THINGS PERTAINING TO THE EPISCOPAL STATE (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We must now consider things pertaining to the episcopal state. Under
this head there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is lawful to desire the office of a bishop?
(2) Whether it is lawful to refuse the office of bishop definitively?
(3) Whether the better man should be chosen for the episcopal office?
(4) Whether a bishop may pass over to the religious state?
(5) Whether he may lawfully abandon his subjects in a bodily manner?
(6) Whether he can have anything of his own?
(7) Whether he sins mortally by not distributing ecclesiastical goods
to the poor?
(8) Whether religious who are appointed to the episcopal office are
bound to religious observances?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is lawful to desire the office of a bishop?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it is lawful to desire the office of a bishop.
For the Apostle says (1 Tim. 3:1): "He that desires [Vulg.: 'If a man
desire'] the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work." Now it is
lawful and praiseworthy to desire a good work. Therefore it is even
praiseworthy to desire the office of a bishop.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the episcopal state is more perfect than the religious,
as we have said above (Q[184], A[7]). But it is praiseworthy to desire to
enter the religious state. Therefore it is also praiseworthy to desire
promotion to the episcopal state.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is written (Prov. 11:26): "He that hideth up corn
shall be cursed among the people; but a blessing upon the head of them
that sell." Now a man who is apt, both in manner of life and by
knowledge, for the episcopal office, would seem to hide up the spiritual
corn, if he shun the episcopal state, whereas by accepting the episcopal
office he enters the state of a dispenser of spiritual corn. Therefore it
would seem praiseworthy to desire the office of a bishop, and blameworthy
to refuse it.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the deeds of the saints related in Holy Writ are set
before us as an example, according to Rm. 15:4, "What things soever were
written, were written for our learning." Now we read (Is. 6:8) that
Isaias offered himself for the office of preacher, which belongs chiefly
to bishops. Therefore it would seem praiseworthy to desire the office of
a bishop.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19): "The higher
place, without which the people cannot be ruled, though it be filled
becomingly, is unbecomingly desired."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[1] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Three things may be considered in the episcopal office.
One is principal and final, namely the bishop's work, whereby the good of
our neighbor is intended, according to Jn. 21:17, "Feed My sheep."
Another thing is the height of degree, for a bishop is placed above
others, according to Mt. 24:45, "A faithful and a wise servant, whom his
lord hath appointed over his family." The third is something resulting
from these, namely reverence, honor, and a sufficiency of temporalities,
according to 1 Tim. 5:17, "Let the priests that rule well be esteemed
worthy of double honor." Accordingly, to desire the episcopal office on
account of these incidental goods is manifestly unlawful, and pertains to
covetousness or ambition. Wherefore our Lord said against the Pharisees
(Mt. 23:6,7): "They love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs
in the synagogues, and salutations in the market-place, and to be called
by men, Rabbi." As regards the second, namely the height of degree, it
is presumptuous to desire the episcopal office. Hence our Lord reproved
His disciples for seeking precedence, by saying to them (Mt. 20:25): "You
know that the princes of the gentiles lord it over them." Here Chrysostom
says (Hom. lxv in Matth.) that in these words "He points out that it is
heathenish to seek precedence; and thus by comparing them to the gentiles
He converted their impetuous soul."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[1] Body Para. 2/3
On the other hand, to desire to do good to one's neighbor is in itself
praiseworthy, and virtuous. Nevertheless, since considered as an
episcopal act it has the height of degree attached to it, it would seem
that, unless there be manifest and urgent reason for it, it would be
presumptuous for any man to desire to be set over others in order to do
them good. Thus Gregory says (Pastor. i, 8) that "it was praiseworthy to
seek the office of a bishop when it was certain to bring one into graver
dangers." Wherefore it was not easy to find a person to accept this
burden, especially seeing that it is through the zeal of charity that one
divinely instigated to do so, according to Gregory, who says (Pastor. i,
7) that "Isaias being desirous of profiting his neighbor, commendably
desired the office of preacher."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[1] Body Para. 3/3
Nevertheless, anyone may, without presumption, desire to do such like
works if he should happen to be in that office, or to be worthy of doing
them; so that the object of his desire is the good work and not the
precedence in dignity. Hence Chrysostom* says: "It is indeed good to
desire a good work, but to desire the primacy of honor is vanity. For
primacy seeks one that shuns it, and abhors one that desires it." [*The
quotation is from the Opus Imperfectum in Matth. (Hom. xxxv), falsely
ascribed to St. John Chrysostom.]
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Gregory says (Pastor. i, 8), "when the Apostle said this
he who was set over the people was the first to be dragged to the
torments of martyrdom," so that there was nothing to be desired in the
episcopal office, save the good work. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ.
Dei xix, 19) that when the Apostle said, "'Whoever desireth the office of
bishop, desireth a good work,' he wished to explain what the episcopacy
is: for it denotes work and not honor: since {skopos} signifies
'watching.' Wherefore if we like we may render {episkopein} by the Latin
'superintendere' [to watch over]: thus a man may know himself to be no
bishop if he loves to precede rather than to profit others." For, as he
observed shortly before, "in our actions we should seek, not honor nor
power in this life, since all things beneath the sun are vanity, but the
work itself which that honor or power enables us to do." Nevertheless, as
Gregory says (Pastor. i, 8), "while praising the desire" (namely of the
good work) "he forthwith turns this object of praise into one of fear,
when he adds: It behooveth . . . a bishop to be blameless," as though to
say: "I praise what you seek, but learn first what it is you seek."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: There is no parity between the religious and the episcopal
state, for two reasons. First, because perfection of life is a
prerequisite of the episcopal state, as appears from our Lord asking
Peter if he loved Him more than the others, before committing the
pastoral office to him, whereas perfection is not a prerequisite of the
religious state, since the latter is the way to perfection. Hence our
Lord did not say (Mt. 19:21): "If thou art perfect, go, sell all [Vulg.:
'what'] thou hast," but "If thou wilt be perfect." The reason for this
difference is because, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. vi),
perfection pertains actively to the bishop, as the "perfecter," but to
the monk passively as one who is "perfected": and one needs to be perfect
in order to bring others to perfection, but not in order to be brought to
perfection. Now it is presumptuous to think oneself perfect, but it is
not presumptuous to tend to perfection. Secondly, because he who enters
the religious state subjects himself to others for the sake of a
spiritual profit, and anyone may lawfully do this. Wherefore Augustine
says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19): "No man is debarred from striving for the
knowledge of truth, since this pertains to a praiseworthy ease." On the
other hand, he who enters the episcopal state is raised up in order to
watch over others, and no man should seek to be raised thus, according to
Heb. 5:4, "Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is
called by God": and Chrysostom says: "To desire supremacy in the Church
is neither just nor useful. For what wise man seeks of his own accord to
submit to such servitude and peril, as to have to render an account of
the whole Church? None save him who fears not God's judgment, and makes a
secular abuse of his ecclesiastical authority, by turning it to secular
uses."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The dispensing of spiritual corn is not to be carried on in
an arbitrary fashion, but chiefly according to the appointment and
disposition of God, and in the second place according to the appointment
of the higher prelates, in whose person it is said (1 Cor. 4:1): "Let a
man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of
the mysteries of God." Wherefore a man is not deemed to hide spiritual
corn if he avoids governing or correcting others, and is not competent to
do so, neither in virtue of his office nor of his superior's command;
thus alone is he deemed to hide it, when he neglects to dispense it while
under obligation to do so in virtue of his office, or obstinately refuses
to accept the office when it is imposed on him. Hence Augustine says (De
Civ. Dei xix, 19): "The love of truth seeks a holy leisure, the demands
of charity undertake an honest labor. If no one imposes this burden upon
us, we must devote ourselves to the research and contemplation of truth,
but if it be imposed on us, we must bear it because charity demands it of
us."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: As Gregory says (Pastor. i, 7), "Isaias, who wishing to be
sent, knew himself to be already cleansed by the live coal taken from the
altar, shows us that no one should dare uncleansed to approach the sacred
ministry. Since, then, it is very difficult for anyone to be able to know
that he is cleansed, it is safer to decline the office of preacher."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is lawful for a man to refuse absolutely an appointment to
the episcopate?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it is lawful to refuse absolutely an
appointment to the episcopate. For as Gregory says (Pastor. i, 7),
"Isaias wishing to be of profit to his neighbor by means of the active
life, desired the office of preaching, whereas Jeremias who was fain to
hold fast to the love of his Creator by contemplation exclaimed against
being sent to preach." Now no man sins by being unwilling to forgo better
things in order to adhere to things that are not so good. Since then the
love of God surpasses the love of our neighbor, and the contemplative
life is preferable to the active, as shown above (Q[25], A[1]; Q[26],
A[2]; Q[182], A[1]) it would seem that a man sins not if he refuse
absolutely the episcopal office.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, as Gregory says (Pastor. i, 7), "it is very difficult
for anyone to be able to know that he is cleansed: nor should anyone
uncleansed approach the sacred ministry." Therefore if a man perceives
that he is not cleansed, however urgently the episcopal office be
enjoined him, he ought not to accept it.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Jerome (Prologue, super Marc.) says that "it is related
of the Blessed Mark* that after receiving the faith he cut off his thumb
that he might be excluded from the priesthood." [*This prologue was
falsely ascribed to St. Jerome, and the passage quoted refers, not to St.
Mark the Evangelist, but to a hermit of that name. (Cf. Baronius, Anno
Christi, 45, num. XLIV)] Likewise some take a vow never to accept a
bishopric. Now to place an obstacle to a thing amounts to the same as
refusing it altogether. Therefore it would seem that one may, without
sin, refuse the episcopal office absolutely.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Ep. xlviii ad Eudox.): "If Mother
Church requires your service, neither accept with greedy conceit, nor
refuse with fawning indolence"; and afterwards he adds: "Nor prefer your
ease to the needs of the Church: for if no good men were willing to
assist her in her labor, you would seek in vain how we could be born of
her."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Two things have to be considered in the acceptance of the
episcopal office: first, what a man may fittingly desire according to his
own will; secondly, what it behooves a man to do according to the will of
another. As regards his own will it becomes a man to look chiefly to his
own spiritual welfare, whereas that he look to the spiritual welfare of
others becomes a man according to the appointment of another having
authority, as stated above (A[1], ad 3). Hence just as it is a mark of an
inordinate will that a man of his own choice incline to be appointed to
the government of others, so too it indicates an inordinate will if a man
definitively refuse the aforesaid office of government in direct
opposition to the appointment of his superior: and this for two reasons.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
First, because this is contrary to the love of our neighbor, for whose
good a man should offer himself according as place and time demand:
hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19) that "the demands of charity
undertake an honest labor." Secondly, because this is contrary to
humility, whereby a man submits to his superior's commands: hence Gregory
says (Pastor. i, 6): "In God's sight humility is genuine when it does not
obstinately refuse to submit to what is usefully prescribed."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: Although simply and absolutely speaking the contemplative
life is more excellent than the active, and the love of God better than
the love of our neighbor, yet, on the other hand, the good of the many
should be preferred to the good of the individual. Wherefore Augustine
says in the passage quoted above: "Nor prefer your own ease to the needs
of the Church," and all the more since it belongs to the love of God that
a man undertake the pastoral care of Christ's sheep. Hence Augustine,
commenting on Jn. 21:17, "Feed My sheep," says (Tract. cxxiii in Joan.):
"Be it the task of love to feed the Lord's flock, even as it was the mark
of fear to deny the Shepherd."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
Moreover prelates are not transferred to the active life, so as to
forsake the contemplative; wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19)
that "if the burden of the pastoral office be imposed, we must not
abandon the delights of truth," which are derived from contemplation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: No one is bound to obey his superior by doing what is
unlawful, as appears from what was said above concerning obedience
(Q[104], A[5]). Accordingly it may happen that he who is appointed to the
office of prelate perceive something in himself on account of which it is
unlawful for him to accept a prelacy. But this obstacle may sometimes be
removed by the very person who is appointed to the pastoral cure---for
instance, if he have a purpose to sin, he may abandon it---and for this
reason he is not excused from being bound to obey definitely the superior
who has appointed him. Sometimes, however, he is unable himself to remove
the impediment that makes the pastoral office unlawful to him, yet the
prelate who appoints him can do so---for instance, if he be irregular or
excommunicate. In such a case he ought to make known his defect to the
prelate who has appointed him; and if the latter be willing to remove the
impediment, he is bound humbly to obey. Hence when Moses had said (Ex.
4:10): "I beseech thee, Lord, I am not eloquent from yesterday, and the
day before," the Lord answered (Ex. 4:12): "I will be in thy mouth, and I
will teach thee what thou shalt speak." At other times the impediment
cannot be removed, neither by the person appointing nor by the one
appointed---for instance, if an archbishop be unable to dispense from an
irregularity; wherefore a subject, if irregular, would not be bound to
obey him by accepting the episcopate or even sacred orders.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: It is not in itself necessary for salvation to accept the
episcopal office, but it becomes necessary by reason of the superior's
command. Now one may lawfully place an obstacle to things thus necessary
for salvation, before the command is given; else it would not be lawful
to marry a second time, lest one should thus incur an impediment to the
episcopate or holy orders. But this would not be lawful in things
necessary for salvation. Hence the Blessed Mark did not act against a
precept by cutting off his finger, although it is credible that he did
this by the instigation of the Holy Ghost, without which it would be
unlawful for anyone to lay hands on himself. If a man take a vow not to
accept the bishop's office, and by this intend to bind himself not even
to accept it in obedience to his superior prelate, his vow is unlawful;
but if he intend to bind himself, so far as it lies with him, not to seek
the episcopal office, nor to accept it except under urgent necessity, his
vow is lawful, because he vows to do what it becomes a man to do.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether he that is appointed to the episcopate ought to be better than
others?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that one who is appointed to the episcopate ought
to be better than others. For our Lord, when about to commit the pastoral
office to Peter, asked him if he loved Him more than the others. Now a
man is the better through loving God the more. Therefore it would seem
that one ought not to be appointed to the episcopal office except he be
better than others.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Pope Symmachus says (can. Vilissimus I, qu. 1): "A man
is of very little worth who though excelling in dignity, excels not in
knowledge and holiness." Now he who excels in knowledge and holiness is
better. Therefore a man ought not to be appointed to the episcopate
unless he be better than others.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, in every genus the lesser are governed by the greater,
as corporeal things are governed by things spiritual, and the lower
bodies by the higher, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 3). Now a bishop
is appointed to govern others. Therefore he should be better than others.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Decretal [*Can. Cum dilectus, de Electione] says
that "it suffices to choose a good man, nor is it necessary to choose the
better man."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[3] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, In designating a man for the episcopal office, something
has to be considered on the part of the person designate, and something
on the part of the designator. For on the part of the designator, whether
by election or by appointment, it is required that he choose such a one
as will dispense the divine mysteries faithfully. These should be
dispensed for the good of the Church, according to 1 Cor. 14:12, "Seek to
abound unto the edifying of the Church"; and the divine mysteries are not
committed to men for their own meed, which they should await in the life
to come. Consequently he who has to choose or appoint one for a bishop is
not bound to take one who is best simply, i.e. according to charity, but
one who is best for governing the Church, one namely who is able to
instruct, defend, and govern the Church peacefully. Hence Jerome,
commenting on Titus 1:5, says against certain persons that "some seek to
erect as pillars of the Church, not those whom they know to be more
useful to the Church, but those whom they love more, or those by whose
obsequiousness they have been cajoled or undone, or for whom some person
in authority has spoken, and, not to say worse than this, have succeeded
by means of gifts in being made clerics."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[3] Body Para. 2/3
Now this pertains to the respect of persons, which in such matters is a
grave sin. Wherefore a gloss of Augustine [*Ep. clxvii ad Hieron.] on
James 2:1, "Brethren, have not . . . with respect of persons," says: "If
this distinction of sitting and standing be referred to ecclesiastical
honors, we must not deem it a slight sin to 'have the faith of the Lord
of glory with respect of persons.' For who would suffer a rich man to be
chosen for the Church's seat of honor, in despite of a poor man who is
better instructed and holier?"
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[3] Body Para. 3/3
On the part of the person appointed, it is not required that he esteem
himself better than others, for this would be proud and presumptuous; but
it suffices that he perceive nothing in himself which would make it
unlawful for him to take up the office of prelate. Hence although Peter
was asked by our Lord if he loved Him more than the others, he did not,
in his reply, set himself before the others, but answered simply that he
loved Christ.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Our Lord knew that, by His own bestowal, Peter was in other
respects fitted to govern the Church: wherefore He questioned him about
his greater love, to show that when we find a man otherwise fitted for
the government of the Church, we must look chiefly to his pre-eminence in
the love of God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This statement refers to the pursuits of the man who is
placed in authority. For he should aim at showing himself to be more
excellent than others in both knowledge and holiness. Wherefore Gregory
says (Pastor. ii, 1) "the occupations of a prelate ought to excel those
of the people, as much as the shepherd's life excels that of his flock."
But he is not to be blamed and looked upon as worthless if he excelled
not before being raised to the prelacy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: According to 1 Cor. 12:4 seqq., "there are diversities of
graces . . . and . . . of ministries . . . and . . . of operations."
Hence nothing hinders one from being more fitted for the office of
governing, who does not excel in the grace of holiness. It is otherwise
in the government of the natural order, where that which is higher in the
natural order is for that very reason more fitted to dispose of those
that are lower.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a bishop may lawfully forsake the episcopal cure, in order to
enter religion?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that a bishop cannot lawfully forsake his episcopal cure
in order to enter religion. For no one can lawfully pass from a more
perfect to a less perfect state; since this is "to look back," which is
condemned by the words of our Lord (Lk. 9:62), "No man putting his hand
to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." Now the
episcopal state is more perfect than the religious, as shown above
(Q[184], A[7]). Therefore just as it is unlawful to return to the world
from the religious state, so is it unlawful to pass from the episcopal to
the religious state.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the order of grace is more congruous than the order of
nature. Now according to nature a thing is not moved in contrary
directions; thus if a stone be naturally moved downwards, it cannot
naturally return upwards from below. But according to the order of grace
it is lawful to pass from the religious to the episcopal state. Therefore
it is not lawful to pass contrariwise from the episcopal to the religious
state.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, in the works of grace nothing should be inoperative. Now
when once a man is consecrated bishop he retains in perpetuity the
spiritual power of giving orders and doing like things that pertain to
the episcopal office: and this power would seemingly remain inoperative
in one who gives up the episcopal cure. Therefore it would seem that a
bishop may not forsake the episcopal cure and enter religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, No man is compelled to do what is in itself unlawful.
Now those who seek to resign their episcopal cure are compelled to resign
(Extra, de Renunt. cap. Quidam). Therefore apparently it is not unlawful
to give up the episcopal cure.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[4] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, The perfection of the episcopal state consists in this
that for love of God a man binds himself to work for the salvation of his
neighbor, wherefore he is bound to retain the pastoral cure so long as he
is able to procure the spiritual welfare of the subjects entrusted to his
care: a matter which he must not neglect---neither for the sake of the
quiet of divine contemplation, since the Apostle, on account of the needs
of his subjects, suffered patiently to be delayed even from the
contemplation of the life to come, according to Phil. 1:22-25, "What I
shall choose I know not, but I am straitened between two, having a desire
to be dissolved, and to be with Christ, a thing by far better. But to
abide still in the flesh is needful for you. And having this confidence,
I know that I shall abide"; nor for the sake of avoiding any hardships or
of acquiring any gain whatsoever, because as it is written (Jn. 10:11),
"the good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[4] Body Para. 2/3
At times, however, it happens in several ways that a bishop is hindered
from procuring the spiritual welfare of his subjects. Sometimes on
account of his own defect, either of conscience (for instance if he be
guilty of murder or simony), or of body (for example if he be old or
infirm), or of irregularity arising, for instance, from bigamy. Sometimes
he is hindered through some defect in his subjects, whom he is unable to
profit. Hence Gregory says (Dial. ii, 3): "The wicked must be borne
patiently, when there are some good who can be succored, but when there
is no profit at all for the good, it is sometimes useless to labor for
the wicked. Wherefore the perfect when they find that they labor in vain
are often minded to go elsewhere in order to labor with fruit." Sometimes
again this hindrance arises on the part of others, as when scandal
results from a certain person being in authority: for the Apostle says (1
Cor. 8:13): "If meat scandalize my brother, I will never eat flesh":
provided, however, the scandal is not caused by the wickedness of persons
desirous of subverting the faith or the righteousness of the Church;
because the pastoral cure is not to be laid aside on account of scandal
of this kind, according to Mt. 15:14, "Let them alone," those namely who
were scandalized at the truth of Christ's teaching, "they are blind, and
leaders of the blind."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[4] Body Para. 3/3
Nevertheless just as a man takes upon himself the charge of authority at
the appointment of a higher superior, so too it behooves him to be
subject to the latter's authority in laying aside the accepted charge for
the reasons given above. Hence Innocent III says (Extra, de Renunt., cap.
Nisi cum pridem): "Though thou hast wings wherewith thou art anxious to
fly away into solitude, they are so tied by the bonds of authority, that
thou art not free to fly without our permission." For the Pope alone can
dispense from the perpetual vow, by which a man binds himself to the care
of his subjects, when he took upon himself the episcopal office.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The perfection of religious and that of bishops are
regarded from different standpoints. For it belongs to the perfection of
a religious to occupy oneself in working out one's own salvation, whereas
it belongs to the perfection of a bishop to occupy oneself in working for
the salvation of others. Hence so long as a man can be useful to the
salvation of his neighbor, he would be going back, if he wished to pass
to the religious state, to busy himself only with his own salvation,
since he has bound himself to work not only for his own but also for
others' salvation. Wherefore Innocent III says in the Decretal quoted
above that "it is more easily allowable for a monk to ascend to the
episcopacy, than for a bishop to descend to the monastic life. If,
however, he be unable to procure the salvation of others it is meet he
should seek his own."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: On account of no obstacle should a man forego the work of
his own salvation, which pertains to the religious state. But there may
be an obstacle to the procuring of another's salvation; wherefore a monk
may be raised to the episcopal state wherein he is able also to work out
his own salvation. And a bishop, if he be hindered from procuring the
salvation of others, may enter the religious life, and may return to his
bishopric should the obstacle cease, for instance by the correction of
his subjects, cessation of the scandal, healing of his infirmity, removal
of his ignorance by sufficient instruction. Again, if he owed his
promotion to simony of which he was in ignorance, and resigning his
episcopate entered the religious life, he can be reappointed to another
bishopric [*Cap. Post translat., de Renunt.]. On the other hand, if a man
be deposed from the episcopal office for some sin, and confined in a
monastery that he may do penance, he cannot be reappointed to a
bishopric. Hence it is stated (VII, qu. i, can. Hoc nequaquam): "The holy
synod orders that any man who has been degraded from the episcopal
dignity to the monastic life and a place of repentance, should by no
means rise again to the episcopate."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Even in natural things power remains inactive on account of
a supervening obstacle, for instance the act of sight ceases through an
affliction of the eye. So neither is it unreasonable if, through the
occurrence of some obstacle from without, the episcopal power remain
without the exercise of its act.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is lawful for a bishop on account of bodily persecution to
abandon the flock committed to his care?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it is unlawful for a bishop, on account of
some temporal persecution, to withdraw his bodily presence from the flock
committed to his care. For our Lord said (Jn. 10:12) that he is a
hireling and no true shepherd, who "seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth
the sheep and flieth": and Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ev.) that "the wolf
comes upon the sheep when any man by his injustice and robbery oppresses
the faithful and the humble." Therefore if, on account of the persecution
of a tyrant, a bishop withdraws his bodily presence from the flock
entrusted to his care, it would seem that he is a hireling and not a
shepherd.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 6:1): "My son, if thou be surety
for thy friend, thou hast engaged fast thy hand to a stranger," and
afterwards (Prov. 6:3): "Run about, make haste, stir up thy friend."
Gregory expounds these words and says (Pastor. iii, 4): "To be surety for
a friend, is to vouch for his good conduct by engaging oneself to a
stranger. And whoever is put forward as an example to the lives of
others, is warned not only to watch but even to rouse his friend." Now he
cannot do this if he withdraw his bodily presence from his flock.
Therefore it would seem that a bishop should not on account of
persecution withdraw his bodily presence from his flock.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it belongs to the perfection of the bishop's state that
he devote himself to the care of his neighbor. Now it is unlawful for one
who has professed the state of perfection to forsake altogether the
things that pertain to perfection. Therefore it would seem unlawful for a
bishop to withdraw his bodily presence from the execution of his office,
except perhaps for the purpose of devoting himself to works of perfection
in a monastery.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord commanded the apostles, whose successors
bishops are (Mt. 10:23): "When they shall persecute you in this city,
flee into another."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[5] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, In any obligation the chief thing to be considered is the
end of the obligation. Now bishops bind themselves to fulfil the pastoral
office for the sake of the salvation of their subjects. Consequently when
the salvation of his subjects demands the personal presence of the
pastor, the pastor should not withdraw his personal presence from his
flock, neither for the sake of some temporal advantage, nor even on
account of some impending danger to his person, since the good shepherd
is bound to lay down his life for his sheep.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[5] Body Para. 2/2
On the other hand, if the salvation of his subjects can be sufficiently
provided for by another person in the absence of the pastor, it is lawful
for the pastor to withdraw his bodily presence from his flock, either for
the sake of some advantage to the Church, or on account of some danger to
his person. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ccxxviii ad Honorat.): "Christ's
servants may flee from one city to another, when one of them is specially
sought out by persecutors: in order that the Church be not abandoned by
others who are not so sought for. When, however, the same danger
threatens all, those who stand in need of others must not be abandoned by
those whom they need." For "if it is dangerous for the helmsman to leave
the ship when the sea is calm, how much more so when it is stormy," as
Pope Nicholas I says (cf. VII, qu. i, can. Sciscitaris).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: To flee as a hireling is to prefer temporal advantage or
one's bodily welfare to the spiritual welfare of one's neighbor. Hence
Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ev.): "A man cannot endanger himself for the
sake of his sheep, if he uses his authority over them not through love of
them but for the sake of earthly gain: wherefore he fears to stand in the
way of danger lest he lose what he loves." But he who, in order to avoid
danger, leaves the flock without endangering the flock, does not flee as
a hireling.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: If he who is surety for another be unable to fulfil his
engagement, it suffices that he fulfil it through another. Hence if a
superior is hindered from attending personally to the care of his
subjects, he fulfils his obligation if he do so through another.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: When a man is appointed to a bishopric, he embraces the
state of perfection as regards one kind of perfection; and if he be
hindered from the practice thereof, he is not bound to another kind of
perfection, so as to be obliged to enter the religious state. Yet he is
under the obligation of retaining the intention of devoting himself to
his neighbor's salvation, should an opportunity offer, and necessity
require it of him.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is lawful for a bishop to have property of his own?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it is not lawful for a bishop to have
property of his own. For our Lord said (Mt. 19:21): "If thou wilt be
perfect, go sell all [Vulg.: 'what] thou hast, and give to the poor . . .
and come, follow Me"; whence it would seem to follow that voluntary
poverty is requisite for perfection. Now bishops are in the state of
perfection. Therefore it would seem unlawful for them to possess anything
as their own.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, bishops take the place of the apostles in the Church,
according to a gloss on Lk. 10:1. Now our Lord commanded the apostles to
possess nothing of their own, according to Mt. 10:9, "Do not possess
gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses"; wherefore Peter said for
himself and the other apostles (Mt. 19:27): "Behold we have left all
things and have followed Thee." Therefore it would seem that bishops are
bound to keep this command, and to possess nothing of their own.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Jerome says (Ep. lii ad Nepotian.): "The Greek {kleros}
denotes the Latin 'sors.' Hence clerics are so called either because they
are of the Lord's estate, or because the Lord Himself is the estate, i.e.
portion of clerics. Now he that possesses the Lord, can have nothing
besides God; and if he have gold and silver, possessions, and chattels of
all kinds, with such a portion the Lord does not vouchsafe to be his
portion also." Therefore it would seem that not only bishops but even
clerics should have nothing of their own.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is stated (XII, qu. i, can. Episcopi de rebus):
"Bishops, if they wish, may bequeath to their heirs their personal or
acquired property, and whatever belongs to them personally."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, No one is bound to works of supererogation, unless he
binds himself specially thereto by vow. Hence Augustine says (Ep. cxxvii
ad Paulin. et Arment.): "Since you have taken the vow, you have already
bound yourself, you can no longer do otherwise. Before you were bound by
the vow, you were free to submit." Now it is evident that to live without
possessing anything is a work of supererogation, for it is a matter not
of precept but of counsel. Wherefore our Lord after saying to the young
man: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments," said
afterwards by way of addition: "If thou wilt be perfect go sell" all
"that thou hast, and give to the poor" (Mt. 19:17,21). Bishops, however,
do not bind themselves at their ordination to live without possessions of
their own; nor indeed does the pastoral office, to which they bind
themselves, make it necessary for them to live without anything of their
own. Therefore bishops are not bound to live without possessions of their
own.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated above (Q[184], A[3], ad 1) the perfection of the
Christian life does not essentially consist in voluntary poverty, but
voluntary poverty conduces instrumentally to the perfection of life.
Hence it does not follow that where there is greater poverty there is
greater perfection; indeed the highest perfection is compatible with
great wealth, since Abraham, to whom it was said (Gn. 17:1): "Walk
before Me and be perfect," is stated to have been rich (Gn. 13:2).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 2: This saying of our Lord can be understood in three ways.
First, mystically, that we should possess neither gold nor silver means
that the preacher should not rely chiefly on temporal wisdom and
eloquence; thus Jerome expounds the passage.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 2/3
Secondly, according to Augustine's explanation (De Consens. Ev. ii, 30),
we are to understand that our Lord said this not in command but in
permission. For he permitted them to go preaching without gold or silver
or other means, since they were to receive the means of livelihood from
those to whom they preached; wherefore He added: "For the workman is
worthy of his meat." And yet if anyone were to use his own means in
preaching the Gospel, this would be a work of supererogation, as Paul
says in reference to himself (1 Cor. 9:12,15).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 3/3
Thirdly, according to the exposition of Chrysostom [*Hom. ii in Rom.
xvi, 3], we are to understand that our Lord laid these commands on His
disciples in reference to the mission on which they were sent to preach
to the Jews, so that they might be encouraged to trust in His power,
seeing that He provided for their wants without their having means of
their own. But it does not follow from this that they, or their
successors, were obliged to preach the Gospel without having means of
their own: since we read of Paul (2 Cor. 11:8) that he "received wages"
of other churches for preaching to the Corinthians, wherefore it is clear
that he possessed something sent to him by others. And it seems foolish
to say that so many holy bishops as Athanasius, Ambrose, and Augustine
would have disobeyed these commandments if they believed themselves bound
to observe them.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Every part is less than the whole. Accordingly a man has
other portions together with God, if he becomes less intent on things
pertaining to God by occupying himself with things of the world. Now
neither bishops nor clerics ought thus to possess means of their own,
that while busy with their own they neglect those that concern the
worship of God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether bishops sin mortally if they distribute not to the poor the
ecclesiastical goods which accrue to them?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that bishops sin mortally if they distribute not to
the poor the ecclesiastical goods which they acquire. For Ambrose
[*Basil, Serm. lxiv, de Temp., among the supposititious works of St.
Jerome] expounding Lk. 12:16, "The land of a certain . . . man brought
forth plenty of fruits," says: "Let no man claim as his own that which he
has taken and obtained by violence from the common property in excess of
his requirements"; and afterwards he adds: "It is not less criminal to
take from him who has, than, when you are able and have plenty to refuse
him who has not." Now it is a mortal sin to take another's property by
violence. Therefore bishops sin mortally if they give not to the poor
that which they have in excess.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a gloss of Jerome on Is. 3:14, "The spoil of the poor is
in your house," says that "ecclesiastical goods belong to the poor." Now
whoever keeps for himself or gives to others that which belongs to
another, sins mortally and is bound to restitution. Therefore if bishops
keep for themselves, or give to their relations or friends, their surplus
of ecclesiastical goods, it would seem that they are bound to restitution.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, much more may one take what is necessary for oneself
from the goods of the Church, than accumulate a surplus therefrom. Yet
Jerome says in a letter to Pope Damasus [*Cf. Can. Clericos, cause. i,
qu. 2; Can. Quoniam; cause. xvi, qu. 1; Regul. Monach. iv, among the
supposititious works of St. Jerome]: "It is right that those clerics who
receive no goods from their parents and relations should be supported
from the funds of the Church. But those who have sufficient income from
their parents and their own possessions, if they take what belongs to the
poor, they commit and incur the guilt of sacrilege." Wherefore the
Apostle says (1 Tim. 5:16): "If any of the faithful have widows, let him
minister to them, and let not the Church be charged, that there may be
sufficient for them that are widows indeed." Much more therefore do
bishops sin mortally if they give not to the poor the surplus of their
ecclesiastical goods.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Many bishops do not give their surplus to the poor, but
would seem commendably to lay it out so as to increase the revenue of the
Church.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[7] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, The same is not to be said of their own goods which
bishops may possess, and of ecclesiastical goods. For they have real
dominion over their own goods; wherefore from the very nature of the case
they are not bound to give these things to others, and may either keep
them for themselves or bestow them on others at will. Nevertheless they
may sin in this disposal by inordinate affection, which leads them either
to accumulate more than they should, or not to assist others, in
accordance with the demands of charity; yet they are not bound to
restitution, because such things are entrusted to their ownership.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[7] Body Para. 2/4
On the other hand, they hold ecclesiastical goods as dispensers or
trustees. For Augustine says (Ep. clxxxv ad Bonif.): "If we possess
privately what is enough for us, other things belong not to us but to the
poor, and we have the dispensing of them; but we can claim ownership of
them only by wicked theft." Now dispensing requires good faith, according
to 1 Cor. 4:2, "Here now it is required among the dispensers that a man
be found faithful." Moreover ecclesiastical goods are to be applied not
only to the good of the poor, but also to the divine worship and the
needs of its ministers. Hence it is said (XII, qu. ii, can. de
reditibus): "Of the Church's revenues or the offerings of the faithful
only one part is to be assigned to the bishop, two parts are to be used
by the priest, under pain of suspension, for the ecclesiastical fabric,
and for the benefit of the poor; the remaining part is to be divided
among the clergy according to their respective merits." Accordingly if
the goods which are assigned to the use of the bishop are distinct from
those which are appointed for the use of the poor, or the ministers, or
for the ecclesiastical worship, and if the bishop keeps back for himself
part of that which should be given to the poor, or to the ministers for
their use, or expended on the divine worship, without doubt he is an
unfaithful dispenser, sins mortally, and is bound to restitution.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[7] Body Para. 3/4
But as regards those goods which are deputed to his private use, the
same apparently applies as to his own property, namely that he sins
through immoderate attachment thereto or use thereof, if he exceeds
moderation in what he keeps for himself, and fails to assist others
according to the demands of charity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[7] Body Para. 4/4
On the other hand, if no distinction is made in the aforesaid goods,
their distribution is entrusted to his good faith; and if he fail or
exceed in a slight degree, this may happen without prejudice to his good
faith, because in such matters a man cannot possibly decide precisely
what ought to be done. On the other hand, if the excess be very great he
cannot be ignorant of the fact; consequently he would seem to be lacking
in good faith, and is guilty of mortal sin. For it is written (Mt.
24:48-51) that "if that evil servant shall say in his heart: My lord is
long a-coming," which shows contempt of God's judgment, "and shall begin
to strike his fellow-servants," which is a sign of pride, "and shall eat
and drink with drunkards," which proceeds from lust, "the lord of that
servant shall come in a day that he hopeth not . . . and shall separate
him," namely from the fellowship of good men, "and appoint his portion
with hypocrites," namely in hell.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This saying of Ambrose refers to the administration not
only of ecclesiastical things but also of any goods whatever from which a
man is bound, as a duty of charity, to provide for those who are in need.
But it is not possible to state definitely when this need is such as to
impose an obligation under pain of mortal sin, as is the case in other
points of detail that have to be considered in human acts: for the
decision in such matters is left to human prudence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As stated above the goods of the Church have to be employed
not only for the use of the poor, but also for other purposes. Hence if a
bishop or cleric wish to deprive himself of that which is assigned to his
own use, and give it to his relations or others, he sins not so long as
he observes moderation, so, to wit, that they cease to be in want without
becoming the richer thereby. Hence Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 30): "It is
a commendable liberality if you overlook not your kindred when you know
them to be in want; yet not so as to wish to make them rich with what you
can give to the poor."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The goods of churches should not all be given to the poor,
except in a case of necessity: for then, as Ambrose says (De Offic. ii,
28), even the vessels consecrated to the divine worship are to be sold
for the ransom of prisoners, and other needs of the poor. In such a case
of necessity a cleric would sin if he chose to maintain himself on the
goods of the Church, always supposing him to have a patrimony of his own
on which to support himself.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[7] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The goods of the churches should be employed for the good
of the poor. Consequently a man is to be commended if, there being no
present necessity for helping the poor, he spends the surplus from the
Church revenue, in buying property, or lays it by for some future use
connected with the Church or the needs of the poor. But if there be a
pressing need for helping the poor, to lay by for the future is a
superfluous and inordinate saving, and is forbidden by our Lord Who said
(Mt. 6:34): "Be . . . not solicitous for the morrow."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether religious who are raised to the episcopate are bound to religious
observances?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that religious who are raised to the episcopate are
not bound to religious observances. For it is said (XVIII, qu. i, can.
Statutum) that a "canonical election loosens a monk from the yoke imposed
by the rule of the monastic profession, and the holy ordination makes of
a monk a bishop." Now the regular observances pertain to the yoke of the
rule. Therefore religious who are appointed bishops are not bound to
religious observances.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, he who ascends from a lower to a higher degree is
seemingly not bound to those things which pertain to the lower degree:
thus it was stated above (Q[88], A[12], ad 1) that a religious is not
bound to keep the vows he made in the world. But a religious who is
appointed to the episcopate ascends to something greater, as stated above
(Q[84], A[7]). Therefore it would seem that a bishop is not bound to
those things whereto he was bound in the state of religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, religious would seem to be bound above all to obedience,
and to live without property of their own. But religious who are
appointed bishops, are not bound to obey the superiors of their order,
since they are above them; nor apparently are they bound to poverty,
since according to the decree quoted above (OBJ[1]) "when the holy
ordination has made of a monk a bishop he enjoys the right, as the lawful
heir, of claiming his paternal inheritance." Moreover they are sometimes
allowed to make a will. Much less therefore are they bound to other
regular observances.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is said in the Decretals (XVI, qu. i, can. De
Monachis): "With regard to those who after long residence in a monastery
attain to the order of clerics, we bid them not to lay aside their former
purpose."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[8] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 2) the religious state pertains
to perfection, as a way of tending to perfection, while the episcopal
state pertains to perfection, as a professorship of perfection. Hence the
religious state is compared to the episcopal state, as the school to the
professorial chair, and as disposition to perfection. Now the disposition
is not voided at the advent of perfection, except as regards what
perchance is incompatible with perfection, whereas as to that wherein it
is in accord with perfection, it is confirmed the more. Thus when the
scholar has become a professor it no longer becomes him to be a listener,
but it becomes him to read and meditate even more than before.
Accordingly we must assert that if there be among religious observances
any that instead of being an obstacle to the episcopal office, are a
safeguard of perfection, such as continence, poverty, and so forth, a
religious, even after he has been made a bishop, remains bound to observe
these, and consequently to wear the habit of his order, which is a sign
of this obligation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[8] Body Para. 2/2
On the other hand, a man is not bound to keep such religious observances
as may be incompatible with the episcopal office, for instance solitude,
silence, and certain severe abstinences or watchings and such as would
render him bodily unable to exercise the episcopal office. For the rest
he may dispense himself from them, according to the needs of his person
or office, and the manner of life of those among whom he dwells, in the
same way as religious superiors dispense themselves in such matters.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: He who from being a monk becomes a bishop is loosened from
the yoke of the monastic profession, not in everything, but in those that
are incompatible with the episcopal office, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The vows of those who are living in the world are compared
to the vows of religion as the particular to the universal, as stated
above (Q[88], A[12], ad 1). But the vows of religion are compared to the
episcopal dignity as disposition to perfection. Now the particular is
superfluous when one has the universal, whereas the disposition is still
necessary when perfection has been attained.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 3: It is accidental that religious who are bishops are not
bound to obey the superiors of their order, because, to wit, they have
ceased to be their subjects; even as those same religious superiors.
Nevertheless the obligation of the vow remains virtually, so that if any
person be lawfully set above them, they would be bound to obey them,
inasmuch as they are bound to obey both the statutes of their rule in the
way mentioned above, and their superiors if they have any.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 2/3
As to property they can nowise have it. For they claim their paternal
inheritance not as their own, but as due to the Church. Hence it is added
(XVIII, qu. i, can. Statutum) that after he has been ordained bishop at
the altar to which he is consecrated and appointed according to the holy
canons, he must restore whatever he may acquire.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[185] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 3/3
Nor can he make any testament at all, because he is entrusted with the
sole administration of things ecclesiastical, and this ends with his
death, after which a testament comes into force according to the Apostle
(Heb. 9:17). If, however, by the Pope's permission he make a will, he is
not to be understood to bequeath property of his own, but we are to
understand that by apostolic authority the power of his administration
has been prolonged so as to remain in force after his death.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] Out. Para. 1/2
OF THOSE THINGS IN WHICH THE RELIGIOUS STATE PROPERLY CONSISTS (TEN
ARTICLES)
We must now consider things pertaining to the religious state: which
consideration will be fourfold. In the first place we shall consider
those things in which the religious state consists chiefly; secondly,
those things which are lawfully befitting to religious; thirdly, the
different kinds of religious orders; fourthly, the entrance into the
religious state.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] Out. Para. 2/2
Under the first head there are ten points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the religious state is perfect?
(2) Whether religious are bound to all the counsels?
(3) Whether voluntary poverty is required for the religious state?
(4) Whether continency is necessary?
(5) Whether obedience is necessary?
(6) Whether it is necessary that these should be the matter of a vow?
(7) Of the sufficiency of these vows;
(8) Of their comparison one with another;
(9) Whether a religious sins mortally whenever he transgresses a statute
of his rule?
(10) Whether, other things being equal, a religious sins more grievously
by the same kind of sin than a secular person?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether religion implies a state of perfection?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that religion does not imply a state of perfection.
For that which is necessary for salvation does not seemingly pertain to
perfection. But religion is necessary for salvation, whether because
"thereby we are bound [religamur] to the one almighty God," as Augustine
says (De Vera Relig. 55), or because it takes its name from "our
returning [religimus] to God Whom we had lost by neglecting Him" [*Cf.
Q[81], A[1]], according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei x, 3). Therefore it
would seem that religion does not denote the state of perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, religion according to Tully (De Invent. Rhet. ii, 53) is
that "which offers worship and ceremony to the Divine nature." Now the
offering of worship and ceremony to God would seem to pertain to the
ministry of holy orders rather than to the diversity of states, as
stated above (Q[40], A[2]; Q[183], A[3]). Therefore it would seem that
religion does not denote the state of perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the state of perfection is distinct from the state of
beginners and that of the proficient. But in religion also some are
beginners, and some are proficient. Therefore religion does not denote
the state of perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, religion would seem a place of repentance; for it is
said in the Decrees (VII, qu. i, can. Hoc nequaquam): "The holy synod
orders that any man who has been degraded from the episcopal dignity to
the monastic life and a place of repentance, should by no means rise
again to the episcopate." Now a place of repentance is opposed to the
state of perfection; hence Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. vi) places penitents in
the lowest place, namely among those who are to be cleansed. Therefore it
would seem that religion is not the state of perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[1] OTC Para. 1/2
On the contrary, In the Conferences of the Fathers (Collat. i, 7) abbot
Moses speaking of religious says: "We must recognize that we have to
undertake the hunger of fasting, watchings, bodily toil, privation,
reading, and other acts of virtue, in order by these degrees to mount to
the perfection of charity." Now things pertaining to human acts are
specified and denominated from the intention of the end. Therefore
religious belong to the state of perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[1] OTC Para. 2/2
Moreover Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi) that those who are called
servants of God, by reason of their rendering pure service and subjection
to God, are united to the perfection beloved of Him.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[141], A[2]) that which is applicable
to many things in common is ascribed antonomastically to that to which it
is applicable by way of excellence. Thus the name of "fortitude" is
claimed by the virtue which preserves the firmness of the mind in regard
to most difficult things, and the name of "temperance," by that virtue
which tempers the greatest pleasures. Now religion as stated above (Q[81]
, A[2]; A[3], ad 2) is a virtue whereby a man offers something to the
service and worship of God. Wherefore those are called religious
antonomastically, who give themselves up entirely to the divine service,
as offering a holocaust to God. Hence Gregory says (Hom. xx in Ezech.):
"Some there are who keep nothing for themselves, but sacrifice to
almighty God their tongue, their senses, their life, and the property
they possess." Now the perfection of man consists in adhering wholly to
God, as stated above (Q[184], A[2]), and in this sense religion denotes
the state of perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: To offer something to the worship of God is necessary for
salvation, but to offer oneself wholly, and one's possessions to the
worship of God belongs to perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As stated above (Q[81], A[1], ad 1; A[4], ad 1,2; Q[85],
A[3]) when we were treating of the virtue of religion, religion has
reference not only to the offering of sacrifices and other like things
that are proper to religion, but also to the acts of all the virtues
which in so far as these are referred to God's service and honor become
acts of religion. Accordingly if a man devotes his whole life to the
divine service, his whole life belongs to religion, and thus by reason of
the religious life that they lead, those who are in the state of
perfection are called religious.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[184], AA[4],6) religion denotes the
state of perfection by reason of the end intended. Hence it does not
follow that whoever is in the state of perfection is already perfect, but
that he tends to perfection. Hence Origen commenting on Mt. 19:21, "If
thou wilt be perfect," etc., says (Tract. viii in Matth.) that "he who
has exchanged riches for poverty in order to become perfect does not
become perfect at the very moment of giving his goods to the poor; but
from that day the contemplation of God will begin to lead him to all the
virtues." Thus all are not perfect in religion, but some are beginners,
some proficient.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The religious state was instituted chiefly that we might
obtain perfection by means of certain exercises, whereby the obstacles to
perfect charity are removed. By the removal of the obstacles of perfect
charity, much more are the occasions of sin cut off, for sin destroys
charity altogether. Wherefore since it belongs to penance to cut out the
causes of sin, it follows that the religious state is a most fitting
place for penance. Hence (XXXIII, qu. ii, cap. Admonere) a man who had
killed his wife is counseled to enter a monastery which is described as
"better and lighter," rather than to do public penance while remaining in
the world.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether every religious is bound to keep all the counsels?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that every religious is bound to keep all the
counsels. For whoever professes a certain state of life is bound to
observe whatever belongs to that state. Now each religious professes the
state of perfection. Therefore every religious is bound to keep all the
counsels that pertain to the state of perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xx in Ezech.) that "he who renounces
this world, and does all the good he can, is like one who has gone out of
Egypt and offers sacrifice in the wilderness." Now it belongs specially
to religious to renounce the world. Therefore it belongs to them also to
do all the good they can. and so it would seem that each of them is bound
to fulfil all the counsels.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, if it is not requisite for the state of perfection to
fulfil all the counsels, it would seem enough to fulfil some of them. But
this is false, since some who lead a secular life fulfil some of the
counsels, for instance those who observe continence. Therefore it would
seem that every religious who is in the state of perfection is bound to
fulfil whatever pertains to perfection: and such are the counsels.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, one is not bound, unless one bind oneself, to do works
of supererogation. But every religious does not bind himself to keep all
the counsels, but to certain definite ones, some to some, others to
others. Therefore all are not bound to keep all of them.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[2] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, A thing pertains to perfection in three ways. First,
essentially, and thus, as stated above (Q[184], A[3]) the perfect
observance of the precepts of charity belongs to perfection. Secondly, a
thing belongs to perfection consequently: such are those things that
result from the perfection of charity, for instance to bless them that
curse you (Lk. 6:27), and to keep counsels of a like kind, which though
they be binding as regards the preparedness of the mind, so that one has
to fulfil them when necessity requires; yet are sometimes fulfilled,
without there being any necessity, through superabundance of charity.
Thirdly, a thing belongs to perfection instrumentally and dispositively,
as poverty, continence, abstinence, and the like.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[2] Body Para. 2/4
Now it has been stated (A[1]) that the perfection of charity is the end
of the religious state. And the religious state is a school or exercise
for the attainment of perfection, which men strive to reach by various
practices, just as a physician may use various remedies in order to heal.
But it is evident that for him who works for an end it is not necessary
that he should already have attained the end, but it is requisite that he
should by some means tend thereto. Hence he who enters the religious
state is not bound to have perfect charity, but he is bound to tend to
this, and use his endeavors to have perfect charity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[2] Body Para. 3/4
For the same reason he is not bound to fulfil those things that result
from the perfection of charity, although he is bound to intend to fulfil
them: against which intention he acts if he contemns them, wherefore he
sins not by omitting them but by contempt of them.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[2] Body Para. 4/4
In like manner he is not bound to observe all the practices whereby
perfection may be attained, but only those which are definitely
prescribed to him by the rule which he has professed.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: He who enters religion does not make profession to be
perfect, but he professes to endeavor to attain perfection; even as he
who enters the schools does not profess to have knowledge, but to study
in order to acquire knowledge. Wherefore as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei
viii, 2), Pythagoras was unwilling to profess to be a wise man, but
acknowledged himself, "a lover of wisdom." Hence a religious does not
violate his profession if he be not perfect, but only if he despises to
tend to perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Just as, though all are bound to love God with their whole
heart, yet there is a certain wholeness of perfection which cannot be
omitted without sin, and another wholeness which can be omitted without
sin (Q[184], A[2], ad 3), provided there be no contempt, as stated above
(ad 1), so too, all, both religious and seculars, are bound, in a certain
measure, to do whatever good they can, for to all without exception it is
said (Eccles. 9:10): "Whatsoever thy hand is able to do, do it
earnestly." Yet there is a way of fulfilling this precept, so as to avoid
sin, namely if one do what one can as required by the conditions of one's
state of life: provided there be no contempt of doing better things,
which contempt sets the mind against spiritual progress.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: There are some counsels such that if they be omitted, man's
whole life would be taken up with secular business; for instance if he
have property of his own, or enter the married state, or do something of
the kind that regards the essential vows of religion themselves;
wherefore religious are bound to keep all such like counsels. Other
counsels there are, however, about certain particular better actions,
which can be omitted without one's life being taken up with secular
actions; wherefore there is no need for religious to be bound to fulfil
all of them.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether poverty is required for religious perfection?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that poverty is not required for religious
perfection. For that which it is unlawful to do does not apparently
belong to the state of perfection. But it would seem to be unlawful for a
man to give up all he possesses; since the Apostle (2 Cor. 8:12) lays
down the way in which the faithful are to give alms saying: "If the will
be forward, it is accepted according to that which a man hath," i.e. "you
should keep back what you need," and afterwards he adds (2 Cor. 8:13):
"For I mean not that others should be eased, and you burthened," i.e.
"with poverty," according to a gloss. Moreover a gloss on 1 Tim. 6:8,
"Having food, and wherewith to be covered," says: "Though we brought
nothing, and will carry nothing away, we must not give up these temporal
things altogether." Therefore it seems that voluntary poverty is not
requisite for religious perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, whosoever exposes himself to danger sins. But he who
renounces all he has and embraces voluntary poverty exposes himself to
danger---not only spiritual, according to Prov. 30:9, "Lest perhaps . . .
being compelled by poverty, I should steal and forswear the name of my
God," and Ecclus. 27:1, "Through poverty many have sinned"---but also
corporal, for it is written (Eccles. 7:13): "As wisdom is a defense, so
money is a defense," and the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1) that "the
waste of property appears to be a sort of ruining of one's self, since
thereby man lives." Therefore it would seem that voluntary poverty is not
requisite for the perfection of religious life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, "Virtue observes the mean," as stated in Ethic. ii, 6.
But he who renounces all by voluntary poverty seems to go to the extreme
rather than to observe the mean. Therefore he does not act virtuously:
and so this does not pertain to the perfection of life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the ultimate perfection of man consists in happiness.
Now riches conduce to happiness; for it is written (Ecclus. 31:8):
"Blessed is the rich man that is found without blemish," and the
Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 8) that "riches contribute instrumentally to
happiness." Therefore voluntary poverty is not requisite for religious
perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[3] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, the episcopal state is more perfect than the religious
state. But bishops may have property, as stated above (Q[185], A[6]).
Therefore religious may also.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[3] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1
OBJ 6: Further, almsgiving is a work most acceptable to God, and as
Chrysostom says (Hom. ix in Ep. ad Hebr.) "is a most effective remedy in
repentance." Now poverty excludes almsgiving. Therefore it would seem
that poverty does not pertain to religious perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. viii, 26): "There are some of the
righteous who bracing themselves up to lay hold of the very height of
perfection, while they aim at higher objects within, abandon all things
without." Now, as stated above, (AA[1],2), it belongs properly to
religious to brace themselves up in order to lay hold of the very height
of perfection. Therefore it belongs to them to abandon all outward things
by voluntary poverty.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (A[2]), the religious state is an
exercise and a school for attaining to the perfection of charity. For
this it is necessary that a man wholly withdraw his affections from
worldly things; since Augustine says (Confess. x, 29), speaking to God:
"Too little doth he love Thee, who loves anything with Thee, which he
loveth not for Thee." Wherefore he says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 36) that
"greater charity means less cupidity, perfect charity means no cupidity."
Now the possession of worldly things draws a man's mind to the love of
them: hence Augustine says (Ep. xxxi ad Paulin. et Theras.) that "we are
more firmly attached to earthly things when we have them than when we
desire them: since why did that young man go away sad, save because he
had great wealth? For it is one thing not to wish to lay hold of what one
has not, and another to renounce what one already has; the former are
rejected as foreign to us, the latter are cut off as a limb." And
Chrysostom says (Hom. lxiii in Matth.) that "the possession of wealth
kindles a greater flame and the desire for it becomes stronger."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
Hence it is that in the attainment of the perfection of charity the
first foundation is voluntary poverty, whereby a man lives without
property of his own, according to the saying of our Lord (Mt. 19:21), "If
thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all [Vulg.: 'what'] thou hast, and give to
the poor . . . and come, follow Me."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As the gloss adds, "when the Apostle said this (namely "not
that you should be burthened," i.e. with poverty)," he did not mean that
"it were better not to give: but he feared for the weak, whom he
admonished so to give as not to suffer privation." Hence in like manner
the other gloss means not that it is unlawful to renounce all one's
temporal goods, but that this is not required of necessity. Wherefore
Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 30): "Our Lord does not wish," namely does not
command us "to pour out our wealth all at once, but to dispense it; or
perhaps to do as did Eliseus who slew his oxen, and fed the poor with
that which was his own so that no household care might hold him back."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: He who renounces all his possessions for Christ's sake
exposes himself to no danger, neither spiritual nor corporal. For
spiritual danger ensues from poverty when the latter is not voluntary;
because those who are unwillingly poor, through the desire of
money-getting, fall into many sins, according to 1 Tim. 6:9, "They that
will become rich, fall into temptation and into the snare of the devil."
This attachment is put away by those who embrace voluntary poverty, but
it gathers strength in those who have wealth, as stated above. Again
bodily danger does not threaten those who, intent on following Christ,
renounce all their possessions and entrust themselves to divine
providence. Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 17): "Those
who seek first the kingdom of God and His justice are not weighed down by
anxiety lest they lack what is necessary."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6), the mean of
virtue is taken according to right reason, not according to the quantity
of a thing. Consequently whatever may be done in accordance with right
reason is not rendered sinful by the greatness of the quantity, but all
the more virtuous. It would, however, be against right reason to throw
away all one's possessions through intemperance, or without any useful
purpose; whereas it is in accordance with right reason to renounce wealth
in order to devote oneself to the contemplation of wisdom. Even certain
philosophers are said to have done this; for Jerome says (Ep. xlviii ad
Paulin.): "The famous Theban, Crates, once a very wealthy man, when he
was going to Athens to study philosophy, cast away a large amount of
gold; for he considered that he could not possess both gold and virtue at
the same time." Much more therefore is it according to right reason for a
man to renounce all he has, in order perfectly to follow Christ.
Wherefore Jerome says (Ep. cxxv ad Rust. Monach.): "Poor thyself, follow
Christ poor."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 4: Happiness or felicity is twofold. One is perfect, to which
we look forward in the life to come; the other is imperfect, in respect
of which some are said to be happy in this life. The happiness of this
life is twofold, one is according to the active life, the other according
to the contemplative life, as the Philosopher asserts (Ethic. x, 7,8).
Now wealth conduces instrumentally to the happiness of the active life
which consists in external actions, because as the Philosopher says
(Ethic. i, 8) "we do many things by friends, by riches, by political
influence, as it were by instruments." On the other hand, it does not
conduce to the happiness of the contemplative life, rather is it an
obstacle thereto, inasmuch as the anxiety it involves disturbs the quiet
of the soul, which is most necessary to one who contemplates. Hence it is
that the Philosopher asserts (Ethic. x, 8) that "for actions many things
are needed, but the contemplative man needs no such things," namely
external goods, "for his operation; in fact they are obstacles to his
contemplation."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 2/2
Man is directed to future happiness by charity; and since voluntary
poverty is an efficient exercise for the attaining of perfect charity, it
follows that it is of great avail in acquiring the happiness of heaven.
Wherefore our Lord said (Mt. 19:21): "Go, sell all [Vulg.: 'what'] thou
hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." Now
riches once they are possessed are in themselves of a nature to hinder
the perfection of charity, especially by enticing and distracting the
mind. Hence it is written (Mt. 13:22) that "the care of this world and
the deceitfulness of riches choketh up the word" of God, for as Gregory
says (Hom. xv in Ev.) by "preventing the good desire from entering into
the heart, they destroy life at its very outset." Consequently it is
difficult to safeguard charity amidst riches: wherefore our Lord said
(Mt. 19:23) that "a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of
heaven," which we must understand as referring to one who actually has
wealth, since He says that this is impossible for him who places his
affection in riches, according to the explanation of Chrysostom (Hom.
lxiii in Matth.), for He adds (Mt. 19:24): "It is easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the
kingdom of heaven." Hence it is not said simply that the "rich man" is
blessed, but "the rich man that is found without blemish, and that hath
not gone after gold," and this because he has done a difficult thing,
wherefore the text continues (Mt. 19:9): "Who is he? and we will praise
him; for he hath done wonderful things in his life," namely by not loving
riches though placed in the midst of them.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[3] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: The episcopal state is not directed to the attainment of
perfection, but rather to the effect that, in virtue of the perfection
which he already has, a man may govern others, by administering not only
spiritual but also temporal things. This belongs to the active life,
wherein many things occur that may be done by means of wealth as an
instrument, as stated (ad 4). Wherefore it is not required of bishops,
who make profession of governing Christ's flock, that they have nothing
of their own, whereas it is required of religious who make profession of
learning to obtain perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[3] R.O. 6 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 6: The renouncement of one's own wealth is compared to
almsgiving as the universal to the particular, and as the holocaust to
the sacrifice. Hence Gregory says (Hom. xx in Ezech.) that those who
assist "the needy with the things they possess, by their good deeds offer
sacrifice, since they offer up something to God and keep back something
for themselves; whereas those who keep nothing for themselves offer a
holocaust which is greater than a sacrifice." Wherefore Jerome also says
(Contra Vigilant.): "When you declare that those do better who retain the
use of their possessions, and dole out the fruits of their possessions to
the poor, it is not I but the Lord Who answers you; If thou wilt be
perfect," etc., and afterwards he goes on to say: "This man whom you
praise belongs to the second and third degree, and we too commend him:
provided we acknowledge the first as to be preferred to the second and
third." For this reason in order to exclude the error of Vigilantius it
is said (De Eccl. Dogm. xxxviii): "It is a good thing to give away one's
goods by dispensing them to the poor: it is better to give them away once
for all with the intention of following the Lord, and, free of
solicitude, to be poor with Christ."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether perpetual continence is required for religious perfection?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that perpetual continence is not required for
religious perfection. For all perfection of the Christian life began with
Christ's apostles. Now the apostles do not appear to have observed
continence, as evidenced by Peter, of whose mother-in-law we read Mt.
8:14. Therefore it would seem that perpetual continence is not requisite
for religious perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the first example of perfection is shown to us in the
person of Abraham, to whom the Lord said (Gn. 17:1): "Walk before Me, and
be perfect." Now the copy should not surpass the example. Therefore
perpetual continence is not requisite for religious perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, that which is required for religious perfection is to be
found in every religious order. Now there are some religious who lead a
married life. Therefore religious perfection does not require perpetual
continence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (2 Cor. 7:1): "Let us cleanse
ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting
sanctification in the fear of God." Now cleanness of flesh and spirit is
safeguarded by continence, for it is said (1 Cor. 7:34): "The unmarried
woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord that she may be
holy both in spirit and in body [Vulg.: 'both in body and in spirit']."
Therefore religious perfection requires continence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The religious state requires the removal of whatever
hinders man from devoting himself entirely to God's service. Now the use
of sexual union hinders the mind from giving itself wholly to the service
of God, and this for two reasons. First, on account of its vehement
delectation, which by frequent repetition increases concupiscence, as
also the Philosopher observes (Ethic. iii, 12): and hence it is that the
use of venery withdraws the mind from that perfect intentness on tending
to God. Augustine expresses this when he says (Solil. i, 10): "I consider
that nothing so casts down the manly mind from its height as the
fondling of women, and those bodily contacts which belong to the married
state." Secondly, because it involves man in solicitude for the control
of his wife, his children, and his temporalities which serve for their
upkeep. Hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 7:32,33): "He that is without a
wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may
please God: but he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of
the world, how he may please his wife."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
Therefore perpetual continence, as well as voluntary poverty, is
requisite for religious perfection. Wherefore just as Vigilantius was
condemned for equaling riches to poverty, so was Jovinian condemned for
equaling marriage to virginity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The perfection not only of poverty but also of continence
was introduced by Christ Who said (Mt. 19:12): "There are eunuchs who
have made themselves eunuchs, for the kingdom of heaven," and then added:
"He that can take, let him take it." And lest anyone should be deprived
of the hope of attaining perfection, he admitted to the state of
perfection those even who were married. Now the husbands could not
without committing an injustice forsake their wives, whereas men could
without injustice renounce riches. Wherefore Peter whom He found married,
He severed not from his wife, while "He withheld from marriage John who
wished to marry" [*Prolog. in Joan. among the supposititious works of St.
Jerome].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xxii), "the chastity of
celibacy is better than the chastity of marriage, one of which Abraham
had in use, both of them in habit. For he lived chastely, and he might
have been chaste without marrying, but it was not requisite then."
Nevertheless if the patriarchs of old had perfection of mind together
with wealth and marriage, which is a mark of the greatness of their
virtue, this is no reason why any weaker person should presume to have
such great virtue that he can attain to perfection though rich and
married; as neither does a man unarmed presume to attack his enemy,
because Samson slew many foes with the jaw-bone of an ass. For those
fathers, had it been seasonable to observe continence and poverty, would
have been most careful to observe them.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Such ways of living as admit of the use of marriage are not
the religious life simply and absolutely speaking, but in a restricted
sense, in so far as they have a certain share in those things that belong
to the religious state.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether obedience belongs to religious perfection?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that obedience does not belong to religious
perfection. For those things seemingly belong to religious perfection,
which are works of supererogation and are not binding upon all. But all
are bound to obey their superiors, according to the saying of the Apostle
(Heb. 13:17), "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them." Therefore it
would seem that obedience does not belong to religious perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, obedience would seem to belong properly to those who
have to be guided by the sense of others, and such persons are lacking in
discernment. Now the Apostle says (Heb. 5:14) that "strong meat is for
the perfect, for them who by custom have their senses exercised to the
discerning of good and evil." Therefore it would seem that obedience does
not belong to the state of the perfect.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, if obedience were requisite for religious perfection, it
would follow that it is befitting to all religious. But it is not
becoming to all; since some religious lead a solitary life, and have no
superior whom they obey. Again religious superiors apparently are not
bound to obedience. Therefore obedience would seem not to pertain to
religious perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[5] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, if the vow of obedience were requisite for religion, it
would follow that religious are bound to obey their superiors in all
things, just as they are bound to abstain from all venery by their vow of
continence. But they are not bound to obey them in all things, as stated
above (Q[104], A[5]), when we were treating of the virtue of obedience.
Therefore the vow of obedience is not requisite for religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[5] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, those services are most acceptable to God which are done
freely and not of necessity, according to 2 Cor. 9:7, "Not with sadness
or of necessity." Now that which is done out of obedience is done of
necessity of precept. Therefore those good works are more deserving of
praise which are done of one's own accord. Therefore the vow of obedience
is unbecoming to religion whereby men seek to attain to that which is
better.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Religious perfection consists chiefly in the imitation
of Christ, according to Mt. 19:21, "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell all
[Vulg.: 'what'] thou hast, and give to the poor, and follow Me." Now in
Christ obedience is commended above all according to Phil. 2:8, "He
became [Vulg.: 'becoming'] obedient unto death." Therefore seemingly
obedience belongs to religious perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (AA[2],3) the religious state is a school
and exercise for tending to perfection. Now those who are being
instructed or exercised in order to attain a certain end must needs
follow the direction of someone under whose control they are instructed
or exercised so as to attain that end as disciples under a master. Hence
religious need to be placed under the instruction and command of someone
as regards things pertaining to the religious life; wherefore it is said
(VII, qu. i, can. Hoc nequaquam): "The monastic life denotes subjection
and discipleship." Now one man is subjected to another's command and
instruction by obedience: and consequently obedience is requisite for
religious perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: To obey one's superiors in matters that are essential to
virtue is not a work of supererogation, but is common to all: whereas to
obey in matters pertaining to the practice of perfection belongs properly
to religious. This latter obedience is compared to the former as the
universal to the particular. For those who live in the world, keep
something for themselves, and offer something to God; and in the latter
respect they are under obedience to their superiors: whereas those who
live in religion give themselves wholly and their possessions to God, as
stated above (AA[1],3). Hence their obedience is universal.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1,2), by performing
actions we contract certain habits, and when we have acquired the habit
we are best able to perform the actions. Accordingly those who have not
attained to perfection, acquire perfection by obeying, while those who
have already acquired perfection are most ready to obey, not as though
they need to be directed to the acquisition of perfection, but as
maintaining themselves by this means in that which belongs to perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The subjection of religious is chiefly in reference to
bishops, who are compared to them as perfecters to perfected, as
Dionysius states (Eccl. Hier. vi), where he also says that the "monastic
order is subjected to the perfecting virtues of the bishops, and is
taught by their godlike enlightenment." Hence neither hermits nor
religious superiors are exempt from obedience to bishops; and if they be
wholly or partly exempt from obedience to the bishop of the diocese, they
are nevertheless bound to obey the Sovereign Pontiff, not only in matters
affecting all in common, but also in those which pertain specially to
religious discipline.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The vow of obedience taken by religious, extends to the
disposition of a man's whole life, and in this way it has a certain
universality, although it does not extend to all individual acts. For
some of these do not belong to religion, through not being of those
things that concern the love of God and of our neighbor, such as rubbing
one's beard, lifting a stick from the ground and so forth, which do not
come under a vow nor under obedience; and some are contrary to religion.
Nor is there any comparison with continence whereby acts are excluded
which are altogether contrary to religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[5] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: The necessity of coercion makes an act involuntary and
consequently deprives it of the character of praise or merit; whereas the
necessity which is consequent upon obedience is a necessity not of
coercion but of a free will, inasmuch as a man is willing to obey,
although perhaps he would not be willing to do the thing commanded
considered in itself. Wherefore since by the vow of obedience a man lays
himself under the necessity of doing for God's sake certain things that
are not pleasing in themselves, for this very reason that which he does
is the more acceptable to God, though it be of less account, because man
can give nothing greater to God, than by subjecting his will to another
man's for God's sake. Hence in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll.
xviii, 7) it is stated that "the Sarabaitae are the worst class of
monks, because through providing for their own needs without being
subject to superiors, they are free to do as they will; and yet day and
night they are more busily occupied in work than those who live in
monasteries."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is requisite for religious perfection that poverty,
continence, and obedience should come under a vow?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it is not requisite for religious perfection
that the three aforesaid, namely poverty, continence, and obedience,
should come under a vow. For the school of perfection is founded on the
principles laid down by our Lord. Now our Lord in formulating perfection
(Mt. 19:21) said: "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all [Vulg.: 'what']
thou hast, and give to the poor," without any mention of a vow. Therefore
it would seem that a vow is not necessary for the school of religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a vow is a promise made to God, wherefore (Eccles. 5:3)
the wise man after saying: "If thou hast vowed anything to God, defer not
to pay it," adds at once, "for an unfaithful and foolish promise
displeaseth Him." But when a thing is being actually given there is no
need for a promise. Therefore it suffices for religious perfection that
one keep poverty, continence, and obedience without. vowing them.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Augustine says (Ad Pollent., de Adult. Conjug. i, 14):
"The services we render are more pleasing when we might lawfully not
render them, yet do so out of love." Now it is lawful not to render a
service which we have not vowed, whereas it is unlawful if we have vowed
to render it. Therefore seemingly it is more pleasing to God to keep
poverty, continence, and obedience without a vow. Therefore a vow is not
requisite for religious perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, In the Old Law the Nazareans were consecrated by vow
according to Num. 6:2, "When a man or woman shall make a vow to be
sanctified and will consecrate themselves to the Lord," etc. Now these
were a figure of those "who attain the summit of perfection," as a gloss
[*Cf. Moral. ii] of Gregory states. Therefore a vow is requisite for
religious perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, It belongs to religious to be in the state of perfection,
as shown above (Q[174], A[5]). Now the state of perfection requires an
obligation to whatever belongs to perfection: and this obligation
consists in binding oneself to God by means of a vow. But it is evident
from what has been said (AA[3],4,5) that poverty, continence, and
obedience belong to the perfection of the Christian life. Consequently
the religious state requires that one be bound to these three by vow.
Hence Gregory says (Hom. xx in Ezech.): "When a man vows to God all his
possessions, all his life, all his knowledge, it is a holocaust"; and
afterwards he says that this refers to those who renounce the present
world.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Our Lord declared that it belongs to the perfection of life
that a man follow Him, not anyhow, but in such a way as not to turn back.
Wherefore He says again (Lk. 9:62): "No man putting his hand to the
plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." And though some
of His disciples went back, yet when our Lord asked (Jn. 6:68,69), "Will
you also go away?" Peter answered for the others: "Lord, to whom shall we
go?" Hence Augustine says (De Consensu Ev. ii, 17) that "as Matthew and
Mark relate, Peter and Andrew followed Him after drawing their boats on
to the beach, not as though they purposed to return, but as following Him
at His command." Now this unwavering following of Christ is made fast by
a vow: wherefore a vow is requisite for religious perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Gregory says (Moral. ii) religious perfection requires
that a man give "his whole life" to God. But a man cannot actually give
God his whole life, because that life taken as a whole is not
simultaneous but successive. Hence a man cannot give his whole life to
God otherwise than by the obligation of a vow.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Among other services that we can lawfully give, is our
liberty, which is dearer to man than aught else. Consequently when a man
of his own accord deprives himself by vow of the liberty of abstaining
from things pertaining to God's service, this is most acceptable to God.
Hence Augustine says (Ep. cxxvii ad Paulin. et Arment.): "Repent not of
thy vow; rejoice rather that thou canst no longer do lawfully, what thou
mightest have done lawfully but to thy own cost. Happy the obligation
that compels to better things."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is right to say that religious perfection consists in these
three vows?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it is not right to say that religious
perfection consists in these three vows. For the perfection of life
consists of inward rather than of outward acts, according to Rm. 14:17,
"The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but justice and peace and joy
in the Holy Ghost." Now the religious vow binds a man to things belonging
to perfection. Therefore vows of inward actions, such as contemplation,
love of God and our neighbor, and so forth, should pertain to the
religious state, rather than the vows of poverty, continence, and
obedience which refer to outward actions.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the three aforesaid come under the religious vow, in so
far as they belong to the practice of tending to perfection. But there
are many other things that religious practice, such as abstinence,
watchings, and the like. Therefore it would seem that these three vows
are incorrectly described as pertaining to the state of perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, by the vow of obedience a man is bound to do according
to his superior's command whatever pertains to the practice of
perfection. Therefore the vow of obedience suffices without the two other
vows.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[7] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, external goods comprise not only riches but also honors.
Therefore, if religious, by the vow of poverty, renounce earthly riches,
there should be another vow whereby they may despise worldly honors.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is stated (Extra, de Statu Monach., cap. Cum ad
monasterium) that "the keeping of chastity and the renouncing of property
are affixed to the monastic rule."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[7] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, The religious state may be considered in three ways.
First, as being a practice of tending to the perfection of charity:
secondly, as quieting the human mind from outward solicitude, according
to 1 Cor. 7:32: "I would have you to be without solicitude": thirdly, as
a holocaust whereby a man offers himself and his possessions wholly to
God; and in corresponding manner the religious state is constituted by
these three vows.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[7] Body Para. 2/3
First, as regards the practice of perfection a man is required to remove
from himself whatever may hinder his affections from tending wholly to
God, for it is in this that the perfection of charity consists. Such
hindrances are of three kinds. First, the attachment to external goods,
which is removed by the vow of poverty; secondly, the concupiscence of
sensible pleasures, chief among which are venereal pleasures, and these
are removed by the vow of continence; thirdly, the inordinateness of the
human will, and this is removed by the vow of obedience. In like manner
the disquiet of worldly solicitude is aroused in man in reference
especially to three things. First, as regards the dispensing of external
things, and this solicitude is removed from man by the vow of poverty;
secondly, as regards the control of wife and children, which is cut away
by the vow of continence; thirdly, as regards the disposal of one's own
actions, which is eliminated by the vow of obedience, whereby a man
commits himself to the disposal of another.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[7] Body Para. 3/3
Again, "a holocaust is the offering to God of all that one has,"
according to Gregory (Hom. xx in Ezech.). Now man has a threefold good,
according to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 8). First, the good of external
things, which he wholly offers to God by the vow of voluntary poverty:
secondly, the good of his own body, and this good he offers to God
especially by the vow of continence, whereby he renounces the greatest
bodily pleasures. the third is the good of the soul, which man wholly
offers to God by the vow of obedience, whereby he offers God his own will
by which he makes use of all the powers and habits of the soul. Therefore
the religious state is fittingly constituted by the three vows.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated above (A[1]), the end whereunto the religious vow
is directed is the perfection of charity, since all the interior acts of
virtue belong to charity as to their mother, according to 1 Cor. 13:4,
"Charity is patient, is kind," etc. Hence the interior acts of virtue,
for instance humility, patience, and so forth, do not come under the
religious vow, but this is directed to them as its end.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: All other religious observances are directed to the three
aforesaid principal vows; for if any of them are ordained for the purpose
of procuring a livelihood, such as labor, questing, and so on, they are
to be referred to poverty; for the safeguarding of which religious seek a
livelihood by these means. Other observances whereby the body is
chastised, such as watching, fasting, and the like, are directly ordained
for the observance of the vow of continence. And such religious
observances as regard human actions whereby a man is directed to the end
of religion, namely the love of God and his neighbor (such as reading,
prayer, visiting the sick, and the like), are comprised under the vow of
obedience that applies to the will, which directs its actions to the end
according to the ordering of another person. The distinction of habit
belongs to all three vows, as a sign of being bound by them: wherefore
the religious habit is given or blessed at the time of profession.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: By obedience a man offers to God his will, to which though
all human affairs are subject, yet some are subject to it alone in a
special manner, namely human actions, since passions belong also to the
sensitive appetite. Wherefore in order to restrain the passions of carnal
pleasures and of external objects of appetite, which hinder the
perfection of life, there was need for the vows of continence and
poverty; but for the ordering of one's own actions accordingly as the
state of perfection requires, there was need for the vow of obedience.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[7] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 3), strictly and truly
speaking honor is not due save to virtue. Since, however, external goods
serve instrumentally for certain acts of virtue, the consequence is that
a certain honor is given to their excellence especially by the common
people who acknowledge none but outward excellence. Therefore since
religious tend to the perfection of virtue it becomes them not to
renounce the honor which God and all holy men accord to virtue, according
to Ps. 138:17, "But to me Thy friends, O God, are made exceedingly
honorable." On the other hand, they renounce the honor that is given to
outward excellence, by the very fact that they withdraw from a worldly
life: hence no special vow is needed for this.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the vow of obedience is the chief of the three religious vows?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the vow of obedience is not the chief of the
three religious vows. For the perfection of the religious life was
inaugurated by Christ. Now Christ gave a special counsel of poverty;
whereas He is not stated to have given a special counsel of obedience.
Therefore the vow of poverty is greater than the vow of obedience.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 26:20) that "no price is worthy
of a continent soul." Now the vow of that which is more worthy is itself
more excellent. Therefore the vow of continence is more excellent than
the vow of obedience.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the greater a vow the more indispensable it would seem
to be. Now the vows of poverty and continence "are so inseparable from
the monastic rule, that not even the Sovereign Pontiff can allow them to
be broken," according to a Decretal (De Statu Monach., cap. Cum ad
monasterium): yet he can dispense a religious from obeying his superior.
Therefore it would seem that the vow of obedience is less than the vow of
poverty and continence.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxxv, 14): "Obedience is rightly
placed before victims, since by victims another's flesh, but by obedience
one's own will, is sacrificed." Now the religious vows are holocausts, as
stated above (AA[1],3, ad 6). Therefore the vow of obedience is the chief
of all religious vows.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[8] Body Para. 1/5
I answer that, The vow of obedience is the chief of the three religious
vows, and this for three reasons.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[8] Body Para. 2/5
First, because by the vow of obedience man offers God something greater,
namely his own will; for this is of more account than his own body, which
he offers God by continence, and than external things, which he offers
God by the vow of poverty. Wherefore that which is done out of obedience
is more acceptable to God than that which is done of one's own will,
according to the saying of Jerome (Ep. cxxv ad Rustic Monach.): "My words
are intended to teach you not to rely on your own judgment": and a little
further on he says: "You may not do what you will; you must eat what you
are bidden to eat, you may possess as much as you receive, clothe
yourself with what is given to you." Hence fasting is not acceptable to
God if it is done of one's own will, according to Is. 58:3, "Behold in
the day of your fast your own will is found."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[8] Body Para. 3/5
Secondly, because the vow of obedience includes the other vows, but not
vice versa: for a religious, though bound by vow to observe continence
and poverty, yet these also come under obedience, as well as many other
things besides the keeping of continence and poverty.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[8] Body Para. 4/5
Thirdly, because the vow of obedience extends properly to those acts
that are closely connected with the end of religion; and the more closely
a thing is connected with the end, the better it is.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[8] Body Para. 5/5
It follows from this that the vow of obedience is more essential to the
religious life. For if a man without taking a vow of obedience were to
observe, even by vow, voluntary poverty and continence, he would not
therefore belong to the religious state, which is to be preferred to
virginity observed even by vow; for Augustine says (De Virgin. xlvi): "No
one, methinks, would prefer virginity to the monastic life." [*St.
Augustine wrote not 'monasterio' but 'martyrio'---to 'martyrdom'; and St.
Thomas quotes the passage correctly above, Q[124], A[3] and Q[152], A[5]].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The counsel of obedience was included in the very following
of Christ, since to obey is to follow another's will. Consequently it is
more pertinent to perfection than the vow of poverty, because as Jerome,
commenting on Mt. 19:27, "Behold we have left all things," observes,
"Peter added that which is perfect when he said: And have followed Thee."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The words quoted mean that continence is to be preferred,
not to all other acts of virtue, but to conjugal chastity, or to external
riches of gold and silver which are measured by weight [*'Pondere,'
referring to the Latin 'ponderatio' in the Vulgate, which the Douay
version renders 'price.']. Or again continence is taken in a general
sense for abstinence from ali evil, as stated above (Q[155], A[4], ad 1).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The Pope cannot dispense a religious from his vow of
obedience so as to release him from obedience to every superior in
matters relating to the perfection of life, for he cannot exempt him from
obedience to himself. He can, however, exempt him from subjection to a
lower superior, but this is not to dispense him from his vow of obedience.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[9] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a religious sins mortally whenever he transgresses the things
contained in his rule?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[9] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that a religious sins mortally whenever he
transgresses the things contained in his rule. For to break a vow is a
sin worthy of condemnation, as appears from 1 Tim. 5:11,12, where the
Apostle says that widows who "will marry have [Vulg.: 'having']
damnation, because they have made void their first faith." But religious
are bound to a rule by the vows of their profession. Therefore they sin
mortally by transgressing the things contained in their rule.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[9] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the rule is enjoined upon a religious in the same way as
a law. Now he who transgresses a precept of law sins mortally. Therefore
it would seem that a monk sins mortally if he transgresses the things
contained in his rule.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[9] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, contempt involves a mortal sin. Now whoever repeatedly
does what he ought not to do seems to sin from contempt. Therefore it
would seem that a religious sins mortally by frequently transgressing the
things contained in his rule.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[9] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The religious state is safer than the secular state;
wherefore Gregory at the beginning of his Morals [*Epist. Missoria, ad
Leand. Episc. i] compares the secular life to the stormy sea, and the
religious life to the calm port. But if every transgression of the things
contained in his rule were to involve a religious in mortal sin, the
religious life would be fraught with danger of account of its multitude
of observances. Therefore not every transgression of the things contained
in the rule is a mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[9] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 1,2), a thing is contained in
the rule in two ways. First, as the end of the rule, for instance things
that pertain to the acts of the virtues; and the transgression of these,
as regards those which come under a common precept, involves a mortal
sin; but as regards those which are not included in the common obligation
of a precept, the transgression thereof does not involve a mortal sin,
except by reason of contempt, because, as stated above (A[2]), a
religious is not bound to be perfect, but to tend to perfection, to which
the contempt of perfection is opposed.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[9] Body Para. 2/2
Secondly, a thing is contained in the rule through pertaining to the
outward practice, such as all external observances, to some of which a
religious is bound by the vow of his profession. Now the vow of
profession regards chiefly the three things aforesaid, namely poverty,
continence, and obedience, while all others are directed to these.
Consequently the transgression of these three involves a mortal sin,
while the transgression of the others does not involve a mortal sin,
except either by reason of contempt of the rule (since this is directly
contrary to the profession whereby a man vows to live according to the
rule), or by reason of a precept, whether given orally by a superior, or
expressed in the rule, since this would be to act contrary to the vow of
obedience.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: He who professes a rule does not vow to observe all the
things contained in the rule, but he vows the regular life which consists
essentially in the three aforesaid things. Hence in certain religious
orders precaution is taken to profess, not the rule, but to live
according to the rule, i.e. to tend to form one's conduct in accordance
with the rule as a kind of model; and this is set aside by contempt. Yet
greater precaution is observed in some religious orders by professing
obedience according to the rule, so that only that which is contrary to a
precept of the rule is contrary to the profession, while the
transgression or omission of other things binds only under pain of venial
sin, because, as stated above (A[7], ad 2), such things are dispositions
to the chief vows. And venial sin is a disposition to mortal, as stated
above (FS, Q[88], A[3]), inasmuch as it hinders those things whereby a
man is disposed to keep the chief precepts of Christ's law, namely the
precepts of charity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
There is also a religious order, that of the Friars Preachers, where
such like transgressions or omissions do not, by their very nature,
involve sin, either mortal or venial; but they bind one to suffer the
punishment affixed thereto, because it is in this way that they are bound
to observe such things. Nevertheless they may sin venially or mortally
through neglect, concupiscence, or contempt.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Not all the contents of the law are set forth by way of
precept; for some are expressed under the form of ordinance or statute
binding under pain of a fixed punishment. Accordingly, just as in the
civil law the transgression of a legal statute does not always render a
man deserving of bodily death, so neither in the law of the Church does
every ordinance or statute bind under mortal sin; and the same applies to
the statutes of the rule.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[9] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: An action or transgression proceeds from contempt when a
man's will refuses to submit to the ordinance of the law or rule, and
from this he proceeds to act against the law or rule. on the other hand,
he does not sin from contempt, but from some other cause, when he is led
to do something against the ordinance of the law or rule through some
particular cause such as concupiscence or anger, even though he often
repeat the same kind of sin through the same or some other cause. Thus
Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xxix) that "not all sins are committed
through proud contempt." Nevertheless the frequent repetition of a sin
leads dispositively to contempt, according to the words of Prov. 18:3,
"The wicked man, when he is come into the depth of sins, contemneth."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[10] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a religious sins more grievously than a secular by the same kind
of sin?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[10] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that a religious does not sin more grievously than
a secular by the same kind of sin. For it is written (2 Paralip
30:18,19): "The Lord Who is good will show mercy to all them who with
their whole heart seek the Lord the God of their fathers, and will not
impute it to them that they are not sanctified." Now religious apparently
follow the Lord the God of their fathers with their whole heart rather
than seculars, who partly give themselves and their possessions to God
and reserve part for themselves, as Gregory says (Hom. xx in Ezech.).
Therefore it would seem that it is less imputed to them if they fall
short somewhat of their sanctification.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[10] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, God is less angered at a man's sins if he does some good
deeds, according to 2 Paralip 19:2,3, "Thou helpest the ungodly, and thou
art joined in friendship with them that hate the Lord, and therefore thou
didst deserve indeed the wrath of the Lord: but good works are found in
thee." Now religious do more good works than seculars. Therefore if they
commit any sins, God is less angry with them.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[10] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, this present life is not carried through without sin,
according to James 3:2, "In many things we all offend." Therefore if the
sins of religious were more grievous than those of seculars it would
follow that religious are worse off than seculars: and consequently it
would not be a wholesome counsel to enter religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[10] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The greater the evil the more it would seem to be
deplored. But seemingly the sins of those who are in the state of
holiness and perfection are the most deplorable, for it is written (Jer.
23:9): "My heart is broken within me," and afterwards (Jer. 23:11): "For
the prophet and the priest are defiled; and in My house I have found
their wickedness." Therefore religious and others who are in the state of
perfection, other things being equal, sin more grievously.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[10] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, A sin committed by a religious may be in three ways more
grievous than a like sin committed by a secular. First, if it be against
his religious vow; for instance if he be guilty of fornication or theft,
because by fornication he acts against the vow of continence, and by
theft against the vow of poverty; and not merely against a precept of the
divine law. Secondly, if he sin out of contempt, because thereby he would
seem to be the more ungrateful for the divine favors which have raised
him to the state of perfection. Thus the Apostle says (Heb. 10:29) that
the believer "deserveth worse punishments" who through contempt tramples
under foot the Son of God. Hence the Lord complains (Jer. 11:15): "What
is the meaning that My beloved hath wrought much wickedness in My house?"
Thirdly, the sin of a religious may be greater on account of scandal,
because many take note of his manner of life: wherefore it is written
(Jer. 23:14): "I have seen the likeness of adulterers, and the way of
lying in the Prophets of Jerusalem; and they strengthened the hands of
the wicked, that no man should return from his evil doings."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[10] Body Para. 2/2
On the other hand, if a religious, not out of contempt, but out of
weakness or ignorance, commit a sin that is not against the vow of his
profession, without giving scandal (for instance if he commit it in
secret) he sins less grievously in the same kind of sin than a secular,
because his sin if slight is absorbed as it were by his many good works,
and if it be mortal, he more easily recovers from it. First, because he
has a right intention towards God, and though it be intercepted for the
moment, it is easily restored to its former object. Hence Origen
commenting on Ps. 36:24, "When he shall fall he shall not be bruised,"
says (Hom. iv in Ps. 36): "The wicked man, if he sin, repents not, and
fails to make amends for his sin. But the just man knows how to make
amends and recover himself; even as he who had said: 'I know not the
man,' shortly afterwards when the Lord had looked on him, knew to shed
most bitter tears, and he who from the roof had seen a woman and desired
her knew to say: 'I have sinned and done evil before Thee.'" Secondly, he
is assisted by his fellow-religious to rise again, according to Eccles.
4:10, "If one fall he shall be supported by the other: woe to him that is
alone, for when he falleth he hath none to lift him up."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The words quoted refer to things done through weakness or
ignorance, but not to those that are done out of contempt.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Josaphat also, to whom these words were addressed, sinned
not out of contempt, but out of a certain weakness of human affection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[186] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The just sin not easily out of contempt; but sometimes they
fall into a sin through ignorance or weakness from which they easily
arise. If, however, they go so far as to sin out of contempt, they become
most wicked and incorrigible, according to the word of Jeremias 2:20:
"Thou hast broken My yoke, thou hast burst My bands, and thou hast said:
'I will not serve.' For on every high hill and under every green tree
thou didst prostitute thyself." Hence Augustine says (Ep. lxxviii ad
Pleb. Hippon.): "From the time I began to serve God, even as I scarcely
found better men than those who made progress in monasteries, so have I
not found worse than those who in the monastery have fallen."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THOSE THINGS THAT ARE COMPETENT TO RELIGIOUS (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider the things that are competent to religious; and
under this head there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is lawful for them to teach, preach, and do like things?
(2) Whether it is lawful for them to meddle in secular business?
(3) Whether they are bound to manual labor?
(4) Whether it is lawful for them to live on alms?
(5) Whether it is lawful for them to quest?
(6) Whether it is lawful for them to wear coarser clothes than other
persons?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is lawful for religious to teach, preach, and the like?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem unlawful for religious to teach, preach, and the
like. For it is said (VII, qu. i, can. Hoc nequaquam) in an ordinance of
a synod of Constantinople [*Pseudosynod held by Photius in the year 879]:
"The monastic life is one of subjection and discipleship, not of
teaching, authority, or pastoral care." And Jerome says (ad Ripar. et
Desider. [*Contra Vigilant. xvi]): "A monk's duty is not to teach but to
lament." Again Pope Leo [*Leo I, Ep. cxx ad Theodoret., 6, cf. XVI, qu.
i, can. Adjicimus]: says "Let none dare to preach save the priests of the
Lord, be he monk or layman, and no matter what knowledge he may boast of
having." Now it is not lawful to exceed the bounds of one's office or
transgress the ordinance of the Church. Therefore seemingly it is
unlawful for religious to teach, preach, and the like.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, in an ordinance of the Council of Nicea (cf. XVI, qu. i,
can. Placuit) it is laid down as follows: "It is our absolute and
peremptory command addressed to all that monks shall not hear confessions
except of one another, as is right, that they shall not bury the dead
except those dwelling with them in the monastery, or if by chance a
brother happen to die while on a visit." But just as the above belong to
the duty of clerics, so also do preaching and teaching. Therefore since
"the business of a monk differs from that of a cleric," as Jerome says
(Ep. xiv ad Heliod.), it would seem unlawful for religious to preach,
teach, and the like.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Gregory says (Regist. v, Ep. 1): "No man can fulfil
ecclesiastical duties, and keep consistently to the monastic rule": and
this is quoted XVI, qu. i, can. Nemo potest. Now monks are bound to keep
consistently to the monastic rule. Therefore it would seem that they
cannot fulfil ecclesiastical duties, whereof teaching and preaching are a
part. Therefore seemingly it is unlawful for them to preach, teach, and
do similar things.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory is quoted (XVI, qu. i, can. Ex auctoritate) as
saying: "By authority of this decree framed in virtue of our apostolic
power and the duty of our office, be it lawful to monk priests who are
configured to the apostles, to preach, baptize, give communion, pray for
sinners, impose penance, and absolve from sin."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[1] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, A thing is declared to be unlawful to a person in two
ways. First, because there is something in him contrary to that which is
declared unlawful to him: thus to no man is it lawful to sin, because
each man has in himself reason and an obligation to God's law, to which
things sin is contrary. And in this way it is said to be unlawful for a
person to preach, teach, or do like things, because there is in him
something incompatible with these things, either by reason of a
precept---thus those who are irregular by ordinance of the Church may not
be raised to the sacred orders---or by reason of sin, according to Ps.
49:16, "But to the sinner God hath said: Why dost thou declare My
justice?"
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[1] Body Para. 2/3
In this way it is not unlawful for religious to preach, teach, and do
like things, both because they are bound neither by vow nor by precept of
their rule to abstain from these things, and because they are not
rendered less apt for these things by any sin committed, but on the
contrary they are the more apt through having taken upon themselves the
practice of holiness. For it is foolish to say that a man is rendered
less fit for spiritual duties through advancing himself in holiness; and
consequently it is foolish to declare that the religious state is an
obstacle to the fulfilment of such like duties. This error is rejected by
Pope Boniface [*Boniface IV] for the reasons given above. His words which
are quoted (XVI, qu. i, can. Sunt. nonnulli) are these: "There are some
who without any dogmatic proof, and with extreme daring, inspired with a
zeal rather of bitterness than of love, assert that monks though they be
dead to the world and live to God, are unworthy of the power of the
priestly office, and that they cannot confer penance, nor christen, nor
absolve in virtue of the power divinely bestowed on them in the priestly
office. But they are altogether wrong." He proves this first because it
is not contrary to the rule; thus he continues: "For neither did the
Blessed Benedict the saintly teacher of monks forbid this in any way,"
nor is it forbidden in other rules. Secondly, he refutes the above error
from the usefulness of the monks, when he adds at the end of the same
chapter: "The more perfect a man is, the more effective is he in these,
namely in spiritual works."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[1] Body Para. 3/3
Secondly, a thing is said to be unlawful for a man, not on account of
there being in him something contrary thereto, but because he lacks that
which enables him to do it: thus it is unlawful for a deacon to say mass,
because he is not in priestly orders; and it is unlawful for a priest to
deliver judgment because he lacks the episcopal authority. Here, however,
a distinction must be made. Because those things which are a matter of an
order, cannot be deputed to one who has not the order, whereas matters of
jurisdiction can be deputed to those who have not ordinary jurisdiction:
thus the delivery of a judgment is deputed by the bishop to a simple
priest. In this sense it is said to be unlawful for monks and other
religious to preach, teach, and so forth, because the religious state
does not give them the power to do these things. They can, however, do
them if they receive orders, or ordinary jurisdiction, or if matters of
jurisdiction be delegated to them.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It results from the words quoted that the fact of their
being monks does not give monks the power to do these things, yet it does
not involve in them anything contrary to the performance of these acts.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Again, this ordinance of the Council of Nicea forbids monks
to claim the power of exercising those acts on the ground of their being
monks, but it does not forbid those acts being delegated to them.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: These two things are incompatible, namely, the ordinary
cure of ecclesiastical duties, and the observance of the monastic rule in
a monastery. But this does not prevent monks and other religious from
being sometimes occupied with ecclesiastical duties through being deputed
thereto by superiors having ordinary cure; especially members of
religious orders that are especially instituted for that purpose, as we
shall say further on (Q[188], A[4]).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is lawful for religious to occupy themselves with secular
business?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem unlawful for religious to occupy themselves with
secular business. For in the decree quoted above (A[1]) of Pope Boniface
it is said that the "Blessed Benedict bade them to be altogether free
from secular business; and this is most explicitly prescribed by the
apostolic doctrine and the teaching of all the Fathers, not only to
religious, but also to all the canonical clergy," according to 2 Tim.
2:4, "No man being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular
business." Now it is the duty of all religious to be soldiers of God.
Therefore it is unlawful for them to occupy themselves with secular
business.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the Apostle says (1 Thess. 4:11): "That you use your
endeavor to be quiet, and that you do your own business," which a gloss
explains thus---"by refraining from other people's affairs, so as to be
the better able to attend to the amendment of your own life." Now
religious devote themselves in a special way to the amendment of their
life. Therefore they should not occupy themselves with secular business.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Jerome, commenting on Mt. 11:8, "Behold they that are
clothed in soft garments are in the houses of kings," says: "Hence we
gather that an austere life and severe preaching should avoid the palaces
of kings and the mansions of the voluptuous." But the needs of secular
business induce men to frequent the palaces of kings. Therefore it is
unlawful for religious to occupy themselves with secular business.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 16:1): "I commend to you Phoebe
our Sister," and further on (Rm. 16:2), "that you assist her in
whatsoever business she shall have need of you."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (Q[186], AA[1],7, ad 1), the religious
state is directed to the attainment of the perfection of charity,
consisting principally in the love of God and secondarily in the love of
our neighbor. Consequently that which religious intend chiefly and for
its own sake is to give themselves to God. Yet if their neighbor be in
need, they should attend to his affairs out of charity, according to Gal.
6:2, "Bear ye one another's burthens: and so you shall fulfil the law of
Christ," since through serving their neighbor for God's sake, they are
obedient to the divine love. Hence it is written (James 1:27): "Religion
clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the
fatherless and widows in their tribulation," which means, according to a
gloss, to assist the helpless in their time of need.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
We must conclude therefore that it is unlawful for either monks or
clerics to carry on secular business from motives of avarice; but from
motives of charity, and with their superior's permission, they may occupy
themselves with due moderation in the administration and direction of
secular business. Wherefore it is said in the Decretals (Dist. xxxviii,
can. Decrevit): "The holy synod decrees that henceforth no cleric shall
buy property or occupy himself with secular business, save with a view to
the care of the fatherless, orphans, or widows, or when the bishop of the
city commands him to take charge of the business connected with the
Church." And the same applies to religious as to clerics, because they
are both debarred from secular business on the same grounds, as stated
above.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Monks are forbidden to occupy themselves with secular
business from motives of avarice, but not from motives of charity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: To occupy oneself with secular business on account of
another's need is not officiousness but charity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: To haunt the palaces of kings from motives of pleasure,
glory, or avarice is not becoming to religious, but there is nothing
unseemly in their visiting them from motives of piety. Hence it is
written (4 Kgs. 4:13): "Hast thou any business, and wilt thou that I
speak to the king or to the general of the army?" Likewise it becomes
religious to go to the palaces of kings to rebuke and guide them, even as
John the Baptist rebuked Herod, as related in Mt. 14:4.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether religious are bound to manual labor?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that religious are bound to manual labor. For
religious are not exempt from the observance of precepts. Now manual
labor is a matter of precept according to 1 Thess. 4:11, "Work with your
own hands as we commanded you"; wherefore Augustine says (De oper.
Monach. xxx): "But who can allow these insolent men," namely religious
that do no work, of whom he is speaking there, "who disregard the most
salutary admonishment of the Apostle, not merely to be borne with as
being weaker than others, but even to preach as though they were holier
than others." Therefore it would seem that religious are bound to manual
labor.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a gloss [*St. Augustine, (De oper. Monach. xxi)] on 2
Thess. 3:10, "If any man will not work, neither let him eat," says: "Some
say that this command of the Apostle refers to spiritual works, and not
to the bodily labor of the farmer or craftsman"; and further on: "But it
is useless for them to try to hide from themselves and from others the
fact that they are unwilling not only to fulfil, but even to understand
the useful admonishments of charity"; and again: "He wishes God's
servants to make a living by working with their bodies." Now religious
especially are called servants of God, because they give themselves
entirely to the service of God, as Dionysius asserts (Eccl. Hier. vi).
Therefore it would seem that they are bound to manual labor.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xvii): "I would fain
know how they would occupy themselves, who are unwilling to work with
their body. We occupy our time, say they, with prayers, psalms, reading,
and the word of God." Yet these things are no excuse, and he proves this,
as regards each in particular. For in the first place, as to prayer, he
says: "One prayer of the obedient man is sooner granted than ten thousand
prayers of the contemptuous": meaning that those are contemptuous and
unworthy to be heard who work not with their hands. Secondly, as to the
divine praises he adds: "Even while working with their hands they can
easily sing hymns to God." Thirdly, with regard to reading, he goes on to
say: "Those who say they are occupied in reading, do they not find there
what the Apostle commanded? What sort of perverseness is this, to wish to
read but not to obey what one reads?" Fourthly, he adds in reference to
preaching [*Cap. xviii]: "If one has to speak, and is so busy that he
cannot spare time for manual work, can all in the monastery do this? And
since all cannot do this, why should all make this a pretext for being
exempt? And even if all were able, they should do so by turns, not only
so that the others may be occupied in other works, but also because it
suffices that one speak while many listen." Therefore it would seem that
religious should not desist from manual labor on account of such like
spiritual works to which they devote themselves.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, a gloss on Lk. 12:33, "Sell what you possess," says:
"Not only give your clothes to the poor, but sell what you possess, that
having once for all renounced all your possessions for the Lord's sake,
you may henceforth work with the labor of your hands, so as to have
wherewith to live or to give alms." Now it belongs properly to religious
to renounce all they have. Therefore it would seem likewise to belong to
them to live and give alms through the labor of their hands.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[3] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, religious especially would seem to be bound to imitate
the life of the apostles, since they profess the state of perfection. Now
the apostles worked with their own hands, according to 1 Cor. 4:12: "We
labor, working with our own hands." Therefore it would seem that
religious are bound to manual labor.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Those precepts that are commonly enjoined upon all are
equally binding on religious and seculars. But the precept of manual
labor is enjoined upon all in common, as appears from 2 Thess. 3:6,
"Withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly," etc. (for by
brother he signifies every Christian, according to 1 Cor. 7:12, "If any
brother have a wife that believeth not"). Now it is written in the same
passage (2 Thess. 3:10): "If any man will not work, neither let him eat."
Therefore religious are not bound to manual labor any more than seculars
are.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[3] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Manual labor is directed to four things. First and
principally to obtain food; wherefore it was said to the first man (Gn.
3:19): "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread," and it is written
(Ps. 127:2): "For thou shalt eat the labors of thy hands." Secondly, it
is directed to the removal of idleness whence arise many evils; hence it
is written (Ecclus. 33:28,29): "Send" thy slave "to work, that he be not
idle, for idleness hath taught much evil." Thirdly, it is directed to the
curbing of concupiscence, inasmuch as it is a means of afflicting the
body; hence it is written (2 Cor. 6:5,6): "In labors, in watchings, in
fastings, in chastity." Fourthly, it is directed to almsgiving, wherefore
it is written (Eph. 4:28): "He that stole, let him now steal no more; but
rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good,
that he may have something to give to him that suffereth need."
Accordingly, in so far as manual labor is directed to obtaining food, it
comes under a necessity of precept in so far as it is necessary for that
end: since that which is directed to an end derives its necessity from
that end, being, in effect, so far necessary as the end cannot be
obtained without it. Consequently he who has no other means of livelihood
is bound to work with his hands, whatever his condition may be. This is
signified by the words of the Apostle: "If any man will not work, neither
let him eat," as though to say: "The necessity of manual labor is the
necessity of meat." So that if one could live without eating, one would
not be bound to work with one's hands. The same applies to those who have
no other lawful means of livelihood: since a man is understood to be
unable to do what he cannot do lawfully. Wherefore we find that the
Apostle prescribed manual labor merely as a remedy for the sin of those
who gained their livelihood by unlawful means. For the Apostle ordered
manual labor first of all in order to avoid theft, as appears from Eph.
4:28, "He that stole, let him now steal no more; but rather let him
labor, working with his hands." Secondly, to avoid the coveting of
others' property, wherefore it is written (1 Thess. 4:11): "Work with
your own hands, as we commanded you, and that you walk honestly towards
them that are without." Thirdly, to avoid the discreditable pursuits
whereby some seek a livelihood. Hence he says (2 Thess. 3:10-12): "When
we were with you, this we declared to you: that if any man will not work,
neither let him eat. For we have heard that there are some among you who
walk disorderly, working not at all, but curiously meddling" (namely, as
a gloss explains it, "who make a living by meddling in unlawful things).
Now we charge them that are such, and beseech them . . . that working
with silence, they would eat their own bread." Hence Jerome states (Super
epist. ad Galat. [*Preface to Bk. ii of Commentary]) that the Apostle
said this "not so much in his capacity of teacher as on account of the
faults of the people."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[3] Body Para. 2/3
It must, however, be observed that under manual labor are comprised all
those human occupations whereby man can lawfully gain a livelihood,
whether by using his hands, his feet, or his tongue. For watchmen,
couriers, and such like who live by their labor, are understood to live
by their handiwork: because, since the hand is "the organ of organs" [*De
Anima iii, 8], handiwork denotes all kinds of work, whereby a man may
lawfully gain a livelihood.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[3] Body Para. 3/3
In so far as manual labor is directed to the removal of idleness, or the
affliction of the body, it does not come under a necessity of precept if
we consider it in itself, since there are many other means besides manual
labor of afflicting the body or of removing idleness: for the flesh is
afflicted by fastings and watchings, and idleness is removed by
meditation on the Holy Scriptures and by the divine praises. Hence a
gloss on Ps. 118:82, "My eyes have failed for Thy word," says: "He is not
idle who meditates only on God's word; nor is he who works abroad any
better than he who devotes himself to the study of knowing the truth."
Consequently for these reasons religious are not bound to manual labor,
as neither are seculars, except when they are so bound by the statutes of
their order. Thus Jerome says (Ep. cxxv ad Rustic Monach.): "The Egyptian
monasteries are wont to admit none unless they work or labor, not so much
for the necessities of life, as for the welfare of the soul, lest it be
led astray by wicked thoughts." But in so far as manual labor is directed
to almsgiving, it does not come under the necessity of precept, save
perchance in some particular case, when a man is under an obligation to
give alms, and has no other means of having the wherewithal to assist the
poor: for in such a case religious would be bound as well as seculars to
do manual labor.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This command of the Apostle is of natural law: wherefore a
gloss on 2 Thess. 3:6, "That you withdraw yourselves from every brother
walking disorderly," says, "otherwise than the natural order requires,"
and he is speaking of those who abstained from manual labor. Hence nature
has provided man with hands instead of arms and clothes, with which she
has provided other animals, in order that with his hands he may obtain
these and all other necessaries. Hence it is clear that this precept,
even as all the precepts of the natural law, is binding on both religious
and seculars alike. Yet not everyone sins that works not with his hands,
because those precepts of the natural law which regard the good of the
many are not binding on each individual, but it suffices that one person
apply himself to this business and another to that; for instance, that
some be craftsmen, others husbandmen, others judges, and others teachers,
and so forth, according to the words of the Apostle (1 Cor. 12:17), "If
the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole
were the hearing, where would be the smelling?"
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This gloss is taken from Augustine's De operibus
Monachorum, cap. 21, where he speaks against certain monks who declared
it to be unlawful for the servants of God to work with their hands, on
account of our Lord's saying (Mt. 6:25): "Be not solicitous for your
life, what you shall eat." Nevertheless his words do not imply that
religious are bound to work with their hands, if they have other means of
livelihood. This is clear from his adding: "He wishes the servants of God
to make a living by working with their bodies." Now this does not apply
to religious any more than to seculars, which is evident for two reasons.
First, on account of the way in which the Apostle expresses himself, by
saying: "That you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking
disorderly." For he calls all Christians brothers, since at that time
religious orders were not as yet founded. Secondly, because religious
have no other obligations than what seculars have, except as required by
the rule they profess: wherefore if their rule contain nothing about
manual labor, religious are not otherwise bound to manual labor than
seculars are.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: A man may devote himself in two ways to all the spiritual
works mentioned by Augustine in the passage quoted: in one way with a
view to the common good, in another with a view to his private advantage.
Accordingly those who devote themselves publicly to the aforesaid
spiritual works are thereby exempt from manual labor for two reasons:
first, because it behooves them to be occupied exclusively with such like
works; secondly, because those who devote themselves to such works have a
claim to be supported by those for whose advantage they work.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
On the other hand, those who devote themselves to such works not
publicly but privately as it were, ought not on that account to be exempt
from manual labor, nor have they a claim to be supported by the offerings
of the faithful, and it is of these that Augustine is speaking. For when
he says: "They can sing hymns to God even while working with their hands;
like the craftsmen who give tongue to fable telling without withdrawing
their hands from their work," it is clear that he cannot refer to those
who sing the canonical hours in the church, but to those who tell psalms
or hymns as private prayers. Likewise what he says of reading and prayer
is to be referred to the private prayer and reading which even lay people
do at times, and not to those who perform public prayers in the church,
or give public lectures in the schools. Hence he does not say: "Those who
say they are occupied in teaching and instructing," but: "Those who say
they are occupied in reading." Again he speaks of that preaching which is
addressed, not publicly to the people, but to one or a few in particular
by way of private admonishment. Hence he says expressly: "If one has to
speak." For according to a gloss on 1 Cor. 2:4, "Speech is addressed
privately, preaching to many."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Those who despise all for God's sake are bound to work with
their hands, when they have no other means of livelihood, or of
almsgiving (should the case occur where almsgiving were a matter of
precept), but not otherwise, as stated in the Article. It is in this
sense that the gloss quoted is to be understood.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[3] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: That the apostles worked with their hands was sometimes a
matter of necessity, sometimes a work of supererogation. It was of
necessity when they failed to receive a livelihood from others. Hence a
gloss on 1 Cor. 4:12, "We labor, working with our own hands," adds,
"because no man giveth to us." It was supererogation, as appears from 1
Cor. 9:12, where the Apostle says that he did not use the power he had of
living by the Gospel. The Apostle had recourse to this supererogation for
three motives. First, in order to deprive the false apostles of the
pretext for preaching, for they preached merely for a temporal advantage;
hence he says (2 Cor. 11:12): "But what I do, that I will do that I may
cut off the occasion from them," etc. Secondly, in order to avoid
burdening those to whom he preached; hence he says (2 Cor. 12:13): "What
is there that you have had less than the other churches, but that I
myself was not burthensome to you?" Thirdly, in order to give an example
of work to the idle; hence he says (2 Thess. 3:8,9): "We worked night and
day . . . that we might give ourselves a pattern unto you, to imitate
us." However, the Apostle did not do this in places like Athens where he
had facilities for preaching daily, as Augustine observes (De oper.
Monach. xviii). Yet religious are not for this reason bound to imitate
the Apostle in this matter, since they are not bound to all works of
supererogation: wherefore neither did the other apostles work with their
hands.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is lawful for religious to live on alms?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem unlawful for religious to live on alms. For the
Apostle (1 Tim. 5:16) forbids those widows who have other means of
livelihood to live on the alms of the Church, so that the Church may
have "sufficient for them that are widows indeed." And Jerome says to
Pope Damasus [*Cf. Cf. Can. Clericos, cause. i, qu. 2; Can. Quoniam,
cause xvi, qu. 1; Regul. Monach. iv among the supposititious works of St.
Jerome] that "those who have sufficient income from their parents and
their own possessions, if they take what belongs to the poor they commit
and incur the guilt of sacrilege, and by the abuse of such things they
eat and drink judgment to themselves." Now religious if they be
able-bodied can support themselves by the work of their hands. Therefore
it would seem that they sin if they consume the alms belonging to the
poor.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, to live at the expense of the faithful is the stipend
appointed to those who preach the Gospel in payment of their labor or
work, according to Mt. 10:10: "The workman is worthy of his meat." Now it
belongs not to religious to preach the Gospel, but chiefly to prelates
who are pastors and teachers. Therefore religious cannot lawfully live on
the alms of the faithful.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, religious are in the state of perfection. But it is more
perfect to give than to receive alms; for it is written (Acts 20:35): "It
is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive." Therefore they
should not live on alms, but rather should they give alms of their
handiwork.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, it belongs to religious to avoid obstacles to virtue and
occasions of sin. Now the receiving of alms offers an occasion of sin,
and hinders an act of virtue; hence a gloss on 2 Thess. 3:9, "That we
might give ourselves a pattern unto you," says: "He who through idleness
eats often at another's table, must needs flatter the one who feeds him."
It is also written (Ex. 23:8): "Neither shalt thou take bribes which . .
blind the wise, and pervert the words of the just," and (Prov. 22:7):
"The borrower is servant to him that lendeth." This is contrary to
religion, wherefore a gloss on 2 Thess. 3:9, "That we might give
ourselves a pattern," etc., says, "our religion calls men to liberty."
Therefore it would seem that religious should not live on alms.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[4] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, religious especially are bound to imitate the perfection
of the apostles; wherefore the Apostle says (Phil. 3:15): "Let us . . .
as many as are perfect, be thus minded." But the Apostle was unwilling to
live at the expense of the faithful, either in order to cut off the
occasion from the false apostles as he himself says (2 Cor. 11:12), or to
avoid giving scandal to the weak, as appears from 1 Cor. 9:12. It would
seem therefore that religious ought for the same reasons to refrain from
living on alms. Hence Augustine says (De oper. Monach. 28): "Cut off the
occasion of disgraceful marketing whereby you lower yourselves in the
esteem of others, and give scandal to the weak: and show men that you
seek not an easy livelihood in idleness, but the kingdom of God by the
narrow and strait way."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Dial. ii, 1): The Blessed Benedict after
leaving his home and parents dwelt for three years in a cave, and while
there lived on the food brought to him by a monk from Rome.
Nevertheless, although he was able-bodied, we do not read that he sought
to live by the labor of his hands. Therefore religious may lawfully live
on alms.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[4] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, A man may lawfully live on what is his or due to him. Now
that which is given out of liberality becomes the property of the person
to whom it is given. Wherefore religious and clerics whose monasteries or
churches have received from the munificence of princes or of any of the
faithful any endowment whatsoever for their support, can lawfully live on
such endowment without working with their hands, and yet without doubt
they live on alms. Wherefore in like manner if religious receive movable
goods from the faithful they can lawfully live on them. For it is absurd
to say that a person may accept an alms of some great property but not
bread or some small sum of money. Nevertheless since these gifts would
seem to be bestowed on religious in order that they may have more leisure
for religious works, in which the donors of temporal goods wish to have a
share, the use of such gifts would become unlawful for them if they
abstained from religious works, because in that case, so far as they are
concerned, they would be thwarting the intention of those who bestowed
those gifts.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[4] Body Para. 2/4
A thing is due to a person in two ways. First, on account of necessity,
which makes all things common, as Ambrose [*Basil, Serm. de Temp. lxiv,
among the supposititious works of St. Ambrose] asserts. Consequently if
religious be in need they can lawfully live on alms. Such necessity may
occur in three ways. First, through weakness of body, the result being
that they are unable to make a living by working with their hands.
Secondly, because that which they gain by their handiwork is insufficient
for their livelihood: wherefore Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xvii)
that "the good works of the faithful should not leave God's servants who
work with their hands without a supply of necessaries, that when the hour
comes for them to nourish their souls, so as to make it impossible for
them to do these corporal works, they be not oppressed by want." Thirdly,
because of the former mode of life of those who were unwont to work with
their hands: wherefore Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xxi) that "if
they had in the world the wherewithal easily to support this life without
working, and gave it to the needy when they were converted to God, we
must credit their weakness and bear with it." For those who have thus
been delicately brought up are wont to be unable to bear the toil of
bodily labor.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[4] Body Para. 3/4
In another way a thing becomes due to a person through his affording
others something whether temporal or spiritual, according to 1 Cor. 9:11,
"If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we
reap your carnal things?" And in this sense religious may live on alms as
being due to them in four ways. First, if they preach by the authority of
the prelates. Secondly, if they be ministers of the altar, according to 1
Cor. 9:13,14, "They that serve the altar partake with the altar. So also
the lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live by the
Gospel." Hence Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xxi): "If they be
gospelers, I allow, they have" (a claim to live at the charge of the
faithful): "if they be ministers of the altar and dispensers of the
sacraments, they need not insist on it, but it is theirs by perfect
right." The reason for this is because the sacrament of the altar
wherever it be offered is common to all the faithful. Thirdly, if they
devote themselves to the study of Holy Writ to the common profit of the
whole Church. Wherefore Jerome says (Contra Vigil. xiii): "It is still
the custom in Judea, not only among us but also among the Hebrews, for
those who meditate on the law of the Lord day and night, end have no
other share on earth but God alone, to be supported by the subscriptions
of the synagogues and of the whole world." Fourthly, if they have endowed
the monastery with the goods they possessed, they may live on the alms
given to the monastery. Hence Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xxv) that
"those who renouncing or distributing their means, whether ample or of
any amount whatever, have desired with pious and salutary humility to be
numbered among the poor of Christ, have a claim on the community and on
brotherly love to receive a livelihood in return. They are to be
commended indeed if they work with their hands, but if they be unwilling,
who will dare to force them? Nor does it matter, as he goes on to say, to
which monasteries, or in what place any one of them has bestowed his
goods on his needy brethren; for all Christians belong to one
commonwealth."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[4] Body Para. 4/4
On the other hand, in the default of any necessity, or of their
affording any profit to others, it is unlawful for religious to wish to
live in idleness on the alms given to the poor. Hence Augustine says (De
oper. Monach. xxii): "Sometimes those who enter the profession of God's
service come from a servile condition of life, from tilling the soil or
working at some trade or lowly occupation. In their case it is not so
clear whether they came with the purpose of serving God, or of evading a
life of want and toil with a view to being fed and clothed in idleness,
and furthermore to being honored by those by whom they were wont to be
despised and downtrodden. Such persons surely cannot excuse themselves
from work on the score of bodily weakness, for their former mode of life
is evidence against them." And he adds further on (De oper. Monach. xxv):
"If they be unwilling to work, neither let them eat. For if the rich
humble themselves to piety, it is not that the poor may be exalted to
pride; since it is altogether unseemly that in a life wherein senators
become laborers, laborers should become idle, and that where the lords of
the manor have come after renouncing their ease, the serfs should live in
comfort."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: These authorities must be understood as referring to cases
of necessity, that is to say, when there is no other means of succoring
the poor: for then they would be bound not only to refrain from accepting
alms, but also to give what they have for the support of the needy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Prelates are competent to preach in virtue of their office,
but religious may be competent to do so in virtue of delegation; and thus
when they work in the field of the Lord, they may make their living
thereby, according to 2 Tim. 2:6, "The husbandman that laboreth must
first partake of the fruits," which a gloss explains thus, "that is to
say, the preacher, who in the field of the Church tills the hearts of his
hearers with the plough of God's word." Those also who minister to the
preachers may live on alms. Hence a gloss on Rm. 15:27, "If the Gentiles
have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they ought also in
carnal things to minister to them," says, "namely, to the Jews who sent
preachers from Jerusalem." There are moreover other reasons for which a
person has a claim to live at the charge of the faithful, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Other things being equal, it is more perfect to give than
to receive. Nevertheless to give or to give up all one's possessions for
Christ's sake, and to receive a little for one's livelihood is better
than to give to the poor part by part, as stated above (Q[186], A[3], ad
6).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: To receive gifts so as to increase one's wealth, or to
accept a livelihood from another without having a claim to it, and
without profit to others or being in need oneself, affords an occasion of
sin. But this does not apply to religious, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[4] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: Whenever there is evident necessity for religious living on
alms without doing any manual work, as well as an evident profit to be
derived by others, it is not the weak who are scandalized, but those who
are full of malice like the Pharisees, whose scandal our Lord teaches us
to despise (Mt. 15:12-14). If, however, these motives of necessity and
profit be lacking, the weak might possibly be scandalized thereby; and
this should be avoided. Yet the same scandal might be occasioned through
those who live in idleness on the common revenues.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is lawful for religious to beg?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem unlawful for religious to beg. For Augustine says
(De oper. Monach. xxviii): "The most cunning foe has scattered on all
sides a great number of hypocrites wearing the monastic habit, who go
wandering about the country," and afterwards he adds: "They all ask, they
all demand to be supported in their profitable penury, or to be paid for
a pretended holiness." Therefore it would seem that the life of mendicant
religious is to be condemned.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (1 Thess. 4:11): "That you . . . work with
your own hands as we commanded you, and that you walk honestly towards
them that are without: and that you want nothing of any man's": and a
gloss on this passage says: "You must work and not be idle, because work
is both honorable and a light to the unbeliever: and you must not covet
that which belongs to another and much less beg or take anything." Again
a gloss [*St. Augustine, (De oper. Monach. iii)] on 2 Thess. 3:10, "If
any man will not work," etc. says: "He wishes the servants of God to
work with the body, so as to gain a livelihood, and not be compelled by
want to ask for necessaries." Now this is to beg. Therefore it would seem
unlawful to beg while omitting to work with one's hands.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, that which is forbidden by law and contrary to justice,
is unbecoming to religious. Now begging is forbidden in the divine law;
for it is written (Dt. 15:4): "There shall be no poor nor beggar among
you," and (Ps. 36:25): "I have not seen the just forsaken, nor his seed
seeking bread." Moreover an able-bodied mendicant is punished by civil
law, according to the law (XI, xxvi, de Valid. Mendicant.). Therefore it
is unfitting for religious to beg.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[5] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, "Shame is about that which is disgraceful," as Damascene
says (De Fide Orth. ii, 15). Now Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 30) that "to
be ashamed to beg is a sign of good birth." Therefore it is disgraceful
to beg: and consequently this is unbecoming to religious.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[5] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, according to our Lord's command it is especially
becoming to preachers of the Gospel to live on alms, as stated above
(A[4]). Yet it is not becoming that they should beg, since a gloss on 2
Tim. 2:6, "The husbandman, that laboreth," etc. says: "The Apostle wishes
the gospeler to understand that to accept necessaries from those among
whom he labors is not mendicancy but a right." Therefore it would seem
unbecoming for religious to beg.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It becomes religious to live in imitation of Christ.
Now Christ was a mendicant, according to Ps. 39:18, "But I am a beggar
and poor"; where a gloss says: "Christ said this of Himself as bearing
the 'form of a servant,'" and further on: "A beggar is one who entreats
another, and a poor man is one who has not enough for himself." Again it
is written (Ps. 69:6): "I am needy and poor"; where a gloss says:
"'Needy,' that is a suppliant; 'and poor,' that is, not having enough for
myself, because I have no worldly wealth." And Jerome says in a letter
[*Reference unknown]: "Beware lest whereas thy Lord," i.e. Christ,
"begged, thou amass other people's wealth." Therefore it becomes
religious to beg.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Two things may be considered in reference to mendicancy.
The first is on the part of the act itself of begging, which has a
certain abasement attaching to it; since of all men those would seem most
abased who are not only poor, but are so needy that they have to receive
their meat from others. In this way some deserve praise for begging out
of humility, just as they abase themselves in other ways, as being the
most efficacious remedy against pride which they desire to quench either
in themselves or in others by their example. For just as a disease that
arises from excessive heat is most efficaciously healed by things that
excel in cold, so proneness to pride is most efficaciously healed by
those things which savor most of abasement. Hence it is said in the
Decretals (II, cap. Si quis semel, de Paenitentia): "To condescend to
the humblest duties, and to devote oneself to the lowliest service is an
exercise of humility; for thus one is able to heal the disease of pride
and human glory." Hence Jerome praises Fabiola (Ep. lxxvii ad ocean.) for
that she desired "to receive alms, having poured forth all her wealth for
Christ's sake." The Blessed Alexis acted in like manner, for, having
renounced all his possessions for Christ's sake he rejoiced in receiving
alms even from his own servants. It is also related of the Blessed
Arsenius in the Lives of the Fathers (v, 6) that he gave thanks because
he was forced by necessity to ask for alms. Hence it is enjoined to some
people as a penance for grievous sins to go on a pilgrimage begging.
Since, however, humility like the other virtues should not be without
discretion, it behooves one to be discreet in becoming a mendicant for
the purpose of humiliation, lest a man thereby incur the mark of
covetousness or of anything else unbecoming. Secondly, mendicancy may be
considered on the part of that which one gets by begging: and thus a man
may be led to beg by a twofold motive. First, by the desire to have
wealth or meat without working for it, and such like mendicancy is
unlawful; secondly, by a motive of necessity or usefulness. The motive is
one of necessity if a man has no other means of livelihood save begging;
and it is a motive of usefulness if he wishes to accomplish something
useful, and is unable to do so without the alms of the faithful. Thus
alms are besought for the building of a bridge, or church, or for any
other work whatever that is conducive to the common good: thus scholars
may seek alms that they may devote themselves to the study of wisdom. In
this way mendicancy is lawful to religious no less than to seculars.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Augustine is speaking there explicitly of those who beg
from motives of covetousness.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The first gloss speaks of begging from motives of
covetousness, as appears from the words of the Apostle; while the second
gloss speaks of those who without effecting any useful purpose, beg their
livelihood in order to live in idleness. on the other hand, he lives not
idly who in any way lives usefully.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: This precept of the divine law does not forbid anyone to
beg, but it forbids the rich to be so stingy that some are compelled by
necessity to beg. The civil law imposes a penalty on able-bodied
mendicants who beg from motives neither of utility nor of necessity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Disgrace is twofold; one arises from lack of honesty [*Cf.
Q[145], A[1]], the other from an external defect, thus it is disgraceful
for a man to be sick or poor. Such like uncomeliness of mendicancy does
not pertain to sin, but it may pertain to humility, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[5] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: Preachers have the right to be fed by those to whom they
preach: yet if they wish to seek this by begging so as to receive it as a
free gift and not as a right this will be a mark of greater humility.
�Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is lawful for religious to wear coarser clothes than others?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem unlawful for religious to wear coarser clothes than
others. For according to the Apostle (1 Thess. 5:22) we ought to "refrain
from all appearance of evil." Now coarseness of clothes has an appearance
of evil; for our Lord said (Mt. 7:15): "Beware of false prophets who come
to you in the clothing of sheep": and a gloss on Apoc. 6:8, "Behold a
pale horse," says: "The devil finding that he cannot succeed, neither by
outward afflictions nor by manifest heresies, sends in advance false
brethren, who under the guise of religion assume the characteristics of
the black and red horses by corrupting the faith." Therefore it would
seem that religious should not wear coarse clothes.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Jerome says (Ep. lii ad Nepotian.): "Avoid somber," i.e.
black, "equally with glittering apparel. Fine and coarse clothes are
equally to be shunned, for the one exhales pleasure, the other
vainglory." Therefore, since vainglory is a graver sin than the use of
pleasure, it would seem that religious who should aim at what is more
perfect ought to avoid coarse rather than fine clothes.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, religious should aim especially at doing works of
penance. Now in works of penance we should use, not outward signs of
sorrow, but rather signs of joy; for our Lord said (Mt. 6:16): "When you
fast, be not, as the hypocrites, sad," and afterwards He added: "But
thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head and wash thy face." Augustine
commenting on these words (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12): "In this
chapter we must observe that not only the glare and pomp of outward
things, but even the weeds of mourning may be a subject of ostentation,
all the more dangerous as being a decoy under the guise of God's
service." Therefore seemingly religious ought not to wear coarse clothes.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb. 11:37): "They wandered about in
sheep-skins in goat-skins," and a gloss adds---"as Elias and others."
Moreover it is said in the Decretal XXI, qu. iv, can. Omnis jactantia:
"If any persons be found to deride those who wear coarse and religious
apparel they must be reproved. For in the early times all those who were
consecrated to God went about in common and coarse apparel."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[6] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, As Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12), "in all
external things, it is not the use but the intention of the user that is
at fault." In order to judge of this it is necessary to observe that
coarse and homely apparel may be considered in two ways. First, as being
a sign of a man's disposition or condition, because according to Ecclus.
19:27, "the attire . . . of the man" shows "what he is." In this way
coarseness of attire is sometimes a sign of sorrow: wherefore those who
are beset with sorrow are wont to wear coarser clothes, just as on the
other hand in times of festivity and joy they wear finer clothes. Hence
penitents make use of coarse apparel, for example, the king (Jonas 3:6)
who "was clothed with sack-cloth," and Achab (3 Kgs. 21:27) who "put
hair-cloth upon his flesh." Sometimes, however, it is a sign of the
contempt of riches and worldly ostentation. Wherefore Jerome says (Ep.
cxxv ad Rustico Monach.): "Let your somber attire indicate your purity of
mind, your coarse robe prove your contempt of the world, yet so that your
mind be not inflated withal, lest your speech belie your habit." In both
these ways it is becoming for religious to wear coarse attire, since
religion is a state of penance and of contempt of worldly glory.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[6] Body Para. 2/4
But that a person wish to signify this to others arises from three
motives. First, in order to humble himself: for just as a man's mind is
uplifted by fine clothes, so is it humbled by lowly apparel. Hence
speaking of Achab who "put hair-cloth on his flesh," the Lord said to
Elias: "Hast thou not seen Achab humbled before Me?" (3 Kgs. 21:29).
Secondly, in order to set an example to others; wherefore a gloss on Mt.
3:4, "(John) had his garments of camel's hair," says: "He who preaches
penance is clothed in the habit of penance." Thirdly, on account of
vainglory; thus Augustine says (cf. OBJ[3]) that "even the weeds of
mourning may be a subject of ostentation."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[6] Body Para. 3/4
Accordingly in the first two ways it is praiseworthy to wear humble
apparel, but in the third way it is sinful.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[6] Body Para. 4/4
Secondly, coarse and homely attire may be considered as the result of
covetousness or negligence, and thus also it is sinful.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Coarseness of attire has not of itself the appearance of
evil, indeed it has more the appearance of good, namely of the contempt
of worldly glory. Hence it is that wicked persons hide their wickedness
under coarse clothing. Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii,
24) that "the sheep should not dislike their clothing for the reason that
the wolves sometimes hide themselves under it."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Jerome is speaking there of the coarse attire that is worn
on account of human glory.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[187] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: According to our Lord's teaching men should do no deeds of
holiness for the sake of show: and this is especially the case when one
does something strange. Hence Chrysostom [*Hom. xiii in Matth. in the
Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says: "While
praying a man should do nothing strange, so as to draw the gaze of
others, either by shouting or striking his breast, or casting up his
hands," because the very strangeness draws people's attention to him. Yet
blame does not attach to all strange behavior that draws people's
attention, for it may be done well or ill. Hence Augustine says (De Serm.
Dom. in Monte ii, 12) that "in the practice of the Christian religion
when a man draws attention to himself by unwonted squalor and shabbiness,
since he acts thus voluntarily and not of necessity, we can gather from
his other deeds whether his behavior is motivated by contempt of
excessive dress or by affectation." Religious, however, would especially
seem not to act thus from affectation, since they wear a coarse habit as
a sign of their profession whereby they profess contempt of the world.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF RELIGIOUS LIFE (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We must now consider the different kinds of religious life, and under
this head there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether there are different kinds of religious life or only one?
(2) Whether a religious order can be established for the works of the
active life?
(3) Whether a religious order can be directed to soldiering?
(4) Whether a religious order can be established for preaching and the
exercise of like works?
(5) Whether a religious order can be established for the study of
science?
(6) Whether a religious order that is directed to the contemplative life
is more excellent than one that is directed to the active life?
(7) Whether religious perfection is diminished by possessing something
in common?
(8) Whether the religious life of solitaries is to be preferred to the
religious life of those who live in community?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there is only one religious order?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that there is but one religious order. For there
can be no diversity in that which is possessed wholly and perfectly;
wherefore there can be only one sovereign good, as stated in the FP, Q[6]
, AA[2],3,4. Now as Gregory says (Hom. xx in Ezech.), "when a man vows to
Almighty God all that he has, all his life, all his knowledge, it is a
holocaust," without which there is no religious life. Therefore it would
seem that there are not many religious orders but only one.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, things which agree in essentials differ only
accidentally. Now there is no religious order without the three essential
vows of religion, as stated above (Q[186], AA[6],7). Therefore it would
seem that religious orders differ not specifically, but only accidentally.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the state of perfection is competent both to religious
and to bishops, as stated above (Q[185], AA[5],7). Now the episcopate is
not diversified specifically, but is one wherever it may be; wherefore
Jerome says (Ep. cxlvi ad Evan.): "Wherever a bishop is, whether at Rome,
or Gubbio, or Constantinople, or Reggio, he has the same excellence, the
same priesthood." Therefore in like manner there is but one religious
order.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, anything that may lead to confusion should be removed
from the Church. Now it would seem that a diversity of religious orders
might confuse the Christian people, as stated in the Decretal de Statu
Monach. et Canon. Reg. [*Cap. Ne Nimia, de Relig. Dom.]. Therefore
seemingly there ought not to be different religious orders.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 44:10) that it pertains to the
adornment of the queen that she is "surrounded with variety."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[1] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (Q[186], A, 7; Q[187], A[2]), the
religious state is a training school wherein one aims by practice at the
perfection of charity. Now there are various works of charity to which a
man may devote himself; and there are also various kinds of exercise.
Wherefore religious orders may be differentiated in two ways. First,
according to the different things to which they may be directed: thus one
may be directed to the lodging of pilgrims, another to visiting or
ransoming captives. Secondly, there may be various religious orders
according to the diversity of practices; thus in one religious order the
body is chastised by abstinence in food, in another by the practice of
manual labor, scantiness of clothes, or the like.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[1] Body Para. 2/2
Since, however, the end imports most in every matter, [*Arist., Topic.
vi 8] religious orders differ more especially according to their various
ends than according to their various practices.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The obligation to devote oneself wholly to God's service is
common to every religious order; hence religious do not differ in this
respect, as though in one religious order a person retained some one
thing of his own, and in another order some other thing. But the
difference is in respect of the different things wherein one may serve
God, and whereby a man may dispose himself to the service of God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The three essential vows of religion pertain to the
practice of religion as principles to which all other matters are
reduced, as stated above (Q[186], A[7]). But there are various ways of
disposing oneself to the observance of each of them. For instance one
disposes oneself to observe the vow of continence, by solitude of place,
by abstinence, by mutual fellowship, and by many like means. Accordingly
it is evident that the community of the essential vows is compatible with
diversity of religious life, both on account of the different
dispositions and on account of the different ends, as explained above.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: In matters relating to perfection, the bishop stands in the
position of agent, and the religious as passive, as stated above (Q[184],
A[7]). Now the agent, even in natural things, the higher it is, is so
much the more one, whereas the things that are passive are various. Hence
with reason the episcopal state is one, while religious orders are many.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Confusion is opposed to distinction and order. Accordingly
the multitude of religious orders would lead to confusion, if different
religious orders were directed to the same end and in the same way,
without necessity or utility. Wherefore to prevent this happening it has
been wholesomely forbidden to establish a new religious order without the
authority of the Sovereign Pontiff.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a religious order should be established for the works of the
active life?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that no religious order should be established for
the works of the active life. For every religious order belongs to the
state of perfection, as stated above (Q[184], A[5]; Q[186], A[1]). Now
the perfection of the religious state consists in the contemplation of
divine things. For Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi) that they are "called
servants of God by reason of their rendering pure service and subjection
to God, and on account of the indivisible and singular life which unites
them by holy reflections," i.e. contemplations, "on invisible things, to
the Godlike unity and the perfection beloved of God." Therefore seemingly
no religious order should be established for the works of the active life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, seemingly the same judgment applies to canons regular as
to monks, according to Extra, De Postul., cap. Ex parte; and De Statu
Monach., cap. Quod Dei timorem: for it is stated that "they are not
considered to be separated from the fellowship of monks": and the same
would seem to apply to all other religious. Now the monastic rule was
established for the purpose of the contemplative life; wherefore Jerome
says (Ep. lviii ad Paulin.): "If you wish to be what you are called, a
monk," i.e. a solitary, "what business have you in a city?" The same is
found stated in Extra, De Renuntiatione, cap. Nisi cum pridem; and De
Regular., cap. Licet quibusdam. Therefore it would seem that every
religious order is directed to the contemplative life, and none to the
active life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the active life is concerned with the present world. Now
all religious are said to renounce the world; wherefore Gregory says
(Hom. xx in Ezech.): "He who renounces this world, and does all the good
he can, is like one who has gone out of Egypt and offers sacrifice in the
wilderness." Therefore it would seem that no religious order can be
directed to the active life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (James 1:27): "Religion clean and
undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and
widows in their tribulation." Now this belongs to the active life.
Therefore religious life can be fittingly directed to the active life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), the religious state is directed
to the perfection of charity, which extends to the love of God and of our
neighbor. Now the contemplative life which seeks to devote itself to God
alone belongs directly to the love of God, while the active life, which
ministers to our neighbor's needs, belongs directly to the love of one's
neighbor. And just as out of charity we love our neighbor for God's sake,
so the services we render our neighbor redound to God, according to Mt.
25:40, "What you have done [Vulg.: 'As long as you did it'] to one of
these My least brethren, you did it to Me." Consequently those services
which we render our neighbor, in so far as we refer them to God, are
described as sacrifices, according to Heb. 13:16, "Do not forget to do
good and to impart, for by such sacrifices God's favor is obtained." And
since it belongs properly to religion to offer sacrifice to God, as
stated above (Q[81], A[1], ad 1; A[4], ad 1), it follows that certain
religious orders are fittingly directed to the works of the active life.
Wherefore in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. xiv, 4) the Abbot
Nesteros in distinguishing the various aims of religious orders says:
"Some direct their intention exclusively to the hidden life of the desert
and purity of heart; some are occupied with the instruction of the
brethren and the care of the monasteries; while others delight in the
service of the guesthouse," i.e. in hospitality.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Service and subjection rendered to God are not precluded by
the works of the active life, whereby a man serves his neighbor for God's
sake, as stated in the Article. Nor do these works preclude singularity
of life; not that they involve man's living apart from his fellow-men,
but in the sense that each man individually devotes himself to things
pertaining to the service of God; and since religious occupy themselves
with the works of the active life for God's sake, it follows that their
action results from their contemplation of divine things. Hence they are
not entirely deprived of the fruit of the contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The same judgment applies to monks and to all other
religious, as regards things common to all religious orders: for instance
as regards their devoting themselves wholly to the divine service, their
observance of the essential vows of religion, and their refraining from
worldly business. But it does not follow that this likeness extends to
other things that are proper to the monastic profession, and are directed
especially to the contemplative life. Hence in the aforesaid Decretal, De
Postulando, it is not simply stated that "the same judgment applies to
canons regular" as "to monks," but that it applies "in matters already
mentioned," namely that "they are not to act as advocates in lawsuits."
Again the Decretal quoted, De Statu Monach., after the statement that
"canons regular are not considered to be separated from the fellowship of
monks," goes on to say: "Nevertheless they obey an easier rule." Hence it
is evident that they are not bound to all that monks are bound.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: A man may be in the world in two ways: in one way by his
bodily presence, in another way by the bent of his mind. Hence our Lord
said to His disciples (Jn. 15:19): "I have chosen you out of the world,"
and yet speaking of them to His Father He said (Jn. 17:11): "These are in
the world, and I come to Thee." Although, then, religious who are
occupied with the works of the active life are in the world as to the
presence of the body, they are not in the world as regards their bent of
mind, because they are occupied with external things, not as seeking
anything of the world, but merely for the sake of serving God: for "they
. . use this world, as if they used it not," to quote 1 Cor. 7:31.
Hence (James 1:27) after it is stated that "religion clean and undefiled
. . is . . . to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation,"
it is added, "and to keep one's self unspotted from this world," namely
to avoid being attached to worldly things.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a religious order can be directed to soldiering?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that no religious order can be directed to
soldiering. For all religious orders belong to the state of perfection.
Now our Lord said with reference to the perfection of Christian life (Mt.
5:39): "I say to you not to resist evil; but if one strike thee on the
right cheek, turn to him also the other," which is inconsistent with the
duties of a soldier. Therefore no religious order can be established for
soldiering.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the bodily encounter of the battlefield is more grievous
than the encounter in words that takes place between counsel at law. Yet
religious are forbidden to plead at law, as appears from the Decretal De
Postulando quoted above (A[2], OBJ[2]). Therefore it is much less seemly
for a religious order to be established for soldiering.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the religious state is a state of penance, as we have
said above (Q[187], A[6]). Now according to the code of laws soldiering
is forbidden to penitents. for it is said in the Decretal De Poenit.,
Dist. v, cap. 3: "It is altogether opposed to the rules of the Church, to
return to worldly soldiering after doing penance." Therefore it is
unfitting for any religious order to be established for soldiering.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, no religious order may be established for an unjust
object. But as Isidore says (Etym. xviii, 1), "A just war is one that is
waged by order of the emperor." Since then religious are private
individuals, it would seem unlawful for them to wage war; and
consequently no religious order may be established for this purpose.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Ep. clxxxix; ad Bonifac.), "Beware of
thinking that none of those can please God who handle war-like weapons.
Of such was holy David to whom the Lord gave great testimony." Now
religious orders are established in order that men may please God.
Therefore nothing hinders the establishing of a religious order for the
purpose of soldiering.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (A[2]), a religious order may be
established not only for the works of the contemplative life, but also
for the works of the active life, in so far as they are concerned in
helping our neighbor and in the service of God, but not in so far as they
are directed to a worldly object. Now the occupation of soldiering may be
directed to the assistance of our neighbor, not only as regards private
individuals, but also as regards the defense of the whole commonwealth.
Hence it is said of Judas Machabeus (1 Macc. 3:2,3) that "he [Vulg.:
'they'] fought with cheerfulness the battle of Israel, and he got his
people great honor." It can also be directed to the upkeep of divine
worship, wherefore (1 Macc. 3:21) Judas is stated to have said: "We will
fight for our lives and our laws," and further on (1 Macc. 13:3) Simon
said: "You know what great battles I and my brethren, and the house of my
father, have fought for the laws and the sanctuary."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
Hence a religious order may be fittingly established for soldiering, not
indeed for any worldly purpose, but for the defense of divine worship and
public safety, or also of the poor and oppressed, according to Ps. 81:4:
"Rescue the poor, and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Not to resist evil may be understood in two ways. First, in
the sense of forgiving the wrong done to oneself, and thus it may pertain
to perfection, when it is expedient to act thus for the spiritual welfare
of others. Secondly, in the sense of tolerating patiently the wrongs done
to others: and this pertains to imperfection, or even to vice, if one be
able to resist the wrongdoer in a becoming manner. Hence Ambrose says (De
Offic. i, 27): "The courage whereby a man in battle defends his country
against barbarians, or protects the weak at home, or his friends against
robbers is full of justice": even so our Lord says in the passage quoted
[*Lk. 6:30 "Of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again"; Cf.
Mt. 5:40], " . . . thy goods, ask them not again." If, however, a man
were not to demand the return of that which belongs to another, he would
sin if it were his business to do so: for it is praiseworthy to give away
one's own, but not another's property. And much less should the things of
God be neglected, for as Chrysostom [*Hom. v in Matth. in the Opus
Imperfectum, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says, "it is most
wicked to overlook the wrongs done to God."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: It is inconsistent with any religious order to act as
counsel at law for a worldly object, but it is not inconsistent to do so
at the orders of one's superior and in favor of one's monastery, as
stated in the same Decretal, or for the defense of the poor and widows.
Wherefore it is said in the Decretals (Dist. lxxxviii, cap. 1): "The holy
synod has decreed that henceforth no cleric is to buy property or occupy
himself with secular business, save with a view to the care of the
fatherless . . . and widows." Likewise to be a soldier for the sake of
some worldly object is contrary to all religious life, but this does not
apply to those who are soldiers for the sake of God's service.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Worldly soldiering is forbidden to penitents, but the
soldiering which is directed to the service of God is imposed as a
penance on some people, as in the case of those upon whom it is enjoined
to take arms in defense of the Holy Land.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The establishment of a religious order for the purpose of
soldiering does not imply that the religious can wage war on their own
authority; but they can do so only on the authority of the sovereign or
of the Church.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a religious order can be established for preaching or hearing
confessions?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that no religious order may be established for
preaching, or hearing confessions. For it is said (VII, qu. i [*Cap. Hoc
nequaquam; Cf. Q[187], A[1], OBJ[1]]): "The monastic life is one of
subjection and discipleship, not of teaching, authority, or pastoral
care," and the same apparently applies to religious. Now preaching and
hearing confessions are the actions of a pastor and teacher. Therefore a
religious order should not be established for this purpose.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the purpose for which a religious order is established
would seem to be something most proper to the religious life, as stated
above (A[1]). Now the aforesaid actions are not proper to religious but
to bishops. Therefore a religious order should not be established for the
purpose of such actions.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it seems unfitting that the authority to preach and hear
confessions should be committed to an unlimited number of men; and there
is no fixed number of those who are received into a religious order.
Therefore it is unfitting for a religious order to be established for the
purpose of the aforesaid actions.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, preachers have a right to receive their livelihood from
the faithful of Christ, according to 1 Cor. 9. If then the office of
preaching be committed to a religious order established for that purpose,
it follows that the faithful of Christ are bound to support an unlimited
number of persons, which would be a heavy burden on them. Therefore a
religious order should not be established for the exercise of these
actions.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[4] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, the organization of the Church should be in accordance
with Christ's institution. Now Christ sent first the twelve apostles to
preach, as related in Luke 9, and afterwards He sent the seventy-two
disciples, as stated in Luke 10. Moreover, according to the gloss of Bede
on "And after these things" (Lk. 10:1), "the apostles are represented by
the bishops, the seventy-two disciples by the lesser priests," i.e. the
parish priests. Therefore in addition to bishops and parish priests, no
religious order should be established for the purpose of preaching and
hearing confessions.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, In the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. xiv, 4), Abbot
Nesteros, speaking of the various kinds of religious orders, says: "Some
choosing the care of the sick, others devoting themselves to the relief
of the afflicted and oppressed, or applying themselves to teaching, or
giving alms to the poor, have been most highly esteemed on account of
their devotion and piety." Therefore just as a religious order may be
established for the care of the sick, so also may one be established for
teaching the people by preaching and like works.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[2]), it is fitting for a religious
order to be established for the works of the active life, in so far as
they are directed to the good of our neighbor, the service of God, and
the upkeep of divine worship. Now the good of our neighbor is advanced by
things pertaining to the spiritual welfare of the soul rather than by
things pertaining to the supplying of bodily needs, in proportion to the
excellence of spiritual over corporal things. Hence it was stated above
(Q[32], A[3]) that spiritual works of mercy surpass corporal works of
mercy. Moreover this is more pertinent to the service of God, to Whom no
sacrifice is more acceptable than zeal for souls, as Gregory says (Hom.
xii in Ezech.). Furthermore, it is a greater thing to employ spiritual
arms in defending the faithful against the errors of heretics and the
temptations of the devil, than to protect the faithful by means of bodily
weapons. Therefore it is most fitting for a religious order to be
established for preaching and similar works pertaining to the salvation
of souls.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: He who works by virtue of another, acts as an instrument.
And a minister is like an "animated instrument," as the Philosopher says
(Polit. i, 2 [*Cf. Ethic. viii, 11]). Hence if a man preach or do
something similar by the authority of his superiors, he does not rise
above the degree of "discipleship" or "subjection," which is competent to
religious.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Some religious orders are established for soldiering, to
wage war, not indeed on their own authority, but on that of the sovereign
or of the Church who are competent to wage war by virtue of their office,
as stated above (A[3], ad 4). In the same way certain religious orders
are established for preaching and hearing confessions, not indeed by
their own authority, but by the authority of the higher and lower
superiors, to whom these things belong by virtue of their office.
Consequently to assist one's superiors in such a ministry is proper to a
religious order of this kind.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Bishops do not allow these religious severally and
indiscriminately to preach or hear confessions, but according to the
discretion of the religious superiors, or according to their own
appointment.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The faithful are not bound by law to contribute to the
support of other than their ordinary prelates, who receive the tithes and
offerings of the faithful for that purpose, as well as other
ecclesiastical revenues. But if some men are willing to minister to the
faithful by exercising the aforesaid acts gratuitously, and without
demanding payment as of right, the faithful are not burdened thereby
because their temporal contributions can be liberally repaid by those
men, nor are they bound by law to contribute, but by charity, and yet not
so that they be burdened thereby and others eased, as stated in 2 Cor.
8:13. If, however, none be found to devote themselves gratuitously to
services of this kind, the ordinary prelate is bound, if he cannot
suffice by himself, to seek other suitable persons and support them
himself.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[4] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: The seventy-two disciples are represented not only by the
parish priests, but by all those of lower order who in any way assist the
bishops in their office. For we do not read that our Lord appointed the
seventy-two disciples to certain fixed parishes, but that "He sent them
two and two before His face into every city and place whither He Himself
was to come." It was fitting, however, that in addition to the ordinary
prelates others should be chosen for these duties on account of the
multitude of the faithful, and the difficulty of finding a sufficient
number of persons to be appointed to each locality, just as it was
necessary to establish religious orders for military service, on account
of the secular princes being unable to cope with unbelievers in certain
countries.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a religious order should be established for the purpose of study?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that a religious order should not be established
for the purpose of study. For it is written (Ps. 70:15,16): "Because I
have not known letters [Douay: 'learning'], I will enter into the powers
of the Lord," i.e. "Christian virtue," according to a gloss. Now the
perfection of Christian virtue, seemingly, pertains especially to
religious. Therefore it is not for them to apply themselves to the study
of letters.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, that which is a source of dissent is unbecoming to
religious, who are gathered together in the unity of peace. Now study
leads to dissent: wherefore different schools of thought arose among the
philosophers. Hence Jerome (Super Epist. ad Tit. 1:5) says: "Before a
diabolical instinct brought study into religion, and people said: I am of
Paul, I of Apollo, I of Cephas," etc. Therefore it would seem that no
religious order should be established for the purpose of study.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, those who profess the Christian religion should profess
nothing in common with the Gentiles. Now among the Gentiles were some who
professed philosophy, and even now some secular persons are known as
professors of certain sciences. Therefore the study of letters does not
become religious.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Jerome (Ep. liii ad Paulin.) urges him to acquire
learning in the monastic state, saying: "Let us learn on earth those
things the knowledge of which will remain in heaven," and further on:
"Whatever you seek to know, I will endeavor to know with you."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[5] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that As stated above (A[2]), religion may be ordained to the
active and to the contemplative life. Now chief among the works of the
active life are those which are directly ordained to the salvation of
souls, such as preaching and the like. Accordingly the study of letters
is becoming to the religious life in three ways. First, as regards that
which is proper to the contemplative life, to which the study of letters
helps in a twofold manner. In one way by helping directly to contemplate,
namely by enlightening the intellect. For the contemplative life of which
we are now speaking is directed chiefly to the consideration of divine
things, as stated above (Q[180], A[4]), to which consideration man is
directed by study; for which reason it is said in praise of the righteous
(Ps. 1:2) that "he shall meditate day and night" on the law of the Lord,
and (Ecclus. 39:1): "The wise man will seek out the wisdom of all the
ancients, and will be occupied in the prophets." In another way the study
of letters is a help to the contemplative life indirectly, by removing
the obstacles to contemplation, namely the errors which in the
contemplation of divine things frequently beset those who are ignorant of
the scriptures. Thus we read in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. x,
3) that the Abbot Serapion through simplicity fell into the error of the
Anthropomorphites, who thought that God had a human shape. Hence Gregory
says (Moral. vi) that "some through seeking in contemplation more than
they are able to grasp, fall away into perverse doctrines, and by failing
to be the humble disciples of truth become the masters of error." Hence
it is written (Eccles. 2:3): "I thought in my heart to withdraw my flesh
from wine, that I might turn my mind to wisdom and might avoid folly."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[5] Body Para. 2/3
Secondly, the study of letters is necessary in those religious orders
that are founded for preaching and other like works; wherefore the
Apostle (Titus 1:9), speaking of bishops to whose office these acts
belong, says: "Embracing that faithful word which is according to
doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince
the gainsayers." Nor does it matter that the apostles were sent to preach
without having studied letters, because, as Jerome says (Ep. liii ad
Paulin.), "whatever others acquire by exercise and daily meditation in
God's law, was taught them by the Holy Ghost."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[5] Body Para. 3/3
Thirdly, the study of letters is becoming to religious as regards that
which is common to all religious orders. For it helps us to avoid the
lusts of the flesh; wherefore Jerome says (Ep. cxxv ad Rust. Monach.):
"Love the science of the Scriptures and thou shalt have no love for
carnal vice." For it turns the mind away from lustful thoughts, and tames
the flesh on account of the toil that study entails according to Ecclus.
31:1, "Watching for riches* consumeth the flesh." [*Vigilia honestatis
St. Thomas would seem to have taken 'honestas' in the sense of virtue].
It also helps to remove the desire of riches, wherefore it is written
(Wis. 7:8): "I . . . esteemed riches nothing in comparison with her," and
(1 Macc. 12:9): "We needed none of these things," namely assistance from
without, "having for our comfort the holy books that are in our hands."
It also helps to teach obedience, wherefore Augustine says (De oper.
Monach. xvii): "What sort of perverseness is this, to wish to read, but
not to obey what one reads?" Hence it is clearly fitting that a religious
order be established for the study of letters.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This commentary of the gloss is an exposition of the Old
Law of which the Apostle says (2 Cor. 3:6): "The letter killeth." Hence
not to know letters is to disapprove of the circumcision of the "letter"
and other carnal observances.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Study is directed to knowledge which, without charity,
"puffeth up," and consequently leads to dissent, according to Prov.
13:10, "Among the proud there are always dissensions": whereas, with
charity, it "edifieth and begets concord." Hence the Apostle after saying
(1 Cor. 1:5): "You are made rich . . . in all utterance and in all
knowledge," adds (1 Cor. 1:10): "That you all speak the same thing, and
that there be no schisms among you." But Jerome is not speaking here of
the study of letters, but of the study of dissensions which heretics and
schismatics have brought into the Christian religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The philosophers professed the study of letters in the
matter of secular learning: whereas it becomes religious to devote
themselves chiefly to the study of letters in reference to the doctrine
that is "according to godliness" (Titus 1:1). It becomes not religious,
whose whole life is devoted to the service of God, to seek for other
learning, save in so far as it is referred to the sacred doctrine. Hence
Augustine says at the end of De Musica vi, 17: "Whilst we think that we
should not overlook those whom heretics delude by the deceitful assurance
of reason and knowledge, we are slow to advance in the consideration of
their methods. Yet we should not be praised for doing this, were it not
that many holy sons of their most loving mother the Catholic Church had
done the same under the necessity of confounding heretics."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a religious order that is devoted to the contemplative life is
more excellent than on that is given to the active life?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that a religious order which is devoted to the
contemplative life is not more excellent than one which is given to the
active life. For it is said (Extra, de Regular. et Transeunt. ad Relig.,
cap. Licet), quoting the words of Innocent III: "Even as a greater good
is preferred to a lesser, so the common profit takes precedence of
private profit: and in this case teaching is rightly preferred to
silence, responsibility to contemplation, work to rest." Now the
religious order which is directed to the greater good is better.
Therefore it would seem that those religious orders that are directed to
the active life are more excellent than those which are directed to the
contemplative life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, every religious order is directed to the perfection of
charity, as stated above (AA[1],2). Now a gloss on Heb. 12:4, "For you
have not yet resisted unto blood," says: "In this life there is no more
perfect love than that to which the holy martyrs attained, who fought
against sin unto blood." Now to fight unto blood is becoming those
religious who are directed to military service, and yet this pertains to
the active life. Therefore it would seem that religious orders of this
kind are the most excellent.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, seemingly the stricter a religious order is, the more
excellent it is. But there is no reason why certain religious orders
directed to the active life should not be of stricter observance than
those directed to the contemplative life. Therefore they are more
excellent.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord said (Lk. 10:42) that the "best part" was
Mary's, by whom the contemplative life is signified.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[6] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), the difference between one
religious order and another depends chiefly on the end, and secondarily
on the exercise. And since one thing cannot be said to be more excellent
than another save in respect of that in which it differs therefrom, it
follows that the excellence of one religious order over another depends
chiefly on their ends, and secondarily on their respective exercises.
Nevertheless each of these comparisons is considered in a different way.
For the comparison with respect to the end is absolute, since the end is
sought for its own sake; whereas the comparison with respect to exercise
is relative, since exercise is sought not for its own sake, but for the
sake of the end. Hence a religious order is preferable to another, if it
be directed to an end that is absolutely more excellent either because it
is a greater good or because it is directed to more goods. If, however,
the end be the same, the excellence of one religious order over another
depends secondarily, not on the amount of exercise, but on the proportion
of the exercise to the end in view. Wherefore in the Conferences of the
Fathers (Coll. ii, 2) Blessed Antony is quoted, as preferring discretion
whereby a man moderates all his actions, to fastings, watchings, and all
such observances.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[6] Body Para. 2/3
Accordingly we must say that the work of the active life is twofold. one
proceeds from the fulness of contemplation, such as teaching and
preaching. Wherefore Gregory says (Hom. v in Ezech.) that the words of
Ps. 144:7, "They shall publish the memory of . . . Thy sweetness," refer
"to perfect men returning from their contemplation." And this work is
more excellent than simple contemplation. For even as it is better to
enlighten than merely to shine, so is it better to give to others the
fruits of one's contemplation than merely to contemplate. The other work
of the active life consists entirely in outward occupation, for instance
almsgiving, receiving guests, and the like, which are less excellent than
the works of contemplation, except in cases of necessity, as stated
above (Q[182], A[1]). Accordingly the highest place in religious orders
is held by those which are directed to teaching and preaching, which,
moreover, are nearest to the episcopal perfection, even as in other
things "the end of that which is first is in conjunction with the
beginning of that which is second," as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. vii).
The second place belongs to those which are directed to contemplation,
and the third to those which are occupied with external actions.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[6] Body Para. 3/3
Moreover, in each of these degrees it may be noted that one religious
order excels another through being directed to higher action in the same
genus; thus among the works of the active life it is better to ransom
captives than to receive guests, and among the works of the contemplative
life prayer is better than study. Again one will excel another if it be
directed to more of these actions than another, or if it have statutes
more adapted to the attainment of the end in view.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This Decretal refers to the active life as directed to the
salvation of souls.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Those religious orders that are established for the purpose
of military service aim more directly at shedding the enemy's blood than
at the shedding of their own, which latter is more properly competent to
martyrs. Yet there is no reason why religious of this description should
not acquire the merit of martyrdom in certain cases, and in this respect
stand higher than other religious; even as in some cases the works of the
active life take precedence of contemplation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Strictness of observances, as the Blessed Antony remarks
(Conferences of the Fathers; Coll. ii, 2), is not the chief object of
commendation in a religious order; and it is written (Is. 58:5): "Is this
such a fast as I have chosen, for a man to afflict his soul for a day?"
Nevertheless it is adopted in religious life as being necessary for
taming the flesh, "which if done without discretion, is liable to make us
fail altogether," as the Blessed Antony observes. Wherefore a religious
order is not more excellent through having stricter observances, but
because its observances are directed by greater discretion to the end of
religion. Thus the taming of the flesh is more efficaciously directed to
continence by means of abstinence in meat and drink, which pertain to
hunger and thirst, than by the privation of clothing, which pertains to
cold and nakedness, or by bodily labor.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether religious perfection is diminished by possessing something in
common?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that religious perfection is diminished by
possessing something in common. For our Lord said (Mt. 19:21): "If thou
wilt be perfect, go sell all [Vulg.: 'what'] thou hast and give to the
poor." Hence it is clear that to lack worldly wealth belongs to the
perfection of Christian life. Now those who possess something in common
do not lack worldly wealth. Therefore it would seem that they do not
quite reach to the perfection of Christian life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the perfection of the counsels requires that one should
be without worldly solicitude; wherefore the Apostle in giving the
counsel of virginity said (1 Cor. 7:32): "I would have you to be without
solicitude." Now it belongs to the solicitude of the present life that
certain people keep something to themselves for the morrow; and this
solicitude was forbidden His disciples by our Lord (Mt. 6:34) saying: "Be
not . . . solicitous for tomorrow." Therefore it would seem that the
perfection of Christian life is diminished by having something in common.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, possessions held in common belong in some way to each
member of the community; wherefore Jerome (Ep. lx ad Heliod. Episc.) says
in reference to certain people: "They are richer in the monastery than
they had been in the world; though serving the poor Christ they have
wealth which they had not while serving the rich devil; the Church
rejects them now that they are rich, who in the world were beggars." But
it is derogatory to religious perfection that one should possess wealth
of one's own. Therefore it is also derogatory to religious perfection to
possess anything in common.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, Gregory (Dial. iii, 14) relates of a very holy man named
Isaac, that "when his disciples humbly signified that he should accept
the possessions offered to him for the use of the monastery, he being
solicitous for the safeguarding of his poverty, held firmly to his
opinion, saying: A monk who seeks earthly possessions is no monk at all":
and this refers to possessions held in common, and which were offered him
for the common use of the monastery. Therefore it would seem destructive
of religious perfection to possess anything in common.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, our Lord in prescribing religious perfection to His
disciples, said (Mt. 10:9,10): "Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor
money in your purses, nor script for your journey." By these words, as
Jerome says in his commentary, "He reproves those philosophers who are
commonly called Bactroperatae [*i.e. staff and scrip bearers], who as
despising the world and valuing all things at naught carried their pantry
about with them." Therefore it would seem derogatory to religious
perfection that one should keep something whether for oneself or for the
common use.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Prosper [*Julianus Pomerius, among the works of
Prosper] says (De Vita Contempl. ix) and his words are quoted (XII, qu.
1, can. Expedit): "It is sufficiently clear both that for the sake of
perfection one should renounce having anything of one's own, and that the
possession of revenues, which are of course common property, is no
hindrance to the perfection of the Church."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] Body Para. 1/6
I answer that, As stated above (Q[184], A[3], ad 1; Q[185], A[6], ad 1),
perfection consists, essentially, not in poverty, but in following
Christ, according to the saying of Jerome (Super Matth. xix, 27): "Since
it is not enough to leave all, Peter adds that which is perfect, namely,
'We have followed Thee,'" while poverty is like an instrument or exercise
for the attainment of perfection. Hence in the Conferences of the Fathers
(Coll. i, 7) the abbot Moses says: "Fastings, watchings, meditating on
the Scriptures, poverty, and privation of all one's possessions are not
perfection, but means of perfection."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] Body Para. 2/6
Now the privation of one's possessions, or poverty, is a means of
perfection, inasmuch as by doing away with riches we remove certain
obstacles to charity; and these are chiefly three. The first is the cares
which riches bring with them; wherefore our Lord said (Mt. 13:22): "That
which was sown [Vulg.: 'He that received the seed'] among thorns, is he
that heareth the word, and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness
of riches, choketh up the word." The second is the love of riches, which
increases with the possession of wealth; wherefore Jerome says (Super
Matth. xix, 23) that "since it is difficult to despise riches when we
have them, our Lord did not say: 'It is impossible for a rich man to
enter the kingdom of heaven,' but: 'It is difficult.'" The third is
vainglory or elation which results from riches, according to Ps. 48:7,
"They that trust in their own strength, and glory in the multitude of
their riches."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] Body Para. 3/6
Accordingly the first of these three cannot be altogether separated from
riches whether great or small. For man must needs take a certain amount
of care in acquiring or keeping external things. But so long as external
things are sought or possessed only in a small quantity, and as much as
is required for a mere livelihood, such like care does not hinder one
much; and consequently is not inconsistent with the perfection of
Christian life. For our Lord did not forbid all care, but only such as is
excessive and hurtful; wherefore Augustine, commenting on Mt. 6:25, "Be
not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat," says (De Serm. in
Monte [*The words quoted are from De Operibus Monach. xxvi]): "In saying
this He does not forbid them to procure these things in so far as they
needed them, but to be intent on them, and for their sake to do whatever
they are bidden to do in preaching the Gospel." Yet the possession of
much wealth increases the weight of care, which is a great distraction to
man's mind and hinders him from giving himself wholly to God's service.
The other two, however, namely the love of riches and taking pride or
glorying in riches, result only from an abundance of wealth.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] Body Para. 4/6
Nevertheless it makes a difference in this matter if riches, whether
abundant or moderate, be possessed in private or in common. For the care
that one takes of one's own wealth, pertains to love of self, whereby a
man loves himself in temporal matters; whereas the care that is given to
things held in common pertains to the love of charity which "seeketh not
her own," but looks to the common good. And since religion is directed to
the perfection of charity, and charity is perfected in "the love of God
extending to contempt of self" [*Augustine, De Civ. Dei xiv, 28], it is
contrary to religious perfection to possess anything in private. But the
care that is given to common goods may pertain to charity, although it
may prove an obstacle to some higher act of charity, such as divine
contemplation or the instructing of one's neighbor. Hence it is evident
that to have excessive riches in common, whether in movable or in
immovable property, is an obstacle to perfection, though not absolutely
incompatible with it; while it is not an obstacle to religious perfection
to have enough external things, whether movables or immovables, as
suffice for a livelihood, if we consider poverty in relation to the
common end of religious orders, which is to devote oneself to the service
of God. But if we consider poverty in relation to the special end of any
religious order, then this end being presupposed, a greater or lesser
degree of poverty is adapted to that religious order; and each religious
order will be the more perfect in respect of poverty, according as it
professes a poverty more adapted to its end. For it is evident that for
the purpose of the outward and bodily works of the active life a man
needs the assistance of outward things, whereas few are required for
contemplation. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 8) that "many things
are needed for action, and the more so, the greater and nobler the
actions are. But the contemplative man requires no such things for the
exercise of his act: he needs only the necessaries; other things are an
obstacle to his contemplation." Accordingly it is clear that a religious
order directed to the bodily actions of the active life, such as
soldiering or the lodging of guests, would be imperfect if it lacked
common riches; whereas those religious orders which are directed to the
contemplative life are the more perfect, according as the poverty they
profess burdens them with less care for temporal things. And the care of
temporal things is so much a greater obstacle to religious life as the
religious life requires a greater care of spiritual things.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] Body Para. 5/6
Now it is manifest that a religious order established for the purpose of
contemplating and of giving to others the fruits of one's contemplation
by teaching and preaching, requires greater care of spiritual things than
one that is established for contemplation only. Wherefore it becomes a
religious order of this kind to embrace a poverty that burdens one with
the least amount of care. Again it is clear that to keep what one has
acquired at a fitting time for one's necessary use involves the least
burden of care. Wherefore a threefold degree of poverty corresponds to
the three aforesaid degrees of religious life. For it is fitting that a
religious order which is directed to the bodily actions of the active
life should have an abundance of riches in common; that the common
possession of a religious order directed to contemplation should be more
moderate, unless the said religious be bound, either themselves or
through others, to give hospitality or to assist the poor; and that those
who aim at giving the fruits of their contemplation to others should have
their life most exempt from external cares; this being accomplished by
their laying up the necessaries of life procured at a fitting time. This,
our Lord, the Founder of poverty, taught by His example. For He had a
purse which He entrusted to Judas, and in which were kept the things that
were offered to Him, as related in Jn. 12:6.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] Body Para. 6/6
Nor should it be argued that Jerome (Super Matth. xvii, 26) says: "If
anyone object that Judas carried money in the purse, we answer that He
deemed it unlawful to spend the property of the poor on His own uses,"
namely by paying the tax---because among those poor His disciples held a
foremost place, and the money in Christ's purse was spent chiefly on
their needs. For it is stated (Jn. 4:8) that "His disciples were gone
into the city to buy meats," and (Jn. 13:29) that the disciples "thought,
because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him: But those things
which we have need of for the festival day, or that he should give
something to the poor." From this it is evident that to keep money by, or
any other common property for the support of religious of the same order,
or of any other poor, is in accordance with the perfection which Christ
taught by His example. Moreover, after the resurrection, the disciples
from whom all religious orders took their origin kept the price of the
lands, and distributed it according as each one had need (Acts 4:34,35).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated above (Q[184], A[3], ad 1), this saying of our
Lord does not mean that poverty itself is perfection, but that it is the
means of perfection. Indeed, as shown above (Q[186], A[8]), it is the
least of the three chief means of perfection; since the vow of continence
excels the vow of poverty, and the vow of obedience excels them both.
Since, however, the means are sought not for their own sake, but for the
sake of the end, a thing is better, not for being a greater instrument,
but for being more adapted to the end. Thus a physician does not heal the
more the more medicine he gives, but the more the medicine is adapted to
the disease. Accordingly it does not follow that a religious order is the
more perfect, according as the poverty it professes is more perfect, but
according as its poverty is more adapted to the end both common and
special. Granted even that the religious order which exceeds others in
poverty be more perfect in so far as it is poorer, this would not make it
more perfect simply. For possibly some other religious order might
surpass it in matters relating to continence, or obedience, and thus be
more perfect simply, since to excel in better things is to be better
simply.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: Our Lord's words (Mt. 6:34), "Be not solicitous for
tomorrow," do not mean that we are to keep nothing for the morrow; for
the Blessed Antony shows the danger of so doing, in the Conferences of
the Fathers (Coll. ii, 2), where he says: "It has been our experience
that those who have attempted to practice the privation of all means of
livelihood, so as not to have the wherewithal to procure themselves food
for one day, have been deceived so unawares that they were unable to
finish properly the work they had undertaken." And, as Augustine says (De
oper. Monach. xxiii), "if this saying of our Lord, 'Be not solicitous for
tomorrow,' means that we are to lay nothing by for the morrow, those who
shut themselves up for many days from the sight of men, and apply their
whole mind to a life of prayer, will be unable to provide themselves with
these things." Again he adds afterwards: "Are we to suppose that the
more holy they are, the less do they resemble the birds?" And further on
(De oper. Monach. xxiv): "For if it be argued from the Gospel that they
should lay nothing by, they answer rightly: Why then did our Lord have a
purse, wherein He kept the money that was collected? Why, in days long
gone by, when famine was imminent, was grain sent to the holy fathers?
Why did the apostles thus provide for the needs of the saints?"
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
Accordingly the saying: "Be not solicitous for tomorrow," according to
Jerome (Super Matth.) is to be rendered thus: "It is enough that we think
of the present; the future being uncertain, let us leave it to God":
according to Chrysostom [*Hom. xvi in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely
ascribed to St. John Chrysostom], "It is enough to endure the toil for
necessary things, labor not in excess for unnecessary things": according
to Augustine (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 17): "When we do any good
action, we should bear in mind not temporal things which are denoted by
the morrow, but eternal things."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The saying of Jerome applies where there are excessive
riches, possessed in private as it were, or by the abuse of which even
the individual members of a community wax proud and wanton. But they do
not apply to moderate wealth, set by for the common use, merely as a
means of livelihood of which each one stands in need. For it amounts to
the same that each one makes use of things pertaining to the necessaries
of life, and that these things be set by for the common use.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Isaac refused to accept the offer of possessions, because
he feared lest this should lead him to have excessive wealth, the abuse
of which would be an obstacle to religious perfection. Hence Gregory adds
(Dial. iii, 14): "He was as afraid of forfeiting the security of his
poverty, as the rich miser is careful of his perishable wealth." It is
not, however, related that he refused to accept such things as are
commonly necessary for the upkeep of life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[7] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: The Philosopher says (Polit. i, 5,6) that bread, wine, and
the like are natural riches, while money is artificial riches. Hence it
is that certain philosophers declined to make use of money, and employed
other things, living according to nature. Wherefore Jerome shows by the
words of our Lord, Who equally forbade both, that it comes to the same to
have money and to possess other things necessary for life. And though our
Lord commanded those who were sent to preach not to carry these things on
the way, He did not forbid them to be possessed in common. How these
words of our Lord should be understood has been shown above (Q[185], A[6]
, ad 2; FS, Q[108], A[2], ad 3).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the religious life of those who live in community is more perfect
than that of those who lead a solitary life?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the religious life of those who live in
community is more perfect than that of those who lead a solitary life.
For it is written (Eccles. 4:9): "It is better . . . that two should be
together, than one; for they have the advantage of their society."
Therefore the religious life of those who live in community would seem to
be more perfect.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Mt. 18:20): "Where there are two or three
gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them." But
nothing can be better than the fellowship of Christ. Therefore it would
seem better to live in community than in solitude.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the vow of obedience is more excellent than the other
religious vows; and humility is most acceptable to God. Now obedience and
humility are better observed in company than in solitude; for Jerome says
(Ep. cxxv ad Rustic. Monach.): "In solitude pride quickly takes man
unawares, he sleeps as much as he will, he does what he likes"; whereas
when instructing one who lives in community, he says: "You may not do
what you will, you must eat what you are bidden to eat, you may possess
so much as you receive, you must obey one you prefer not to obey, you
must be a servant to your brethren, you must fear the superior of the
monastery as God, love him as a father." Therefore it would seem that the
religious life of those who live in community is more perfect than that
of those who lead a solitary life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[8] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, our Lord said (Lk. 11:33): "No man lighteth a candle and
putteth it in a hidden place, nor under a bushel." Now those who lead a
solitary life are seemingly in a hidden place, and to be doing no good to
any man. Therefore it would seem that their religious life is not more
perfect.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[8] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, that which is in accord with man's nature is apparently
more pertinent to the perfection of virtue. But man is naturally a social
animal, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 1). Therefore it would seem
that to lead a solitary life is not more perfect than to lead a community
life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De oper. Monach. xxiii) that "those are
holier who keep themselves aloof from the approach of all, and give their
whole mind to a life of prayer."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[8] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, Solitude, like poverty, is not the essence of perfection,
but a means thereto. Hence in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. i, 7)
the Abbot Moses says that "solitude," even as fasting and other like
things, is "a sure means of acquiring purity of heart." Now it is evident
that solitude is a means adapted not to action but to contemplation,
according to Osee 2:14, "I . . . will lead her into solitude [Douay: 'the
wilderness']; and I will speak to her heart." Wherefore it is not
suitable to those religious orders that are directed to the works whether
corporal or spiritual of the active life; except perhaps for a time,
after the example of Christ, Who as Luke relates (6:12), "went out into a
mountain to pray; and He passed the whole night in the prayer of God."
On the other hand, it is suitable to those religious orders that are
directed to contemplation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[8] Body Para. 2/4
It must, however, be observed that what is solitary should be
self-sufficing by itself. Now such a thing is one "that lacks nothing,"
and this belongs to the idea of a perfect thing [*Aristotle, Phys. iii,
6]. Wherefore solitude befits the contemplative who has already attained
to perfection. This happens in two ways: in one way by the gift only of
God, as in the case of John the Baptist, who was "filled with the Holy
Ghost even from his mother's womb" (Lk. 1:11), so that he was in the
desert even as a boy; in another way by the practice of virtuous action,
according to Heb. 5:14: "Strong meat is for the perfect; for them who by
custom have their senses exercised to the discerning of good and evil."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[8] Body Para. 3/4
Now man is assisted in this practice by the fellowship of others in two
ways. First, as regards his intellect, to the effect of his being
instructed in that which he has to contemplate; wherefore Jerome says (ad
Rustic. Monach., Ep. cxxv): "It pleases me that you have the fellowship
of holy men, and teach not yourself. Secondly, as regards the affections,
seeing that man's noisome affections are restrained by the example and
reproof which he receives from others; for as Gregory says (Moral. xxx,
23), commenting on the words, "To whom I have given a house in the
wilderness" (Job 39:6), "What profits solitude of the body, if solitude
of the heart be lacking?" Hence a social life is necessary for the
practice of perfection. Now solitude befits those who are already
perfect; wherefore Jerome says (ad Rustic. Monach., Ep. cxxv): "Far from
condemning the solitary life, we have often commended it. But we wish the
soldiers who pass from the monastic school to be such as not to be
deterred by the hard noviciate of the desert, and such as have given
proof of their conduct for a considerable time.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[8] Body Para. 4/4
Accordingly, just as that which is already perfect surpasses that which
is being schooled in perfection, so the life of the solitaries, if duly
practiced, surpasses the community life. But if it be undertaken without
the aforesaid practice, it is fraught with very great danger, unless the
grace of God supply that which others acquire by practice, as in the case
of the Blessed Antony and the Blessed Benedict.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Solomon shows that two are better than one, on account of
the help which one affords the other either by "lifting him" up, or by
"warming him," i.e. giving him spiritual heat (Eccles. 4:10,11). But
those who have already attained to perfection do not require this help.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: According to 1 Jn. 4:16, "He that abideth in charity
abideth in God and God in him." Wherefore just as Christ is in the midst
of those who are united together in the fellowship of brotherly love, so
does He dwell in the heart of the man who devotes himself to divine
contemplation through love of God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Actual obedience is required of those who need to be
schooled according to the direction of others in the attainment of
perfection; but those who are already perfect are sufficiently "led by
the spirit of God" so that they need not to obey others actually.
Nevertheless they have obedience in the preparedness of the mind.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[8] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19), "no one is
forbidden to seek the knowledge of truth, for this pertains to a
praiseworthy leisure." That a man be placed "on a candlestick," does not
concern him but his superiors, and "if this burden is not placed on us,"
as Augustine goes on to say (De Civ. Dei xix, 19), "we must devote
ourselves to the contemplation of truth," for which purpose solitude is
most helpful. Nevertheless, those who lead a solitary life are most
useful to mankind. Hence, referring to them, Augustine says (De Morib.
Eccl. xxxi): "They dwell in the most lonely places, content to live on
water and the bread that is brought to them from time to time, enjoying
colloquy with God to whom they have adhered with a pure mind. To some
they seem to have renounced human intercourse more than is right: but
these understand not how much such men profit us by the spirit of their
prayers, what an example to us is the life of those whom we are forbidden
to see in the body."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[188] A[8] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: A man may lead a solitary life for two motives. one is
because he is unable, as it were, to bear with human fellowship on
account of his uncouthness of mind; and this is beast-like. The other is
with a view to adhering wholly to divine things; and this is superhuman.
Hence the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 1) that "he who associates not with
others is either a beast or a god," i.e. a godly man.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE ENTRANCE INTO RELIGIOUS LIFE (TEN ARTICLES)
We must now consider the entrance into religious life. Under this head
there are ten points of inquiry:
(1) Whether those who are not practiced in the observance of the
commandments should enter religion?
(2) Whether it is lawful for a person to be bound by vow to enter
religion?
(3) Whether those who are bound by vow to enter religion are bound to
fulfil their vow?
(4) Whether those who vow to enter religion are bound to remain there in
perpetuity?
(5) Whether children should be received into religion?
(6) Whether one should be withheld from entering religion through
deference to one's parents?
(7) Whether parish priests or archdeacons may enter religion?
(8) Whether one may pass from one religious order to another?
(9) Whether one ought to induce others to enter religion?
(10) Whether serious deliberation with one's relations and friends is
requisite for entrance into religion?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether those who are not practiced in keeping the commandments should
enter religion?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that none should enter religion but those who are
practiced in the observance of the commandments. For our Lord gave the
counsel of perfection to the young man who said that he had kept the
commandments "from his youth." Now all religious orders originate from
Christ. Therefore it would seem that none should be allowed to enter
religion but those who are practiced in the observance of the
commandments.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xv in Ezech., and Moral. xxii): "No
one comes suddenly to the summit; but he must make a beginning of a good
life in the smallest matters, so as to accomplish great things." Now the
great things are the counsels which pertain to the perfection of life,
while the lesser things are the commandments which belong to common
righteousness. Therefore it would seem that one ought not to enter
religion for the purpose of keeping the counsels, unless one be already
practiced in the observance of the precepts.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the religious state, like the holy orders, has a place
of eminence in the Church. Now, as Gregory writes to the bishop Siagrius
[*Regist. ix, Ep. 106], "order should be observed in ascending to orders.
For he seeks a fall who aspires to mount to the summit by overpassing the
steps." [*The rest of the quotation is from Regist. v, Ep. 53, ad Virgil.
Episc.]. "For we are well aware that walls when built receive not the
weight of the beams until the new fabric is rid of its moisture, lest if
they should be burdened with weight before they are seasoned they bring
down the whole building" (Dist. xlviii, can. Sicut neophytus). Therefore
it would seem that one should not enter religion unless one be practiced
in the observance of the precepts.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, a gloss on Ps. 130:2, "As a child that is weaned is
towards his mother," says: "First we are conceived in the womb of Mother
Church, by being taught the rudiments of faith. Then we are nourished as
it were in her womb, by progressing in those same elements. Afterwards we
are brought forth to the light by being regenerated in baptism. Then the
Church bears us as it were in her hands and feeds us with milk, when
after baptism we are instructed in good works and are nourished with the
milk of simple doctrine while we progress; until having grown out of
infancy we leave our mother's milk for a father's control, that is to
say, we pass from simple doctrine, by which we are taught the Word made
flesh, to the Word that was in the beginning with God." Afterwards it
goes on to say: "For those who are just baptized on Holy Saturday are
borne in the hands of the Church as it were and fed with milk until
Pentecost, during which time nothing arduous is prescribed, no fasts, no
rising at midnight. Afterwards they are confirmed by the Paraclete
Spirit, and being weaned so to speak, begin to fast and keep other
difficult observances. Many, like the heretics and schismatics, have
perverted this order by being weaned before the time. Hence they have
come to naught." Now this order is apparently perverted by those who
enter religion, or induce others to enter religion, before they are
practiced in the easier observance of the commandments. Therefore they
would seem to be heretics or schismatics.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[1] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, one should proceed from that which precedes to that
which follows after. Now the commandments precede the counsels, because
they are more universal, for "the implication of the one by the other is
not convertible" [*Categor. ix], since whoever keeps the counsels keeps
the commandments, but the converse does not hold. Seeing then that the
right order requires one to pass from that which comes first to that
which comes after, it follows that one ought not to pass to the
observance of the counsels in religion, without being first of all
practiced in the observance of the commandments.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Matthew the publican who was not practiced in the
observance of the commandments was called by our Lord to the observance
of the counsels. For it is stated (Lk. 5:28) that "leaving all things he
. . followed Him." Therefore it is not necessary for a person to be
practiced in the observance of the commandments before passing to the
perfection of the counsels.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[1] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As shown above (Q[188], A[1]), the religious state is a
spiritual schooling for the attainment of the perfection of charity. This
is accomplished through the removal of the obstacles to perfect charity
by religious observances; and these obstacles are those things which
attach man's affections to earthly things. Now the attachment of man's
affections to earthly things is not only an obstacle to the perfection of
charity, but sometimes leads to the loss of charity, when through turning
inordinately to temporal goods man turns away from the immutable good by
sinning mortally. Hence it is evident that the observances of the
religious state, while removing the obstacles to perfect charity, remove
also the occasions of sin: for instance, it is clear that fasting,
watching, obedience, and the like withdraw man from sins of gluttony and
lust and all other manner of sins.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[1] Body Para. 2/2
Consequently it is right that not only those who are practiced in the
observance of the commandments should enter religion in order to attain
to yet greater perfection, but also those who are not practiced, in order
the more easily to avoid sin and attain to perfection.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Jerome (Super Matth. xix, 20) says: "The young man lies
when he says: 'All these have I kept from my youth.' For if he had
fulfilled this commandment, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,'
why did he go away sad when he heard: Go, sell all thou hast and give to
the poor?" But this means that he lied as to the perfect observance of
this commandment. Hence Origen says (Tract. viii super Matth.) that "it
is written in the Gospel according to the Hebrews that when our Lord had
said to him: 'Go, sell all thou hast,' the rich man began to scratch his
head; and that our Lord said to him: How sayest thou: I have fulfilled
the law and the prophets, seeing that it is written in the law: Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself? Behold many of thy brethren, children
of Abraham, are clothed in filth, and die of hunger, whilst thy house is
full of all manner of good things, and nothing whatever hath passed
thence to them. And thus our Lord reproves him saying: If thou wilt be
perfect, go, etc. For it is impossible to fulfil the commandment which
says, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, and to be rich, especially
to have such great wealth." This also refers to the perfect fulfilment of
this precept. on the other hand, it is true that he kept the commandments
imperfectly and in a general way. For perfection consists chiefly in the
observance of the precepts of charity, as stated above (Q[184], A[3]).
Wherefore in order to show that the perfection of the counsels is useful
both to the innocent and to sinners, our Lord called not only the
innocent youth but also the sinner Matthew. Yet Matthew obeyed His call,
and the youth obeyed not, because sinners are converted to the religious
life more easily than those who presume on their innocency. It is to the
former that our Lord says (Mt. 21:31): "The publicans and the harlots
shall go into the kingdom of God before you."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The highest and the lowest place can be taken in three
ways. First, in reference to the same state and the same man; and thus it
is evident that no one comes to the summit suddenly, since every man that
lives aright, progresses during the whole course of his life, so as to
arrive at the summit. Secondly, in comparison with various states; and
thus he who desires to reach to a higher state need not begin from a
lower state: for instance, if a man wish to be a cleric he need not first
of all be practiced in the life of a layman. Thirdly, in comparison with
different persons; and in this way it is clear that one man begins
straightway not only from a higher state, but even from a higher degree
of holiness, than the highest degree to which another man attains
throughout his whole life. Hence Gregory says (Dial. ii, 1): "All are
agreed that the boy Benedict began at a high degree of grace and
perfection in his daily life."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[184], A[6]) the holy orders prerequire
holiness, whereas the religious state is a school for the attainment of
holiness. Hence the burden of orders should be laid on the walls when
these are already seasoned with holiness, whereas the burden of religion
seasons the walls, i.e. men, by drawing out the damp of vice.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: It is manifest from the words of this gloss that it is
chiefly a question of the order of doctrine, in so far as one has to pass
from easy matter to that which is more difficult. Hence it is clear from
what follows that the statement that certain "heretics" and "schismatics
have perverted this order" refers to the order of doctrine. For it
continues thus: "But he says that he has kept these things, namely the
aforesaid order, binding himself by an oath [*Referring to the last words
of the verse, and taking 'retributio,' which Douay renders 'reward,' as
meaning 'punishment']. Thus I was humble not only in other things but
also in knowledge, for 'I was humbly minded'; because I was first of all
fed with milk, which is the Word made flesh, so that I grew up to partake
of the bread of angels, namely the Word that is in the beginning with
God." The example which is given in proof, of the newly baptized not
being commanded to fast until Pentecost, shows that no difficult things
are to be laid on them as an obligation before the Holy Ghost inspires
them inwardly to take upon themselves difficult things of their own
choice. Hence after Pentecost and the receiving of the Holy Ghost the
Church observes a fast. Now the Holy Ghost, according to Ambrose (Super
Luc. 1:15), "is not confined to any particular age; He ceases not when
men die, He is not excluded from the maternal womb." Gregory also in a
homily for Pentecost (xxx in Ev.) says: "He fills the boy harpist and
makes him a psalmist: He fills the boy abstainer and makes him a wise
judge [*Dan. 1:8-17]," and afterwards he adds: "No time is needed to
learn whatsoever He will, for He teaches the mind by the merest touch."
Again it is written (Eccles. 8:8), "It is not in man's power to stop the
Spirit," and the Apostle admonishes us (1 Thess. 5:19): "Extinguish not
the Spirit," and (Acts 7:51) it is said against certain persons: "You
always resist the Holy Ghost."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[1] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: There are certain chief precepts which are the ends, so to
say, of the commandments and counsels. These are the precepts of charity,
and the counsels are directed to them, not that these precepts cannot be
observed without keeping the counsels, but that the keeping of the
counsels conduces to the better observance of the precepts. The other
precepts are secondary and are directed to the precepts of charity; in
such a way that unless one observe them it is altogether impossible to
keep the precepts of charity. Accordingly in the intention the perfect
observance of the precepts of charity precedes the counsels, and yet
sometimes it follows them in point of time. For such is the order of the
end in relation to things directed to the end. But the observance in a
general way of the precepts of charity together with the other precepts,
is compared to the counsels as the common to the proper, because one can
observe the precepts without observing the counsels, but not vice versa.
Hence the common observance of the precepts precedes the counsels in the
order of nature; but it does not follow that it precedes them in point of
time, for a thing is not in the genus before being in one of the species.
But the observance of the precepts apart from the counsels is directed to
the observance of the precepts together with the counsels; as an
imperfect to a perfect species, even as the irrational to the rational
animal. Now the perfect is naturally prior to the imperfect, since
"nature," as Boethius says (De Consol. iii, 10), "begins with perfect
things." And yet it is not necessary for the precepts first of all to be
observed without the counsels, and afterwards with the counsels, just as
it is not necessary for one to be an ass before being a man, or married
before being a virgin. In like manner it is not necessary for a person
first of all to keep the commandments in the world before entering
religion; especially as the worldly life does not dispose one to
religious perfection, but is more an obstacle thereto.
�Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether one ought to be bound by vow to enter religion?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that one ought not to be bound by vow to enter
religion. For in making his profession a man is bound by the religious
vow. Now before profession a year of probation is allowed, according to
the rule of the Blessed Benedict (lviii) and according to the decree of
Innocent IV [*Sext. Decret., cap. Non solum., de Regular. et Transeunt,
ad Relig.] who moreover forbade anyone to be bound to the religious life
by profession before completing the year of probation. Therefore it would
seem that much less ought anyone while yet in the world to be bound by
vow to enter religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Gregory says (Regist. xi, Ep. 15): Jews "should be
persuaded to be converted, not by compulsion but of their own free will"
(Dist. xlv, can. De Judaeis). Now one is compelled to fulfil what one has
vowed. Therefore no one should be bound by vow to enter religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, no one should give another an occasion of falling;
wherefore it is written (Ex. 21:33,34): "If a man open a pit . . . and an
ox or an ass fall into it, the owner of the pit shall pay the price of
the beasts." Now through being bound by vow to enter religion it often
happens that people fall into despair and various sins. Therefore it
would seem that one ought not to be bound by vow to enter religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written, (Ps. 75:12): "Vow ye, and pay to the
Lord your God"; and a gloss of Augustine says that "some vows concern the
individual, such as vows of chastity, virginity, and the like."
Consequently Holy Scripture invites us to vow these things. But Holy
Scripture invites us only to that which is better. Therefore it is better
to bind oneself by vow to enter religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[88], A[6]), when we were treating of
vows, one and the same work done in fulfilment of a vow is more
praiseworthy than if it be done apart from a vow, both because to vow is
an act of religion, which has a certain pre-eminence among the virtues,
and because a vow strengthens a man's will to do good; and just as a sin
is more grievous through proceeding from a will obstinate in evil, so a
good work is the more praiseworthy through proceeding from a will
confirmed in good by means of a vow. Therefore it is in itself
praiseworthy to bind oneself by vow to enter religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The religious vow is twofold. One is the solemn vow which
makes a man a monk or a brother in some other religious order. This is
called the profession, and such a vow should be preceded by a year's
probation, as the objection proves. The other is the simple vow which
does not make a man a monk or a religious, but only binds him to enter
religion, and such a vow need not be preceded by a year's probation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The words quoted from Gregory must be understood as
referring to absolute violence. But the compulsion arising from the
obligation of a vow is not absolute necessity, but a necessity of end,
because after such a vow one cannot attain to the end of salvation unless
one fulfil that vow. Such a necessity is not to be avoided; indeed, as
Augustine says (Ep. cxxvii ad Armentar. et Paulin.), "happy is the
necessity that compels us to better things."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The vow to enter religion is a strengthening of the will
for better things, and consequently, considered in itself, instead of
giving a man an occasion of falling, withdraws him from it. But if one
who breaks a vow falls more grievously, this does not derogate from the
goodness of the vow, as neither does it derogate from the goodness of
Baptism that some sin more grievously after being baptized.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether one who is bound by a vow to enter religion is under an
obligation of entering religion?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that one who is bound by the vow to enter religion
is not under an obligation of entering religion. For it is said in the
Decretals (XVII, qu. ii, can. Consaldus): "Consaldus, a priest under
pressure of sickness and emotional fervour, promised to become a monk. He
did not, however, bind himself to a monastery or abbot; nor did he commit
his promise to writing, but he renounced his benefice in the hands of a
notary; and when he was restored to health he refused to become a monk."
And afterwards it is added: "We adjudge and by apostolic authority we
command that the aforesaid priest be admitted to his benefice and sacred
duties, and that he be allowed to retain them in peace." Now this would
not be if he were bound to enter religion. Therefore it would seem that
one is not bound to keep one's vow of entering religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, no one is bound to do what is not in his power. Now it
is not in a person's power to enter religion, since this depends on the
consent of those whom he wishes to join. Therefore it would seem that a
man is not obliged to fulfil the vow by which he bound himself to enter
religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a less useful vow cannot remit a more useful one. Now
the fulfilment of a vow to enter religion might hinder the fulfilment of
a vow to take up the cross in defense of the Holy Land; and the latter
apparently is the more useful vow, since thereby a man obtains the
forgiveness of his sins. Therefore it would seem that the vow by which a
man has bound himself to enter religion is not necessarily to be
fulfilled.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Eccles. 5:3): "If thou hast vowed
anything to God, defer not to pay it, for an unfaithful and foolish
promise displeaseth him"; and a gloss on Ps. 75:12, "Vow ye, and pay to
the Lord your God," says: "To vow depends on the will: but after the vow
has been taken the fulfilment is of obligation."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (Q[88], A[1]), when we were treating of
vows, a vow is a promise made to God in matters concerning God. Now, as
Gregory says in a letter to Boniface [*Innoc. I, Epist. ii, Victricio
Epo. Rotomag., cap. 14; Cf. can. Viduas: cause. xxvii, qu. 1]: "If among
men of good faith contracts are wont to be absolutely irrevocable, how
much more shall the breaking of this promise given to God be deserving of
punishment!" Therefore a man is under an obligation to fulfil what he has
vowed, provided this be something pertaining to God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
Now it is evident that entrance into religion pertains very much to God,
since thereby man devotes himself entirely to the divine service, as
stated above (Q[186], A[1]). Hence it follows that he who binds himself
to enter religion is under an obligation to enter religion according as
he intends to bind himself by his vow: so that if he intend to bind
himself absolutely, he is obliged to enter as soon as he can, through the
cessation of a lawful impediment; whereas if he intend to bind himself to
a certain fixed time, or under a certain fixed condition, he is bound to
enter religion when the time comes or the condition is fulfilled.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This priest had made, not a solemn, but a simple vow. Hence
he was not a monk in effect, so as to be bound by law to dwell in a
monastery and renounce his cure. However, in the court of conscience one
ought to advise him to renounce all and enter religion. Hence (Extra, De
Voto et Voti Redemptione, cap. Per tuas) the Bishop of Grenoble, who had
accepted the episcopate after vowing to enter religion, without having
fulfilled his vow, is counseled that if "he wish to heal his conscience
he should renounce the government of his see and pay his vows to the Most
High."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As stated above (Q[88], A[3], ad 2), when we were treating
of vows, he who has bound himself by vow to enter a certain religious
order is bound to do what is in his power in order to be received in that
order; and if he intend to bind himself simply to enter the religious
life, if he be not admitted to one, he is bound to go to another; whereas
if he intend to bind himself only to one particular order, he is bound
only according to the measure of the obligation to which he has engaged
himself.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: The vow to enter religion being perpetual is greater than
the vow of pilgrimage to the Holy Land, which is a temporal vow; and as
Alexander III says (Extra, De Voto et Voti Redemptione, cap. Scripturae),
"he who exchanges a temporary service for the perpetual service of
religion is in no way guilty of breaking his vow."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
Moreover it may be reasonably stated that also by entrance into religion
a man obtains remission of all his sins. For if by giving alms a man may
forthwith satisfy for his sins, according to Dan. 4:24, "Redeem thou thy
sins with alms," much more does it suffice to satisfy for all his sins
that a man devote himself wholly to the divine service by entering
religion, for this surpasses all manner of satisfaction, even that of
public penance, according to the Decretals (XXXIII, qu. i, cap. Admonere)
just as a holocaust exceeds a sacrifice, as Gregory declares (Hom. xx in
Ezech.). Hence we read in the Lives of the Fathers (vi, 1) that by
entering religion one receives the same grace as by being baptized. And
yet even if one were not thereby absolved from all debt of punishment,
nevertheless the entrance into religion is more profitable than a
pilgrimage to the Holy Land, as regards the advancement in good, which is
preferable to absolution from punishment.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether he who has vowed to enter religion is bound to remain in religion
in perpetuity?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that he who has vowed to enter religion, is bound
in perpetuity to remain in religion. For it is better not to enter
religion than to leave after entering, according to 2 Pt. 2:21, "It had
been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after
they have known it to turn back," and Lk. 9:62, "No man putting his hand
to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." But he
who bound himself by the vow to enter religion, is under the obligation
to enter, as stated above (A[3]). Therefore he is also bound to remain
for always.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, everyone is bound to avoid that which gives rise to
scandal, and is a bad example to others. Now by leaving after entering
religion a man gives a bad example and is an occasion of scandal to
others, who are thereby withdrawn from entering or incited to leave.
Therefore it seems that he who enters religion in order to fulfil a vow
which he had previously taken, is bound to remain evermore.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the vow to enter religion is accounted a perpetual vow:
wherefore it is preferred to temporal vows, as stated above (A[3], ad 3;
Q[88], A[12], ad 1). But this would not be so if a person after vowing to
enter religion were to enter with the intention of leaving. It seems,
therefore, that he who vows to enter religion is bound also to remain in
perpetuity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The vow of religious profession, for the reason that it
binds a man to remain in religion for evermore, has to be preceded by a
year of probation; whereas this is not required before the simple vow
whereby a man binds himself to enter religion. Therefore it seems that he
who vows to enter religion is not for that reason bound to remain there
in perpetuity.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The obligation of a vow proceeds from the will: because
"to vow is an act of the will" according to Augustine [*Gloss of Peter
Lombard on Ps. 75:12]. Consequently the obligation of a vow extends as
far as the will and intention of the person who takes the vow.
Accordingly if in vowing he intend to bind himself not only to enter
religion, but also to remain there evermore, he is bound to remain in
perpetuity. If, on the other hand, he intend to bind himself to enter
religion for the purpose of trial, while retaining the freedom to remain
or not remain, it is clear that he is not bound to remain. If, however,
in vowing he thought merely of entering religion, without thinking of
being free to leave, or of remaining in perpetuity, it would seem that he
is bound to enter religion according to the form prescribed by common
law, which is that those who enter should be given a year's probation.
Wherefore he is not bound to remain for ever.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It is better to enter religion with the purpose of making a
trial than not to enter at all, because by so doing one disposes oneself
to remain always. Nor is a person accounted to turn or to look back, save
when he omits to do that which he engaged to do: else whoever does a good
work for a time, would be unfit for the kingdom of God, unless he did it
always, which is evidently false.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: A man who has entered religion gives neither scandal nor
bad example by leaving, especially if he do so for a reasonable motive;
and if others are scandalized, it will be passive scandal on their part,
and not active scandal on the part of the person leaving, since in doing
so, he has done what was lawful, and expedient on account of some
reasonable motive, such as sickness, weakness, and the like.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: He who enters with the purpose of leaving forthwith, does
not seem to fulfil his vow, since this was not his intention in vowing.
Hence he must change that purpose, at least so as to wish to try whether
it is good for him to remain in religion, but he is not bound to remain
for evermore.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether children should be received in religion?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that children ought not to be received in religion.
Because it is said (Extra, De Regular. et Transeunt. ad Relig., cap.
Nullus): "No one should be tonsured unless he be of legal age and
willing." But children, seemingly, are not of legal age; nor have they a
will of their own, not having perfect use of reason. Therefore it seems
that they ought not to be received in religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the state of religion would seem to be a state of
repentance; wherefore religion is derived [*Cf. Q[81], A[1]] from
"religare" [to bind] or from "re-eligere" [to choose again], as Augustine
says (De Civ. Dei x, 3 [*Cf. De Vera Relig. lv]). But repentance does not
become children. Therefore it seems that they should not enter religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the obligation of a vow is like that of an oath. But
children under the age of fourteen ought not to be bound by oath (Decret.
XXII, qu. v, cap. Pueri and cap. Honestum.). Therefore it would seem
that neither should they be bound by vow.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[5] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, it is seemingly unlawful to bind a person to an
obligation that can be justly canceled. Now if any persons of unripe age
bind themselves to religion, they can be withdrawn by their parents or
guardians. For it is written in the Decretals (XX, qu. ii, can. Puella)
that "if a maid under twelve years of age shall take the sacred veil of
her own accord, her parents or guardians, if they choose, can at once
declare the deed null and void." It is therefore unlawful for children,
especially of unripe age, to be admitted or bound to religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord said (Mt. 19:14): "Suffer the little children,
and forbid them not to come to Me." Expounding these words Origen says
(Tract. vii in Matth.) that "the disciples of Jesus before they have been
taught the conditions of righteousness [*Cf. Mt. 19:16-30], rebuke those
who offer children and babes to Christ: but our Lord urges His disciples
to stoop to the service of children. We must therefore take note of this,
lest deeming ourselves to excel in wisdom we despise the Church's little
ones, as though we were great, and forbid the children to come to Jesus."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[5] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, As stated above (A[2], ad 1), the religious vow is
twofold. One is the simple vow consisting in a mere promise made to God,
and proceeding from the interior deliberation of the mind. Such a vow
derives its efficacy from the divine law. Nevertheless it may encounter a
twofold obstacle. First, through lack of deliberation, as in the case of
the insane, whose vows are not binding [*Extra, De Regular. et Transeunt.
ad Relig., cap. Sicut tenor]. The same applies to children who have not
reached the required use of reason, so as to be capable of guile, which
use boys attain, as a rule, at about the age of fourteen, and girls at
the age of twelve, this being what is called "the age of puberty,"
although in some it comes earlier and in others it is delayed, according
to the various dispositions of nature. Secondly, the efficacy of a simple
vow encounters an obstacle, if the person who makes a vow to God is not
his own master; for instance, if a slave, though having the use of
reason, vows to enter religion, or even is ordained, without the
knowledge of his master: for his master can annul this, as stated in the
Decretals (Dist. LIV, cap. Si servus). And since boys and girls under the
age of puberty are naturally in their father's power as regards the
disposal of their manner of life, their father may either cancel or
approve their vow, if it please him to do so, as it is expressly said
with regard to a woman (Num. 30:4).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[5] Body Para. 2/4
Accordingly if before reaching the age of puberty a child makes a simple
vow, not yet having full use of reason, he is not bound in virtue of the
vow; but if he has the use of reason before reaching the age of puberty,
he is bound, so far as he is concerned, by his vow; yet this obligation
may be removed by his father's authority, under whose control he still
remains, because the ordinance of the law whereby one man is subject to
another considers what happens in the majority of cases. If, however, the
child has passed the age of puberty, his vow cannot be annulled by the
authority of his parents; though if he has not the full use of reason, he
would not be bound in the sight of God.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[5] Body Para. 3/4
The other is the solemn vow which makes a man a monk or a religious.
Such a vow is subject to the ordinance of the Church, on account of the
solemnity attached to it. And since the Church considers what happens in
the majority of cases, a profession made before the age of puberty,
however much the person who makes profession may have the use of reason,
or be capable of guile, does not take effect so as to make him a
religious (Extra, De Regular., etc. cap. Significatum est.).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[5] Body Para. 4/4
Nevertheless, although they cannot be professed before the age of
puberty, they can, with the consent of their parents, be received into
religion to be educated there: thus it is related of John the Baptist
(Lk. 1:80) that "the child grew and was strengthened in spirit, and was
in the deserts." Hence, as Gregory states (Dial. ii, 3), "the Roman
nobles began to give their sons to the blessed Benedict to be nurtured
for Almighty God"; and this is most fitting, according to Lam. 3:27, "It
is good for a man when he has borne the yoke from his youth." It is for
this reason that by common custom children are made to apply themselves
to those duties or arts with which they are to pass their lives.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The legal age for receiving the tonsure and taking the
solemn vow of religion is the age of puberty, when a man is able to make
use of his own will; but before the age of puberty it is possible to have
reached the lawful age to receive the tonsure and be educated in a
religious house.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The religious state is chiefly directed to the attachment
of perfection, as stated above (Q[186], A[1], ad 4); and accordingly it
is becoming to children, who are easily drawn to it. But as a consequence
it is called a state of repentance, inasmuch as occasions of sin are
removed by religious observances, as stated above (Q[186], A[1], ad 4).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Even as children are not bound to take oaths (as the canon
states), so are they not bound to take vows. If, however, they bind
themselves by vow or oath to do something, they are bound in God's sight,
if they have the use of reason, but they are not bound in the sight of
the Church before reaching the age of fourteen.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: A woman who has not reached the age of puberty is not
rebuked (Num. 30:4) for taking a vow without her parents' consent: but
the vow can be made void by her parents. Hence it is evident that she
does not sin in vowing. But we are given to understand that she binds
herself by vow, so far as she may, without prejudice to her parents'
authority.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether one ought to be withdrawn from entering religion through
deference to one's parents?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that one ought to be withdrawn from entering
religion through deference to one's parents. For it is not lawful to omit
that which is of obligation in order to do that which is optional. Now
deference to one's parents comes under an obligation of the precept
concerning the honoring of our parents (Ex. 20:12); wherefore the Apostle
says (1 Tim. 5:4): "If any widow have children or grandchildren, let her
learn first to govern her own house, and to make a return of duty to her
parents." But the entrance to religion is optional. Therefore it would
seem that one ought not to omit deference to one's parents for the sake
of entering religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, seemingly the subjection of a son to his father is
greater than that of a slave to his master, since sonship is natural,
while slavery results from the curse of sin, as appears from Gn. 9:25.
Now a slave cannot set aside the service of his master in order to enter
religion or take holy orders, as stated in the Decretals (Dist. LIV, cap.
Si servus). Much less therefore can a son set aside the deference due to
his father in order to enter religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a man is more indebted to his parents than to those to
whom he owes money. Now persons who owe money to anyone cannot enter
religion. For Gregory says (Regist. viii, Ep. 5) that "those who are
engaged in trade must by no means be admitted into a monastery, when they
seek admittance, unless first of all they withdraw from public business"
(Dist. liii, can. Legem.). Therefore seemingly much less may children
enter religion in despite of their duty to their parents.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is related (Mt. 4:22) that James and John "left
their nets and father, and followed our Lord." By this, says Hilary (Can.
iii in Matth.), "we learn that we who intend to follow Christ are not
bound by the cares of the secular life, and by the ties of home."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[6] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (Q[101], A[2], ad 2) when we were
treating of piety, parents as such have the character of a principle,
wherefore it is competent to them as such to have the care of their
children. Hence it is unlawful for a person having children to enter
religion so as altogether to set aside the care for their children,
namely without providing for their education. For it is written (1 Tim.
5:8) that "if any man have not care of his own . . . he hath denied the
faith, and is worse than an infidel."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[6] Body Para. 2/2
Nevertheless it is accidentally competent to parents to be assisted by
their children, in so far, to wit, as they are placed in a condition of
necessity. Consequently we must say that when their parents are in such
need that they cannot fittingly be supported otherwise than by the help
of their children, these latter may not lawfully enter religion in
despite of their duty to their parents. If, however, the parents'
necessity be not such as to stand in great need of their children's
assistance, the latter may, in despite of the duty they owe their
parents, enter religion even against their parents' command, because
after the age of puberty every freeman enjoys freedom in things
concerning the ordering of his state of life, especially in such as
belong to the service of God, and "we should more obey the Father of
spirits that we may live [*'Shall we not much more obey the Father of
Spirits, and live?']," as says the Apostle (Heb. 12:9), than obey our
parents. Hence as we read (Mt. 8:22; Lk. 9:62) our Lord rebuked the
disciple who was unwilling to follow him forthwith on account of his
father's burial: for there were others who could see to this, as
Chrysostom remarks [*Hom. xxvii in Matth.].
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The commandment of honoring our parents extends not only to
bodily but also to spiritual service, and to the paying of deference.
Hence even those who are in religion can fulfil the commandment of
honoring their parents, by praying for them and by revering and assisting
them, as becomes religious, since even those who live in the world honor
their parents in different ways as befits their condition.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Since slavery was imposed in punishment of sin, it follows
that by slavery man forfeits something which otherwise he would be
competent to have, namely the free disposal of his person, for "a slave
belongs wholly to his master" [*Aristotle, Polit. i, 2]. On the other
hand, the son, through being subject to his father, is not hindered from
freely disposing of his person by transferring himself to the service of
God; which is most conducive to man's good.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: He who is under a certain fixed obligation cannot lawfully
set it aside so long as he is able to fulfil it. Wherefore if a person is
under an obligation to give an account to someone or to pay a certain
fixed debt, he cannot lawfully evade this obligation in order to enter
religion. If, however, he owes a sum of money, and has not wherewithal to
pay the debt, he must do what he can, namely by surrendering his goods to
his creditor. According to civil law [*Cod. IV, x, de Oblig. et Action,
12] money lays an obligation not on the person of a freeman, but on his
property, because the person of a freeman "is above all pecuniary
consideration" [*Dig. L, xvii, de div. reg. Jur. ant. 106,176]. Hence,
after surrendering his property, he may lawfully enter religion, nor is
he bound to remain in the world in order to earn the means of paying the
debt.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
On the other hand, he does not owe his father a special debt, except as
may arise in a case of necessity, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether parish priests may lawfully enter religion?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that parish priests cannot lawfully enter religion.
For Gregory says (Past. iii, 4) that "he who undertakes the cure of
souls, receives an awful warning in the words: 'My son, if thou be surety
for thy friend, thou hast engaged fast thy hand to a stranger'" (Prov.
6:1); and he goes on to say, "because to be surety for a friend is to
take charge of the soul of another on the surety of one's own behavior."
Now he who is under an obligation to a man for a debt, cannot enter
religion, unless he pay what he owes, if he can. Since then a priest is
able to fulfil the cure of souls, to which obligation he has pledged his
soul, it would seem unlawful for him to lay aside the cure of souls in
order to enter religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, what is lawful to one is likewise lawful to all. But if
all priests having cure of souls were to enter religion, the people would
be left without a pastor's care, which would be unfitting. Therefore it
seems that parish priests cannot lawfully enter religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, chief among the acts to which religious orders are
directed are those whereby a man gives to others the fruit of his
contemplation. Now such acts are competent to parish priests and
archdeacons, whom it becomes by virtue of their office to preach and hear
confessions. Therefore it would seem unlawful for a parish priest or
archdeacon to pass over to religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is said in the Decretals (XIX, qu. ii, cap. Duce
sunt leges.): "If a man, while governing the people in his church under
the bishop and leading a secular life, is inspired by the Holy Ghost to
desire to work out his salvation in a monastery or under some canonical
rule, even though his bishop withstand him, we authorize him to go
freely."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[7] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[3], ad 3; Q[88], A[12], ad 1), the
obligation of a perpetual vow stands before every other obligation. Now
it belongs properly to bishops and religious to be bound by perpetual vow
to devote themselves to the divine service [*Cf. Q[184], A[5]], while
parish priests and archdeacons are not, as bishops are, bound by a
perpetual and solemn vow to retain the cure of souls. Wherefore bishops
"cannot lay aside their bishopric for any pretext whatever, without the
authority of the Roman Pontiff" (Extra, De Regular. et Transeunt. ad
Relig., cap. Licet.): whereas archdeacons and parish priests are free to
renounce in the hands of the bishop the cure entrusted to them, without
the Pope's special permission, who alone can dispense from perpetual
vows. Therefore it is evident that archdeacons and parish priests may
lawfully enter religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Parish priests and archdeacons have bound themselves to the
care of their subjects, as long as they retain their archdeaconry or
parish, but they did not bind themselves to retain their archdeaconry or
parish for ever.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Jerome says (Contra Vigil.): "Although they," namely
religious, "are sorely smitten by thy poisonous tongue, about whom you
argue, saying; 'If all shut themselves up and live in solitude, who will
go to church? who will convert worldlings? who will be able to urge
sinners to virtue?' If this holds true, if all are fools with thee, who
can be wise? Nor will virginity be commendable, for if all be virgins,
and none marry, the human race will perish. Virtue is rare, and is not
desired by many." It is therefore evident that this is a foolish alarm;
thus might a man fear to draw water lest the river run dry. [*St. Thomas
gives no reply to the third objection, which is sufficiently solved in
the body of the article.]
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is lawful to pass from one religious order to another?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems unlawful to pass from one religious order to another,
even a stricter one. For the Apostle says (Heb. 10:25): "Not forsaking
our assembly, as some are accustomed"; and a gloss observes: "Those
namely who yield through fear of persecution, or who presuming on
themselves withdraw from the company of sinners or of the imperfect, that
they may appear to be righteous." Now those who pass from one religious
order to another more perfect one would seem to do this. Therefore this
is seemingly unlawful.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the profession of monks is stricter than that of canons
regular (Extra, De Statu Monach. et Canonic. Reg., cap. Quod Dei
timorem). But it is unlawful for anyone to pass from the state of canon
regular to the monastic state. For it is said in the Decretals (XIX, qu.
iii, can. Mandamus): "We ordain and without any exception forbid any
professed canon regular to become a monk, unless (which God forbid) he
have fallen into public sin." Therefore it would seem unlawful for anyone
to pass from one religious order to another of higher rank.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a person is bound to fulfil what he has vowed, as long
as he is able lawfully to do so; thus if a man has vowed to observe
continence, he is bound, even after contracting marriage by words in the
present tense, to fulfil his vow so long as the marriage is not
consummated, because he can fulfil the vow by entering religion.
Therefore if a person may lawfully pass from one religious order to
another, he will be bound to do so if he vowed it previously while in the
world. But this would seem objectionable, since in many cases it might
give rise to scandal. Therefore a religious may not pass from one
religious order to another stricter one.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is said in the Decretals (XX, qu. iv, can.
Virgines): "If sacred virgins design for the good of their soul to pass
to another monastery on account of a stricter life, and decide to remain
there, the holy synod allows them to do so": and the same would seem to
apply to any religious. Therefore one may lawfully pass from one
religious order to another.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[8] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, It is not commendable to pass from one religious order to
another: both because this frequently gives scandal to those who remain;
and because, other things being equal, it is easier to make progress in
a religious order to which one is accustomed than in one to which one is
not habituated. Hence in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. xiv, 5)
Abbot Nesteros says: "It is best for each one that he should, according
to the resolve he has made, hasten with the greatest zeal and care to
reach the perfection of the work he has undertaken, and nowise forsake
the profession he has chosen." And further on he adds (cap. 6) by way of
reason: "For it is impossible that one and the same man should excel in
all the virtues at once, since if he endeavor to practice them equally,
he will of necessity, while trying to attain them all, end in acquiring
none of them perfectly": because the various religious orders excel in
respect of various works of virtue.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[8] Body Para. 2/3
Nevertheless one may commendably pass from one religious order to
another for three reasons. First, through zeal for a more perfect
religious life, which excellence depends, as stated above (Q[188], A[6]),
not merely on severity, but chiefly on the end to which a religious order
is directed, and secondarily on the discretion whereby the observances
are proportionate to the due end. Secondly, on account of a religious
order falling away from the perfection it ought to have: for instance, if
in a more severe religious order, the religious begin to live less
strictly, it is commendable for one to pass even to a less severe
religious order if the observance is better. Hence in the Conferences of
the Fathers (Coll. xix, 3,5,6) Abbot John says of himself that he had
passed from the solitary life, in which he was professed, to a less
severe life, namely of those who lived in community, because the
hermetical life had fallen into decline and laxity. Thirdly, on account
of sickness or weakness, the result of which sometimes is that one is
unable to keep the ordinances of a more severe religious order, though
able to observe those of a less strict religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[8] Body Para. 3/3
There is, however, a difference in these three cases. For in the first
case one ought, on account of humility, to seek permission: yet this
cannot be denied, provided it be certain that this other religion is more
severe. "And if there be a probable doubt about this, one should ask
one's superior to decide" (Extra, De Regular. et Transeunt. ad Relig.,
cap. Licet.). In like manner the superior's decision should be sought in
the second case. In the third case it is also necessary to have a
dispensation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Those who pass to a stricter religious order, do so not out
of presumption that they may appear righteous, but out of devotion, that
they may become more righteous.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Religious orders whether of monks or of canons regular are
destined to the works of the contemplative life. Chief among these are
those which are performed in the divine mysteries, and these are the
direct object of the orders of canons regular, the members of which are
essentially religious clerics. On the other hand, monastic religious are
not essentially clerics, according to the Decretals (XVI, qu. i, cap.
Alia causa). Hence although monastic orders are more severe, it would be
lawful, supposing the members to be lay monks, to pass from the monastic
order to an order of canons regular, according to the statement of Jerome
(Ep. cxxv, ad Rustic. Monach.): "So live in the monastery as to deserve
to become a cleric"; but not conversely, as expressed in the Decretal
quoted (XIX, qu. iii). If, however, the monks be clerics devoting
themselves to the sacred ministry, they have this in common with canons
regular coupled with greater severity, and consequently it will be lawful
to pass from an order of canons regular to a monastic order, provided
withal that one seek the superior's permission (XIX, qu. iii; cap.
Statuimus).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The solemn vow whereby a person is bound to a less strict
order, is more binding than the simple vow whereby a person is bound to a
stricter order. For if after taking a simple vow a person were to be
married, his marriage would not be invalid, as it would be after his
taking a solemn vow. Consequently a person who is professed in a less
severe order is not bound to fulfil a simple vow he has taken on entering
a more severe order.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[9] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether one ought to induce others to enter religion?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[9] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that no one ought to induce others to enter
religion. For the blessed Benedict prescribes in his Rule (lviii) that
"those who seek to enter religion must not easily be admitted, but
spirits must be tested whether they be of God"; and Cassian has the same
instruction (De Inst. Caenob. iv, 3). Much less therefore is it lawful to
induce anyone to enter religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[9] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, our Lord said (Mt. 23:15): "Woe to you . . . because you
go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte, and when he is
made you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves." Now
thus would seem to do those who induce persons to enter religion.
Therefore this would seem blameworthy.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[9] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, no one should induce another to do what is to his
prejudice. But those who are induced to enter religion, sometimes take
harm therefrom, for sometimes they are under obligation to enter a
stricter religion. Therefore it would not seem praiseworthy to induce
others to enter religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[9] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Ex. 26:3, seqq. [*St. Thomas quotes the
sense, not the words]): "Let one curtain draw the other." Therefore one
man should draw another to God's service.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[9] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Those who induce others to enter religion not only do not
sin, but merit a great reward. For it is written (James 5:20): "He who
causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save
his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins"; and (Dan.
12:3): "They that instruct many to justice shall be as stars for all
eternity."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[9] Body Para. 2/2
Nevertheless such inducement may be affected by a threefold
inordinateness. First, if one person force another by violence to enter
religion: and this is forbidden in the Decretals (XX, qu. iii, cap.
Praesens). Secondly, if one person persuade another simoniacally to enter
religion, by giving him presents: and this is forbidden in the Decretal
(I, qu. ii, cap. Quam pio). But this does not apply to the case where one
provides a poor person with necessaries by educating him in the world for
the religious life; or when without any compact one gives a person little
presents for the sake of good fellowship. Thirdly, if one person entices
another by lies: for it is to be feared that the person thus enticed may
turn back on finding himself deceived, and thus "the last state of that
man" may become "worse than the first" (Lk. 11:26).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Those who are induced to enter religion have still a time
of probation wherein they make a trial of the hardships of religion, so
that they are not easily admitted to the religious life.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: According to Hilary (Can. xxiv in Matth.) this saying of
our Lord was a forecast of the wicked endeavors of the Jews, after the
preaching of Christ, to draw Gentiles or even Christians to observe the
Jewish ritual, thereby making them doubly children of hell, because, to
wit, they were not forgiven the former sins which they committed while
adherents of Judaism, and furthermore they incurred the guilt of Jewish
perfidy; and thus interpreted these words have nothing to do with the
case in point.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
According to Jerome, however, in his commentary on this passage of
Matthew, the reference is to the Jews even at the time when it was yet
lawful to keep the legal observances, in so far as he whom they converted
to Judaism "from paganism, was merely misled; but when he saw the
wickedness of his teachers, he returned to his vomit, and becoming a
pagan deserved greater punishment for his treachery." Hence it is
manifest that it is not blameworthy to draw others to the service of God
or to the religious life, but only when one gives a bad example to the
person converted, whence he becomes worse.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[9] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The lesser is included in the greater. Wherefore a person
who is bound by vow or oath to enter a lesser order, may be lawfully
induced to enter a greater one. unless there be some special obstacle,
such as ill-health, or the hope of making greater progress in the lesser
order. On the other hand, one who is bound by vow or oath to enter a
greater order, cannot be lawfully induced to enter a lesser order, except
for some special and evident motive, and then with the superior's
dispensation.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[10] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is praiseworthy to enter religion without taking counsel of
many, and previously deliberating for a long time?
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[10] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would not seem praiseworthy to enter religion without taking
counsel of many, and previously deliberating for a long time. For it is
written (1 Jn. 4:1): "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if
they be of God." Now sometimes a man's purpose of entering religion is
not of God, since it often comes to naught through his leaving the
religious life; for it is written (Acts 5:38,39): "If this counsel or
this work be of God, you cannot overthrow it." Therefore it would seem
that one ought to make a searching inquiry before entering religion.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[10] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 25:9): "Treat thy cause with thy
friend." Now a man's cause would seem to be especially one that concerns
a change in his state of life. Therefore seemingly one ought not to enter
religion without discussing the matter with one's friends.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[10] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, our Lord (Lk. 14:28) in making a comparison with a man
who has a mind to build a tower, says that he doth "first sit down and
reckon the charges that are necessary, whether he have wherewithal to
finish it," lest he become an object of mockery, for that "this man began
to build and was not able to finish." Now the wherewithal to build the
tower, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Laetum ccxliii), is nothing less than
that "each one should renounce all his possessions." Yet it happens
sometimes that many cannot do this, nor keep other religious observances;
and in signification of this it is stated (1 Kgs. 17:39) that David could
not walk in Saul's armor, for he was not used to it. Therefore it would
seem that one ought not to enter religion without long deliberation
beforehand and taking counsel of many.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[10] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is stated (Mt. 4:20) that upon our Lord's calling
them, Peter and Andrew "immediately leaving their nets, followed Him."
Here Chrysostom says (Hom. xiv in Matth.): "Such obedience as this does
Christ require of us, that we delay not even for a moment."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[10] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Long deliberation and the advice of many are required in
great matters of doubt, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 3); while
advice is unnecessary in matters that are certain and fixed. Now with
regard to entering religion three points may be considered. First, the
entrance itself into religion, considered by itself; and thus it is
certain that entrance into religion is a greater good, and to doubt about
this is to disparage Christ Who gave this counsel. Hence Augustine says
(De Verb. Dom., Serm. c, 2): "The East," that is Christ, "calleth thee,
and thou turnest to the West," namely mortal and fallible man. Secondly,
the entrance into religion may be considered in relation to the strength
of the person who intends to enter. And here again there is no room for
doubt about the entrance to religion, since those who enter religion
trust not to be able to stay by their own power, but by the assistance of
the divine power, according to Is. 40:31, "They that hope in the Lord
shall renew their strength, they shall take wings as eagles, they shall
run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint." Yet if there be
some special obstacle (such as bodily weakness, a burden of debts, or the
like) in such cases a man must deliberate and take counsel with such as
are likely to help and not hinder him. Hence it is written (Ecclus.
37:12): "Treat with a man without religion concerning holiness [*The
Douay version supplies the negative: 'Treat not . . . nor with . . . '],
with an unjust man concerning justice," meaning that one should not do
so, wherefore the text goes on (Ecclus. 37:14,15), "Give no heed to these
in any matter of counsel, but be continually with a holy man." In these
matters, however, one should not take long deliberation. Wherefore Jerome
says (Ep. and Paulin. liii): "Hasten, I pray thee, cut off rather than
loosen the rope that holds the boat to the shore." Thirdly, we may
consider the way of entering religion, and which order one ought to
enter, and about such matters also one may take counsel of those who will
not stand in one's way.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: The saying: "Try the spirits, if they be of God," applies
to matters admitting of doubt whether the spirits be of God; thus those
who are already in religion may doubt whether he who offers himself to
religion be led by the spirit of God, or be moved by hypocrisy. Wherefore
they must try the postulant whether he be moved by the divine spirit. But
for him who seeks to enter religion there can be no doubt but that the
purpose of entering religion to which his heart has given birth is from
the spirit of God, for it is His spirit "that leads" man "into the land
of uprightness" (Ps. 142:10).
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
Nor does this prove that it is not of God that some turn back; since not
all that is of God is incorruptible: else corruptible creatures would not
be of God, as the Manicheans hold, nor could some who have grace from God
lose it, which is also heretical. But God's "counsel" whereby He makes
even things corruptible and changeable, is imperishable according to Is.
46:10, "My counsel shall stand and all My will shall be done." Hence the
purpose of entering religion needs not to be tried whether it be of God,
because "it requires no further demonstration," as a gloss says on 1
Thess. 5:21, "Prove all things."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Even as "the flesh lusteth against the spirit" (Gal. 5:17),
so too carnal friends often thwart our spiritual progress, according to
Mic. 7:6, "A man's enemies are they of his own household." Wherefore
Cyril expounding Lk. 9:61, "Let me first take my leave of them that are
at my house," says [*Cf. St. Thomas's Catena Aurea]: "By asking first to
take his leave of them that were at his house, he shows he was somewhat
of two minds. For to communicate with his neighbors, and consult those
who are unwilling to relish righteousness, is an indication of weakness
and turning back. Hence he hears our Lord say: 'No man putting his hand
to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God,' because
he looks back who seeks delay in order to go home and confer with his
kinsfolk."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 1/5
Reply OBJ 3: The building of the tower signifies the perfection of
Christian life; and the renunciation of one's possessions is the
wherewithal to build this tower. Now no one doubts or deliberates about
wishing to have the wherewithal, or whether he is able to build the tower
if he have the wherewithal, but what does come under deliberation is
whether one has the wherewithal. Again it need not be a matter of
deliberation whether one ought to renounce all that one has, or whether
by so doing one may be able to attain to perfection; whereas it is a
matter of deliberation whether that which one is doing amounts to the
renunciation of all that he has, since unless he does renounce (which is
to have the wherewithal) he cannot, as the text goes on to state, be
Christ's disciple, and this is to build the tower.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 2/5
The misgiving of those who hesitate as to whether they may be able to
attain to perfection by entering religion is shown by many examples to be
unreasonable. Hence Augustine says (Confess. viii, 11): "On that side
whither I had set my face, and whither I trembled to go, there appeared
to me the chaste dignity of continency . . . honestly alluring me to come
and doubt not, and stretching forth to receive and embrace me, her holy
hands full of multitudes of good examples. There were so many young men
and maidens here, a multitude of youth and every age, grave widows and
aged virgins . . . And she smiled at me with a persuasive mockery as
though to say: Canst not thou what these youths and these maidens can? Or
can they either in themselves, and not rather in the Lord their God? . .
Why standest thou in thyself, and so standest not? Cast thyself upon
Him; fear not, He will not withdraw Himself that thou shouldst fall. Cast
thyself fearlessly upon Him: He will receive and will heal thee."
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 3/5
The example quoted of David is not to the point, because "the arms of
Saul," as a gloss on the passage observes, "are the sacraments of the
Law, as being burdensome": whereas religion is the sweet yoke of Christ,
for as Gregory says (Moral. iv, 33), "what burden does He lay on the
shoulders of the mind, Who commands us to shun all troublesome desires,
Who warns us to turn aside from the rough paths of this world?"
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 4/5
To those indeed who take this sweet yoke upon themselves He promises the
refreshment of the divine fruition and the eternal rest of their souls.
Aquin.: SMT SS Q[189] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 5/5
To which may He Who made this promise bring us, Jesus Christ our Lord,
"Who is over all things God blessed for ever. Amen."
