| IIª-IIae q. 10 pr. Consequenter considerandum est de vitiis oppositis. Et primo, de infidelitate, quae opponitur fidei; secundo, de blasphemia, quae opponitur confessioni; tertio, de ignorantia et hebetudine, quae opponuntur scientiae et intellectui. Circa primum, considerandum est de infidelitate in communi; secundo, de haeresi, tertio, de apostasia a fide. Circa primum quaeruntur duodecim. Primo, utrum infidelitas sit peccatum. Secundo, in quo sit sicut in subiecto. Tertio, utrum sit maximum peccatorum. Quarto, utrum omnis actio infidelium sit peccatum. Quinto, de speciebus infidelitatis. Sexto, de comparatione earum ad invicem. Septimo, utrum cum infidelibus sit disputandum de fide. Octavo, utrum sint cogendi ad fidem. Nono, utrum sit eis communicandum. Decimo, utrum possint Christianis fidelibus praeesse. Undecimo, utrum ritus infidelium sint tolerandi. Duodecimo, utrum pueri infidelium sint invitis parentibus baptizandi. | Question 10. Unbelief in general Is unbelief a sin? What is its subject? Is it the greatest of sins? Is every action of unbelievers a sin? The species of unbelief Their comparison, one with another Should we dispute about faith with unbelievers? Should they be compelled to the faith? Should we have communications with them? Can unbelievers have authority over Christians? Should the rites of unbelievers be tolerated? Are the children of unbelievers to be baptized against their parents' will? |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod infidelitas non sit peccatum. Omne enim peccatum est contra naturam, ut patet per Damascenum, in II libro. Sed infidelitas non videtur esse contra naturam, dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de Praed. Sanct., quod posse habere fidem, sicut posse habere caritatem, naturae est hominum, habere autem fidem, quemadmodum habere caritatem, gratiae est fidelium. Ergo non habere fidem, quod est infidelem esse, non est peccatum. | Objection 1. It would seem that unbelief is not a sin. For every sin is contrary to nature, as Damascene proves (De Fide Orth. ii, 4). Now unbelief seems not to be contrary to nature; for Augustine says (De Praedest. Sanct. v) that "to be capable to having faith, just as to be capable of having charity, is natural to all men; whereas to have faith, even as to have charity, belongs to the grace of the faithful." Therefore not to have faith, which is to be an unbeliever, is not a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, nullus peccat in eo quod vitare non potest, quia omne peccatum est voluntarium. Sed non est in potestate hominis quod infidelitatem vitet, quam vitare non potest nisi fidem habendo, dicit enim apostolus, ad Rom. X, quomodo credent ei quem non audierunt? Quomodo autem audient sine praedicante? Ergo infidelitas non videtur esse peccatum. | Objection 2. Further, no one sins that which he cannot avoid, since every sin is voluntary. Now it is not in a man's power to avoid unbelief, for he cannot avoid it unless he have faith, because the Apostle says (Romans 10:14): "How shall they believe in Him, of Whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" Therefore unbelief does not seem to be a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut supra dictum est, sunt septem vitia capitalia, ad quae omnia peccata reducuntur. Sub nullo autem horum videtur contineri infidelitas. Ergo infidelitas non est peccatum. | Objection 3. Further, as stated above (I-II, 84, 4), there are seven capital sins, to which all sins are reduced. But unbelief does not seem to be comprised under any of them. Therefore unbelief is not a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra, virtuti contrariatur vitium. Sed fides est virtus, cui contrariatur infidelitas. Ergo infidelitas est peccatum. | On the contrary, Vice is opposed to virtue. Now faith is a virtue, and unbelief is opposed to it. Therefore unbelief is a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod infidelitas dupliciter accipi potest. Uno modo, secundum puram negationem, ut dicatur infidelis ex hoc solo quod non habet fidem. Alio modo potest intelligi infidelitas secundum contrarietatem ad fidem, quia scilicet aliquis repugnat auditui fidei, vel etiam contemnit ipsam, secundum illud Isaiae LIII, quis credidit auditui nostro? Et in hoc proprie perficitur ratio infidelitatis. Et secundum hoc infidelitas est peccatum. Si autem accipiatur infidelitas secundum negationem puram, sicut in illis qui nihil audierunt de fide, non habet rationem peccati, sed magis poenae, quia talis ignorantia divinorum ex peccato primi parentis est consecuta. Qui autem sic sunt infideles damnantur quidem propter alia peccata, quae sine fide remitti non possunt, non autem damnantur propter infidelitatis peccatum. Unde dominus dicit, Ioan. XV, si non venissem, et locutus eis non fuissem, peccatum non haberent, quod exponens Augustinus dicit quod loquitur de illo peccato quo non crediderunt in Christum. | I answer that, Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises it, according to Isaiah 53:1: "Who hath believed our report?" It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is in this sense that unbelief is a sin. If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (John 15:22) "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin"; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as "referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ." |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod habere fidem non est in natura humana, sed in natura humana est ut mens hominis non repugnet interiori instinctui et exteriori veritatis praedicationi. Unde infidelitas secundum hoc est contra naturam. | Reply to Objection 1. To have the faith is not part of human nature, but it is part of human nature that man's mind should not thwart his inner instinct, and the outward preaching of the truth. Hence, in this way, unbelief is contrary to nature. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de infidelitate secundum quod importat simplicem negationem. | Reply to Objection 2. This argument takes unbelief as denoting a pure negation. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod infidelitas secundum quod est peccatum, oritur ex superbia, ex qua contingit quod homo intellectum suum non vult subiicere regulis fidei et sano intellectui patrum. Unde Gregorius dicit, XXXI Moral., quod ex inani gloria oriuntur novitatum praesumptiones. Quamvis posset dici quod, sicut virtutes theologicae non reducuntur ad virtutes cardinales, sed sunt priores eis; ita etiam vitia opposita virtutibus theologicis non reducuntur ad vitia capitalia. | Reply to Objection 3. Unbelief, in so far as it is a sin, arises from pride, through which man is unwilling to subject his intellect to the rules of faith, and to the sound interpretation of the Fathers. Hence Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45) that "presumptuous innovations arise from vainglory." It might also be replied that just as the theological virtues are not reduced to the cardinal virtues, but precede them, so too, the vices opposed to the theological virtues are not reduced to the capital vices. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod infidelitas non sit in intellectu sicut in subiecto. Omne enim peccatum in voluntate est, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de duabus Anim. Sed infidelitas est quoddam peccatum, ut dictum est. Ergo infidelitas est in voluntate, non in intellectu. | Objection 1. It would seem that unbelief is not in the intellect as its subject. For every sin is in the will, according to Augustine (De Duabus Anim. x, xi). Now unbelief is a sin, as stated above (Article 1). Therefore unbelief resides in the will and not in the intellect. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, infidelitas habet rationem peccati ex eo quod praedicatio fidei contemnitur. Sed contemptus ad voluntatem pertinet. Ergo infidelitas est in voluntate. | Objection 2. Further, unbelief is sinful through contempt of the preaching of the faith. But contempt pertains to the will. Therefore unbelief is in the will. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, II ad Cor. XI, super illud, ipse Satanas transfigurat se in Angelum lucis, dicit Glossa quod, si Angelus malus se bonum fingat, etiam si credatur bonus, non est error periculosus aut morbidus, si facit vel dicit quae bonis Angelis congruunt. Cuius ratio esse videtur propter rectitudinem voluntatis eius qui ei inhaeret intendens bono Angelo adhaerere. Ergo totum peccatum infidelitatis esse videtur in perversa voluntate. Non ergo est in intellectu sicut in subiecto. | Objection 3. Further, a gloss [Augustine, Enchiridion lx.] on 2 Corinthians 11:14 "Satan . . . transformeth himself into an angel of light," says that if "a wicked angel pretend to be a good angel, and be taken for a good angel, it is not a dangerous or an unhealthy error, if he does or says what is becoming to a good angel." This seems to be because of the rectitude of the will of the man who adheres to the angel, since his intention is to adhere to a good angel. Therefore the sin of unbelief seems to consist entirely in a perverse will: and, consequently, it does not reside in the intellect. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra, contraria sunt in eodem subiecto. Sed fides, cui contrariatur infidelitas, est in intellectu sicut in subiecto. Ergo et infidelitas in intellectu est. | On the contrary, Things which are contrary to one another are in the same subject. Now faith, to which unbelief is opposed, resides in the intellect. Therefore unbelief also is in the intellect. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, peccatum dicitur esse in illa potentia quae est principium actus peccati. Actus autem peccati potest habere duplex principium. Unum quidem primum et universale, quod imperat omnes actus peccatorum, et hoc principium est voluntas, quia omne peccatum est voluntarium. Aliud autem principium actus peccati est proprium et proximum, quod elicit peccati actum, sicut concupiscibilis est principium gulae et luxuriae, et secundum hoc gula et luxuria dicuntur esse in concupiscibili. Dissentire autem, qui est proprius actus infidelitatis, est actus intellectus, sed moti a voluntate, sicut et assentire. Et ideo infidelitas, sicut et fides, est quidem in intellectu sicut in proximo subiecto, in voluntate autem sicut in primo motivo. Et hoc modo dicitur omne peccatum esse in voluntate. | I answer that, As stated above (I-II, 74, 1,2), sin is said to be in the power which is the principle of the sinful act. Now a sinful act may have two principles: one is its first and universal principle, which commands all acts of sin; and this is the will, because every sin is voluntary. The other principle of the sinful act is the proper and proximate principle which elicits the sinful act: thus the concupiscible is the principle of gluttony and lust, wherefore these sins are said to be in the concupiscible. Now dissent, which is the act proper to unbelief, is an act of the intellect, moved, however, by the will, just as assent is. Therefore unbelief, like faith, is in the intellect as its proximate subject. But it is in the will as its first moving principle, in which way every sin is said to be in the will. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 2 ad 1 Unde patet responsio ad primum. | Hence the Reply to the First Objection is clear. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod contemptus voluntatis causat dissensum intellectus, in quo perficitur ratio infidelitatis. Unde causa infidelitatis est in voluntate, sed ipsa infidelitas est in intellectu. | Reply to Objection 2. The will's contempt causes the intellect's dissent, which completes the notion of unbelief. Hence the cause of unbelief is in the will, while unbelief itself is in the intellect. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui credit malum Angelum esse bonum non dissentit ab eo quod est fidei, quia sensus corporis fallitur, mens vero non removetur a vera rectaque sententia, ut ibidem dicit Glossa. Sed si aliquis Satanae adhaereret cum incipit ad sua ducere, idest ad mala et falsa, tunc non careret peccato, ut ibidem dicitur. | Reply to Objection 3. He that believes a wicked angel to be a good one, does not dissent from a matter of faith, because "his bodily senses are deceived, while his mind does not depart from a true and right judgment" as the gloss observes [Augustine, Enchiridion lx]. But, according to the same authority, to adhere to Satan when he begins to invite one to his abode, i.e. wickedness and error, is not without sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod infidelitas non sit maximum peccatorum. Dicit enim Augustinus, et habetur V, qu. I, utrum Catholicum pessimis moribus alicui haeretico in cuius vita, praeter id quod haereticus est, non inveniunt homines quod reprehendant, praeponere debeamus, non audeo praecipitare sententiam. Sed haereticus est infidelis. Ergo non est simpliciter dicendum quod infidelitas sit maximum peccatorum. | Objection 1. It would seem that unbelief is not the greatest of sins. For Augustine says (De Bapt. contra Donat. iv, 20): "I should hesitate to decide whether a very wicked Catholic ought to be preferred to a heretic, in whose life one finds nothing reprehensible beyond the fact that he is a heretic." But a heretic is an unbeliever. Therefore we ought not to say absolutely that unbelief is the greatest of sins. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, illud quod diminuit vel excusat peccatum non videtur esse maximum peccatum. Sed infidelitas excusat vel diminuit peccatum, dicit enim apostolus, I ad Tim. I, prius fui blasphemus et persecutor et contumeliosus, sed misericordiam consecutus sum, quia ignorans feci in incredulitate. Ergo infidelitas non est maximum peccatum. | Objection 2. Further, that which diminishes or excuses a sin is not, seemingly, the greatest of sins. Now unbelief excuses or diminishes sin: for the Apostle says (1 Timothy 1:12-13): "I . . . before was a blasphemer, and a persecutor and contumelious; but I obtained . . . mercy . . . because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." Therefore unbelief is not the greatest of sins. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, maiori peccato debetur maior poena, secundum illud Deut. XXV, pro mensura peccati erit et plagarum modus. Sed maior poena debetur fidelibus peccantibus quam infidelibus, secundum illud ad Heb. X, quanto magis putatis deteriora mereri supplicia qui filium Dei conculcaverit, et sanguinem testamenti pollutum duxerit, in quo sanctificatus est? Ergo infidelitas non est maximum peccatum. | Objection 3. Further, the greater sin deserves the greater punishment, according to Deuteronomy 25:2: "According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be." Now a greater punishment is due to believers than to unbelievers, according to Hebrews 10:29: "How much more, do you think, he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified?" Therefore unbelief is not the greatest of sins. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, exponens illud Ioan. XV, si non venissem, et locutus eis non fuissem, peccatum non haberent, magnum, inquit, quoddam peccatum sub generali nomine vult intelligi. Hoc enim est peccatum, scilicet infidelitatis, quo tenentur cuncta peccata. Infidelitas ergo est maximum omnium peccatorum. | On the contrary, Augustine, commenting on John 15:22, "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin," says (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.): "Under the general name, He refers to a singularly great sin. For this," viz. infidelity, "is the sin to which all others may be traced." Therefore unbelief is the greatest of sins. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod omne peccatum formaliter consistit in aversione a Deo, ut supra dictum est. Unde tanto aliquod peccatum est gravius quanto per ipsum homo magis a Deo separatur. Per infidelitatem autem maxime homo a Deo elongatur, quia nec veram Dei cognitionem habet; per falsam autem cognitionem ipsius non appropinquat ei, sed magis ab eo elongatur. Nec potest esse quod quantum ad quid Deum cognoscat qui falsam opinionem de ipso habet, quia id quod ipse opinatur non est Deus. Unde manifestum est quod peccatum infidelitatis est maius omnibus peccatis quae contingunt in perversitate morum. Secus autem est de peccatis quae opponuntur aliis virtutibus theologicis, ut infra dicetur. | I answer that, Every sin consists formally in aversion from God, as stated above (I-II, 71, 6; I-II, 73, 3). Hence the more a sin severs man from God, the graver it is. Now man is more than ever separated from God by unbelief, because he has not even true knowledge of God: and by false knowledge of God, man does not approach Him, but is severed from Him. Nor is it possible for one who has a false opinion of God, to know Him in any way at all, because the object of his opinion is not God. Therefore it is clear that the sin of unbelief is greater than any sin that occurs in the perversion of morals. This does not apply to the sins that are opposed to the theological virtues, as we shall stated further on (20, 3; 34, 2, ad 2; 39, 2, ad 3). |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nihil prohibet peccatum quod est gravius secundum suum genus esse minus grave secundum aliquas circumstantias. Et propter hoc Augustinus noluit praecipitare sententiam de malo Catholico et haeretico alias non peccante, quia peccatum haeretici, etsi sit gravius ex genere, potest tamen ex aliqua circumstantia alleviari; et e converso peccatum Catholici ex aliqua circumstantia aggravari. | Reply to Objection 1. Nothing hinders a sin that is more grave in its genus from being less grave in respect of some circumstances. Hence Augustine hesitated to decide between a bad Catholic, and a heretic not sinning otherwise, because although the heretic's sin is more grave generically, it can be lessened by a circumstance, and conversely the sin of the Catholic can, by some circumstance, be aggravated. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod infidelitas habet et ignorantiam adiunctam, et habet renisum ad ea quae sunt fidei, et ex hac parte habet rationem peccati gravissimi. Ex parte autem ignorantiae habet aliquam rationem excusationis, et maxime quando aliquis ex malitia non peccat, sicut fuit in apostolo. | Reply to Objection 2. Unbelief includes both ignorance, as an accessory thereto, and resistance to matters of faith, and in the latter respect it is a most grave sin. On respect, however, of this ignorance, it has a certain reason for excuse, especially when a man sins not from malice, as was the case with the Apostle. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod infidelis pro peccato infidelitatis gravius punitur quam alius peccator pro quocumque alio peccato, considerato peccati genere. Sed pro alio peccato, puta pro adulterio, si committatur a fideli et ab infideli, ceteris paribus, gravius peccat fidelis quam infidelis, tum propter notitiam veritatis ex fide; tum etiam propter sacramenta fidei quibus est imbutus, quibus peccando contumeliam facit. | Reply to Objection 3. An unbeliever is more severely punished for his sin of unbelief than another sinner is for any sin whatever, if we consider the kind of sin. But in the case of another sin, e.g. adultery, committed by a believer, and by an unbeliever, the believer, other things being equal, sins more gravely than the unbeliever, both on account of his knowledge of the truth through faith, and on account of the sacraments of faith with which he has been satiated, and which he insults by committing sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod quaelibet actio infidelis sit peccatum. Quia super illud Rom. XIV, omne quod non est ex fide peccatum est, dicit Glossa, omnis infidelium vita est peccatum. Sed ad vitam infidelium pertinet omne quod agunt. Ergo omnis actio infidelis est peccatum. | Objection 1. It would seem that each act of an unbeliever is a sin. Because a gloss on Romans 14:23, "All that is not of faith is sin," says: "The whole life of unbelievers is a sin." Now the life of unbelievers consists of their actions. Therefore every action of an unbeliever is a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, fides intentionem dirigit. Sed nullum bonum potest esse quod non est ex intentione recta. Ergo in infidelibus nulla actio potest esse bona. | Objection 2. Further, faith directs the intention. Now there can be no good save what comes from a right intention. Therefore, among unbelievers, no action can be good. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, corrupto priori, corrumpuntur posteriora. Sed actus fidei praecedit actus omnium virtutum. Ergo, cum in infidelibus non sit actus fidei, nullum bonum opus facere possunt, sed in omni actu suo peccant. | Objection 3. Further, when that which precedes is corrupted, that which follows is corrupted also. Now an act of faith precedes the acts of all the virtues. Therefore, since there is no act of faith in unbelievers, they can do no good work, but sin in every action of theirs. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Cornelio adhuc infideli existenti dictum est quod acceptae erant Deo eleemosynae eius. Ergo non omnis actio infidelis est peccatum, sed aliqua actio eius est bona. | On the contrary, It is said of Cornelius, while yet an unbeliever (Acts 10:4-31), that his alms were acceptable to God. Therefore not every action of an unbeliever is a sin, but some of his actions are good. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, peccatum mortale tollit gratiam gratum facientem, non autem totaliter corrumpit bonum naturae. Unde, cum infidelitas sit quoddam mortale peccatum, infideles quidem gratia carent, remanet tamen in eis aliquod bonum naturae. Unde manifestum est quod infideles non possunt operari opera bona quae sunt ex gratia, scilicet opera meritoria, tamen opera bona ad quae sufficit bonum naturae aliqualiter operari possunt. Unde non oportet quod in omni suo opere peccent, sed quandocumque aliquod opus operantur ex infidelitate, tunc peccant. Sicut enim habens fidem potest aliquod peccatum committere in actu quem non refert ad fidei finem, vel venialiter vel etiam mortaliter peccando; ita etiam infidelis potest aliquem actum bonum facere in eo quod non refert ad finem infidelitatis. | I answer that, As stated above (I-II, 85, 2,4) mortal sin takes away sanctifying grace, but does not wholly corrupt the good of nature. Since therefore, unbelief is a mortal sin, unbelievers are without grace indeed, yet some good of nature remains in them. Consequently it is evident that unbelievers cannot do those good works which proceed from grace, viz. meritorious works; yet they can, to a certain extent, do those good works for which the good of nature suffices. Hence it does not follow that they sin in everything they do; but whenever they do anything out of their unbelief, then they sin. For even as one who has the faith, can commit an actual sin, venial or even mortal, which he does not refer to the end of faith, so too, an unbeliever can do a good deed in a matter which he does not refer to the end of his unbelief. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verbum illud est intelligendum vel quia vita infidelium non potest esse sine peccato, cum peccata sine fide non tollantur. Vel quia quidquid agunt ex infidelitate peccatum est. Unde ibi subditur, quia omnis infideliter vivens vel agens vehementer peccat. | Reply to Objection 1. The words quoted must be taken to mean either that the life of unbelievers cannot be sinless, since without faith no sin is taken away, or that whatever they do out of unbelief, is a sin. Hence the same authority adds: "Because every one that lives or acts according to his unbelief, sins grievously." |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod fides dirigit intentionem respectu finis ultimi supernaturalis. Sed lumen etiam naturalis rationis potest dirigere intentionem respectu alicuius boni connaturalis. | Reply to Objection 2. Faith directs the intention with regard to the supernatural last end: but even the light of natural reason can direct the intention in respect of a connatural good. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod per infidelitatem non corrumpitur totaliter in infidelibus ratio naturalis, quin remaneat in eis aliqua veri cognitio, per quam possunt facere aliquod opus de genere bonorum. De Cornelio tamen sciendum est quod infidelis non erat, alioquin eius operatio accepta non fuisset Deo, cui sine fide nullus potest placere. Habebat autem fidem implicitam, nondum manifestata Evangelii veritate. Unde ut eum in fide plene instrueret, mittitur ad eum Petrus. | Reply to Objection 3. Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that are generically good. With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sint plures infidelitatis species. Cum enim fides et infidelitas sint contraria, oportet quod sint circa idem. Sed formale obiectum fidei est veritas prima, a qua habet unitatem, licet multa materialiter credat. Ergo etiam obiectum infidelitatis est veritas prima, ea vero quae discredit infidelis materialiter se habent in infidelitate. Sed differentia secundum speciem non attenditur secundum principia materialia, sed secundum principia formalia. Ergo infidelitatis non sunt diversae species secundum diversitatem eorum in quibus infideles errant. | Objection 1. It would seem that there are not several species of unbelief. For, since faith and unbelief are contrary to one another, they must be about the same thing. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, whence it derives its unity, although its matter contains many points of belief. Therefore the object of unbelief also is the First Truth; while the things which an unbeliever disbelieves are the matter of his unbelief. Now the specific difference depends not on material but on formal principles. Therefore there are not several species of unbelief, according to the various points which the unbeliever disbelieves. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, infinitis modis potest aliquis a veritate fidei deviare. Si igitur secundum diversitates errorum diversae species infidelitatis assignentur, videtur sequi quod sint infinitae infidelitatis species. Et ita huiusmodi species non sunt considerandae. | Objection 2. Further, it is possible to stray from the truth of faith in an infinite number of ways. If therefore the various species of unbelief correspond to the number of various errors, it would seem to follow that there is an infinite number of species of unbelief, and consequently, that we ought not to make these species the object of our consideration. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, idem non invenitur in diversis speciebus. Sed contingit aliquem esse infidelem ex eo quod errat circa diversa. Ergo diversitas errorum non facit diversas species infidelitatis. Sic igitur infidelitatis non sunt plures species. | Objection 3. Further, the same thing does not belong to different species. Now a man may be an unbeliever through erring about different points of truth. Therefore diversity of errors does not make a diversity of species of unbelief: and so there are not several species of unbelief. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod unicuique virtuti opponuntur plures species vitiorum, bonum enim contingit uno modo, malum vero multipliciter, ut patet per Dionysium, IV cap. de Div. Nom., et per philosophum, in II Ethic. Sed fides est una virtus. Ergo ei opponuntur plures infidelitatis species. | On the contrary, Several species of vice are opposed to each virtue, because "good happens in one way, but evil in many ways," according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) and the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6). Now faith is a virtue. Therefore several species of vice are opposed to it. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quaelibet virtus consistit in hoc quod attingat regulam aliquam cognitionis vel operationis humanae, ut supra dictum est. Attingere autem regulam est uno modo circa unam materiam, sed a regula deviare contingit multipliciter. Et ideo uni virtuti multa vitia opponuntur. Diversitas autem vitiorum quae unicuique virtuti opponitur potest considerari dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum diversam habitudinem ad virtutem. Et secundum hoc determinatae sunt quaedam species vitiorum quae opponuntur virtuti, sicut virtuti morali opponitur unum vitium secundum excessum ad virtutem, et aliud vitium secundum defectum a virtute. Alio modo potest considerari diversitas vitiorum oppositorum uni virtuti secundum corruptionem diversorum quae ad virtutem requiruntur. Et secundum hoc uni virtuti, puta temperantiae vel fortitudini, opponuntur infinita vitia, secundum quod infinitis modis contingit diversas circumstantias virtutis corrumpi, ut a rectitudine virtutis recedatur. Unde et Pythagorici malum posuerunt infinitum. Sic ergo dicendum est quod, si infidelitas attendatur secundum comparationem ad fidem, diversae sunt infidelitatis species et numero determinatae. Cum enim peccatum infidelitatis consistat in renitendo fidei, hoc potest contingere dupliciter. Quia aut renititur fidei nondum susceptae, et talis est infidelitas Paganorum sive gentilium. Aut renititur fidei Christianae susceptae, vel in figura, et sic est infidelitas Iudaeorum; vel in ipsa manifestatione veritatis, et sic est infidelitas haereticorum. Unde in generali possunt assignari tres praedictae species infidelitatis. Si vero distinguantur infidelitatis species secundum errorem in diversis quae ad fidem pertinent, sic non sunt determinatae infidelitatis species, possunt enim errores in infinitum multiplicari, ut patet per Augustinum, in libro de haeresibus. | I answer that, As stated above (I-II, 55, 4; I-II, 64, 1), every virtue consists in following some rule of human knowledge or operation. Now conformity to a rule happens one way in one matter, whereas a breach of the rule happens in many ways, so that many vices are opposed to one virtue. The diversity of the vices that are opposed to each virtue may be considered in two ways, first, with regard to their different relations to the virtue: and in this way there are determinate species of vices contrary to a virtue: thus to a moral virtue one vice is opposed by exceeding the virtue, and another, by falling short of the virtue. Secondly, the diversity of vices opposed to one virtue may be considered in respect of the corruption of the various conditions required for that virtue. On this way an infinite number of vices are opposed to one virtue, e.g. temperance or fortitude, according to the infinite number of ways in which the various circumstances of a virtue may be corrupted, so that the rectitude of virtue is forsaken. For this reason the Pythagoreans held evil to be infinite. Accordingly we must say that if unbelief be considered in comparison to faith, there are several species of unbelief, determinate in number. For, since the sin of unbelief consists in resisting the faith, this may happen in two ways: either the faith is resisted before it has been accepted, and such is the unbelief of pagans or heathens; or the Christian faith is resisted after it has been accepted, and this either in the figure, and such is the unbelief of the Jews, or in the very manifestation of truth, and such is the unbelief of heretics. Hence we may, in a general way, reckon these three as species of unbelief. If, however, the species of unbelief be distinguished according to the various errors that occur in matters of faith, there are not determinate species of unbelief: for errors can be multiplied indefinitely, as Augustine observes (De Haeresibus). |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod formalis ratio alicuius peccati potest accipi dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum intentionem peccantis, et sic id ad quod convertitur peccans est formale obiectum peccati; et ex hoc diversificantur eius species. Alio modo, secundum rationem mali, et sic illud bonum a quo receditur est formale obiectum peccati; sed ex hac parte peccatum non habet speciem, immo privatio est speciei. Sic igitur dicendum est quod infidelitatis obiectum est veritas prima sicut a qua recedit, sed formale eius obiectum sicut ad quod convertitur est sententia falsa quam sequitur; et ex hac parte eius species diversificantur. Unde sicut caritas est una, quae inhaeret summo bono, sunt autem diversa vitia caritati opposita, quae per conversionem ad diversa bona temporalia recedunt ab uno summo bono, et iterum secundum diversas habitudines inordinatas ad Deum; ita etiam fides est una virtus, ex hoc quod adhaeret uni primae veritati; sed infidelitatis species sunt multae, ex hoc quod infideles diversas falsas sententias sequuntur. | Reply to Objection 1. The formal aspect of a sin can be considered in two ways. First, according to the intention of the sinner, in which case the thing to which the sinner turns is the formal object of his sin, and determines the various species of that sin. Secondly, it may be considered as an evil, and in this case the good which is forsaken is the formal object of the sin; which however does not derive its species from this point of view, in fact it is a privation. We must therefore reply that the object of unbelief is the First Truth considered as that which unbelief forsakes, but its formal aspect, considered as that to which unbelief turns, is the false opinion that it follows: and it is from this point of view that unbelief derives its various species. Hence, even as charity is one, because it adheres to the Sovereign Good, while there are various species of vice opposed to charity, which turn away from the Sovereign Good by turning to various temporal goods, and also in respect of various inordinate relations to God, so too, faith is one virtue through adhering to the one First Truth, yet there are many species of unbelief, because unbelievers follow many false opinions. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de distinctione specierum infidelitatis secundum diversa in quibus erratur. | Reply to Objection 2. This argument considers the various species of unbelief according to various points in which errors occur. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod sicut fides est una quia multa credit in ordine ad unum, ita infidelitas potest esse una, etiam si in multis erret, inquantum omnia habent ordinem ad unum. Nihil tamen prohibet hominem diversis infidelitatis speciebus errare, sicut etiam potest unus homo diversis vitiis subiacere et diversis corporalibus morbis. | Reply to Objection 3. Since faith is one because it believes in many things in relation to one, so may unbelief, although it errs in many things, be one in so far as all those things are related to one. Yet nothing hinders one man from erring in various species of unbelief, even as one man may be subject to various vices, and to various bodily diseases. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod infidelitas gentilium sive Paganorum sit gravior ceteris. Sicut enim corporalis morbus tanto est gravior quanto saluti principalioris membri contrariatur, ita peccatum tanto videtur esse gravius quanto contrariatur ei quod est principalius in virtute. Sed principalius in fide est fides unitatis divinae, a qua deficiunt gentiles, multitudinem deorum credentes. Ergo eorum infidelitas est gravissima. | Objection 1. It would seem that the unbelief of heathens or pagans is graver than other kinds. For just as bodily disease is graver according as it endangers the health of a more important member of the body, so does sin appear to be graver, according as it is opposed to that which holds a more important place in virtue. Now that which is most important in faith, is belief in the unity of God, from which the heathens deviate by believing in many gods. Therefore their unbelief is the gravest of all. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, inter haereticos tanto haeresis aliquorum detestabilior est quanto in pluribus et principalioribus veritati fidei contradicunt, sicut haeresis Arii, qui separavit divinitatem, detestabilior fuit quam haeresis Nestorii, qui separavit humanitatem Christi a persona filii Dei. Sed gentiles in pluribus et principalioribus recedunt a fide quam Iudaei et haeretici, quia omnino nihil de fide recipiunt. Ergo eorum infidelitas est gravissima. | Objection 2. Further, among heresies, the more detestable are those which contradict the truth of faith in more numerous and more important points: thus, the heresy of Arius, who severed the Godhead, was more detestable than that of Nestorius who severed the humanity of Christ from the Person of God the Son. Now the heathens deny the faith in more numerous and more important points than Jews and heretics; since they do not accept the faith at all. Therefore their unbelief is the gravest. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, omne bonum est diminutivum mali. Sed aliquod bonum est in Iudaeis, quia confitentur vetus testamentum esse a Deo. Bonum etiam est in haereticis, quia venerantur novum testamentum. Ergo minus peccant quam gentiles, qui utrumque testamentum detestantur. | Objection 3. Further, every good diminishes evil. Now there is some good in the Jews, since they believe in the Old Testament as being from God, and there is some good in heretics, since they venerate the New Testament. Therefore they sin less grievously than heathens, who receive neither Testament. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur II Pet. II, melius erat illis non cognoscere viam iustitiae quam post cognitam retrorsum converti. Sed gentiles non cognoverunt viam iustitiae, haeretici autem et Iudaei aliqualiter cognoscentes deseruerunt. Ergo eorum peccatum est gravius. | On the contrary, It is written (2 Peter 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." Now the heathens have not known the way of justice, whereas heretics and Jews have abandoned it after knowing it in some way. Therefore theirs is the graver sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in infidelitate, sicut dictum est, duo possunt considerari. Quorum unum est comparatio eius ad fidem. Et ex hac parte aliquis gravius contra fidem peccat qui fidei renititur quam suscepit quam qui renititur fidei nondum susceptae, sicut gravius peccat qui non implet quod promisit quam si non impleat quod nunquam promisit. Et secundum hoc infidelitas haereticorum, qui profitentur fidem Evangelii et ei renituntur corrumpentes ipsam, gravius peccant quam Iudaei, qui fidem Evangelii nunquam susceperunt. Sed quia susceperunt eius figuram in veteri lege, quam male interpretantes corrumpunt, ideo etiam ipsorum infidelitas est gravius peccatum quam infidelitas gentilium, qui nullo modo fidem Evangelii susceperunt. Aliud quod in infidelitate consideratur est corruptio eorum quae ad fidem pertinent. Et secundum hoc, cum in pluribus errent gentiles quam Iudaei, et Iudaei quam haeretici, gravior est infidelitas gentilium quam Iudaeorum, et Iudaeorum quam haereticorum, nisi forte quorundam, puta Manichaeorum, qui etiam circa credibilia plus errant quam gentiles. Harum tamen duarum gravitatum prima praeponderat secundae quantum ad rationem culpae. Quia infidelitas habet rationem culpae, ut supra dictum est, magis ex hoc quod renititur fidei quam ex hoc quod non habet ea quae fidei sunt, hoc enim videtur, ut dictum est, magis ad rationem poenae pertinere unde, simpliciter loquendo, infidelitas haereticorum est pessima. | I answer that, As stated above (Article 5), two things may be considered in unbelief. One of these is its relation to faith: and from this point of view, he who resists the faith after accepting it, sins more grievously against faith, than he who resists it without having accepted it, even as he who fails to fulfil what he has promised, sins more grievously than if he had never promised it. On this way the unbelief of heretics, who confess their belief in the Gospel, and resist that faith by corrupting it, is a more grievous sin than that of the Jews, who have never accepted the Gospel faith. Since, however, they accepted the figure of that faith in the Old Law, which they corrupt by their false interpretations, their unbelief is a more grievous sin than that of the heathens, because the latter have not accepted the Gospel faith in any way at all. The second thing to be considered in unbelief is the corruption of matters of faith. On this respect, since heathens err on more points than Jews, and these in more points than heretics, the unbelief of heathens is more grievous than the unbelief of the Jews, and that of the Jews than that of the heretics, except in such cases as that of the Manichees, who, in matters of faith, err even more than heathens do. Of these two gravities the first surpasses the second from the point of view of guilt; since, as stated above (Article 1) unbelief has the character of guilt, from its resisting faith rather than from the mere absence of faith, for the latter as was stated (1) seems rather to bear the character of punishment. Hence, speaking absolutely, the unbelief of heretics is the worst. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 6 ad arg. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. | This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit cum infidelibus publice disputandum. Dicit enim apostolus, II ad Tim. II, noli verbis contendere, ad nihilum enim utile est nisi ad subversionem audientium. Sed disputatio publica cum infidelibus fieri non potest sine contentione verborum. Ergo non est publice disputandum cum infidelibus. | Objection 1. It would seem that one ought not to dispute with unbelievers in public. For the Apostle says (2 Timothy 2:14): "Contend not in words, for it is to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers." But it is impossible to dispute with unbelievers publicly without contending in words. Therefore one ought not to dispute publicly with unbelievers. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, lex Marciani Augusti, per canones confirmata, sic dicit, iniuriam facit iudicio religiosissimae synodi, si quis semel iudicata ac recte disposita revolvere et publice disputare contendit. Sed omnia quae ad fidem pertinent sunt per sacra Concilia determinata. Ergo graviter peccat, iniuriam synodo faciens, si quis de his quae sunt fidei publice disputare praesumat. | Objection 2. Further, the law of Martianus Augustus confirmed by the canons [De Sum. Trin. Cod. lib. i, leg. Nemo] expresses itself thus: "It is an insult to the judgment of the most religious synod, if anyone ventures to debate or dispute in public about matters which have once been judged and disposed of." Now all matters of faith have been decided by the holy councils. Therefore it is an insult to the councils, and consequently a grave sin to presume to dispute in public about matters of faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, disputatio argumentis aliquibus agitur. Sed argumentum est ratio rei dubiae faciens fidem. Ea autem quae sunt fidei, cum sint certissima, non sunt in dubitationem adducenda. Ergo de his quae sunt fidei non est publice disputandum. | Objection 3. Further, disputations are conducted by means of arguments. But an argument is a reason in settlement of a dubious matter: whereas things that are of faith, being most certain, ought not to be a matter of doubt. Therefore one ought not to dispute in public about matters of faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod Act. IX dicitur quod Saulus invalescebat et confundebat Iudaeos; et quod loquebatur gentibus et disputabat cum Graecis. | On the contrary, It is written (Acts 9:22-29) that "Saul increased much more in strength, and confounded the Jews," and that "he spoke . . . to the gentiles and disputed with the Greeks." |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in disputatione fidei duo sunt consideranda, unum quidem ex parte disputantis; aliud autem ex parte audientium. Ex parte quidem disputantis est consideranda intentio. Si enim disputet tanquam de fide dubitans, et veritatem fidei pro certo non supponens, sed argumentis experiri intendens, procul dubio peccat, tanquam dubius in fide et infidelis. Si autem disputet aliquis de fide ad confutandum errores, vel etiam ad exercitium, laudabile est. Ex parte vero audientium considerandum est utrum illi qui disputationem audiunt sint instructi et firmi in fide, aut simplices et in fide titubantes. Et coram quidem sapientibus in fide firmis nullum periculum est disputare de fide. Sed circa simplices est distinguendum. Quia aut sunt sollicitati sive pulsati ab infidelibus, puta Iudaeis vel haereticis sive Paganis, nitentibus corrumpere in eis fidem, aut omnino non sunt sollicitati super hoc, sicut in terris in quibus non sunt infideles. In primo casu necessarium est publice disputare de fide, dummodo inveniantur aliqui ad hoc sufficientes et idonei, qui errores confutare possint. Per hoc enim simplices in fide firmabuntur; et tolletur infidelibus decipiendi facultas; et ipsa taciturnitas eorum qui resistere deberent pervertentibus fidei veritatem esset erroris confirmatio. Unde Gregorius, in II Pastoral., sicut incauta locutio in errorem pertrahit, ita indiscretum silentium eos qui erudiri poterant in errore derelinquit. In secundo vero casu periculosum est publice disputare de fide coram simplicibus; quorum fides ex hoc est firmior quod nihil diversum audierunt ab eo quod credunt. Et ideo non expedit eis ut verba infidelium audiant disceptantium contra fidem. | I answer that, In disputing about the faith, two things must be observed: one on the part of the disputant; the other on the part of his hearers. On the part of the disputant, we must consider his intention. For if he were to dispute as though he had doubts about the faith, and did not hold the truth of faith for certain, and as though he intended to probe it with arguments, without doubt he would sin, as being doubtful of the faith and an unbeliever. On the other hand, it is praiseworthy to dispute about the faith in order to confute errors, or for practice. On the part of the hearers we must consider whether those who hear the disputation are instructed and firm in the faith, or simple and wavering. As to those who are well instructed and firm in the faith, there can be no danger in disputing about the faith in their presence. But as to simple-minded people, we must make a distinction; because either they are provoked and molested by unbelievers, for instance, Jews or heretics, or pagans who strive to corrupt the faith in them, or else they are not subject to provocation in this matter, as in those countries where there are not unbelievers. On the first case it is necessary to dispute in public about the faith, provided there be those who are equal and adapted to the task of confuting errors; since in this way simple people are strengthened in the faith, and unbelievers are deprived of the opportunity to deceive, while if those who ought to withstand the perverters of the truth of faith were silent, this would tend to strengthen error. Hence Gregory says (Pastor. ii, 4): "Even as a thoughtless speech gives rise to error, so does an indiscreet silence leave those in error who might have been instructed." On the other hand, in the second case it is dangerous to dispute in public about the faith, in the presence of simple people, whose faith for this very reason is more firm, that they have never heard anything differing from what they believe. Hence it is not expedient for them to hear what unbelievers have to say against the faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod apostolus non prohibet totaliter disputationem, sed inordinatam, quae magis fit contentione verborum quam firmitate sententiarum. | Reply to Objection 1. The Apostle does not entirely forbid disputations, but such as are inordinate, and consist of contentious words rather than of sound speeches. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod lex illa prohibet publicam disputationem de fide quae procedit ex dubitatione fidei, non autem illam quae est ad fidei conservationem. | Reply to Objection 2. That law forbade those public disputations about the faith, which arise from doubting the faith, but not those which are for the safeguarding thereof. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod non debet disputari de his quae sunt fidei quasi de eis dubitando, sed propter veritatem manifestandam et errores confutandos. Oportet enim ad fidei confirmationem aliquando cum infidelibus disputare, quandoque quidem defendendo fidem, secundum illud I Pet. III, parati semper ad satisfactionem omni poscenti vos rationem de ea quae est in vobis spe et fide; quandoque autem ad convincendos errantes, secundum illud ad Tit. I, ut sit potens exhortari in doctrina sana, et eos qui contradicunt arguere. | Reply to Objection 3. One ought to dispute about matters of faith, not as though one doubted about them, but in order to make the truth known, and to confute errors. For, in order to confirm the faith, it is necessary sometimes to dispute with unbelievers, sometimes by defending the faith, according to 1 Peter 3:15: "Being ready always to satisfy everyone that asketh you a reason of that hope and faith which is in you [Vulgate: 'Of that hope which is in you' St. Thomas' reading is apparently taken from Bede]." Sometimes again, it is necessary, in order to convince those who are in error, according to Titus 1:9: "That he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers." |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod infideles nullo modo compellendi sint ad fidem. Dicitur enim Matth. XIII quod servi patrisfamilias in cuius agro erant zizania seminata quaesierunt ab eo, vis imus et colligimus ea? Et ipse respondit, non, ne forte, colligentes zizania, eradicetis simul cum eis triticum. Ubi dicit Chrysostomus, haec dixit dominus prohibens occisiones fieri. Nec enim oportet interficere haereticos, quia si eos occideritis, necesse est multos sanctorum simul subverti. Ergo videtur quod pari ratione nec aliqui infideles sint ad fidem cogendi. | Objection 1. It would seem that unbelievers ought by no means to be compelled to the faith. For it is written (Matthew 13:28) that the servants of the householder, in whose field cockle had been sown, asked him: "Wilt thou that we go and gather it up?" and that he answered: "No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it": on which passage Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Matth.): "Our Lord says this so as to forbid the slaying of men. For it is not right to slay heretics, because if you do you will necessarily slay many innocent persons." Therefore it seems that for the same reason unbelievers ought not to be compelled to the faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, in decretis, dist. XLV, sic dicitur, de Iudaeis praecepit sancta synodus nemini deinceps ad credendum vim inferre. Ergo pari ratione nec alii infideles sunt ad fidem cogendi. | Objection 2. Further, we read in the Decretals (Dist. xlv can., De Judaeis): "The holy synod prescribes, with regard to the Jews, that for the future, none are to be compelled to believe." Therefore, in like manner, neither should unbelievers be compelled to the faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit quod cetera potest homo nolens, credere nonnisi volens. Sed voluntas cogi non potest. Ergo videtur quod infideles non sint ad fidem cogendi. | Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) that "it is possible for a man to do other things against his will, but he cannot believe unless he is willing." Therefore it seems that unbelievers ought not to be compelled to the faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 8 arg. 4 Praeterea, Ezech. XVIII dicitur ex persona Dei, nolo mortem peccatoris. Sed nos debemus voluntatem nostram conformare divinae, ut supra dictum est. Ergo etiam nos non debemus velle quod infideles occidantur. | Objection 4. It is said in God's person (Ezekiel 18:32 [Ezekiel 33:11]): "I desire not the death of the sinner [Vulgate: 'of him that dieth']." Now we ought to conform our will to the Divine will, as stated above (I-II, 19, A9,10). Therefore we should not even wish unbelievers to be put to death. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Luc. XIV, exi in vias et saepes et compelle intrare, ut impleatur domus mea. Sed homines in domum Dei, idest in Ecclesiam, intrant per fidem. Ergo aliqui sunt compellendi ad fidem. | On the contrary, It is written (Luke 14:23): "Go out into the highways and hedges; and compel them to come in." Now men enter into the house of God, i.e. into Holy Church, by faith. Therefore some ought to be compelled to the faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod infidelium quidam sunt qui nunquam susceperunt fidem, sicut gentiles et Iudaei. Et tales nullo modo sunt ad fidem compellendi, ut ipsi credant, quia credere voluntatis est. Sunt tamen compellendi a fidelibus, si facultas adsit, ut fidem non impediant vel blasphemiis, vel malis persuasionibus, vel etiam apertis persecutionibus. Et propter hoc fideles Christi frequenter contra infideles bellum movent, non quidem ut eos ad credendum cogant (quia si etiam eos vicissent et captivos haberent, in eorum libertate relinquerent an credere vellent), sed propter hoc ut eos compellant ne fidem Christi impediant. Alii vero sunt infideles qui quandoque fidem susceperunt et eam profitentur, sicut haeretici vel quicumque apostatae. Et tales sunt etiam corporaliter compellendi ut impleant quod promiserunt et teneant quod semel susceperunt. | I answer that, Among unbelievers there are some who have never received the faith, such as the heathens and the Jews: and these are by no means to be compelled to the faith, in order that they may believe, because to believe depends on the will: nevertheless they should be compelled by the faithful, if it be possible to do so, so that they do not hinder the faith, by their blasphemies, or by their evil persuasions, or even by their open persecutions. It is for this reason that Christ's faithful often wage war with unbelievers, not indeed for the purpose of forcing them to believe, because even if they were to conquer them, and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will, but in order to prevent them from hindering the faith of Christ. On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod per illam auctoritatem quidam intellexerunt esse prohibitam non quidem excommunicationem haereticorum, sed eorum occisionem, ut patet per auctoritatem Chrysostomi inductam. Et Augustinus, ad Vincentium, de se dicit, haec primitus mea sententia erat, neminem ad unitatem Christi esse cogendum, verbo esse agendum, disputatione pugnandum. Sed haec opinio mea non contradicentium verbis, sed demonstrantium superatur exemplis. Legum enim terror ita profuit ut multi dicant, gratias domino, qui vincula nostra dirupit. Quod ergo dominus dicit, sinite utraque crescere usque ad messem, qualiter intelligendum sit apparet ex hoc quod subditur, ne forte, colligentes zizania, eradicetis simul cum eis et triticum. Ubi satis ostendit, sicut Augustinus dicit (contra Epist. Parmen.), cum metus iste non subest, idest quando ita cuiusque crimen notum est et omnibus execrabile apparet ut vel nullos prorsus, vel non tales habeat defensores per quos possit schisma contingere, non dormiat severitas disciplinae. | Reply to Objection 1. Some have understood the authority quoted to forbid, not the excommunication but the slaying of heretics, as appears from the words of Chrysostom. Augustine too, says (Ep. ad Vincent. xciii) of himself: "It was once my opinion that none should be compelled to union with Christ, that we should deal in words, and fight with arguments. However this opinion of mine is undone, not by words of contradiction, but by convincing examples. Because fear of the law was so profitable, that many say: Thanks be to the Lord Who has broken our chains asunder." Accordingly the meaning of Our Lord's words, "Suffer both to grow until the harvest," must be gathered from those which precede, "lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root the wheat also together with it." For, Augustine says (Contra Ep. Parmen. iii, 2) "these words show that when this is not to be feared, that is to say, when a man's crime is so publicly known, and so hateful to all, that he has no defenders, or none such as might cause a schism, the severity of discipline should not slacken." |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Iudaei, si nullo modo susceperunt fidem, non sunt cogendi ad fidem. Si autem susceperunt fidem, oportet ut fidem necessitate cogantur retinere, sicut in eodem capitulo dicitur. | Reply to Objection 2. Those Jews who have in no way received the faith, ought not by no means to be compelled to the faith: if, however, they have received it, they ought to be compelled to keep it, as is stated in the same chapter. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut vovere est voluntatis, reddere autem est necessitatis, ita accipere fidem est voluntatis, sed tenere iam acceptam est necessitatis. Et ideo haeretici sunt compellendi ut fidem teneant. Dicit enim Augustinus, ad Bonifacium comitem, ubi est quod isti clamare consueverunt, liberum est credere vel non credere, cui vim Christus intulit? Agnoscant in Paulo prius cogentem Christum et postea docentem. | Reply to Objection 3. Just as taking a vow is a matter of will, and keeping a vow, a matter of obligation, so acceptance of the faith is a matter of the will, whereas keeping the faith, when once one has received it, is a matter of obligation. Wherefore heretics should be compelled to keep the faith. Thus Augustine says to the Count Boniface (Ep. clxxxv): "What do these people mean by crying out continually: 'We may believe or not believe just as we choose. Whom did Christ compel?' They should remember that Christ at first compelled Paul and afterwards taught Him." |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 8 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut in eadem epistola Augustinus dicit, nullus nostrum vult aliquem haereticum perire. Sed aliter non meruit habere pacem domus David, nisi Absalom filius eius in bello quod contra patrem gerebat fuisset extinctus. Sic Ecclesia Catholica, si aliquorum perditione ceteros colligit, dolorem materni sanat cordis tantorum liberatione populorum. | Reply to Objection 4. As Augustine says in the same letter, "none of us wishes any heretic to perish. But the house of David did not deserve to have peace, unless his son Absalom had been killed in the war which he had raised against his father. Thus if the Catholic Church gathers together some of the perdition of others, she heals the sorrow of her maternal heart by the delivery of so many nations." |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 9 arg. 1 Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod cum infidelibus possit communicari. Dicit enim apostolus, I ad Cor. X, si quis vocat vos infidelium ad coenam, et vultis ire, omne quod vobis apponitur manducate. Et Chrysostomus dicit, ad mensam Paganorum si volueris ire, sine ulla prohibitione permittimus. Sed ad coenam alicuius ire est ei communicare. Ergo licet infidelibus communicare. | Objection 1. It would seem that it is lawful to communicate with unbelievers. For the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:27): "If any of them that believe not, invite you, and you be willing to go, eat of anything that is set before you." And Chrysostom says (Hom. xxv super Epist. ad Heb.): "If you wish to go to dine with pagans, we permit it without any reservation." Now to sit at table with anyone is to communicate with him. Therefore it is lawful to communicate with unbelievers. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 9 arg. 2 Praeterea, apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. V, quid mihi est de his qui foris sunt iudicare? Foris autem sunt infideles. Cum igitur per iudicium Ecclesiae aliquorum communio fidelibus inhibeatur, videtur quod non sit inhibendum fidelibus cum infidelibus communicare. | Objection 2. Further, the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 5:12): "What have I to do to judge them that are without?" Now unbelievers are without. When, therefore, the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with certain people, it seems that they ought not to be forbidden to communicate with unbelievers. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 9 arg. 3 Praeterea, dominus non potest uti servo nisi ei communicando saltem verbo, quia dominus movet servum per imperium. Sed Christiani possunt habere servos infideles, vel Iudaeos vel etiam Paganos sive Saracenos. Ergo possunt licite cum eis communicare. | Objection 3. Further, a master cannot employ his servant, unless he communicate with him, at least by word, since the master moves his servant by command. Now Christians can have unbelievers, either Jews, or pagans, or Saracens, for servants. Therefore they can lawfully communicate with them. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 9 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Deut. VII, non inibis cum eis foedus, nec misereberis eorum, neque sociabis cum eis connubia. Et super illud Lev. XV, mulier quae redeunte mense etc., dicit Glossa, sic oportet ab idololatria abstinere ut nec idololatras nec eorum discipulos contingamus, nec cum eis communionem habeamus. | On the contrary, It is written (Deuteronomy 7:2-3): "Thou shalt make no league with them, nor show mercy to them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them": and a gloss on Leviticus 15:19, "The woman who at the return of the month," etc. says: "It is so necessary to shun idolatry, that we should not come in touch with idolaters or their disciples, nor have any dealings with them." |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 9 co. Respondeo dicendum quod communio alicuius personae interdicitur fidelibus dupliciter, uno modo, in poenam illius cui communio fidelium subtrahitur; alio modo, ad cautelam eorum quibus interdicitur ne alii communicent. Et utraque causa ex verbis apostoli accipi potest, I ad Cor. V. Nam postquam sententiam excommunicationis protulit, subdit pro ratione, nescitis quia modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit? Et postea rationem subdit ex parte poenae per iudicium Ecclesiae illatae, cum dicit, nonne de his qui intus sunt vos iudicatis? Primo igitur modo non interdicit Ecclesia fidelibus communionem infidelium qui nullo modo fidem Christianam receperunt, scilicet Paganorum vel Iudaeorum, quia non habet de eis iudicare spirituali iudicio, sed temporali, in casu cum, inter Christianos commorantes, aliquam culpam committunt et per fideles temporaliter puniuntur. Sed isto modo, scilicet in poenam, interdicit Ecclesia fidelibus communionem illorum infidelium qui a fide suscepta deviant, vel corrumpendo fidem, sicut haeretici, vel etiam totaliter a fide recedendo, sicut apostatae. In utrosque enim horum excommunicationis sententiam profert Ecclesia. Sed quantum ad secundum modum, videtur esse distinguendum secundum diversas conditiones personarum et negotiorum et temporum. Si enim aliqui fuerint firmi in fide, ita quod ex communione eorum cum infidelibus conversio infidelium magis sperari possit quam fidelium a fide aversio; non sunt prohibendi infidelibus communicare qui fidem non susceperunt, scilicet Paganis vel Iudaeis, et maxime si necessitas urgeat. Si autem sint simplices et infirmi in fide, de quorum subversione probabiliter timeri possit, prohibendi sunt ab infidelium communione, et praecipue ne magnam familiaritatem cum eis habeant, vel absque necessitate eis communicent. | I answer that, Communication with a particular person is forbidden to the faithful, in two ways: first, as a punishment of the person with whom they are forbidden to communicate; secondly, for the safety of those who are forbidden to communicate with others. Both motives can be gathered from the Apostle's words (1 Corinthians 5:6). For after he had pronounced sentence of excommunication, he adds as his reason: "Know you not that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump?" and afterwards he adds the reason on the part of the punishment inflicted by the sentence of the Church when he says (1 Corinthians 5:12): "Do not you judge them that are within?" Accordingly, in the first way the Church does not forbid the faithful to communicate with unbelievers, who have not in any way received the Christian faith, viz. with pagans and Jews, because she has not the right to exercise spiritual judgment over them, but only temporal judgment, in the case when, while dwelling among Christians they are guilty of some misdemeanor, and are condemned by the faithful to some temporal punishment. On the other hand, in this way, i.e. as a punishment, the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both. With regard to the second way, it seems that one ought to distinguish according to the various conditions of persons, circumstances and time. For some are firm in the faith; and so it is to be hoped that their communicating with unbelievers will lead to the conversion of the latter rather than to the aversion of the faithful from the faith. These are not to be forbidden to communicate with unbelievers who have not received the faith, such as pagans or Jews, especially if there be some urgent necessity for so doing. But in the case of simple people and those who are weak in the faith, whose perversion is to be feared as a probable result, they should be forbidden to communicate with unbelievers, and especially to be on very familiar terms with them, or to communicate with them without necessity. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 9 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dominus illud praecipit de illis gentibus quarum terram ingressuri erant Iudaei, qui erant proni ad idololatriam, et ideo timendum erat ne per continuam conversationem cum eis alienarentur a fide. Et ideo ibidem subditur, quia seducet filium tuum ne sequatur me. | This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 9 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Ecclesia in infideles non habet iudicium quoad poenam spiritualem eis infligendam. Habet tamen iudicium super aliquos infideles quoad temporalem poenam infligendam, ad quod pertinet quod Ecclesia aliquando, propter aliquas speciales culpas, subtrahit aliquibus infidelibus communionem fidelium. | Reply to Objection 2. The Church does not exercise judgment against unbelievers in the point of inflicting spiritual punishment on them: but she does exercise judgment over some of them in the matter of temporal punishment. It is under this head that sometimes the Church, for certain special sins, withdraws the faithful from communication with certain unbelievers. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 9 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod magis est probabile quod servus, qui regitur imperio domini, convertatur ad fidem domini fidelis, quam e converso. Et ideo non est prohibitum quin fideles habeant servos infideles. Si tamen domino periculum immineret ex communione talis servi, deberet eum a se abiicere, secundum illud mandatum domini, Matth. V et XVIII, si pes tuus scandalizaverit te, abscinde eum et proiice abs te. | Reply to Objection 3. There is more probability that a servant who is ruled by his master's commands, will be converted to the faith of his master who is a believer, than if the case were the reverse: and so the faithful are not forbidden to have unbelieving servants. If, however, the master were in danger, through communicating with such a servant, he should send him away, according to Our Lord's command (Matthew 18:8): "If . . . thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee." With regard to the argument in the contrary [The Leonine Edition gives this solution before the Reply to Objection 2 sense the reply is that the Lord gave this command in reference to those nations into whose territory the Jews were about to enter. For the latter were inclined to idolatry, so that it was to be feared lest, through frequent dealings with those nations, they should be estranged from the faith: hence the text goes on (Deuteronomy 7:4): "For she will turn away thy son from following Me." |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 10 arg. 1 Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod infideles possint habere praelationem vel dominium supra fideles. Dicit enim apostolus, I ad Tim. VI, quicumque sunt sub iugo servi dominos suos omni honore dignos arbitrentur, et quod loquatur de infidelibus patet per hoc quod subdit, qui autem fideles habent dominos non contemnant. Et I Pet. II dicitur, servi, subditi estote in omni timore dominis, non tantum bonis et modestis, sed etiam dyscolis. Non autem hoc praeciperetur per apostolicam doctrinam nisi infideles possent fidelibus praeesse. Ergo videtur quod infideles possint praeesse fidelibus. | Objection 1. It would seem that unbelievers may have authority or dominion over the faithful. For the Apostle says (1 Timothy 6:1): "Whosoever are servants under the yoke, let them count their masters worthy of all honor": and it is clear that he is speaking of unbelievers, since he adds (1 Timothy 6:2): "But they that have believing masters, let them not despise them." Moreover it is written (1 Peter 2:18): "Servants be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." Now this command would not be contained in the apostolic teaching unless unbelievers could have authority over the faithful. Therefore it seems that unbelievers can have authority over the faithful. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 10 arg. 2 Praeterea, quicumque sunt de familia alicuius principis subsunt ei. Sed fideles aliqui erant de familiis infidelium principum, unde dicitur ad Philipp. IV, salutant vos omnes sancti, maxime autem qui de Caesaris domo sunt, scilicet Neronis, qui infidelis erat. Ergo infideles possunt fidelibus praeesse. | Objection 2. Further, all the members of a prince's household are his subjects. Now some of the faithful were members of unbelieving princes' households, for we read in the Epistle to the Philippians (4:22): "All the saints salute you, especially they that are of Caesar's household," referring to Nero, who was an unbeliever. Therefore unbelievers can have authority over the faithful. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 10 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut philosophus dicit, in I Polit., servus est instrumentum domini in his quae ad humanam vitam pertinent, sicut et minister artificis est instrumentum artificis in his quae pertinent ad operationem artis. Sed in talibus potest fidelis infideli subiici, possunt enim fideles infidelium coloni esse. Ergo infideles possunt fidelibus praefici etiam quantum ad dominium. | Objection 3. Further, according to the Philosopher (Polit. i, 2) a slave is his master's instrument in matters concerning everyday life, even as a craftsman's laborer is his instrument in matters concerning the working of his art. Now, in such matters, a believer can be subject to an unbeliever, for he may work on an unbeliever's farm. Therefore unbelievers may have authority over the faithful even as to dominion. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 10 s. c. Sed contra est quod ad eum qui praeest pertinet habere iudicium super eos quibus praeest. Sed infideles non possunt iudicare de fidelibus, dicit enim apostolus, I ad Cor. VI, audet aliquis vestrum, habens negotium adversus alterum, iudicari apud iniquos, idest infideles, et non apud sanctos? Ergo videtur quod infideles fidelibus praeesse non possint. | On the contrary, Those who are in authority can pronounce judgment on those over whom they are placed. But unbelievers cannot pronounce judgment on the faithful, for the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 6:1): "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to be judged before the unjust," i.e. unbelievers, "and not before the saints?" Therefore it seems that unbelievers cannot have authority over the faithful. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 10 co. Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc dupliciter loqui possumus. Uno modo, de dominio vel praelatione infidelium super fideles de novo instituenda. Et hoc nullo modo permitti debet. Cedit enim hoc in scandalum et in periculum fidei, de facili enim illi qui subiiciuntur aliorum iurisdictioni immutari possunt ab eis quibus subsunt ut sequantur eorum imperium, nisi illi qui subsunt fuerint magnae virtutis. Et similiter infideles contemnunt fidem si fidelium defectus cognoscant. Et ideo apostolus prohibuit quod fideles non contendant iudicio coram iudice infideli. Et ideo nullo modo permittit Ecclesia quod infideles acquirant dominium super fideles, vel qualitercumque eis praeficiantur in aliquo officio. Alio modo possumus loqui de dominio vel praelatione iam praeexistenti. Ubi considerandum est quod dominium et praelatio introducta sunt ex iure humano, distinctio autem fidelium et infidelium est ex iure divino. Ius autem divinum, quod est ex gratia, non tollit ius humanum, quod est ex naturali ratione. Et ideo distinctio fidelium et infidelium, secundum se considerata, non tollit dominium et praelationem infidelium supra fideles. Potest tamen iuste per sententiam vel ordinationem Ecclesiae, auctoritatem Dei habentis, tale ius dominii vel praelationis tolli, quia infideles merito suae infidelitatis merentur potestatem amittere super fideles, qui transferuntur in filios Dei sed hoc quidem Ecclesia quandoque facit, quandoque autem non facit. In illis enim infidelibus qui etiam temporali subiectione subiiciuntur Ecclesiae et membris eius, hoc ius Ecclesiae statuit, ut servus Iudaeorum, statim factus Christianus, a servitute liberetur, nullo pretio dato, si fuerit vernaculus, idest in servitute natus; et similiter si, infidelis existens, fuerit emptus ad servitium. Si autem fuerit emptus ad mercationem, tenetur eum infra tres menses exponere ad vendendum. Nec in hoc iniuriam facit Ecclesia, quia, cum ipsi Iudaei sint servi Ecclesiae, potest disponere de rebus eorum; sicut etiam principes saeculares multas leges ediderunt erga suos subditos in favorem libertatis. In illis vero infidelibus qui temporaliter Ecclesiae vel eius membris non subiacent, praedictum ius Ecclesia non statuit, licet posset instituere de iure. Et hoc facit ad scandalum vitandum. Sicut etiam dominus, Matth. XVII, ostendit quod poterat se a tributo excusare quia liberi sunt filii, sed tamen mandavit tributum solvi ad scandalum vitandum. Ita etiam et Paulus, cum dixisset quod servi dominos suos honorarent, subiungit, ne nomen domini et doctrina blasphemetur. | I answer that, That this question may be considered in two ways. First, we may speak of dominion or authority of unbelievers over the faithful as of a thing to be established for the first time. This ought by no means to be allowed, since it would provoke scandal and endanger the faith, for subjects are easily influenced by their superiors to comply with their commands, unless the subjects are of great virtue: moreover unbelievers hold the faith in contempt, if they see the faithful fall away. Hence the Apostle forbade the faithful to go to law before an unbelieving judge. And so the Church altogether forbids unbelievers to acquire dominion over believers, or to have authority over them in any capacity whatever. Secondly, we may speak of dominion or authority, as already in force: and here we must observe that dominion and authority are institutions of human law, while the distinction between faithful and unbelievers arises from the Divine law. Now the Divine law which is the law of grace, does not do away with human law which is the law of natural reason. Wherefore the distinction between faithful and unbelievers, considered in itself, does not do away with dominion and authority of unbelievers over the faithful. Nevertheless this right of dominion or authority can be justly done away with by the sentence or ordination of the Church who has the authority of God: since unbelievers in virtue of their unbelief deserve to forfeit their power over the faithful who are converted into children of God. This the Church does sometimes, and sometimes not. For among those unbelievers who are subject, even in temporal matters, to the Church and her members, the Church made the law that if the slave of a Jew became a Christian, he should forthwith receive his freedom, without paying any price, if he should be a "vernaculus," i.e. born in slavery; and likewise if, when yet an unbeliever, he had been bought for his service: if, however, he had been bought for sale, then he should be offered for sale within three months. Nor does the Church harm them in this, because since those Jews themselves are subject to the Church, she can dispose of their possessions, even as secular princes have enacted many laws to be observed by their subjects, in favor of liberty. On the other hand, the Church has not applied the above law to those unbelievers who are not subject to her or her members, in temporal matters, although she has the right to do so: and this, in order to avoid scandal, for as Our Lord showed (Matthew 17:25-26) that He could be excused from paying the tribute, because "the children are free," yet He ordered the tribute to be paid in order to avoid giving scandal. Thus Paul too, after saying that servants should honor their masters, adds, "lest the name of the Lord and His doctrine be blasphemed." |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 10 ad 1 Unde patet responsio ad primum. | This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 10 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod illa praelatio Caesaris praeexistebat distinctioni fidelium ab infidelibus, unde non solvebatur per conversionem aliquorum ad fidem. Et utile erat quod aliqui fideles locum in familia imperatoris haberent, ad defendendum alios fideles, sicut beatus Sebastianus Christianorum animos, quos in tormentis videbat deficere, confortabat, et adhuc latebat sub militari chlamyde in domo Diocletiani. | Reply to Objection 2. The authority of Caesar preceded the distinction of faithful from unbelievers. Hence it was not cancelled by the conversion of some to the faith. Moreover it was a good thing that there should be a few of the faithful in the emperor's household, that they might defend the rest of the faithful. Thus the Blessed Sebastian encouraged those whom he saw faltering under torture, and, the while, remained hidden under the military cloak in the palace of Diocletian. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 10 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod servi subiiciuntur dominis suis ad totam vitam, et subditi praefectis ad omnia negotia, sed ministri artificum subduntur eis ad aliqua specialia opera. Unde periculosius est quod infideles accipiant dominium vel praelationem super fideles quam quod accipiant ab eis ministerium in aliquo artificio. Et ideo permittit Ecclesia quod Christiani possint colere terras Iudaeorum, quia per hoc non habent necesse conversari cum eis. Salomon etiam expetiit a rege Tyri magistros operum ad ligna caedenda, ut habetur III Reg. V. Et tamen si ex tali communicatione vel convictu subversio fidelium timeretur, esset penitus interdicendum. | Reply to Objection 3. Slaves are subject to their masters for their whole lifetime, and are subject to their overseers in everything: whereas the craftsman's laborer is subject to him for certain special works. Hence it would be more dangerous for unbelievers to have dominion or authority over the faithful, than that they should be allowed to employ them in some craft. Wherefore the Church permits Christians to work on the land of Jews, because this does not entail their living together with them. Thus Solomon besought the King of Tyre to send master workmen to hew the trees, as related in 1 Kings 5:6. Yet, if there be reason to fear that the faithful will be perverted by such communications and dealings, they should be absolutely forbidden. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 11 arg. 1 Ad undecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ritus infidelium non sint tolerandi. Manifestum est enim quod infideles in suis ritibus peccant eos servando. Sed peccato consentire videtur qui non prohibet cum prohibere possit, ut habetur in Glossa Rom. I, super illud, non solum qui faciunt, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus. Ergo peccant qui eorum ritus tolerant. | Objection 1. It would seem that rites of unbelievers ought not to be tolerated. For it is evident that unbelievers sin in observing their rites: and not to prevent a sin, when one can, seems to imply consent therein, as a gloss observes on Romans 1:32: "Not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them." Therefore it is a sin to tolerate their rites. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 11 arg. 2 Praeterea, ritus Iudaeorum idololatriae comparantur, quia super illud Gal. V, nolite iterum iugo servitutis contineri, dicit Glossa, non est levior haec legis servitus quam idololatriae. Sed non sustineretur quod idololatriae ritum aliqui exercerent, quinimmo Christiani principes templa idolorum primo claudi, et postea dirui fecerunt, ut Augustinus narrat, XVIII de Civ. Dei. Ergo etiam ritus Iudaeorum tolerari non debent. | Objection 2. Further, the rites of the Jews are compared to idolatry, because a gloss on Galatians 5:1, "Be not held again under the yoke of bondage," says: "The bondage of that law was not lighter than that of idolatry." But it would not be allowable for anyone to observe the rites of idolatry, in fact Christian princes at first caused the temples of idols to be closed, and afterwards, to be destroyed, as Augustine relates (De Civ. Dei xviii, 54). Therefore it follows that even the rites of Jews ought not to be tolerated. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 11 arg. 3 Praeterea, peccatum infidelitatis est gravissimum, ut supra dictum est. Sed alia peccata non tolerantur, sed lege puniuntur, sicut adulterium, furtum et alia huiusmodi. Ergo etiam ritus infidelium tolerandi non sunt. | Objection 3. Further, unbelief is the greatest of sins, as stated above (Article 3). Now other sins such as adultery, theft and the like, are not tolerated, but are punishable by law. Therefore neither ought the rites of unbelievers to be tolerated. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 11 s. c. Sed contra est quod in decretis, dist. XLV, Can. qui sincera, dicit Gregorius de Iudaeis, omnes festivitates suas, sicut hactenus ipsi et patres eorum per longa colentes tempora tenuerunt, liberam habeant observandi celebrandique licentiam. | On the contrary, Gregory [Regist. xi, Ep. 15: cf. Decret., dist. xlv, can., Qui sincera] says, speaking of the Jews: "They should be allowed to observe all their feasts, just as hitherto they and their fathers have for ages observed them." |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 11 co. Respondeo dicendum quod humanum regimen derivatur a divino regimine, et ipsum debet imitari. Deus autem, quamvis sit omnipotens et summe bonus, permittit tamen aliqua mala fieri in universo, quae prohibere posset, ne, eis sublatis, maiora bona tollerentur, vel etiam peiora mala sequerentur. Sic igitur et in regimine humano illi qui praesunt recte aliqua mala tolerant, ne aliqua bona impediantur, vel etiam ne aliqua mala peiora incurrantur, sicut Augustinus dicit, in II de ordine, aufer meretrices de rebus humanis, turbaveris omnia libidinibus. Sic igitur, quamvis infideles in suis ritibus peccent, tolerari possunt vel propter aliquod bonum quod ex eis provenit, vel propter aliquod malum quod vitatur. Ex hoc autem quod Iudaei ritus suos observant, in quibus olim praefigurabatur veritas fidei quam tenemus, hoc bonum provenit quod testimonium fidei nostrae habemus ab hostibus, et quasi in figura nobis repraesentatur quod credimus. Et ideo in suis ritibus tolerantur. Aliorum vero infidelium ritus, qui nihil veritatis aut utilitatis afferunt, non sunt aliqualiter tolerandi, nisi forte ad aliquod malum vitandum, scilicet ad vitandum scandalum vel dissidium quod ex hoc posset provenire, vel impedimentum salutis eorum, qui paulatim, sic tolerati, convertuntur ad fidem. Propter hoc enim etiam haereticorum et Paganorum ritus aliquando Ecclesia toleravit, quando erat magna infidelium multitudo. | I answer that, Human government is derived from the Divine government, and should imitate it. Now although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue. Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says (De Ordine ii, 4): "If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust." Hence, though unbelievers sin in their rites, they may be tolerated, either on account of some good that ensues therefrom, or because of some evil avoided. Thus from the fact that the Jews observe their rites, which, of old, foreshadowed the truth of the faith which we hold, there follows this good--that our very enemies bear witness to our faith, and that our faith is represented in a figure, so to speak. For this reason they are tolerated in the observance of their rites. On the other hand, the rites of other unbelievers, which are neither truthful nor profitable are by no means to be tolerated, except perchance in order to avoid an evil, e.g. the scandal or disturbance that might ensue, or some hindrance to the salvation of those who if they were unmolested might gradually be converted to the faith. For this reason the Church, at times, has tolerated the rites even of heretics and pagans, when unbelievers were very numerous. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 11 ad arg. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. | This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 12 arg. 1 Ad duodecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod pueri Iudaeorum et aliorum infidelium sint baptizandi parentibus invitis. Maius enim est vinculum matrimoniale quam ius patriae potestatis, quia ius patriae potestatis potest per hominem solvi, cum filiusfamilias emancipatur; vinculum autem matrimoniale non potest solvi per hominem, secundum illud Matth. XIX, quod Deus coniunxit homo non separet. Sed propter infidelitatem solvitur vinculum matrimoniale, dicit enim apostolus, I ad Cor. VII, quod si infidelis discedit, discedat, non enim servituti subiectus est frater aut soror in huiusmodi; et canon dicit quod si coniux infidelis non vult sine contumelia sui creatoris cum altero stare, quod alter coniugum non debet ei cohabitare. Ergo multo magis propter infidelitatem tollitur ius patriae potestatis in suos filios. Possunt ergo eorum filii baptizari eis invitis. | Objection 1. It would seem that the children of Jews and of other unbelievers ought to be baptized against their parents' will. For the bond of marriage is stronger than the right of parental authority over children, since the right of parental authority can be made to cease, when a son is set at liberty; whereas the marriage bond cannot be severed by man, according to Matthew 19:6: "What . . . God hath joined together let no man put asunder." And yet the marriage bond is broken on account of unbelief: for the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 7:15): "If the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases": and a canon [Can. Uxor legitima, and Idololatria, qu. i] says that "if the unbelieving partner is unwilling to abide with the other, without insult to their Creator, then the other partner is not bound to cohabitation." Much more, therefore, does unbelief abrogate the right of unbelieving parents' authority over their children: and consequently their children may be baptized against their parents' will. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 12 arg. 2 Praeterea, magis debet homini subveniri circa periculum mortis aeternae quam circa periculum mortis temporalis. Sed si aliquis videret hominem in periculo mortis temporalis et ei non ferret auxilium, peccaret. Cum ergo filii Iudaeorum et aliorum infidelium sint in periculo mortis aeternae si parentibus relinquuntur, qui eos in sua infidelitate informant, videtur quod sint eis auferendi et baptizandi et in fidelitate instruendi. | Objection 2. Further, one is more bound to succor a man who is in danger of everlasting death, than one who is in danger of temporal death. Now it would be a sin, if one saw a man in danger of temporal death and failed to go to his aid. Since, then, the children of Jews and other unbelievers are in danger of everlasting death, should they be left to their parents who would imbue them with their unbelief, it seems that they ought to be taken away from them and baptized, and instructed in the faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 12 arg. 3 Praeterea, filii servorum sunt servi et in potestate dominorum. Sed Iudaei sunt servi regum et principum. Ergo et filii eorum. Reges igitur et principes habent potestatem de filiis Iudaeorum facere quod voluerint. Nulla ergo erit iniuria si eos baptizent invitis parentibus. | Objection 3. Further, the children of a bondsman are themselves bondsmen, and under the power of his master. Now the Jews are bondsmen of kings and princes: therefore their children are also. Consequently kings and princes have the power to do what they will with Jewish children. Therefore no injustice is committed if they baptize them against their parents' wishes. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 12 arg. 4 Praeterea, quilibet homo magis est Dei, a quo habet animam, quam patris carnalis, a quo habet corpus. Non ergo est iniustum si pueri Iudaeorum carnalibus parentibus auferantur et Deo per Baptismum consecrentur. | Objection 4. Further, every man belongs more to God, from Whom he has his soul, than to his carnal father, from whom he has his body. Therefore it is not unjust if Jewish children be taken away from their parents, and consecrated to God in Baptism. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 12 arg. 5 Praeterea, Baptismus efficacior est ad salutem quam praedicatio, quia per Baptismum statim tollitur peccati macula, reatus poenae, et aperitur ianua caeli. Sed si periculum sequitur ex defectu praedicationis, imputatur ei qui non praedicavit, ut habetur Ezech. III, et XXXIII de eo qui videt gladium venientem et non insonuerit tuba. Ergo multo magis, si pueri Iudaeorum damnentur propter defectum Baptismi, imputatur ad peccatum eis qui potuerunt baptizare et non baptizaverunt. | Objection 5. Further, Baptism avails for salvation more than preaching does, since Baptism removes forthwith the stain of sin and the debt of punishment, and opens the gate of heaven. Now if danger ensue through not preaching, it is imputed to him who omitted to preach, according to the words of Ezekiel 33:6 about the man who "sees the sword coming and sounds not the trumpet." Much more therefore, if Jewish children are lost through not being baptized are they accounted guilty of sin, who could have baptized them and did not. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 12 s. c. Sed contra, nemini facienda est iniuria. Fieret autem Iudaeis iniuria si eorum filii baptizarentur eis invitis, quia amitterent ius patriae potestatis in filios iam fideles. Ergo eis invitis non sunt baptizandi. | On the contrary, Injustice should be done to no man. Now it would be an injustice to Jews if their children were to be baptized against their will, since they would lose the rights of parental authority over their children as soon as these were Christians. Therefore these should not be baptized against their parents' will. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 12 co. Respondeo dicendum quod maximam habet auctoritatem Ecclesiae consuetudo, quae semper est in omnibus aemulanda. Quia et ipsa doctrina Catholicorum doctorum ab Ecclesia auctoritatem habet, unde magis standum est auctoritati Ecclesiae quam auctoritati vel Augustini vel Hieronymi vel cuiuscumque doctoris. Hoc autem Ecclesiae usus nunquam habuit quod Iudaeorum filii invitis parentibus baptizarentur, quamvis fuerint retroactis temporibus multi Catholici principes potentissimi, ut Constantinus, Theodosius, quibus familiares fuerunt sanctissimi episcopi, ut Sylvester Constantino et Ambrosius Theodosio, qui nullo modo hoc praetermisissent ab eis impetrare, si hoc esset consonum rationi. Et ideo periculosum videtur hanc assertionem de novo inducere, ut praeter consuetudinem in Ecclesia hactenus observatam, Iudaeorum filii invitis parentibus baptizarentur. Et huius ratio est duplex. Una quidem propter periculum fidei. Si enim pueri nondum usum rationis habentes Baptismum susciperent, postmodum, cum ad perfectam aetatem pervenirent, de facili possent a parentibus induci ut relinquerent quod ignorantes susceperunt. Quod vergeret in fidei detrimentum. Alia vero ratio est quia repugnat iustitiae naturali. Filius enim naturaliter est aliquid patris. Et primo quidem a parentibus non distinguitur secundum corpus, quandiu in matris utero continetur. Postmodum vero, postquam ab utero egreditur, antequam usum liberi arbitrii habeat, continetur sub parentum cura sicut sub quodam spirituali utero. Quandiu enim usum rationis non habet puer, non differt ab animali irrationali. Unde sicut bos vel equus est alicuius ut utatur eo cum voluerit, secundum ius civile, sicut proprio instrumento; ita de iure naturali est quod filius, antequam habeat usum rationis, sit sub cura patris. Unde contra iustitiam naturalem esset si puer, antequam habeat usum rationis, a cura parentum subtrahatur, vel de eo aliquid ordinetur invitis parentibus. Postquam autem incipit habere usum liberi arbitrii, iam incipit esse suus, et potest, quantum ad ea quae sunt iuris divini vel naturalis, sibi ipsi providere. Et tunc est inducendus ad fidem non coactione, sed persuasione; et potest etiam invitis parentibus consentire fidei et baptizari, non autem antequam habeat usum rationis. Unde de pueris antiquorum patrum dicitur quod salvati sunt in fide parentum, per quod datur intelligi quod ad parentes pertinet providere filiis de sua salute, praecipue antequam habeant usum rationis. | I answer that, The custom of the Church has very great authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things, since the very doctrine of catholic doctors derives its authority from the Church. Hence we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than by that of an Augustine or a Jerome or of any doctor whatever. Now it was never the custom of the Church to baptize the children of the Jews against the will of their parents, although at times past there have been many very powerful catholic princes like Constantine and Theodosius, with whom most holy bishops have been on most friendly terms, as Sylvester with Constantine, and Ambrose with Theodosius, who would certainly not have failed to obtain this favor from them if it had been at all reasonable. It seems therefore hazardous to repeat this assertion, that the children of Jews should be baptized against their parents' wishes, in contradiction to the Church's custom observed hitherto. There are two reasons for this custom. One is on account of the danger to the faith. For children baptized before coming to the use of reason, afterwards when they come to perfect age, might easily be persuaded by their parents to renounce what they had unknowingly embraced; and this would be detrimental to the faith. The other reason is that it is against natural justice. For a child is by nature part of its father: thus, at first, it is not distinct from its parents as to its body, so long as it is enfolded within its mother's womb; and later on after birth, and before it has the use of its free-will, it is enfolded in the care of its parents, which is like a spiritual womb, for so long as man has not the use of reason, he differs not from an irrational animal; so that even as an ox or a horse belongs to someone who, according to the civil law, can use them when he likes, as his own instrument, so, according to the natural law, a son, before coming to the use of reason, is under his father's care. Hence it would be contrary to natural justice, if a child, before coming to the use of reason, were to be taken away from its parents' custody, or anything done to it against its parents' wish. As soon, however, as it begins to have the use of its free-will, it begins to belong to itself, and is able to look after itself, in matters concerning the Divine or the natural law, and then it should be induced, not by compulsion but by persuasion, to embrace the faith: it can then consent to the faith, and be baptized, even against its parents' wish; but not before it comes to the use of reason. Hence it is said of the children of the fathers of old that they were saved in the faith of their parents; whereby we are given to understand that it is the parents' duty to look after the salvation of their children, especially before they come to the use of reason. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 12 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in vinculo matrimoniali uterque coniugum habet usum liberi arbitrii, et uterque potest invito altero fidei assentire. Sed hoc non habet locum in puero antequam habeat usum rationis. Sed postquam habet usum rationis, tunc tenet similitudo, si converti voluerit. | Reply to Objection 1. In the marriage bond, both husband and wife have the use of the free-will, and each can assent to the faith without the other's consent. But this does not apply to a child before it comes to the use of reason: yet the comparison holds good after the child has come to the use of reason, if it is willing to be converted. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 12 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod a morte naturali non est aliquis eripiendus contra ordinem iuris civilis, puta, si aliquis a suo iudice condemnetur ad mortem temporalem, nullus debet eum violenter eripere. Unde nec aliquis debet irrumpere ordinem iuris naturalis, quo filius est sub cura patris, ut eum liberet a periculo mortis aeternae. | Reply to Objection 2. No one should be snatched from natural death against the order of civil law: for instance, if a man were condemned by the judge to temporal death, nobody ought to rescue him by violence: hence no one ought to break the order of the natural law, whereby a child is in the custody of its father, in order to rescue it from the danger of everlasting death. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 12 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Iudaei sunt servi principum servitute civili, quae non excludit ordinem iuris naturalis vel divini. | Reply to Objection 3. Jews are bondsmen of princes by civil bondage, which does not exclude the order of natural or Divine law. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 12 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod homo ordinatur ad Deum per rationem, per quam eum cognoscere potest. Unde puer, antequam usum rationis habeat, naturali ordine ordinatur in Deum per rationem parentum, quorum curae naturaliter subiacet; et secundum eorum dispositionem sunt circa ipsum divina agenda. | Reply to Objection 4. Man is directed to God by his reason, whereby he can know Him. Hence a child before coming to the use of reason, in the natural order of things, is directed to God by its parents' reason, under whose care it lies by nature: and it is for them to dispose of the child in all matters relating to God. |
| IIª-IIae q. 10 a. 12 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod periculum quod sequitur de praedicatione omissa non imminet nisi eis quibus commissum est officium praedicandi, unde in Ezechiel praemittitur, speculatorem dedi te filiis Israel. Providere autem pueris infidelium de sacramentis salutis pertinet ad parentes eorum. Unde eis imminet periculum si, propter subtractionem sacramentorum, eorum parvuli detrimentum salutis patiantur. | Reply to Objection 5. The peril that ensues from the omission of preaching, threatens only those who are entrusted with the duty of preaching. Hence it had already been said (Ezekiel 3:17): "I have made thee a watchman to the children [Vulgate: 'house'] of Israel." On the other hand, to provide the sacraments of salvation for the children of unbelievers is the duty of their parents. Hence it is they whom the danger threatens, if through being deprived of the sacraments their children fail to obtain salvation. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 pr. Deinde considerandum est de haeresi. Circa quam quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum haeresis sit infidelitatis species. Secundo, de materia eius circa quam est. Tertio, utrum haeretici sint tolerandi. Quarto, utrum revertentes sint recipiendi. | Question 11. Heresy Is heresy a kind of unbelief? The matter about which it is Should heretics be tolerated? Should converts be received? |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haeresis non sit infidelitatis species. Infidelitas enim in intellectu est, ut supra dictum est. Sed haeresis non videtur ad intellectum pertinere, sed magis ad vim appetitivam. Dicit enim Hieronymus, et habetur in decretis, XXIV, qu. III, haeresis Graece ab electione dicitur, quod scilicet eam sibi unusquisque eligat disciplinam quam putat esse meliorem, electio autem est actus appetitivae virtutis, ut supra dictum est. Ergo haeresis non est infidelitatis species. | Objection 1. It would seem that heresy is not a species of unbelief. For unbelief is in the understanding, as stated above (Question 10, Article 2). Now heresy would seem not to pertain to the understanding, but rather to the appetitive power; for Jerome says on Galatians 5:19: [Cf. Decretals xxiv, qu. iii, cap. 27 "The works of the flesh are manifest: Heresy is derived from a Greek word meaning choice, whereby a man makes choice of that school which he deems best." But choice is an act of the appetitive power, as stated above (I-II, 13, 1). Therefore heresy is not a species of unbelief. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, vitium praecipue accipit speciem a fine, unde philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., quod ille qui moechatur ut furetur, magis est fur quam moechus. Sed finis haeresis est commodum temporale, et maxime principatus et gloria, quod pertinet ad vitium superbiae vel cupiditatis, dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de Util. Cred., quod haereticus est qui alicuius temporalis commodi, et maxime gloriae principatusque sui gratia, falsas ac novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur. Ergo haeresis non est species infidelitatis, sed magis superbiae. | Objection 2. Further, vice takes its species chiefly from its end; hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 2) that "he who commits adultery that he may steal, is a thief rather than an adulterer." Now the end of heresy is temporal profit, especially lordship and glory, which belong to the vice of pride or covetousness: for Augustine says (De Util. Credendi i) that "a heretic is one who either devises or follows false and new opinions, for the sake of some temporal profit, especially that he may lord and be honored above others." Therefore heresy is a species of pride rather than of unbelief. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, infidelitas, cum sit in intellectu, non videtur ad carnem pertinere. Sed haeresis pertinet ad opera carnis, dicit enim apostolus, ad Gal. V, manifesta sunt opera carnis, quae sunt fornicatio, immunditia; et inter cetera postmodum subdit, dissensiones, sectae, quae sunt idem quod haereses. Ergo haeresis non est infidelitatis species. | Objection 3. Further, since unbelief is in the understanding, it would seem not to pertain to the flesh. Now heresy belongs to the works of the flesh, for the Apostle says (Galatians 5:19): "The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness," and among the others, he adds, "dissensions, sects," which are the same as heresies. Therefore heresy is not a species of unbelief. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod falsitas veritati opponitur. Sed haereticus est qui falsas vel novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur. Ergo opponitur veritati, cui fides innititur. Ergo sub infidelitate continetur. | On the contrary, Falsehood is contrary to truth. Now a heretic is one who devises or follows false or new opinions. Therefore heresy is opposed to the truth, on which faith is founded; and consequently it is a species of unbelief. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod nomen haeresis, sicut dictum est, electionem importat. Electio autem, ut supra dictum est, est eorum quae sunt ad finem, praesupposito fine. In credendis autem voluntas assentit alicui vero tanquam proprio bono, ut ex supradictis patet. Unde quod est principale verum habet rationem finis ultimi, quae autem secundaria sunt habent rationem eorum quae sunt ad finem. Quia vero quicumque credit alicuius dicto assentit, principale videtur esse, et quasi finis, in unaquaque credulitate ille cuius dicto assentitur, quasi autem secundaria sunt ea quae quis tenendo vult alicui assentire. Sic igitur qui recte fidem Christianam habet sua voluntate assentit Christo in his quae vere ad eius doctrinam pertinent. A rectitudine igitur fidei Christianae dupliciter aliquis potest deviare. Uno modo, quia ipsi Christo non vult assentire, et hic habet quasi malam voluntatem circa ipsum finem. Et hoc pertinet ad speciem infidelitatis Paganorum et Iudaeorum. Alio modo, per hoc quod intendit quidem Christo assentire, sed deficit in eligendo ea quibus Christo assentiat, quia non eligit ea quae sunt vere a Christo tradita, sed ea quae sibi propria mens suggerit. Et ideo haeresis est infidelitatis species pertinens ad eos qui fidem Christi profitentur, sed eius dogmata corrumpunt. | I answer that, The word heresy as stated in the first objection denotes a choosing. Now choice as stated above (I-II, 13, 3) is about things directed to the end, the end being presupposed. Now, in matters of faith, the will assents to some truth, as to its proper good, as was shown above (Question 4, Article 3): wherefore that which is the chief truth, has the character of last end, while those which are secondary truths, have the character of being directed to the end. Now, whoever believes, assents to someone's words; so that, in every form of unbelief, the person to whose words assent is given seems to hold the chief place and to be the end as it were; while the things by holding which one assents to that person hold a secondary place. Consequently he that holds the Christian faith aright, assents, by his will, to Christ, in those things which truly belong to His doctrine. Accordingly there are two ways in which a man may deviate from the rectitude of the Christian faith. First, because he is unwilling to assent to Christ: and such a man has an evil will, so to say, in respect of the very end. This belongs to the species of unbelief in pagans and Jews. Secondly, because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind. Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc modo electio pertinet ad infidelitatem sicut et voluntas ad fidem, ut supra dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1. Choice regards unbelief in the same way as the will regards faith, as stated above. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod vitia habent speciem ex fine proximo, sed ex fine remoto habent genus et causam. Sicut cum aliquis moechatur ut furetur, est ibi quidem species moechiae ex proprio fine et obiecto, sed ex fine ultimo ostenditur quod moechia ex furto oritur, et sub eo continetur sicut effectus sub causa vel sicut species sub genere, ut patet ex his quae supra de actibus dicta sunt in communi. Unde et similiter in proposito finis proximus haeresis est adhaerere falsae sententiae propriae, et ex hoc speciem habet. Sed ex fine remoto ostenditur causa eius, scilicet quod oritur ex superbia vel cupiditate. | Reply to Objection 2. Vices take their species from their proximate end, while, from their remote end, they take their genus and cause. Thus in the case of adultery committed for the sake of theft, there is the species of adultery taken from its proper end and object; but the ultimate end shows that the act of adultery is both the result of the theft, and is included under it, as an effect under its cause, or a species under its genus, as appears from what we have said about acts in general (I-II, 18, 7). Wherefore, as to the case in point also, the proximate end of heresy is adherence to one's own false opinion, and from this it derives its species, while its remote end reveals its cause, viz. that it arises from pride or covetousness. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut haeresis dicitur ab eligendo, ita secta a sectando, sicut Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., et ideo haeresis et secta idem sunt. Et utrumque pertinet ad opera carnis, non quidem quantum ad ipsum actum infidelitatis respectu proximi obiecti, sed ratione causae, quae est vel appetitus finis indebiti, secundum quod oritur ex superbia vel cupiditate, ut dictum est; vel etiam aliqua phantastica illusio, quae est errandi principium, ut etiam philosophus dicit, in IV Metaphys. Phantasia autem quodammodo ad carnem pertinet, inquantum actus eius est cum organo corporali. | Reply to Objection 3. Just as heresy is so called from its being a choosing [From the Greek airein [hairein], to cut off], so does sect derive its name from its being a cutting off [secando], as Isidore states (Etym. viii, 3). Wherefore heresy and sect are the same thing, and each belongs to the works of the flesh, not indeed by reason of the act itself of unbelief in respect of its proximate object, but by reason of its cause, which is either the desire of an undue end in which way it arises from pride or covetousness, as stated in the second objection, or some illusion of the imagination (which gives rise to error, as the Philosopher states in Metaph. iv; Ed. Did. iii, 5), for this faculty has a certain connection with the flesh, in as much as its act is independent on a bodily organ. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haeresis non sit proprie circa ea quae sunt fidei. Sicut enim sunt haereses et sectae in Christianis, ita etiam fuerunt in Iudaeis et Pharisaeis, sicut Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol. Sed eorum dissensiones non erant circa ea quae sunt fidei. Ergo haeresis non est circa ea quae sunt fidei sicut circa propriam materiam. | Objection 1. It would seem that heresy is not properly about matters of faith. For just as there are heresies and sects among Christians, so were there among the Jews, and Pharisees, as Isidore observes (Etym. viii, 3,4,5). Now their dissensions were not about matters of faith. Therefore heresy is not about matters of faith, as though they were its proper matter. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, materia fidei sunt res quae creduntur. Sed haeresis non solum est circa res, sed etiam circa verba, et circa expositiones sacrae Scripturae. Dicit enim Hieronymus quod quicumque aliter Scripturam intelligit quam sensus spiritus sancti efflagitat, a quo scripta est, licet ab Ecclesia non recesserit, tamen haereticus appellari potest, et alibi dicit quod ex verbis inordinate prolatis fit haeresis. Ergo haeresis non est proprie circa materiam fidei. | Objection 2. Further, the matter of faith is the thing believed. Now heresy is not only about things, but also about works, and about interpretations of Holy Writ. For Jerome says on Galatians 5:20 that "whoever expounds the Scriptures in any sense but that of the Holy Ghost by Whom they were written, may be called a heretic, though he may not have left the Church": and elsewhere he says that "heresies spring up from words spoken amiss." [St. Thomas quotes this saying elsewhere, in Sent. iv, D, 13, and III, 16, 8, but it is not to be found in St. Jerome's works.] Therefore heresy is not properly about the matter of faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, etiam circa ea quae ad fidem pertinent inveniuntur quandoque sacri doctores dissentire, sicut Hieronymus et Augustinus circa cessationem legalium. Et tamen hoc est absque vitio haeresis. Ergo haeresis non est proprie circa materiam fidei. | Objection 3. Further, we find the holy doctors differing even about matters pertaining to the faith, for example Augustine and Jerome, on the question about the cessation of the legal observances: and yet this was without any heresy on their part. Therefore heresy is not properly about the matter of faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, contra Manichaeos, qui in Ecclesia Christi morbidum aliquid pravumque quid sapiunt, si correcti ut sanum rectumque sapiant, resistant contumaciter, suaque pestifera et mortifera dogmata emendare nolunt, sed defendere persistunt, haeretici sunt. Sed pestifera et mortifera dogmata non sunt nisi illa quae opponuntur dogmatibus fidei, per quam iustus vivit, ut dicitur Rom. I. Ergo haeresis est circa ea quae sunt fidei sicut circa propriam materiam. | On the contrary, Augustine says against the Manichees [Cf. De Civ. Dei xviii, 1]: "In Christ's Church, those are heretics, who hold mischievous and erroneous opinions, and when rebuked that they may think soundly and rightly, offer a stubborn resistance, and, refusing to mend their pernicious and deadly doctrines, persist in defending them." Now pernicious and deadly doctrines are none but those which are contrary to the dogmas of faith, whereby "the just man liveth" (Romans 1:17). Therefore heresy is about matters of faith, as about its proper matter. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod de haeresi nunc loquimur secundum quod importat corruptionem fidei Christianae. Non autem ad corruptionem fidei Christianae pertinet si aliquis habeat falsam opinionem in his quae non sunt fidei, puta in geometricalibus vel in aliis huiusmodi, quae omnino ad fidem pertinere non possunt, sed solum quando aliquis habet falsam opinionem circa ea quae ad fidem pertinent. Ad quam aliquid pertinet dupliciter, sicut supra dictum est, uno modo, directe et principaliter, sicut articuli fidei; alio modo, indirecte et secundario, sicut ea ex quibus sequitur corruptio alicuius articuli. Et circa utraque potest esse haeresis, eo modo quo et fides. | I answer that, We are speaking of heresy now as denoting a corruption of the Christian faith. Now it does not imply a corruption of the Christian faith, if a man has a false opinion in matters that are not of faith, for instance, in questions of geometry and so forth, which cannot belong to the faith by any means; but only when a person has a false opinion about things belonging to the faith. Now a thing may be of the faith in two ways, as stated above (I, 32, 4; I-II, 1, 6, ad 1; I-II, 2, 5), in one way, directly and principally, e.g. the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g. those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sicut haereses Iudaeorum et Pharisaeorum erant circa opiniones aliquas ad Iudaismum vel Pharisaeam pertinentes, ita etiam Christianorum haereses sunt circa ea quae pertinent ad fidem Christi. | Reply to Objection 1. Just as the heresies of the Jews and Pharisees were about opinions relating to Judaism or Pharisaism, so also heresies among Christians are about matter touching the Christian faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ille dicitur aliter exponere sacram Scripturam quam spiritus sanctus efflagitat qui ad hoc expositionem sacrae Scripturae intorquet quod contrariatur ei quod est per spiritum sanctum revelatum. Unde dicitur Ezech. XIII de falsis prophetis quod perseveraverunt confirmare sermonem, scilicet per falsas expositiones Scripturae. Similiter etiam per verba quae quis loquitur suam fidem profitetur, est enim confessio actus fidei, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo si sit inordinata locutio circa ea quae sunt fidei, sequi potest ex hoc corruptio fidei. Unde Leo Papa in quadam epistola ad Proterium episcopum Alexandrinum, dicit, quia inimici Christi crucis omnibus et verbis nostris insidiantur et syllabis, nullam illis vel tenuem occasionem demus qua nos Nestoriano sensui congruere mentiantur. | Reply to Objection 2. A man is said to expound Holy Writ in another sense than that required by the Holy Ghost, when he so distorts the meaning of Holy Writ, that it is contrary to what the Holy Ghost has revealed. Hence it is written (Ezekiel 13:6) about the false prophets: "They have persisted to confirm what they have said," viz. by false interpretations of Scripture. Moreover a man professes his faith by the words that he utters, since confession is an act of faith, as stated above (Question 3, Article 1). Wherefore inordinate words about matters of faith may lead to corruption of the faith; and hence it is that Pope Leo says in a letter to Proterius, Bishop of Alexandria: "The enemies of Christ's cross lie in wait for our every deed and word, so that, if we but give them the slightest pretext, they may accuse us mendaciously of agreeing with Nestorius." |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, et habetur in decretis, XXIV, qu. III, si qui sententiam suam, quamvis falsam atque perversam, nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt, quaerunt autem cauta sollicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati cum invenerint, nequaquam sunt inter haereticos deputandi, quia scilicet non habent electionem contradicentem Ecclesiae doctrinae. Sic ergo aliqui doctores dissensisse videntur vel circa ea quorum nihil interest ad fidem utrum sic vel aliter teneatur; vel etiam in quibusdam ad fidem pertinentibus quae nondum erant per Ecclesiam determinata. Postquam autem essent auctoritate universalis Ecclesiae determinata, si quis tali ordinationi pertinaciter repugnaret, haereticus censeretur. Quae quidem auctoritas principaliter residet in summo pontifice. Dicitur enim XXIV, qu. I, quoties fidei ratio ventilatur, arbitror omnes fratres nostros et coepiscopos non nisi ad Petrum, idest sui nominis auctoritatem, referre debere. Contra cuius auctoritatem nec Hieronymus nec Augustinus nec aliquis sacrorum doctorum suam sententiam defendit. Unde dicit Hieronymus, haec est fides, Papa beatissime, quam in Catholica didicimus Ecclesia. In qua si minus perite aut parum caute forte aliquid positum est, emendari cupimus a te, qui Petri fidem et sedem tenes. Si autem haec nostra confessio apostolatus tui iudicio comprobatur, quicumque me culpare voluerit, se imperitum vel malevolum, vel etiam non Catholicum sed haereticum, comprobabit. | Reply to Objection 3. As Augustine says (Ep. xliii) and we find it stated in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. 3, can. Dixit Apostolus): "By no means should we accuse of heresy those who, however false and perverse their opinion may be, defend it without obstinate fervor, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion, when they have found the truth," because, to wit, they do not make a choice in contradiction to the doctrine of the Church. Accordingly, certain doctors seem to have differed either in matters the holding of which in this or that way is of no consequence, so far as faith is concerned, or even in matters of faith, which were not as yet defined by the Church; although if anyone were obstinately to deny them after they had been defined by the authority of the universal Church, he would be deemed a heretic. This authority resides chiefly in the Sovereign Pontiff. For we read [Decret. xxiv, qu. 1, can. Quoties]: "Whenever a question of faith is in dispute, I think, that all our brethren and fellow bishops ought to refer the matter to none other than Peter, as being the source of their name and honor, against whose authority neither Jerome nor Augustine nor any of the holy doctors defended their opinion." Hence Jerome says (Exposit. Symbol [Among the supposititious works of St. Jerome]): "This, most blessed Pope, is the faith that we have been taught in the Catholic Church. If anything therein has been incorrectly or carelessly expressed, we beg that it may be set aright by you who hold the faith and see of Peter. If however this, our profession, be approved by the judgment of your apostleship, whoever may blame me, will prove that he himself is ignorant, or malicious, or even not a catholic but a heretic." |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod haeretici sint tolerandi. Dicit enim apostolus, II ad Tim. II, servum Dei oportet mansuetum esse, cum modestia corripientem eos qui resistunt veritati, ne quando det illis poenitentiam Deus ad cognoscendam veritatem, et resipiscant a laqueis Diaboli. Sed si haeretici non tolerantur, sed morti traduntur, aufertur eis facultas poenitendi. Ergo hoc videtur esse contra praeceptum apostoli. | Objection 1. It seems that heretics ought to be tolerated. For the Apostle says (2 Timothy 2:24-25): "The servant of the Lord must not wrangle . . . with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth, if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, and they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil." Now if heretics are not tolerated but put to death, they lose the opportunity of repentance. Therefore it seems contrary to the Apostle's command. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, illud quod est necessarium in Ecclesia est tolerandum. Sed haereses sunt necessariae in Ecclesia, dicit enim apostolus, I ad Cor. XI, oportet haereses esse, ut et qui probati sunt manifesti fiant in vobis. Ergo videtur quod haeretici sunt tolerandi. | Objection 2. Further, whatever is necessary in the Church should be tolerated. Now heresies are necessary in the Church, since the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:19): "There must be . . . heresies, that they . . . who are reproved, may be manifest among you." Therefore it seems that heretics should be tolerated. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, dominus mandavit, Matth. XIII, servis suis ut zizania permitterent crescere usque ad messem, quae est finis saeculi, ut ibidem exponitur. Sed per zizania significantur haeretici, secundum expositionem sanctorum. Ergo haeretici sunt tolerandi. | Objection 3. Further, the Master commanded his servants (Matthew 13:30) to suffer the cockle "to grow until the harvest," i.e. the end of the world, as a gloss explains it. Now holy men explain that the cockle denotes heretics. Therefore heretics should be tolerated. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Tit. III, haereticum hominem, post primam et secundam correptionem, devita, sciens quia subversus est qui eiusmodi est. | On the contrary, The Apostle says (Titus 3:10-11): "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted." |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod circa haereticos duo sunt consideranda, unum quidem ex parte ipsorum; aliud ex parte Ecclesiae. Ex parte quidem ipsorum est peccatum per quod meruerunt non solum ab Ecclesia per excommunicationem separari, sed etiam per mortem a mundo excludi. Multo enim gravius est corrumpere fidem, per quam est animae vita, quam falsare pecuniam, per quam temporali vitae subvenitur. Unde si falsarii pecuniae, vel alii malefactores, statim per saeculares principes iuste morti traduntur; multo magis haeretici, statim cum de haeresi convincuntur, possent non solum excommunicari, sed et iuste occidi. Ex parte autem Ecclesiae est misericordia, ad errantium conversionem. Et ideo non statim condemnat, sed post primam et secundam correctionem, ut apostolus docet. Postmodum vero, si adhuc pertinax inveniatur, Ecclesia, de eius conversione non sperans, aliorum saluti providet, eum ab Ecclesia separando per excommunicationis sententiam; et ulterius relinquit eum iudicio saeculari a mundo exterminandum per mortem. Dicit enim Hieronymus, et habetur XXIV, qu. III, resecandae sunt putridae carnes, et scabiosa ovis a caulis repellenda, ne tota domus, massa, corpus et pecora, ardeat, corrumpatur, putrescat, intereat. Arius in Alexandria una scintilla fuit, sed quoniam non statim oppressus est, totum orbem eius flamma populata est. | I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame." |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ad modestiam illam pertinet ut primo et secundo corripiatur. Quod si redire noluerit, iam pro subverso habetur, ut patet in auctoritate apostoli inducta. | Reply to Objection 1. This very modesty demands that the heretic should be admonished a first and second time: and if he be unwilling to retract, he must be reckoned as already "subverted," as we may gather from the words of the Apostle quoted above. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod utilitas quae ex haeresibus provenit est praeter haereticorum intentionem, dum scilicet constantia fidelium comprobatur, ut apostolus dicit; et ut excutiamus pigritiam, divinas Scripturas sollicitius intuentes, sicut Augustinus dicit. Sed ex intentione eorum est corrumpere fidem, quod est maximi nocumenti. Et ideo magis respiciendum est ad id quod est per se de eorum intentione, ut excludantur; quam ad hoc quod est praeter eorum intentionem, ut sustineantur. | Reply to Objection 2. The profit that ensues from heresy is beside the intention of heretics, for it consists in the constancy of the faithful being put to the test, and "makes us shake off our sluggishness, and search the Scriptures more carefully," as Augustine states (De Gen. cont. Manich. i, 1). What they really intend is the corruption of the faith, which is to inflict very great harm indeed. Consequently we should consider what they directly intend, and expel them, rather than what is beside their intention, and so, tolerate them. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut habetur in decretis, XXIV, qu. III, aliud est excommunicatio, et aliud eradicatio. Excommunicatur enim ad hoc aliquis, ut ait apostolus, ut spiritus eius salvus fiat in die domini. Si tamen totaliter eradicentur per mortem haeretici, non est etiam contra mandatum domini, quod est in eo casu intelligendum quando non possunt extirpari zizania sine extirpatione tritici, ut supra dictum est, cum de infidelibus in communi ageretur. | Reply to Objection 3. According to Decret. (xxiv, qu. iii, can. Notandum), "to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted." A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 5:5) that his "spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord." Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord's command, which is to be understood as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (10, 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod revertentes ab haeresi sint omnino ab Ecclesia recipiendi. Dicitur enim Ierem. III, ex persona domini, fornicata es cum amatoribus multis, tamen revertere ad me, dicit dominus. Sed Ecclesiae iudicium est iudicium Dei, secundum illud Deut. I, ita parvum audietis ut magnum, neque accipietis cuiusquam personam, quia Dei iudicium est. Ergo si aliqui fornicati fuerint per infidelitatem, quae est spiritualis fornicatio, nihilominus sunt recipiendi. | Objection 1. It would seem that the Church ought in all cases to receive those who return from heresy. For it is written (Jeremiah 3:1) in the person of the Lord: "Thou hast prostituted thyself to many lovers; nevertheless return to Me saith the Lord." Now the sentence of the Church is God's sentence, according to Deuteronomy 1:17: "You shall hear the little as well as the great: neither shall you respect any man's person, because it is the judgment of God." Therefore even those who are guilty of the prostitution of unbelief which is spiritual prostitution, should be received all the same. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, dominus, Matth. XVIII, Petro mandat ut fratri peccanti dimittat non solum septies, sed usque septuagies septies, per quod intelligitur, secundum expositionem Hieronymi, quod quotiescumque aliquis peccaverit, est ei dimittendum. Ergo quotiescumque aliquis peccaverit in haeresim relapsus, erit ab Ecclesia suscipiendus. | Objection 2. Further, Our Lord commanded Peter (Matthew 18:22) to forgive his offending brother "not" only "till seven times, but till seventy times seven times," which Jerome expounds as meaning that "a man should be forgiven, as often as he has sinned." Therefore he ought to be received by the Church as often as he has sinned by falling back into heresy. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, haeresis est quaedam infidelitas. Sed alii infideles volentes converti ab Ecclesia recipiuntur. Ergo etiam haeretici sunt recipiendi. | Objection 3. Further, heresy is a kind of unbelief. Now other unbelievers who wish to be converted are received by the Church. Therefore heretics also should be received. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod decretalis dicit, quod si aliqui, post abiurationem erroris, deprehensi fuerint in abiuratam haeresim recidisse, saeculari iudicio sunt relinquendi. Non ergo ab Ecclesia sunt recipiendi. | On the contrary, The Decretal Ad abolendam (De Haereticis, cap. ix) says that "those who are found to have relapsed into the error which they had already abjured, must be left to the secular tribunal." Therefore they should not be received by the Church. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Ecclesia, secundum domini institutionem, caritatem suam extendit ad omnes, non solum amicos, verum etiam inimicos et persequentes, secundum illud Matth. V, diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos. Pertinet autem ad caritatem ut aliquis bonum proximi et velit et operetur. Est autem duplex bonum. Unum quidem spirituale, scilicet salus animae, quod principaliter respicit caritas, hoc enim quilibet ex caritate debet alii velle. Unde quantum ad hoc, haeretici revertentes, quotiescumque relapsi fuerint, ab Ecclesia recipiuntur ad poenitentiam, per quam impenditur eis via salutis. Aliud autem est bonum quod secundario respicit caritas, scilicet bonum temporale, sicuti est vita corporalis, possessio mundana, bona fama, et dignitas ecclesiastica sive saecularis. Hoc enim non tenemur ex caritate aliis velle nisi in ordine ad salutem aeternam et eorum et aliorum. Unde si aliquid de huiusmodi bonis existens in uno impedire possit aeternam salutem in multis, non oportet quod ex caritate huiusmodi bonum ei velimus, sed potius quod velimus eum illo carere, tum quia salus aeterna praeferenda est bono temporali; tum quia bonum multorum praefertur bono unius. Si autem haeretici revertentes semper reciperentur ut conservarentur in vita et aliis temporalibus bonis, posset in praeiudicium salutis aliorum hoc esse, tum quia, si relaberentur alios inficerent; tum etiam quia, si sine poena evaderent, alii securius in haeresim relaberentur; dicitur enim Eccle. VIII, ex eo quod non cito profertur contra malos sententia, absque timore ullo filii hominum perpetrant mala. Et ideo Ecclesia quidem primo revertentes ab haeresi non solum recipit ad poenitentiam, sed etiam conservat eos in vita; et interdum restituit eos dispensative ad ecclesiasticas dignitates quas prius habebant, si videantur vere conversi. Et hoc pro bono pacis frequenter legitur esse factum. Sed quando recepti iterum relabuntur, videtur esse signum inconstantiae eorum circa fidem. Et ideo ulterius redeuntes recipiuntur quidem ad poenitentiam, non tamen ut liberentur a sententia mortis. | I answer that, In obedience to Our Lord's institution, the Church extends her charity to all, not only to friends, but also to foes who persecute her, according to Matthew 5:44: "Love your enemies; do good to them that hate you." Now it is part of charity that we should both wish and work our neighbor's good. Again, good is twofold: one is spiritual, namely the health of the soul, which good is chiefly the object of charity, since it is this chiefly that we should wish for one another. Consequently, from this point of view, heretics who return after falling no matter how often, are admitted by the Church to Penance whereby the way of salvation is opened to them. The other good is that which charity considers secondarily, viz. temporal good, such as life of the body, worldly possessions, good repute, ecclesiastical or secular dignity, for we are not bound by charity to wish others this good, except in relation to the eternal salvation of them and of others. Hence if the presence of one of these goods in one individual might be an obstacle to eternal salvation in many, we are not bound out of charity to wish such a good to that person, rather should we desire him to be without it, both because eternal salvation takes precedence of temporal good, and because the good of the many is to be preferred to the good of one. Now if heretics were always received on their return, in order to save their lives and other temporal goods, this might be prejudicial to the salvation of others, both because they would infect others if they relapsed again, and because, if they escaped without punishment, others would feel more assured in lapsing into heresy. For it is written (Ecclesiastes 8:11): "For because sentence is not speedily pronounced against the evil, the children of men commit evils without any fear." For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation, restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they may have had before, should their conversion appear to be sincere: we read of this as having frequently been done for the good of peace. But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in iudicio Dei semper recipiuntur redeuntes, quia Deus scrutator est cordium, et vere redeuntes cognoscit. Sed hoc Ecclesia imitari non potest. Praesumit autem eos non vere reverti qui, cum recepti fuissent, iterum sunt relapsi. Et ideo eis viam salutis non denegat, sed a periculo mortis eos non tuetur. | Reply to Objection 1. In God's tribunal, those who return are always received, because God is a searcher of hearts, and knows those who return in sincerity. But the Church cannot imitate God in this, for she presumes that those who relapse after being once received, are not sincere in their return; hence she does not debar them from the way of salvation, but neither does she protect them from the sentence of death. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod dominus loquitur Petro de peccato in eum commisso, quod est semper dimittendum, ut fratri redeunti parcatur. Non autem intelligitur de peccato in proximum vel in Deum commisso, quod non est nostri arbitrii dimittere, ut Hieronymus dicit; sed in hoc est lege modus statutus, secundum quod congruit honori Dei et utilitati proximorum. | Reply to Objection 2. Our Lord was speaking to Peter of sins committed against oneself, for one should always forgive such offenses and spare our brother when he repents. These words are not to be applied to sins committed against one's neighbor or against God, for it is not left to our discretion to forgive such offenses, as Jerome says on Matthew 18:15, "If thy brother shall offend against thee." Yet even in this matter the law prescribes limits according as God's honor or our neighbor's good demands. |
| IIª-IIae q. 11 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod alii infideles, qui nunquam fidem acceperant, conversi ad fidem nondum ostendunt aliquod signum inconstantiae circa fidem, sicut haeretici relapsi. Et ideo non est similis ratio de utrisque. | Reply to Objection 3. When other unbelievers, who have never received the faith are converted, they do not as yet show signs of inconstancy in faith, as relapsed heretics do; hence the comparison fails. |
| IIª-IIae q. 12 pr. Deinde considerandum est de apostasia. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo, utrum apostasia ad infidelitatem pertineat. Secundo, utrum propter apostasiam a fide subditi absolvantur a dominio praesidentium apostatarum. | Question 12. Apostasy Does apostasy pertain to unbelief? On account of apostasy from the faith, are subjects absolved from allegiance to an apostate prince? |
| IIª-IIae q. 12 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod apostasia non pertineat ad infidelitatem. Illud enim quod est omnis peccati principium non videtur ad infidelitatem pertinere, quia multa peccata sine infidelitate existunt. Sed apostasia videtur esse omnis peccati principium, dicitur enim Eccli. X, initium superbiae hominis apostatare a Deo; et postea subditur, initium omnis peccati superbia. Ergo apostasia non pertinet ad infidelitatem. | Objection 1. It would seem that apostasy does not pertain to unbelief. For that which is the origin of all sins, does not, seemingly, pertain to unbelief, since many sins there are without unbelief. Now apostasy seems to be the origin of every sin, for it is written (Sirach 10:14): "The beginning of the pride of man is apostasy [Douay: 'to fall off'] from God," and further on, (Sirach 10:15): "Pride is the beginning of all sin." Therefore apostasy does not pertain to unbelief. |
| IIª-IIae q. 12 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, infidelitas in intellectu consistit. Sed apostasia magis videtur consistere in exteriori opere vel sermone, aut etiam in interiori voluntate, dicitur enim Prov. VI, homo apostata vir inutilis, gradiens ore perverso, annuit oculis, terit pede, digito loquitur, pravo corde machinatur malum, et in omni tempore iurgia seminat. Si quis etiam se circumcideret, vel sepulcrum Mahumeti adoraret, apostata reputaretur. Ergo apostasia non pertinet directe ad infidelitatem. | Objection 2. Further, unbelief is an act of the understanding: whereas apostasy seems rather to consist in some outward deed or utterance, or even in some inward act of the will, for it is written (Proverbs 6:12-14): "A man that is an apostate, an unprofitable man walketh with a perverse mouth. He winketh with the eyes, presseth with the foot, speaketh with the finger. With a wicked heart he deviseth evil, and at all times he soweth discord." Moreover if anyone were to have himself circumcised, or to worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate. Therefore apostasy does not pertain to unbelief. |
| IIª-IIae q. 12 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, haeresis, quia ad infidelitatem pertinet, est quaedam determinata species infidelitatis. Si ergo apostasia ad infidelitatem pertineret, sequeretur quod esset quaedam determinata species infidelitatis. Quod non videtur, secundum praedicta. Non ergo apostasia ad infidelitatem pertinet. | Objection 3. Further, heresy, since it pertains to unbelief, is a determinate species of unbelief. If then, apostasy pertained to unbelief, it would follow that it is a determinate species of unbelief, which does not seem to agree with what has been said (10, 5). Therefore apostasy does not pertain to unbelief. |
| IIª-IIae q. 12 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. VI, multi ex discipulis eius abierunt retro, quod est apostatare, de quibus supra dixerat dominus, sunt quidam ex vobis qui non credunt. Ergo apostasia pertinet ad infidelitatem. | On the contrary, It is written (John 6:67): "Many of his disciples went back," i.e. apostatized, of whom Our Lord had said previously (John 6:65): "There are some of you that believe not." Therefore apostasy pertains to unbelief. |
| IIª-IIae q. 12 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod apostasia importat retrocessionem quandam a Deo. Quae quidem diversimode fit, secundum diversos modos quibus homo Deo coniungitur. Primo namque coniungitur homo Deo per fidem; secundo, per debitam et subiectam voluntatem ad obediendum praeceptis eius; tertio, per aliqua specialia ad supererogationem pertinentia, sicut per religionem et clericaturam vel sacrum ordinem. Remoto autem posteriori remanet prius, sed non convertitur. Contingit ergo aliquem apostatare a Deo retrocedendo a religione quam professus est, vel ab ordine quem suscepit, et haec dicitur apostasia religionis seu ordinis. Contingit etiam aliquem apostatare a Deo per mentem repugnantem divinis mandatis. Quibus duabus apostasiis existentibus, adhuc potest remanere homo Deo coniunctus per fidem. Sed si a fide discedat, tunc omnino a Deo retrocedere videtur. Et ideo simpliciter et absolute est apostasia per quam aliquis discedit a fide, quae vocatur apostasia perfidiae. Et per hunc modum apostasia simpliciter dicta ad infidelitatem pertinet. | I answer that, Apostasy denotes a backsliding from God. This may happen in various ways according to the different kinds of union between man and God. For, in the first place, man is united to God by faith; secondly, by having his will duly submissive in obeying His commandments; thirdly, by certain special things pertaining to supererogation such as the religious life, the clerical state, or Holy Orders. Now if that which follows be removed, that which precedes, remains, but the converse does not hold. Accordingly a man may apostatize from God, by withdrawing from the religious life to which he was bound by profession, or from the Holy Order which he had received: and this is called "apostasy from religious life" or "Orders." A man may also apostatize from God, by rebelling in his mind against the Divine commandments: and though man may apostatize in both the above ways, he may still remain united to God by faith. But if he give up the faith, then he seems to turn away from God altogether: and consequently, apostasy simply and absolutely is that whereby a man withdraws from the faith, and is called "apostasy of perfidy." On this way apostasy, simply so called, pertains to unbelief. |
| IIª-IIae q. 12 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de secunda apostasia, quae importat voluntatem a mandatis Dei resilientem, quae invenitur in omni peccato mortali. | Reply to Objection 1. This objection refers to the second kind of apostasy, which denotes an act of the will in rebellion against God's commandments, an act that is to be found in every mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 12 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ad fidem pertinet non solum credulitas cordis, sed etiam protestatio interioris fidei per exteriora verba et facta, nam confessio est actus fidei. Et per hunc etiam modum quaedam exteriora verba vel opera ad infidelitatem pertinent, inquantum sunt infidelitatis signa, per modum quo signum sanitatis sanum dicitur. Auctoritas autem inducta, etsi possit intelligi de omni apostasia, verissime tamen convenit in apostasia a fide. Quia enim fides est primum fundamentum sperandarum rerum, et sine fide impossibile est placere Deo; sublata fide, nihil remanet in homine quod possit esse utile ad salutem aeternam; et propter hoc primo dicitur, homo apostata vir inutilis. Fides etiam est vita animae, secundum illud Rom. I, iustus ex fide vivit. Sicut ergo, sublata vita corporali, omnia membra et partes hominis a debita dispositione recedunt; ita, sublata vita iustitiae, quae est per fidem, apparet inordinatio in omnibus membris. Et primo quidem in ore, per quod maxime manifestatur cor; secundo, in oculis; tertio, in instrumentis motus; quarto, in voluntate, quae ad malum tendit. Et ex his sequitur quod iurgia seminet, alios intendens separare a fide, sicut et ipse recessit. | Reply to Objection 2. It belongs to faith not only that the heart should believe, but also that external words and deeds should bear witness to the inward faith, for confession is an act of faith. On this way too, certain external words or deeds pertain to unbelief, in so far as they are signs of unbelief, even as a sign of health is said itself to be healthy. Now although the authority quoted may be understood as referring to every kind of apostate, yet it applies most truly to an apostate from the faith. For since faith is the first foundation of things to be hoped for, and since, without faith it is "impossible to please God"; when once faith is removed, man retains nothing that may be useful for the obtaining of eternal salvation, for which reason it is written (Proverbs 6:12): "A man that is an apostate, an unprofitable man": because faith is the life of the soul, according to Romans 1:17: "The just man liveth by faith." Therefore, just as when the life of the body is taken away, man's every member and part loses its due disposition, so when the life of justice, which is by faith, is done away, disorder appears in all his members. First, in his mouth, whereby chiefly his mind stands revealed; secondly, in his eyes; thirdly, in the instrument of movement; fourthly, in his will, which tends to evil. The result is that "he sows discord," endeavoring to sever others from the faith even as he severed himself. |
| IIª-IIae q. 12 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod species alicuius qualitatis vel formae non diversificatur per hoc quod est terminus motus a quo vel ad quem, sed potius e converso secundum terminos motuum species attenduntur. Apostasia autem respicit infidelitatem ut terminum ad quem est motus recedentis a fide. Unde apostasia non importat determinatam speciem infidelitatis, sed quandam circumstantiam aggravantem, secundum illud II Pet. II, melius erat eis veritatem non cognoscere quam post agnitam retroire. | Reply to Objection 3. The species of a quality or form are not diversified by the fact of its being the term "wherefrom" or "whereto" of movement: on the contrary, it is the movement that takes its species from the terms. Now apostasy regards unbelief as the term "whereto" of the movement of withdrawal from the faith; wherefore apostasy does not imply a special kind of unbelief, but an aggravating circumstance thereof, according to 2 Peter 2:21: "It had been better for them not to know the truth [Vulgate: 'the way of justice'], than after they had known it, to turn back." |
| IIª-IIae q. 12 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod princeps propter apostasiam a fide non amittat dominium in subditos, quin ei teneantur obedire. Dicit enim Ambrosius quod Iulianus imperator, quamvis esset apostata, habuit tamen sub se Christianos milites, quibus cum dicebat, producite aciem pro defensione reipublicae, obediebant ei. Ergo propter apostasiam principis subditi non absolvuntur ab eius dominio. | Objection 1. It would seem that a prince does not so forfeit his dominion over his subjects, on account of apostasy from the faith, that they no longer owe him allegiance. For Ambrose [St. Augustine, Super Psalm 124:3 says that the Emperor Julian, though an apostate, nevertheless had under him Christian soldiers, who when he said to them, "Fall into line for the defense of the republic," were bound to obey. Therefore subjects are not absolved from their allegiance to their prince on account of his apostasy. |
| IIª-IIae q. 12 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, apostata a fide infidelis est. Sed infidelibus dominis inveniuntur aliqui sancti viri fideliter servisse, sicut Ioseph Pharaoni, et Daniel Nabuchodonosor, et Mardochaeus Assuero. Ergo propter apostasiam a fide non est dimittendum quin principi obediatur a subditis. | Objection 2. Further, an apostate from the faith is an unbeliever. Now we find that certain holy men served unbelieving masters; thus Joseph served Pharaoh, Daniel served Nabuchodonosor, and Mardochai served Assuerus. Therefore apostasy from the faith does not release subjects from allegiance to their sovereign. |
| IIª-IIae q. 12 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut per apostasiam a fide receditur a Deo, ita per quodlibet peccatum. Si ergo propter apostasiam a fide perderent principes ius imperandi subditis fidelibus, pari ratione propter alia peccata hoc amitterent. Sed hoc patet esse falsum. Non ergo propter apostasiam a fide est recedendum ab obedientia principum. | Objection 3. Further, just as by apostasy from the faith, a man turns away from God, so does every sin. Consequently if, on account of apostasy from the faith, princes were to lose their right to command those of their subjects who are believers, they would equally lose it on account of other sins: which is evidently not the case. Therefore we ought not to refuse allegiance to a sovereign on account of his apostatizing from the faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 12 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius VII dicit, nos, sanctorum praedecessorum statuta tenentes, eos qui excommunicatis fidelitate aut sacramento sunt constricti, apostolica auctoritate a sacramento absolvimus, et ne sibi fidelitatem observent omnibus modis prohibemus, quousque ad satisfactionem veniant. Sed apostatae a fide sunt excommunicati, sicut et haeretici, ut dicit decretalis ad abolendam. Ergo principibus apostatantibus a fide non est obediendum. | On the contrary, Gregory VII says (Council, Roman V): "Holding to the institutions of our holy predecessors, we, by our apostolic authority, absolve from their oath those who through loyalty or through the sacred bond of an oath owe allegiance to excommunicated persons: and we absolutely forbid them to continue their allegiance to such persons, until these shall have made amends." Now apostates from the faith, like heretics, are excommunicated, according to the Decretal [Extra, De Haereticis, cap. Ad abolendam]. Therefore princes should not be obeyed when they have apostatized from the faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 12 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, infidelitas secundum seipsam non repugnat dominio, eo quod dominium introductum est de iure gentium, quod est ius humanum; distinctio autem fidelium et infidelium est secundum ius divinum, per quod non tollitur ius humanum. Sed aliquis per infidelitatem peccans potest sententialiter ius dominii amittere, sicut et quandoque propter alias culpas. Ad Ecclesiam autem non pertinet punire infidelitatem in illis qui nunquam fidem susceperunt, secundum illud apostoli, I ad Cor. V, quid mihi de his qui foris sunt iudicare? Sed infidelitatem illorum qui fidem susceperunt potest sententialiter punire. Et convenienter in hoc puniuntur quod subditis fidelibus dominari non possint, hoc enim vergere posset in magnam fidei corruptionem; quia, ut dictum est, homo apostata suo corde machinatur malum et iurgia seminat, intendens homines separare a fide. Et ideo quam cito aliquis per sententiam denuntiatur excommunicatus propter apostasiam a fide, ipso facto eius subditi sunt absoluti a dominio eius et iuramento fidelitatis quo ei tenebantur. | I answer that, As stated above (Question 10, Article 10), unbelief, in itself, is not inconsistent with dominion, since dominion is a device of the law of nations which is a human law: whereas the distinction between believers and unbelievers is of Divine right, which does not annul human right. Nevertheless a man who sins by unbelief may be sentenced to the loss of his right of dominion, as also, sometimes, on account of other sins. Now it is not within the competency of the Church to punish unbelief in those who have never received the faith, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Corinthians 5:12): "What have I to do to judge them that are without?" She can, however, pass sentence of punishment on the unbelief of those who have received the faith: and it is fitting that they should be punished by being deprived of the allegiance of their subjects: for this same allegiance might conduce to great corruption of the faith, since, as was stated above (1, Objection 2), "a man that is an apostate . . . with a wicked heart deviseth evil, and . . . soweth discord," in order to sever others from the faith. Consequently, as soon as sentence of excommunication is passed on a man on account of apostasy from the faith, his subjects are "ipso facto" absolved from his authority and from the oath of allegiance whereby they were bound to him. |
| IIª-IIae q. 12 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illo tempore Ecclesia, in sui novitate, nondum habebat potestatem terrenos principes compescendi. Et ideo toleravit fideles Iuliano apostatae obedire in his quae non erant contra fidem, ut maius fidei periculum vitaretur. | Reply to Objection 1. At that time the Church was but recently instituted, and had not, as yet, the power of curbing earthly princes; and so she allowed the faithful to obey Julian the Apostate, in matters that were not contrary to the faith, in order to avoid incurring a yet greater danger. |
| IIª-IIae q. 12 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod alia ratio est de aliis infidelibus, qui nunquam fidem susceperunt, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 2. As stated in the article, it is not a question of those unbelievers who have never received the faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 12 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod apostasia a fide totaliter separat hominem a Deo, ut dictum est, quod non contingit in quibuscumque aliis peccatis. | Reply to Objection 3. Apostasy from the faith severs man from God altogether, as stated above (Article 1), which is not the case in any other sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 pr. Deinde considerandum est de peccato blasphemiae, quod opponitur confessioni fidei. Et primo, de blasphemia in generali; secundo, de blasphemia quae dicitur peccatum in spiritum sanctum. Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum blasphemia opponatur confessioni fidei. Secundo, utrum blasphemia semper sit peccatum mortale. Tertio, utrum blasphemia sit maximum peccatorum. Quarto, utrum blasphemia sit in damnatis. | Question 13. The sin of blasphemy, in general Is blasphemy opposed to the confession of faith? Is blasphemy always a mortal sin? Is blasphemy the most grievous sin? Is blasphemy in the damned? |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod blasphemia non opponatur confessioni fidei. Nam blasphemare est contumeliam vel aliquod convicium inferre in iniuriam creatoris. Sed hoc magis pertinet ad malevolentiam contra Deum quam ad infidelitatem. Ergo blasphemia non opponitur confessioni fidei. | Objection 1. It would seem that blasphemy is not opposed to the confession of faith. Because to blaspheme is to utter an affront or insult against the Creator. Now this pertains to ill-will against God rather than to unbelief. Therefore blasphemy is not opposed to the confession of faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, ad Ephes. IV, super illud, blasphemia tollatur a vobis, dicit Glossa, quae fit in Deum vel in sanctos. Sed confessio fidei non videtur esse nisi de his quae pertinent ad Deum, qui est fidei obiectum. Ergo blasphemia non semper opponitur confessioni fidei. | Objection 2. Further, on Ephesians 4:31, "Let blasphemy . . . be put away from you," a gloss says, "that which is committed against God or the saints." But confession of faith, seemingly, is not about other things than those pertaining to God, Who is the object of faith. Therefore blasphemy is not always opposed to the confession of faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, a quibusdam dicitur quod sunt tres blasphemiae species, quarum una est cum attribuitur Deo quod ei non convenit; secunda est cum ab eo removetur quod ei convenit; tertia est cum attribuitur creaturae quod Deo appropriatur. Et sic videtur quod blasphemia non solum sit circa Deum, sed etiam circa creaturas. Fides autem habet Deum pro obiecto. Ergo blasphemia non opponitur confessioni fidei. | Objection 3. Further, according to some, there are three kinds of blasphemy. The first of these is when something unfitting is affirmed of God; the second is when something fitting is denied of Him; and the third, when something proper to God is ascribed to a creature, so that, seemingly, blasphemy is not only about God, but also about His creatures. Now the object of faith is God. Therefore blasphemy is not opposed to confession of faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, I ad Tim. I, prius fui blasphemus et persecutor; et postea subdit, ignorans feci in incredulitate. Ex quo videtur quod blasphemia ad infidelitatem pertineat. | On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Timothy 1:12-13): "I . . . before was a blasphemer and a persecutor," and afterwards, "I did it ignorantly in" my "unbelief." Hence it seems that blasphemy pertains to unbelief. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod nomen blasphemiae importare videtur quandam derogationem alicuius excellentis bonitatis, et praecipue divinae. Deus autem, ut Dionysius dicit, I cap. de Div. Nom., est ipsa essentia bonitatis. Unde quidquid Deo convenit pertinet ad bonitatem ipsius; et quidquid ad ipsum non pertinet longe est a ratione perfectae bonitatis, quae est eius essentia. Quicumque igitur vel negat aliquid de Deo quod ei convenit, vel asserit de eo quod ei non convenit, derogat divinae bonitati. Quod quidem potest contingere dupliciter, uno quidem modo, secundum solam opinionem intellectus; alio modo, coniuncta quadam affectus detestatione, sicut e contrario fides Dei per dilectionem perficitur ipsius. Huiusmodi igitur derogatio divinae bonitatis est vel secundum intellectum tantum; vel etiam secundum affectum. Si consistat tantum in corde, est cordis blasphemia. Si autem exterius prodeat per locutionem, est oris blasphemia. Et secundum hoc blasphemia confessioni opponitur. | I answer that, The word blasphemy seems to denote the disparagement of some surpassing goodness, especially that of God. Now God, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i), is the very essence of true goodness. Hence whatever befits God, pertains to His goodness, and whatever does not befit Him, is far removed from the perfection of goodness which is His Essence. Consequently whoever either denies anything befitting God, or affirms anything unbefitting Him, disparages the Divine goodness. Now this may happen in two ways. On the first way it may happen merely in respect of the opinion in the intellect; in the second way this opinion is united to a certain detestation in the affections, even as, on the other hand, faith in God is perfected by love of Him. Accordingly this disparagement of the Divine goodness is either in the intellect alone, or in the affections also. If it is in thought only, it is blasphemy of the heart, whereas if it betrays itself outwardly in speech it is blasphemy is opposed to confession of faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ille qui contra Deum loquitur convicium inferre intendens, derogat divinae bonitati non solum secundum veritatem intellectus, sed etiam secundum pravitatem voluntatis detestantis et impedientis pro posse divinum honorem. Quod est blasphemia perfecta. | Reply to Objection 1. He that speaks against God, with the intention of reviling Him, disparages the Divine goodness, not only in respect of the falsehood in his intellect, but also by reason of the wickedness of his will, whereby he detests and strives to hinder the honor due to God, and this is perfect blasphemy. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod sicut Deus in sanctis suis laudatur, inquantum laudantur opera quae Deus in sanctis efficit; ita et blasphemia quae fit in sanctos ex consequenti in Deum redundat. | Reply to Objection 2. Even as God is praised in His saints, in so far as praise is given to the works which God does in His saints, so does blasphemy against the saints, redound, as a consequence, against God. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod secundum illa tria non possunt, proprie loquendo, distingui diversae species peccati blasphemiae. Attribuere enim Deo quod ei non convenit, vel removere ab eo quod ei convenit, non differt nisi secundum affirmationem et negationem. Quae quidem diversitas habitus speciem non distinguit, quia per eandem scientiam innotescit falsitas affirmationum et negationum, et per eandem ignorantiam utroque modo erratur, cum negatio probetur per affirmationem, ut habetur I Poster. Quod autem ea quae sunt Dei propria creaturis attribuantur, ad hoc pertinere videtur quod aliquid ei attribuatur quod ei non conveniat. Quidquid enim est Deo proprium est ipse Deus, attribuere ergo id quod Dei proprium est alicui creaturae est ipsum Deum dicere idem creaturae. | Reply to Objection 3. Properly speaking, the sin of blasphemy is not in this way divided into three species: since to affirm unfitting things, or to deny fitting things of God, differ merely as affirmation and negation. For this diversity does not cause distinct species of habits, since the falsehood of affirmations and negations is made known by the same knowledge, and it is the same ignorance which errs in either way, since negatives are proved by affirmatives, according to Poster. i, 25. Again to ascribe to creatures things that are proper to God, seems to amount to the same as affirming something unfitting of Him, since whatever is proper to God is God Himself: and to ascribe to a creature, that which is proper to God, is to assert that God is the same as a creature. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod blasphemia non semper sit peccatum mortale. Quia super illud ad Col. III, nunc autem deponite vos etc., dicit Glossa, post maiora prohibet minora. Et tamen subdit de blasphemia. Ergo blasphemia inter peccata minora computatur, quae sunt peccata venialia. | Objection 1. It would seem that blasphemy is not always a mortal sin. Because a gloss on the words, "Now lay you also all away," etc. (Colossians 3:8) says: "After prohibiting greater crimes he forbids lesser sins": and yet among the latter he includes blasphemy. Therefore blasphemy is comprised among the lesser, i.e. venial, sins. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, omne peccatum mortale opponitur alicui praecepto Decalogi. Sed blasphemia non videtur alicui eorum opponi. Ergo blasphemia non est peccatum mortale. | Objection 2. Further, every mortal sin is opposed to one of the precepts of the decalogue. But, seemingly, blasphemy is not contrary to any of them. Therefore blasphemy is not a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, peccata quae absque deliberatione committuntur non sunt mortalia, propter quod primi motus non sunt peccata mortalia, quia deliberationem rationis praecedunt, ut ex supradictis patet. Sed blasphemia quandoque absque deliberatione procedit. Ergo non semper est peccatum mortale. | Objection 3. Further, sins committed without deliberation, are not mortal: hence first movements are not mortal sins, because they precede the deliberation of the reason, as was shown above (I-II, 74, 3,10). Now blasphemy sometimes occurs without deliberation of the reason. Therefore it is not always a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Levit. XXIV, qui blasphemaverit nomen domini, morte moriatur. Sed poena mortis non infertur nisi pro peccato mortali. Ergo blasphemia est peccatum mortale. | On the contrary, It is written (Leviticus 24:16): "He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die." Now the death punishment is not inflicted except for a mortal sin. Therefore blasphemy is a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, peccatum mortale est per quod homo separatur a primo principio spiritualis vitae, quod est caritas Dei. Unde quaecumque caritati repugnant, ex suo genere sunt peccata mortalia. Blasphemia autem secundum genus suum repugnat caritati divinae, quia derogat divinae bonitati, ut dictum est, quae est obiectum caritatis. Et ideo blasphemia est peccatum mortale ex suo genere. | I answer that, As stated above (I-II, 72, 5), a mortal sin is one whereby a man is severed from the first principle of spiritual life, which principle is the charity of God. Therefore whatever things are contrary to charity, are mortal sins in respect of their genus. Now blasphemy, as to its genus, is opposed to Divine charity, because, as stated above (Article 1), it disparages the Divine goodness, which is the object of charity. Consequently blasphemy is a mortal sin, by reason of its genus. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Glossa illa non est sic intelligenda quasi omnia quae subduntur sint peccata minora. Sed quia, cum supra non expressisset nisi maiora, postmodum etiam quaedam minora subdit, inter quae etiam quaedam de maioribus ponit. | Reply to Objection 1. This gloss is not to be understood as meaning that all the sins which follow, are mortal, but that whereas all those mentioned previously are more grievous sins, some of those mentioned afterwards are less grievous; and yet among the latter some more grievous sins are included. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, cum blasphemia opponatur confessioni fidei, ut dictum est, eius prohibitio reducitur ad prohibitionem infidelitatis, quae intelligitur in eo quod dicitur, ego sum dominus Deus tuus et cetera. Vel prohibetur per id quod dicitur, non assumes nomen Dei tui in vanum. Magis enim in vanum assumit nomen Dei qui aliquod falsum de Deo asserit quam qui per nomen Dei aliquod falsum confirmat. | Reply to Objection 2. Since, as stated above (Article 1), blasphemy is contrary to the confession of faith, its prohibition is comprised under the prohibition of unbelief, expressed by the words: "I am the Lord thy God," etc. (Exodus 20:1). Or else, it is forbidden by the words: "Thou shalt not take the name of . . . God in vain" (Exodus 20:7). Because he who asserts something false about God, takes His name in vain even more than he who uses the name of God in confirmation of a falsehood. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod blasphemia potest absque deliberatione ex subreptione procedere dupliciter. Uno modo, quod aliquis non advertat hoc quod dicit esse blasphemiam. Quod potest contingere cum aliquis subito ex aliqua passione in verba imaginata prorumpit, quorum significationem non considerat. Et tunc est peccatum veniale, et non habet proprie rationem blasphemiae. Alio modo, quando advertit hoc esse blasphemiam, considerans significata verborum. Et tunc non excusatur a peccato mortali, sicut nec ille qui ex subito motu irae aliquem occidit iuxta se sedentem. | Reply to Objection 3. There are two ways in which blasphemy may occur unawares and without deliberation. On the first way, by a man failing to advert to the blasphemous nature of his words, and this may happen through his being moved suddenly by passion so as to break out into words suggested by his imagination, without heeding to the meaning of those words: this is a venial sin, and is not a blasphemy properly so called. On the second way, by adverting to the meaning of his words, and to their blasphemous nature: in which case he is not excused from mortal sin, even as neither is he who, in a sudden movement of anger, kills one who is sitting beside him. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatum blasphemiae non sit maximum peccatum. Malum enim dicitur quod nocet, secundum Augustinum, in Enchirid. Sed magis nocet peccatum homicidii, quod perimit vitam hominis, quam peccatum blasphemiae, quod Deo nullum nocumentum potest inferre. Ergo peccatum homicidii est gravius peccato blasphemiae. | Objection 1. It would seem that the sin of blasphemy is not the greatest sin. For, according to Augustine (Enchiridion xii), a thing is said to be evil because it does harm. Now the sin of murder, since it destroys a man's life, does more harm than the sin of blasphemy, which can do no harm to God. Therefore the sin of murder is more grievous than that of blasphemy. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, quicumque peierat inducit Deum testem falsitati, et ita videtur eum asserere esse falsum. Sed non quilibet blasphemus usque ad hoc procedit ut Deum asserat esse falsum. Ergo periurium est gravius peccatum quam blasphemia. | Objection 2. Further, a perjurer calls upon God to witness to a falsehood, and thus seems to assert that God is false. But not every blasphemer goes so far as to say that God is false. Therefore perjury is a more grievous sin than blasphemy. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, super illud Psalm., nolite extollere in altum cornu vestrum, dicit Glossa, maximum est vitium excusationis peccati. Non ergo blasphemia est maximum peccatum. | Objection 3. Further, on Psalm 74:6, "Lift not up your horn on high," a gloss says: "To excuse oneself for sin is the greatest sin of all." Therefore blasphemy is not the greatest sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Isaiae XVIII, super illud, ad populum terribilem etc., dicit Glossa, omne peccatum, blasphemiae comparatum, levius est. | On the contrary, On Isaiah 18:2, "To a terrible people," etc. a gloss says: "In comparison with blasphemy, every sin is slight." |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, blasphemia opponitur confessioni fidei. Et ideo habet in se gravitatem infidelitatis. Et aggravatur peccatum si superveniat detestatio voluntatis; et adhuc magis si prorumpat in verba; sicut et laus fidei augetur per dilectionem et confessionem. Unde, cum infidelitas sit maximum peccatum secundum suum genus, sicut supra dictum est, consequens est quod etiam blasphemia sit peccatum maximum, ad idem genus pertinens et ipsum aggravans. | I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), blasphemy is opposed to the confession of faith, so that it contains the gravity of unbelief: while the sin is aggravated if the will's detestation is added thereto, and yet more, if it breaks out into words, even as love and confession add to the praise of faith. Therefore, since, as stated above (Question 10, Article 3), unbelief is the greatest of sins in respect of its genus, it follows that blasphemy also is a very great sin, through belonging to the same genus as unbelief and being an aggravated form of that sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homicidium et blasphemia si comparentur secundum obiecta in quae peccatur, manifestum est quod blasphemia, quae est directe peccatum in Deum, praeponderat homicidio, quod est peccatum in proximum. Si autem comparentur secundum effectum nocendi, sic homicidium praeponderat, plus enim homicidium nocet proximo quam blasphemia Deo. Sed quia in gravitate culpae magis attenditur intentio voluntatis perversae quam effectus operis, ut ex supradictis patet; ideo, cum blasphemus intendat nocumentum inferre honori divino, simpliciter loquendo gravius peccat quam homicida. Homicidium tamen primum locum tenet in peccatis inter peccata in proximum commissa. | Reply to Objection 1. If we compare murder and blasphemy as regards the objects of those sins, it is clear that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more grave than murder, which is a sin against one's neighbor. On the other hand, if we compare them in respect of the harm wrought by them, murder is the graver sin, for murder does more harm to one's neighbor, than blasphemy does to God. Since, however, the gravity of a sin depends on the intention of the evil will, rather than on the effect of the deed, as was shown above (I-II, 73, 8), it follows that, as the blasphemer intends to do harm to God's honor, absolutely speaking, he sins more grievously that the murderer. Nevertheless murder takes precedence, as to punishment, among sins committed against our neighbor. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod super illud ad Ephes. IV, blasphemia tollatur a vobis, dicit Glossa peius est blasphemare quam peierare. Qui enim peierat non dicit aut sentit aliquid falsum de Deo, sicut blasphemus, sed Deum adhibet testem falsitati non tanquam aestimans Deum esse falsum testem, sed tanquam sperans quod Deus super hoc non testificetur per aliquod evidens signum. | Reply to Objection 2. A gloss on the words, "Let . . . blasphemy be put away from you" (Ephesians 4:31) says: "Blasphemy is worse than perjury." The reason is that the perjurer does not say or think something false about God, as the blasphemer does: but he calls God to witness to a falsehood, not that he deems God a false witness, but in the hope, as it were, that God will not testify to the matter by some evident sign. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod excusatio peccati est quaedam circumstantia aggravans omne peccatum, etiam ipsam blasphemiam. Et pro tanto dicitur esse maximum peccatum, quia quodlibet facit maius. | Reply to Objection 3. To excuse oneself for sin is a circumstance that aggravates every sin, even blasphemy itself: and it is called the most grievous sin, for as much as it makes every sin more grievous. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod damnati non blasphement. Detinentur enim nunc aliqui mali a blasphemando propter timorem futurarum poenarum. Sed damnati has poenas experiuntur, unde magis eas abhorrent. Ergo multo magis a blasphemando compescuntur. | Objection 1. It would seem that the damned do not blaspheme. Because some wicked men are deterred from blaspheming now, on account of the fear of future punishment. But the damned are undergoing these punishments, so that they abhor them yet more. Therefore, much more are they restrained from blaspheming. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, blasphemia, cum sit gravissimum peccatum, est maxime demeritorium. Sed in futura vita non est status merendi neque demerendi. Ergo nullus erit locus blasphemiae. | Objection 2. Further, since blasphemy is a most grievous sin, it is most demeritorious. Now in the life to come there is no state of meriting or demeriting. Therefore there will be no place for blasphemy. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, Eccle. XI dicitur quod in quocumque loco lignum ceciderit, ibi erit, ex quo patet quod post hanc vitam homini non accrescit nec meritum nec peccatum quod non habuit in hac vita. Sed multi damnabuntur qui in hac vita non fuerunt blasphemi. Ergo nec in futura vita blasphemabunt. | Objection 3. Further, it is written (Ecclesiastes 11:3) that "the tree . . . in what place soever it shall fall, there shall it be": whence it clearly follows that, after this life, man acquires neither merit nor sin, which he did not already possess in this life. Now many will be damned who were not blasphemous in this life. Neither, therefore, will they blaspheme in the life to come. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Apoc. XVI, aestuaverunt homines aestu magno, et blasphemaverunt nomen domini habentis potestatem super has plagas, ubi dicit Glossa quod in Inferno positi, quamvis sciant se pro merito puniri, dolebunt tamen quod Deus tantam potentiam habeat quod plagas eis inferat. Hoc autem esset blasphemia in praesenti. Ergo et in futuro. | On the contrary, It is written (Apocalypse 16:9): "The men were scorched with great heat, and they blasphemed the name of God, Who hath power over these plagues," and a gloss on these words says that "those who are in hell, though aware that they are deservedly punished, will nevertheless complain that God is so powerful as to torture them thus." Now this would be blasphemy in their present state: and consequently it will also be in their future state. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ad rationem blasphemiae pertinet detestatio divinae bonitatis. Illi autem qui sunt in Inferno retinebunt perversam voluntatem, aversam a Dei iustitia, in hoc quod diligunt ea pro quibus puniuntur, et vellent eis uti si possent, et odiunt poenas quae pro huiusmodi peccatis infliguntur; dolent tamen de peccatis quae commiserunt, non quia ipsa odiant, sed quia pro eis puniuntur. Sic ergo talis detestatio divinae iustitiae est in eis interior cordis blasphemia. Et credibile est quod post resurrectionem erit in eis etiam vocalis blasphemia, sicut in sanctis vocalis laus Dei. | I answer that, As stated above (A1,3), detestation of the Divine goodness is a necessary condition of blasphemy. Now those who are in hell retain their wicked will which is turned away from God's justice, since they love the things for which they are punished, would wish to use them if they could, and hate the punishments inflicted on them for those same sins. They regret indeed the sins which they have committed, not because they hate them, but because they are punished for them. Accordingly this detestation of the Divine justice is, in them, the interior blasphemy of the heart: and it is credible that after the resurrection they will blaspheme God with the tongue, even as the saints will praise Him with their voices. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homines deterrentur in praesenti a blasphemia propter timorem poenarum quas se putant evadere. Sed damnati in Inferno non sperant se posse poenas evadere. Et ideo, tanquam desperati, feruntur ad omne ad quod eis perversa voluntas suggerit. | Reply to Objection 1. In the present life men are deterred from blasphemy through fear of punishment which they think they can escape: whereas, in hell, the damned have no hope of escape, so that, in despair, they are borne towards whatever their wicked will suggests to them. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod mereri et demereri pertinent ad statum viae. Unde bona in viatoribus sunt meritoria, mala vero demeritoria. In beatis autem bona non sunt meritoria, sed pertinentia ad eorum beatitudinis praemium. Et similiter mala in damnatis non sunt demeritoria, sed pertinent ad damnationis poenam. | Reply to Objection 2. Merit and demerit belong to the state of a wayfarer, wherefore good is meritorious in them, while evil is demeritorious. On the blessed, on the other hand, good is not meritorious, but is part of their blissful reward, and, in like manner, in the damned, evil is not demeritorious, but is part of the punishment of damnation. |
| IIª-IIae q. 13 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod quilibet in peccato mortali decedens fert secum voluntatem detestantem divinam iustitiam quantum ad aliquid. Et secundum hoc poterit ei inesse blasphemia. | Reply to Objection 3. Whoever dies in mortal sin, bears with him a will that detests the Divine justice with regard to a certain thing, and in this respect there can be blasphemy in him. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 pr. Deinde considerandum est in speciali de blasphemia in spiritum sanctum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum blasphemia vel peccatum in spiritum sanctum sit idem quod peccatum ex certa malitia. Secundo, de speciebus huius peccati. Tertio, utrum sit irremissibile. Quarto, utrum aliquis possit peccare in spiritum sanctum a principio, antequam alia peccata committat. | Question 14. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost Is blasphemy or the sin against the Holy Ghost the same as the sin committed through certain malice? The species of this sin Can it be forgiven? Is it possible to begin by sinning against the Holy Ghost before committing other sins? |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatum in spiritum sanctum non sit idem quod peccatum ex certa malitia. Peccatum enim in spiritum sanctum est peccatum blasphemiae, ut patet Matth. XII. Sed non omne peccatum ex certa malitia est peccatum blasphemiae, contingit enim multa alia peccatorum genera ex certa malitia committi. Ergo peccatum in spiritum sanctum non est idem quod peccatum ex certa malitia. | Objection 1. It would seem that the sin against the Holy Ghost is not the same as the sin committed through certain malice. Because the sin against the Holy Ghost is the sin of blasphemy, according to Matthew 12:32. But not every sin committed through certain malice is a sin of blasphemy: since many other kinds of sin may be committed through certain malice. Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost is not the same as the sin committed through certain malice. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, peccatum ex certa malitia dividitur contra peccatum ex ignorantia et contra peccatum ex infirmitate. Sed peccatum in spiritum sanctum dividitur contra peccatum in filium hominis, ut patet Matth. XII. Ergo peccatum in spiritum sanctum non est idem quod peccatum ex certa malitia, quia quorum opposita sunt diversa, ipsa quoque sunt diversa. | Objection 2. Further, the sin committed through certain malice is condivided with sin committed through ignorance, and sin committed through weakness: whereas the sin against the Holy Ghost is condivided with the sin against the Son of Man (Matthew 12:32). Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost is not the same as the sin committed through certain malice, since things whose opposites differ, are themselves different. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, peccatum in spiritum sanctum est quoddam genus peccati cui determinatae species assignantur. Sed peccatum ex certa malitia non est speciale genus peccati, sed est quaedam conditio vel circumstantia generalis quae potest esse circa omnia peccatorum genera. Ergo peccatum in spiritum sanctum non est idem quod peccatum ex certa malitia. | Objection 3. Further, the sin against the Holy Ghost is itself a generic sin, having its own determinate species: whereas sin committed through certain malice is not a special kind of sin, but a condition or general circumstance of sin, which can affect any kind of sin at all. Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost is not the same as the sin committed through certain malice. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Magister dicit, XLIII dist. II Lib. Sent., quod ille peccat in spiritum sanctum cui malitia propter se placet. Hoc autem est peccare ex certa malitia. Ergo idem videtur esse peccatum ex certa malitia quod peccatum in spiritum sanctum. | On the contrary, The Master says (Sent. ii, D, 43) that "to sin against the Holy Ghost is to take pleasure in the malice of sin for its own sake." Now this is to sin through certain malice. Therefore it seems that the sin committed through certain malice is the same as the sin against the Holy Ghost. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod de peccato seu blasphemia in spiritum sanctum tripliciter aliqui loquuntur. Antiqui enim doctores, scilicet Athanasius, Hilarius, Ambrosius, Hieronymus et Chrysostomus dicunt esse peccatum in spiritum sanctum quando, ad litteram, aliquid blasphemum dicitur contra spiritum sanctum, sive spiritus sanctus accipiatur secundum quod est nomen essentiale conveniens toti Trinitati, cuius quaelibet persona et spiritus est et sanctus; sive prout est nomen personale unius in Trinitate personae. Et secundum hoc distinguitur, Matth. XII blasphemia in spiritum sanctum contra blasphemiam in filium hominis. Christus enim operabatur quaedam humanitus, comedendo, bibendo et alia huiusmodi faciendo; et quaedam divinitus, scilicet Daemones eiiciendo, mortuos suscitando, et cetera huiusmodi; quae quidem agebat et per virtutem propriae divinitatis, et per operationem spiritus sancti, quo secundum humanitatem erat repletus. Iudaei autem primo quidem dixerant blasphemiam in filium hominis, cum dicebant eum voracem, potatorem vini et publicanorum amatorem, ut habetur Matth. XI. Postmodum autem blasphemaverunt in spiritum sanctum, dum opera quae ipse operabatur virtute propriae divinitatis et per operationem spiritus sancti, attribuebant principi Daemoniorum. Et propter hoc dicuntur in spiritum sanctum blasphemasse. Augustinus autem, in libro de Verb. Dom., blasphemiam vel peccatum in spiritum sanctum dicit esse finalem impoenitentiam, quando scilicet aliquis perseverat in peccato mortali usque ad mortem. Quod quidem non solum verbo oris fit, sed etiam verbo cordis et operis, non uno sed multis. Hoc autem verbum, sic acceptum, dicitur esse contra spiritum sanctum, quia est contra remissionem peccatorum, quae fit per spiritum sanctum, qui est caritas patris et filii. Nec hoc dominus dixit Iudaeis quasi ipsi peccarent in spiritum sanctum, nondum enim erant finaliter impoenitentes. Sed admonuit eos ne, taliter loquentes, ad hoc pervenirent quod in spiritum sanctum peccarent. Et sic intelligendum est quod dicitur Marc. III, ubi, postquam dixerat, qui blasphemaverit in spiritum sanctum etc., subiungit Evangelista quoniam dicebant, spiritum immundum habet. Alii vero aliter accipiunt, dicentes peccatum vel blasphemiam in spiritum sanctum esse quando aliquis peccat contra appropriatum bonum spiritus sancti, cui appropriatur bonitas, sicut patri appropriatur potentia et filio sapientia. Unde peccatum in patrem dicunt esse quando peccatur ex infirmitate; peccatum autem in filium, quando peccatur ex ignorantia; peccatum autem in spiritum sanctum, quando peccatur ex certa malitia, idest ex ipsa electione mali, ut supra expositum est. Quod quidem contingit dupliciter. Uno modo, ex inclinatione habitus vitiosi, qui malitia dicitur, et sic non est idem peccare ex malitia quod peccare in spiritum sanctum. Alio modo contingit ex eo quod per contemptum abiicitur et removetur id quod electionem peccati poterat impedire, sicut spes per desperationem, et timor per praesumptionem, et quaedam alia huiusmodi, ut infra dicetur. Haec autem omnia quae peccati electionem impediunt, sunt effectus spiritus sancti in nobis. Et ideo sic ex malitia peccare est peccare in spiritum sanctum. | I answer that, Three meanings have been given to the sin against the Holy Ghost. For the earlier doctors, viz. Athanasius (Super Matth. xii, 32), Hilary (Can. xii in Matth.), Ambrose (Super Luc. xii, 10), Jerome (Super Matth. xii), and Chrysostom (Hom. xli in Matth.), say that the sin against the Holy Ghost is literally to utter a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, whether by Holy Spirit we understand the essential name applicable to the whole Trinity, each Person of which is a Spirit and is holy, or the personal name of one of the Persons of the Trinity, in which sense blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is distinct from the blasphemy against the Son of Man (Matthew 12:32), for Christ did certain things in respect of His human nature, by eating, drinking, and such like actions, while He did others in respect of His Godhead, by casting out devils, raising the dead, and the like: which things He did both by the power of His own Godhead and by the operation of the Holy Ghost, of Whom He was full, according to his human nature. Now the Jews began by speaking blasphemy against the Son of Man, when they said (Matthew 11:19) that He was "a glutton . . . a wine drinker," and a "friend of publicans": but afterwards they blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, when they ascribed to the prince of devils those works which Christ did by the power of His own Divine Nature and by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Augustine, however (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi), says that blasphemy or the sin against the Holy Ghost, is final impenitence when, namely, a man perseveres in mortal sin until death, and that it is not confined to utterance by word of mouth, but extends to words in thought and deed, not to one word only, but to many. Now this word, in this sense, is said to be uttered against the Holy Ghost, because it is contrary to the remission of sins, which is the work of the Holy Ghost, Who is the charity both of the Father and of the Son. Nor did Our Lord say this to the Jews, as though they had sinned against the Holy Ghost, since they were not yet guilty of final impenitence, but He warned them, lest by similar utterances they should come to sin against the Holy Ghost: and it is in this sense that we are to understand Mark 3:29-30, where after Our Lord had said: "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost," etc. the Evangelist adds, "because they said: He hath an unclean spirit." But others understand it differently, and say that the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, is a sin committed against that good which is appropriated to the Holy Ghost: because goodness is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, just a power is appropriated to the Father, and wisdom to the Son. Hence they say that when a man sins through weakness, it is a sin "against the Father"; that when he sins through ignorance, it is a sin "against the Son"; and that when he sins through certain malice, i.e. through the very choosing of evil, as explained above (I-II, 78, 1,3), it is a sin "against the Holy Ghost." Now this may happen in two ways. First by reason of the very inclination of a vicious habit which we call malice, and, in this way, to sin through malice is not the same as to sin against the Holy Ghost. On another way it happens that by reason of contempt, that which might have prevented the choosing of evil, is rejected or removed; thus hope is removed by despair, and fear by presumption, and so on, as we shall explain further on (Q 20,21). Now all these things which prevent the choosing of sin are effects of the Holy Ghost in us; so that, in this sense, to sin through malice is to sin against the Holy Ghost. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut confessio fidei non solum consistit in protestatione oris, sed etiam in protestatione operis; ita etiam blasphemia spiritus sancti potest considerari et in ore et in corde et in opere. | Reply to Objection 1. Just as the confession of faith consists in a protestation not only of words but also of deeds, so blasphemy against the Holy Ghost can be uttered in word, thought and deed. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod secundum tertiam acceptionem blasphemia in spiritum sanctum distinguitur contra blasphemiam in filium hominis secundum quod filius hominis est etiam filius Dei, idest Dei virtus et Dei sapientia. Unde secundum hoc, peccatum in filium hominis erit peccatum ex ignorantia vel ex infirmitate. | Reply to Objection 2. According to the third interpretation, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is condivided with blasphemy against the Son of Man, forasmuch as He is also the Son of God, i.e. the "power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24). Wherefore, in this sense, the sin against the Son of Man will be that which is committed through ignorance, or through weakness. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod peccatum ex certa malitia secundum quod provenit ex inclinatione habitus, non est speciale peccatum, sed quaedam generalis peccati conditio. Prout vero est ex speciali contemptu effectus spiritus sancti in nobis, habet rationem specialis peccati. Et secundum hoc etiam peccatum in spiritum sanctum est speciale genus peccati. Et similiter secundum primam expositionem. Secundum autem secundam expositionem, non est speciale genus peccati, nam finalis impoenitentia potest esse circumstantia cuiuslibet generis peccati. | Reply to Objection 3. Sin committed through certain malice, in so far as it results from the inclination of a habit, is not a special sin, but a general condition of sin: whereas, in so far as it results from a special contempt of an effect of the Holy Ghost in us, it has the character of a special sin. According to this interpretation the sin against the Holy Ghost is a special kind of sin, as also according to the first interpretation: whereas according to the second, it is not a species of sin, because final impenitence may be a circumstance of any kind of sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter assignentur sex species peccati in spiritum sanctum, scilicet desperatio, praesumptio, impoenitentia, obstinatio, impugnatio veritatis agnitae et invidentia fraternae gratiae; quas species ponit Magister, XLIII dist. II Lib. Sent. Negare enim divinam iustitiam vel misericordiam ad infidelitatem pertinet. Sed per desperationem aliquis reiicit divinam misericordiam, per praesumptionem autem divinam iustitiam. Ergo unumquodque eorum potius est species infidelitatis quam peccati in spiritum sanctum. | Objection 1. It would seem unfitting to distinguish six kinds of sin against the Holy Ghost, viz. despair, presumption, impenitence, obstinacy, resisting the known truth, envy of our brother's spiritual good, which are assigned by the Master (Sent. ii, D, 43). For to deny God's justice or mercy belongs to unbelief. Now, by despair, a man rejects God's mercy, and by presumption, His justice. Therefore each of these is a kind of unbelief rather than of the sin against the Holy Ghost. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, impoenitentia videtur respicere peccatum praeteritum, obstinatio autem peccatum futurum. Sed praeteritum vel futurum non diversificant speciem virtutis vel vitii, secundum enim eandem fidem qua credimus Christum natum, antiqui crediderunt eum nasciturum. Ergo obstinatio et impoenitentia non debent poni duae species peccati in spiritum sanctum. | Objection 2. Further, impenitence, seemingly, regards past sins, while obstinacy regards future sins. Now past and future time do not diversify the species of virtues or vices, since it is the same faith whereby we believe that Christ was born, and those of old believed that He would be born. Therefore obstinacy and impenitence should not be reckoned as two species of sin against the Holy Ghost. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, veritas et gratia per Iesum Christum facta est, ut habetur Ioan. I. Ergo videtur quod impugnatio veritatis agnitae et invidentia fraternae gratiae magis pertineant ad blasphemiam in filium hominis quam ad blasphemiam in spiritum sanctum. | Objection 3. Further, "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). Therefore it seem that resistance of the known truth, and envy of a brother's spiritual good, belong to blasphemy against the Son rather than against the Holy Ghost. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, Bernardus dicit, in libro de Dispensat. et Praecept., quod nolle obedire est resistere spiritui sancto. Glossa etiam dicit, Levit. X, quod simulata poenitentia est blasphemia spiritus sancti. Schisma etiam videtur directe opponi spiritui sancto, per quem Ecclesia unitur. Et ita videtur quod non sufficienter tradantur species peccati in spiritum sanctum. | Objection 4. Further, Bernard says (De Dispens. et Praecept. xi) that "to refuse to obey is to resist the Holy Ghost." Moreover a gloss on Leviticus 10:16, says that "a feigned repentance is a blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." Again, schism is, seemingly, directly opposed to the Holy Ghost by Whom the Church is united together. Therefore it seems that the species of sins against the Holy Ghost are insufficiently enumerated. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra, Augustinus dicit, in libro de fide ad Petrum, quod illi qui desperant de indulgentia peccatorum, vel qui sine meritis de misericordia Dei praesumunt, peccant in spiritum sanctum. Et in Enchiridio dicit quod qui in obstinatione mentis diem claudit extremum, reus est peccato in spiritum sanctum. Et in libro de Verb. Dom. dicit quod impoenitentia est peccatum in spiritum sanctum. Et in libro de Serm. Dom. in monte dicit quod invidiae facibus fraternitatem impugnare est peccare in spiritum sanctum. Et in libro de unico Bapt. dicit quod qui veritatem contemnit, aut circa fratres malignus est, quibus veritas revelatur; aut circa Deum ingratus, cuius inspiratione Ecclesia instruitur; et sic videtur quod peccet in spiritum sanctum. | On the contrary, Augustine [Fulgentius] (De Fide ad Petrum iii) says that "those who despair of pardon for their sins, or who without merits presume on God's mercy, sin against the Holy Ghost," and (Enchiridion lxxxiii) that "he who dies in a state of obstinacy is guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost," and (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi) that "impenitence is a sin against the Holy Ghost," and (De Serm. Dom. in Monte xxii), that "to resist fraternal goodness with the brands of envy is to sin against the Holy Ghost," and in his book De unico Baptismo (De Bap. contra Donat. vi, 35) he says that "a man who spurns the truth, is either envious of his brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or ungrateful to God, by Whose inspiration the Church is taught," and therefore, seemingly, sins against the Holy Ghost. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum quod peccatum in spiritum sanctum tertio modo accipitur, convenienter praedictae species ei assignantur. Quae distinguuntur secundum remotionem vel contemptum eorum per quae potest homo ab electione peccati impediri. Quae quidem sunt vel ex parte divini iudicii; vel ex parte donorum ipsius; vel etiam ex parte ipsius peccati. Avertitur enim homo ab electione peccati ex consideratione divini iudicii, quod habet iustitiam cum misericordia, et per spem, quae consurgit ex consideratione misericordiae remittentis peccata et praemiantis bona, et haec tollitur per desperationem, et iterum per timorem, qui insurgit ex consideratione divinae iustitiae punientis peccata; et hic tollitur per praesumptionem, dum scilicet aliquis se praesumit gloriam adipisci sine meritis, vel veniam sine poenitentia. Dona autem Dei quibus retrahimur a peccato sunt duo. Quorum unum est agnitio veritatis, contra quod ponitur impugnatio veritatis agnitae, dum scilicet aliquis veritatem fidei agnitam impugnat ut licentius peccet. Aliud est auxilium interioris gratiae, contra quod ponitur invidentia fraternae gratiae, dum scilicet aliquis non solum invidet personae fratris, sed etiam invidet gratiae Dei crescenti in mundo. Ex parte vero peccati duo sunt quae hominem a peccato retrahere possunt. Quorum unum est inordinatio et turpitudo actus, cuius consideratio inducere solet in homine poenitentiam de peccato commisso. Et contra hoc ponitur impoenitentia, non quidem eo modo quo dicit permanentiam in peccato usque ad mortem, sicut supra impoenitentia accipiebatur (sic enim non esset speciale peccatum, sed quaedam peccati circumstantia); sed accipitur hic impoenitentia secundum quod importat propositum non poenitendi. Aliud autem est parvitas et brevitas boni quod quis in peccato quaerit, secundum illud Rom. VI, quem fructum habuistis in quibus nunc erubescitis? Cuius consideratio inducere solet hominem ad hoc quod eius voluntas in peccato non firmetur. Et hoc tollitur per obstinationem, quando scilicet homo firmat suum propositum in hoc quod peccato inhaereat. Et de his duobus dicitur Ierem. VIII, nullus est qui agat poenitentiam super peccato suo, dicens, quid feci? Quantum ad primum; omnes conversi sunt ad cursum quasi equus impetu vadens ad praelium, quantum ad secundum. | I answer that, The above species are fittingly assigned to the sin against the Holy Ghost taken in the third sense, because they are distinguished in respect of the removal of contempt of those things whereby a man can be prevented from sinning through choice. These things are either on the part of God's judgment, or on the part of His gifts, or on the part of sin. For, by consideration of the Divine judgment, wherein justice is accompanied with mercy, man is hindered from sinning through choice, both by hope, arising from the consideration of the mercy that pardons sins and rewards good deeds, which hope is removed by "despair"; and by fear, arising from the consideration of the Divine justice that punishes sins, which fear is removed by "presumption," when, namely, a man presumes that he can obtain glory without merits, or pardon without repentance. God's gifts whereby we are withdrawn from sin, are two: one is the acknowledgment of the truth, against which there is the "resistance of the known truth," when, namely, a man resists the truth which he has acknowledged, in order to sin more freely: while the other is the assistance of inward grace, against which there is "envy of a brother's spiritual good," when, namely, a man is envious not only of his brother's person, but also of the increase of Divine grace in the world. On the part of sin, there are two things which may withdraw man therefrom: one is the inordinateness and shamefulness of the act, the consideration of which is wont to arouse man to repentance for the sin he has committed, and against this there is "impenitence," not as denoting permanence in sin until death, in which sense it was taken above (for thus it would not be a special sin, but a circumstance of sin), but as denoting the purpose of not repenting. The other thing is the smallness or brevity of the good which is sought in sin, according to Romans 6:21: "What fruit had you therefore then in those things, of which you are now ashamed?" The consideration of this is wont to prevent man's will from being hardened in sin, and this is removed by "obstinacy," whereby man hardens his purpose by clinging to sin. Of these two it is written (Jeremiah 8:6): "There is none that doth penance for his sin, saying: What have I done?" as regards the first; and, "They are all turned to their own course, as a horse rushing to the battle," as regards the second. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod peccatum desperationis vel praesumptionis non consistit in hoc quod Dei iustitia vel misericordia non credatur, sed in hoc quod contemnatur. | Reply to Objection 1. The sins of despair and presumption consist, not in disbelieving in God's justice and mercy, but in contemning them. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod obstinatio et impoenitentia non solum differunt secundum praeteritum et futurum, sed secundum quasdam formales rationes ex diversa consideratione eorum quae in peccato considerari possunt, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 2. Obstinacy and impenitence differ not only in respect of past and future time, but also in respect of certain formal aspects by reason of the diverse consideration of those things which may be considered in sin, as explained above. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod gratiam et veritatem Christus fecit per dona spiritus sancti, quae hominibus dedit. | Reply to Objection 3. Grace and truth were the work of Christ through the gifts of the Holy Ghost which He gave to men. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod nolle obedire pertinet ad obstinationem; simulatio poenitentiae ad impoenitentiam; schisma ad invidentiam fraternae gratiae, per quam membra Ecclesiae uniuntur. | Reply to Objection 4. To refuse to obey belongs to obstinacy, while a feigned repentance belongs to impenitence, and schism to the envy of a brother's spiritual good, whereby the members of the Church are united together. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatum in spiritum sanctum non sit irremissibile. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de Verb. Dom., de nullo desperandum est quandiu patientia domini ad poenitentiam adducit. Sed si aliquod peccatum esset irremissibile, esset de aliquo peccatore desperandum. Ergo peccatum in spiritum sanctum non est irremissibile. | Objection 1. It would seem that the sin against the Holy Ghost can be forgiven. For Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi): "We should despair of no man, so long as Our Lord's patience brings him back to repentance." But if any sin cannot be forgiven, it would be possible to despair of some sinners. Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost can be forgiven. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, nullum peccatum remittitur nisi per hoc quod anima sanatur a Deo. Sed omnipotenti medico nullus insanabilis languor occurrit, sicut dicit Glossa super illud Psalm., qui sanat omnes infirmitates tuas. Ergo peccatum in spiritum sanctum non est irremissibile. | Objection 2. Further, no sin is forgiven, except through the soul being healed by God. But "no disease is incurable to an all-powerful physician," as a gloss says on Psalm 102:3, "Who healeth all thy diseases." Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost can be forgiven. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, liberum arbitrium se habet ad bonum et ad malum. Sed quandiu durat status viae, potest aliquis a quacumque virtute excidere, cum etiam Angelus de caelo ceciderit, unde dicitur Iob IV, in Angelis suis reperit pravitatem, quanto magis qui habitant domos luteas? Ergo pari ratione potest aliquis a quocumque peccato ad statum iustitiae redire. Ergo peccatum in spiritum sanctum non est irremissibile. | Objection 3. Further, the free-will is indifferent to either good or evil. Now, so long as man is a wayfarer, he can fall away from any virtue, since even an angel fell from heaven, wherefore it is written (Job 4:18-19): "In His angels He found wickedness: how much more shall they that dwell in houses of clay?" Therefore, in like manner, a man can return from any sin to the state of justice. Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost can be forgiven. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. XII, qui dixerit verbum contra spiritum sanctum, non remittetur ei neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro. Et Augustinus dicit, in libro de Serm. Dom. in monte, quod tanta est labes huius peccati quod humilitatem deprecandi subire non potest. | On the contrary, It is written (Matthew 12:32): "He that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come": and Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 22) that "so great is the downfall of this sin that it cannot submit to the humiliation of asking for pardon." |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod secundum diversas acceptiones peccati in spiritum sanctum, diversimode irremissibile dicitur. Si enim dicatur peccatum in spiritum sanctum finalis impoenitentia, sic dicitur irremissibile quia nullo modo remittitur. Peccatum enim mortale in quo homo perseverat usque ad mortem, quia in hac vita non remittitur per poenitentiam, nec etiam in futuro dimittetur. Secundum autem alias duas acceptiones dicitur irremissibile, non quia nullo modo remittatur, sed quia, quantum est de se, habet meritum ut non remittatur. Et hoc dupliciter. Uno modo, quantum ad poenam. Qui enim ex ignorantia vel infirmitate peccat, minorem poenam meretur, qui autem ex certa malitia peccat, non habet aliquam excusationem unde eius poena minuatur. Similiter etiam qui blasphemabat in filium hominis, eius divinitate nondum revelata, poterat habere aliquam excusationem propter infirmitatem carnis quam in eo aspiciebat, et sic minorem poenam merebatur, sed qui ipsam divinitatem blasphemabat, opera spiritus sancti Diabolo attribuens, nullam excusationem habebat unde eius poena diminueretur. Et ideo dicitur, secundum expositionem Chrysostomi, hoc peccatum Iudaeis non remitti neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro, quia pro eo passi sunt poenam et in praesenti vita per Romanos, et in futura vita in poena Inferni. Sicut etiam Athanasius inducit exemplum de eorum parentibus, qui primo quidem contra Moysen contenderunt propter defectum aquae et panis, et hoc dominus sustinuit patienter, habebant enim excusationem ex infirmitate carnis. Sed postmodum gravius peccaverunt quasi blasphemantes in spiritum sanctum, beneficia Dei qui eos de Aegypto eduxerat, idolo attribuentes, cum dixerunt, hi sunt dii tui, Israel, qui te eduxerunt de terra Aegypti. Et ideo dominus et temporaliter fecit eos puniri, quia ceciderunt in die illo quasi tria millia hominum; et in futurum eis poenam comminatur, dicens, ego autem in die ultionis visitabo hoc peccatum eorum. Alio modo potest intelligi quantum ad culpam, sicut aliquis dicitur morbus incurabilis secundum naturam morbi, per quem tollitur id ex quo morbus potest curari, puta cum morbus tollit virtutem naturae, vel inducit fastidium cibi et medicinae; licet etiam talem morbum Deus possit curare. Ita etiam peccatum in spiritum sanctum dicitur irremissibile secundum suam naturam, inquantum excludit ea per quae fit remissio peccatorum. Per hoc tamen non praecluditur via remittendi et sanandi omnipotentiae et misericordiae Dei, per quam aliquando tales quasi miraculose spiritualiter sanantur. | I answer that, According to the various interpretations of the sin against the Holy Ghost, there are various ways in which it may be said that it cannot be forgiven. For if by the sin against the Holy Ghost we understand final impenitence, it is said to be unpardonable, since in no way is it pardoned: because the mortal sin wherein a man perseveres until death will not be forgiven in the life to come, since it was not remitted by repentance in this life. According to the other two interpretations, it is said to be unpardonable, not as though it is nowise forgiven, but because, considered in itself, it deserves not to be pardoned: and this in two ways. First, as regards the punishment, since he that sins through ignorance or weakness, deserves less punishment, whereas he that sins through certain malice, can offer no excuse in alleviation of his punishment. Likewise those who blasphemed against the Son of Man before His Godhead was revealed, could have some excuse, on account of the weakness of the flesh which they perceived in Him, and hence, they deserved less punishment; whereas those who blasphemed against His very Godhead, by ascribing to the devil the works of the Holy Ghost, had no excuse in diminution of their punishment. Wherefore, according to Chrysostom's commentary (Hom. xlii in Matth.), the Jews are said not to be forgiven this sin, neither in this world nor in the world to come, because they were punished for it, both in the present life, through the Romans, and in the life to come, in the pains of hell. Thus also Athanasius adduces the example of their forefathers who, first of all, wrangled with Moses on account of the shortage of water and bread; and this the Lord bore with patience, because they were to be excused on account of the weakness of the flesh: but afterwards they sinned more grievously when, by ascribing to an idol the favors bestowed by God Who had brought them out of Egypt, they blasphemed, so to speak, against the Holy Ghost, saying (Exodus 32:4): "These are thy gods, O Israel, that have brought thee out of the land of Egypt." Therefore the Lord both inflicted temporal punishment on them, since "there were slain on that day about three and twenty thousand men" (Exodus 32:28), and threatened them with punishment in the life to come, saying, (Exodus 32:34): "I, in the day of revenge, will visit this sin . . . of theirs." Secondly, this may be understood to refer to the guilt: thus a disease is said to be incurable in respect of the nature of the disease, which removes whatever might be a means of cure, as when it takes away the power of nature, or causes loathing for food and medicine, although God is able to cure such a disease. So too, the sin against the Holy Ghost is said to be unpardonable, by reason of its nature, in so far as it removes those things which are a means towards the pardon of sins. This does not, however, close the way of forgiveness and healing to an all-powerful and merciful God, Who, sometimes, by a miracle, so to speak, restores spiritual health to such men. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod de nemine desperandum est in hac vita, considerata omnipotentia et misericordia Dei. Sed considerata conditione peccati, dicuntur aliqui filii diffidentiae, ut habetur ad Ephes. II. | Reply to Objection 1. We should despair of no man in this life, considering God's omnipotence and mercy. But if we consider the circumstances of sin, some are called (Ephesians 2:2) "children of despair" ['Filios diffidentiae,' which the Douay version renders 'children of unbelief.']. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit ex parte omnipotentiae Dei, non secundum conditionem peccati. | Reply to Objection 2. This argument considers the question on the part of God's omnipotence, not on that of the circumstances of sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod liberum arbitrium remanet quidem semper in hac vita vertibile, tamen quandoque abiicit a se id per quod verti potest ad bonum, quantum in ipso est. Unde ex parte sua peccatum est irremissibile, licet Deus remittere possit. | Reply to Objection 3. In this life the free-will does indeed ever remain subject to change: yet sometimes it rejects that whereby, so far as it is concerned, it can be turned to good. Hence considered in itself this sin is unpardonable, although God can pardon it. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo non possit primo peccare in spiritum sanctum, non praesuppositis aliis peccatis. Naturalis enim ordo est ut ab imperfecto ad perfectum quis moveatur. Et hoc quidem in bonis apparet, secundum illud Proverb. IV, iustorum semita quasi lux splendens crescit et proficit usque ad perfectum diem. Sed perfectum dicitur in malis quod est maximum malum, ut patet per philosophum, in V Metaphys. Cum igitur peccatum in spiritum sanctum sit gravissimum, videtur quod homo ad hoc peccatum perveniat per alia peccata minora. | Objection 1. It would seem that a man cannot sin first of all against the Holy Ghost, without having previously committed other sins. For the natural order requires that one should be moved to perfection from imperfection. This is evident as regards good things, according to Proverbs 4:18: "The path of the just, as a shining light, goeth forwards and increases even to perfect day." Now, in evil things, the perfect is the greatest evil, as the Philosopher states (Metaph. v, text. 21). Since then the sin against the Holy Ghost is the most grievous sin, it seems that man comes to commit this sin through committing lesser sins. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, peccare in spiritum sanctum est peccare ex certa malitia, sive ex electione. Sed hoc non statim potest homo, antequam multoties peccaverit, dicit enim philosophus, in V Ethic., quod, si homo possit iniusta facere, non tamen potest statim operari sicut iniustus, scilicet ex electione. Ergo videtur quod peccatum in spiritum sanctum non possit committi nisi post alia peccata. | Objection 2. Further, to sin against the Holy Ghost is to sin through certain malice, or through choice. Now man cannot do this until he has sinned many times; for the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 6,9) that "although a man is able to do unjust deeds, yet he cannot all at once do them as an unjust man does," viz. from choice. Therefore it seems that the sin against the Holy Ghost cannot be committed except after other sins. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, poenitentia et impoenitentia sunt circa idem. Sed poenitentia non est nisi de peccatis praeteritis. Ergo etiam neque impoenitentia, quae est species peccati in spiritum sanctum. Peccatum ergo in spiritum sanctum praesupponit alia peccata. | Objection 3. Further, repentance and impenitence are about the same object. But there is no repentance, except about past sins. Therefore the same applies to impenitence which is a species of the sin against the Holy Ghost. Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost presupposes other sins. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod facile est in conspectu Dei subito honestare pauperem, ut dicitur Eccli. XI. Ergo e contrario possibile est, secundum malitiam Daemonis suggerentis, ut statim aliquis inducatur in gravissimum peccatum, quod est in spiritum sanctum. | On the contrary, "It is easy in the eyes of God on a sudden to make a poor man rich" (Sirach 11:23). Therefore, conversely, it is possible for a man, according to the malice of the devil who tempts him, to be led to commit the most grievous of sins which is that against the Holy Ghost. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, peccare in spiritum sanctum uno modo est peccare ex certa malitia. Ex certa autem malitia dupliciter peccare contingit, sicut dictum est. Uno modo, ex inclinatione habitus, quod non est proprie peccare in spiritum sanctum. Et hoc modo peccare ex certa malitia non contingit a principio, oportet enim actus peccatorum praecedere ex quibus causetur habitus ad peccandum inclinans. Alio modo potest aliquis peccare ex certa malitia abiiciendo per contemptum ea per quae homo retrahitur a peccando, quod proprie est peccare in spiritum sanctum, sicut dictum est. Et hoc etiam plerumque praesupponit alia peccata, quia sicut dicitur Proverb. XVIII, impius, cum in profundum peccatorum venerit, contemnit. Potest tamen contingere quod aliquis in primo actu peccati in spiritum sanctum peccet per contemptum, tum propter libertatem arbitrii; tum etiam propter multas dispositiones praecedentes; vel etiam propter aliquod vehemens motivum ad malum et debilem affectum hominis ad bonum. Et ideo in viris perfectis hoc vix aut nunquam accidere potest quod statim a principio peccent in spiritum sanctum. Unde dicit Origenes, in I Periarch., non arbitror quod aliquis ex his qui in summo perfectoque gradu constiterint, ad subitum evacuetur aut decidat, sed paulatim ac per partes eum decidere necesse est. Et eadem ratio est si peccatum in spiritum sanctum accipiatur ad litteram pro blasphemia spiritus sancti. Talis enim blasphemia de qua dominus loquitur, semper ex malitiae contemptu procedit. Si vero per peccatum in spiritum sanctum intelligatur finalis impoenitentia, secundum intellectum Augustini, quaestionem non habet, quia ad peccatum in spiritum sanctum requiritur continuatio peccatorum usque in finem vitae. | I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), in one way, to sin against the Holy Ghost is to sin through certain malice. Now one may sin through certain malice in two ways, as stated in the same place: first, through the inclination of a habit; but this is not, properly speaking, to sin against the Holy Ghost, nor does a man come to commit this sin all at once, in as much as sinful acts must precede so as to cause the habit that induces to sin. Secondly, one may sin through certain malice, by contemptuously rejecting the things whereby a man is withdrawn from sin. This is, properly speaking, to sin against the Holy Ghost, as stated above (Article 1); and this also, for the most part, presupposes other sins, for it is written (Proverbs 18:3) that "the wicked man, when he is come into the depth of sins, contemneth." Nevertheless it is possible for a man, in his first sinful act, to sin against the Holy Ghost by contempt, both on account of his free-will, and on account of the many previous dispositions, or again, through being vehemently moved to evil, while but feebly attached to good. Hence never or scarcely ever does it happen that the perfect sin all at once against the Holy Ghost: wherefore Origen says (Peri Archon. i, 3): "I do not think that anyone who stands on the highest step of perfection, can fail or fall suddenly; this can only happen by degrees and bit by bit." The same applies, if the sin against the Holy Ghost be taken literally for blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. For such blasphemy as Our Lord speaks of, always proceeds from contemptuous malice. If, however, with Augustine (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi) we understand the sin against the Holy Ghost to denote final impenitence, it does not regard the question in point, because this sin against the Holy Ghost requires persistence in sin until the end of life. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod tam in bono quam in malo, ut in pluribus, proceditur ab imperfecto ad perfectum, prout homo proficit vel in bono vel in malo. Et tamen in utroque unus potest incipere a maiori quam alius. Et ita illud a quo aliquis incipit, potest esse perfectum in bono vel in malo secundum genus suum; licet sit imperfectum secundum seriem processus hominis in melius vel in peius proficientis. | Reply to Objection 1. Movement both in good and in evil is made, for the most part, from imperfect to perfect, according as man progresses in good or evil: and yet in both cases, one man can begin from a greater (good or evil) than another man does. Consequently, that from which a man begins can be perfect in good or evil according to its genus, although it may be imperfect as regards the series of good or evil actions whereby a man progresses in good or evil. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de peccato ex malitia quando est ex inclinatione habitus. | Reply to Objection 2. This argument considers the sin which is committed through certain malice, when it proceeds from the inclination of a habit. |
| IIª-IIae q. 14 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, si accipiatur impoenitentia secundum intentionem Augustini, secundum quod importat permanentiam in peccato usque in finem, sic planum est quod impoenitentia praesupponit peccata, sicut et poenitentia. Sed si loquamur de impoenitentia habituali, secundum quod ponitur species peccati in spiritum sanctum, sic manifestum est quod impoenitentia potest esse etiam ante peccata, potest enim ille qui nunquam peccavit habere propositum vel poenitendi vel non poenitendi, si contingeret eum peccare. | Reply to Objection 3. If by impenitence we understand with Augustine (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi) persistence in sin until the end, it is clear that it presupposes sin, just as repentance does. If, however, we take it for habitual impenitence, in which sense it is a sin against the Holy Ghost, it is evident that it can precede sin: for it is possible for a man who has never sinned to have the purpose either of repenting or of not repenting, if he should happen to sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 pr. Deinde considerandum est de vitiis oppositis scientiae et intellectui. Et quia de ignorantia, quae opponitur scientiae, dictum est supra, cum de causis peccatorum ageretur; quaerendum est nunc de caecitate mentis et hebetudine sensus, quae opponuntur dono intellectus. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo, utrum caecitas mentis sit peccatum. Secundo, utrum hebetudo sensus sit aliud peccatum a caecitate mentis. Tertio, utrum haec vitia a peccatis carnalibus oriantur. | Question 15. The vices opposed to knowledge and understanding Is blindness of mind a sin? Is dullness of sense a sin distinct from blindness of mind? Do these vices arise from sins of the flesh? |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caecitas mentis non sit peccatum. Illud enim quod excusat a peccato non videtur esse peccatum. Sed caecitas excusat a peccato, dicitur enim Ioan. IX, si caeci essetis, non haberetis peccatum. Ergo caecitas mentis non est peccatum. | Objection 1. It would seem that blindness of mind is not a sin. Because, seemingly, that which excuses from sin is not itself a sin. Now blindness of mind excuses from sin; for it is written (John 9:41): "If you were blind, you should not have sin." Therefore blindness of mind is not a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, poena differt a culpa. Sed caecitas mentis est quaedam poena, ut patet per illud quod habetur Isaiae VI, excaeca cor populi huius; non enim esset a Deo, cum sit malum, nisi poena esset. Ergo caecitas mentis non est peccatum. | Objection 2. Further, punishment differs from guilt. But blindness of mind is a punishment as appears from Isaiah 6:10, "Blind the heart of this people," for, since it is an evil, it could not be from God, were it not a punishment. Therefore blindness of mind is not a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, omne peccatum est voluntarium, ut Augustinus dicit. Sed caecitas mentis non est voluntaria, quia ut Augustinus dicit, X Confess., cognoscere veritatem lucentem omnes amant; et Eccle. XI dicitur, dulce lumen, et delectabile oculis videre solem. Ergo caecitas mentis non est peccatum. | Objection 3. Further, every sin is voluntary, according to Augustine (De Vera Relig. xiv). Now blindness of mind is not voluntary, since, as Augustine says (Confess. x), "all love to know the resplendent truth," and as we read in Ecclesiastes 11:7, "the light is sweet and it is delightful for the eyes to see the sun." Therefore blindness of mind is not a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius, XXXI Moral., caecitatem mentis ponit inter vitia quae causantur ex luxuria. | On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) reckons blindness of mind among the vices arising from lust. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod sicut caecitas corporalis est privatio eius quod est principium corporalis visionis, ita etiam caecitas mentis est privatio eius quod est principium mentalis sive intellectualis visionis. Cuius quidem principium est triplex. Unum quidem est lumen naturalis rationis. Et hoc lumen, cum pertineat ad speciem animae rationalis, nunquam privatur ab anima. Impeditur tamen quandoque a proprio actu per impedimenta virium inferiorum, quibus indiget intellectus humanus ad intelligendum, sicut patet in amentibus et furiosis, ut in primo dictum est. Aliud autem principium intellectualis visionis est aliquod lumen habituale naturali lumini rationis superadditum. Et hoc quidem lumen interdum privatur ab anima. Et talis privatio est caecitas quae est poena, secundum quod privatio luminis gratiae quaedam poena ponitur. Unde dicitur de quibusdam, Sap. II, excaecavit illos malitia eorum. Tertium principium visionis intellectualis est aliquod intelligibile principium per quod homo intelligit alia. Cui quidem principio intelligibili mens hominis potest intendere vel non intendere. Et quod ei non intendat contingit dupliciter. Quandoque quidem ex hoc quod habet voluntatem spontanee se avertentem a consideratione talis principii, secundum illud Psalm., noluit intelligere ut bene ageret. Alio modo, per occupationem mentis circa alia quae magis diligit, quibus ab inspectione huius principii mens avertitur, secundum illud Psalm., supercecidit ignis, scilicet concupiscentiae, et non viderunt solem. Et utroque modo caecitas mentis est peccatum. | I answer that, Just as bodily blindness is the privation of the principle of bodily sight, so blindness of mind is the privation of the principle of mental or intellectual sight. Now this has a threefold principle. One is the light of natural reason, which light, since it pertains to the species of the rational soul, is never forfeit from the soul, and yet, at times, it is prevented from exercising its proper act, through being hindered by the lower powers which the human intellect needs in order to understand, for instance in the case of imbeciles and madmen, as stated in I, 84, 7,8. Another principle of intellectual sight is a certain habitual light superadded to the natural light of reason, which light is sometimes forfeit from the soul. This privation is blindness, and is a punishment, in so far as the privation of the light of grace is a punishment. Hence it is written concerning some (Wisdom 2:21): "Their own malice blinded them." A third principle of intellectual sight is an intelligible principle, through which a man understands other things; to which principle a man may attend or not attend. That he does not attend thereto happens in two ways. Sometimes it is due to the fact that a man's will is deliberately turned away from the consideration of that principle, according to Psalm 35:4, "He would not understand, that he might do well": whereas sometimes it is due to the mind being more busy about things which it loves more, so as to be hindered thereby from considering this principle, according to Psalm 57:9, "Fire," i.e. of concupiscence, "hath fallen on them and they shall not see the sun." On either of these ways blindness of mind is a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod caecitas quae excusat a peccato est quae contingit ex naturali defectu non potentis videre. | Reply to Objection 1. The blindness that excuses from sin is that which arises from the natural defect of one who cannot see. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de secunda caecitate, quae est poena. | Reply to Objection 2. This argument considers the second kind of blindness which is a punishment. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod intelligere veritatem cuilibet est secundum se amabile. Potest tamen per accidens esse alicui odibile, inquantum scilicet per hoc homo impeditur ab aliis quae magis amat. | Reply to Objection 3. To understand the truth is, in itself, beloved by all; and yet, accidentally it may be hateful to someone, in so far as a man is hindered thereby from having what he loves yet more. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod hebetudo sensus non sit aliud a caecitate mentis. Unum enim uni est contrarium. Sed dono intellectus opponitur hebetudo, ut patet per Gregorium, in II Moral.; cui etiam opponitur caecitas mentis, eo quod intellectus principium quoddam visivum designat. Ergo hebetudo sensus est idem quod caecitas mentis. | Objection 1. It seems that dulness of sense is not a distinct sin from blindness of mind. Because one thing has one contrary. Now dulness is opposed to the gift of understanding, according to Gregory (Moral. ii, 49); and so is blindness of mind, since understanding denotes a principle of sight. Therefore dulness of sense is the same as blindness of mind. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, Gregorius, in XXXI Moral., de hebetudine loquens, nominat eam hebetudinem sensus circa intelligentiam. Sed hebetari sensu circa intelligentiam nihil aliud esse videtur quam intelligendo deficere, quod pertinet ad mentis caecitatem. Ergo hebetudo sensus idem est quod caecitas mentis. | Objection 2. Further, Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) in speaking of dulness describes it as "dullness of sense in respect of understanding." Now dulness of sense in respect of understanding seems to be the same as a defect in understanding, which pertains to blindness of mind. Therefore dulness of sense is the same as blindness of mind. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, si in aliquo differunt, maxime videntur in hoc differre quod caecitas mentis est voluntaria, ut supra dictum est, hebetudo autem sensus est naturalis. Sed defectus naturalis non est peccatum. Ergo secundum hoc hebetudo sensus non esset peccatum. Quod est contra Gregorium, qui connumerat eam inter vitia quae ex gula oriuntur. | Objection 3. Further, if they differ at all, it seems to be chiefly in the fact that blindness of mind is voluntary, as stated above (Article 1), while dulness of sense is a natural defect. But a natural defect is not a sin: so that, accordingly, dulness of sense would not be a sin, which is contrary to what Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45), where he reckons it among the sins arising from gluttony. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod diversarum causarum sunt diversi effectus. Sed Gregorius, XXXI Moral., dicit quod hebetudo mentis oritur ex gula, caecitas autem mentis ex luxuria. Ergo sunt diversa vitia. | On the contrary, Different causes produce different effects. Now Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45) that dulness of sense arises from gluttony, and that blindness of mind arises from lust. Now these others are different vices. Therefore those are different vices also. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod hebes acuto opponitur. Acutum autem dicitur aliquid ex hoc quod est penetrativum. Unde et hebes dicitur aliquid ex hoc quod est obtusum, penetrare non valens. Sensus autem corporalis per quandam similitudinem penetrare dicitur medium inquantum ex aliqua distantia suum obiectum percipit; vel inquantum potest quasi penetrando intima rei percipere. Unde in corporalibus dicitur aliquis esse acuti sensus qui potest percipere sensibile aliquod ex remotis, vel videndo vel audiendo vel olfaciendo; et e contrario dicitur sensu hebetari qui non percipit nisi ex propinquo et magna sensibilia. Ad similitudinem autem corporalis sensus dicitur etiam circa intelligentiam esse aliquis sensus, qui est aliquorum primorum extremorum, ut dicitur in VI Ethic., sicut etiam sensus est cognoscitivus sensibilium quasi quorundam principiorum cognitionis. Hic autem sensus qui est circa intelligentiam non percipit suum obiectum per medium distantiae corporalis, sed per quaedam alia media, sicut cum per proprietatem rei percipit eius essentiam, et per effectus percipit causam. Ille ergo dicitur esse acuti sensus circa intelligentiam qui statim ad apprehensionem proprietatis rei, vel etiam effectus, naturam rei comprehendit, et inquantum usque ad minimas conditiones rei considerandas pertingit. Ille autem dicitur esse hebes circa intelligentiam qui ad cognoscendam veritatem rei pertingere non potest nisi per multa ei exposita, et tunc etiam non potest pertingere ad perfecte considerandum omnia quae pertinent ad rei rationem. Sic igitur hebetudo sensus circa intelligentiam importat quandam debilitatem mentis circa considerationem spiritualium bonorum, caecitas autem mentis importat omnimodam privationem cognitionis ipsorum. Et utrumque opponitur dono intellectus, per quem homo spiritualia bona apprehendendo cognoscit et ad eorum intima subtiliter penetrat. Habet autem hebetudo rationem peccati sicut et caecitas mentis, inquantum scilicet est voluntaria, ut patet in eo qui, affectus circa carnalia, de spiritualibus subtiliter discutere fastidit vel negligit. | I answer that, Dull is opposed to sharp: and a thing is said to be sharp because it can pierce; so that a thing is called dull through being obtuse and unable to pierce. Now a bodily sense, by a kind of metaphor, is said to pierce the medium, in so far as it perceives its object from a distance or is able by penetration as it were to perceive the smallest details or the inmost parts of a thing. Hence in corporeal things the senses are said to be acute when they can perceive a sensible object from afar, by sight, hearing, or scent, while on the other hand they are said to be dull, through being unable to perceive, except sensible objects that are near at hand, or of great power. Now, by way of similitude to bodily sense, we speak of sense in connection with the intellect; and this latter sense is in respect of certain primals and extremes, as stated in Ethic. vi, even as the senses are cognizant of sensible objects as of certain principles of knowledge. Now this sense which is connected with understanding, does not perceive its object through a medium of corporeal distance, but through certain other media, as, for instance, when it perceives a thing's essence through a property thereof, and the cause through its effect. Consequently a man is said to have an acute sense in connection with his understanding, if, as soon as he apprehends a property or effect of a thing, he understands the nature or the thing itself, and if he can succeed in perceiving its slightest details: whereas a man is said to have a dull sense in connection with his understanding, if he cannot arrive at knowing the truth about a thing, without many explanations; in which case, moreover, he is unable to obtain a perfect perception of everything pertaining to the nature of that thing. Accordingly dulness of sense in connection with understanding denotes a certain weakness of the mind as to the consideration of spiritual goods; while blindness of mind implies the complete privation of the knowledge of such things. Both are opposed to the gift of understanding, whereby a man knows spiritual goods by apprehending them, and has a subtle penetration of their inmost nature. This dulness has the character of sin, just as blindness of mind has, that is, in so far as it is voluntary, as evidenced in one who, owing to his affection for carnal things, dislikes or neglects the careful consideration of spiritual things. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 2 ad arg. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. | This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod caecitas mentis et hebetudo sensus non oriantur ex vitiis carnalibus. Augustinus enim, in libro Retract., retractans illud quod dixerat in Soliloq., Deus, qui non nisi mundos verum scire voluisti, dicit quod responderi potest multos etiam non mundos multa vera scire. Sed homines maxime efficiuntur immundi per vitia carnalia. Ergo caecitas mentis et hebetudo sensus non causantur a vitiis carnalibus. | Objection 1. It would seem that blindness of mind and dulness of sense do not arise from sins of the flesh. For Augustine (Retract. i, 4) retracts what he had said in his Soliloquies i, 1, "God Who didst wish none but the clean to know the truth," and says that one might reply that "many, even those who are unclean, know many truths." Now men become unclean chiefly by sins of the flesh. Therefore blindness of mind and dulness of sense are not caused by sins of the flesh. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, caecitas mentis et hebetudo sensus sunt defectus quidam circa partem animae intellectivam; vitia autem carnalia pertinent ad corruptionem carnis. Sed caro non agit in animam, sed potius e converso. Ergo vitia carnalia non causant caecitatem mentis et hebetudinem sensus. | Objection 2. Further, blindness of mind and dulness of sense are defects in connection with the intellective part of the soul: whereas carnal sins pertain to the corruption of the flesh. But the flesh does not act on the soul, but rather the reverse. Therefore the sins of the flesh do not cause blindness of mind and dulness of sense. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, unumquodque magis patitur a propinquiori quam a remotiori. Sed propinquiora sunt menti vitia spiritualia quam carnalia. Ergo caecitas mentis et hebetudo sensus magis causantur ex vitiis spiritualibus quam ex vitiis carnalibus. | Objection 3. Further, all things are more passive to what is near them than to what is remote. Now spiritual vices are nearer the mind than carnal vices are. Therefore blindness of mind and dulness of sense are caused by spiritual rather than by carnal vices. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius, XXXI Moral., dicit quod hebetudo sensus circa intelligentiam oritur ex gula, caecitas mentis ex luxuria. | On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45) that dulness of sense arises from gluttony and blindness of mind from lust. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod perfectio intellectualis operationis in homine consistit in quadam abstractione a sensibilium phantasmatibus. Et ideo quanto intellectus hominis magis fuerit liber ab huiusmodi phantasmatibus, tanto potius considerare intelligibilia poterit et ordinare omnia sensibilia, sicut et Anaxagoras dixit quod oportet intellectum esse immixtum ad hoc quod imperet, et agens oportet quod dominetur super materiam ad hoc quod possit eam movere. Manifestum est autem quod delectatio applicat intentionem ad ea in quibus aliquis delectatur, unde philosophus dicit, in X Ethic., quod unusquisque ea in quibus delectatur optime operatur, contraria vero nequaquam vel debiliter. Vitia autem carnalia, scilicet gula et luxuria, consistunt circa delectationes tactus, ciborum scilicet et venereorum, quae sunt vehementissimae inter omnes corporales delectationes. Et ideo per haec vitia intentio hominis maxime applicatur ad corporalia, et per consequens debilitatur operatio hominis circa intelligibilia, magis autem per luxuriam quam per gulam, quanto delectationes venereorum sunt vehementiores quam ciborum. Et ideo ex luxuria oritur caecitas mentis, quae quasi totaliter spiritualium bonorum cognitionem excludit, ex gula autem hebetudo sensus, quae reddit hominem debilem circa huiusmodi intelligibilia. Et e converso oppositae virtutes, scilicet abstinentia et castitas, maxime disponunt hominem ad perfectionem intellectualis operationis. Unde dicitur Dan. I, quod pueris his, scilicet abstinentibus et continentibus, dedit Deus scientiam et disciplinam in omni libro et sapientia. | I answer that, The perfect intellectual operation in man consists in an abstraction from sensible phantasms, wherefore the more a man's intellect is freed from those phantasms, the more thoroughly will it be able to consider things intelligible, and to set in order all things sensible. Thus Anaxagoras stated that the intellect requires to be "detached" in order to command, and that the agent must have power over matter, in order to be able to move it. Now it is evident that pleasure fixes a man's attention on that which he takes pleasure in: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 4,5) that we all do best that which we take pleasure in doing, while as to other things, we do them either not at all, or in a faint-hearted fashion. Now carnal vices, namely gluttony and lust, are concerned with pleasures of touch in matters of food and sex; and these are the most impetuous of all pleasures of the body. For this reason these vices cause man's attention to be very firmly fixed on corporeal things, so that in consequence man's operation in regard to intelligible things is weakened, more, however, by lust than by gluttony, forasmuch as sexual pleasures are more vehement than those of the table. Wherefore lust gives rise to blindness of mind, which excludes almost entirely the knowledge of spiritual things, while dulness of sense arises from gluttony, which makes a man weak in regard to the same intelligible things. On the other hand, the contrary virtues, viz. abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation. Hence it is written (Daniel 1:17) that "to these children" on account of their abstinence and continency, "God gave knowledge and understanding in every book, and wisdom." |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quamvis aliqui vitiis carnalibus subditi possint quandoque subtiliter aliqua speculari circa intelligibilia, propter bonitatem ingenii naturalis vel habitus superadditi; tamen necesse est ut ab hac subtilitate contemplationis eorum intentio plerumque retrahatur propter delectationes corporales. Et ita immundi possunt aliqua vera scire sed ex sua immunditia circa hoc impediuntur. | Reply to Objection 1. Although some who are the slaves of carnal vices are at times capable of subtle considerations about intelligible things, on account of the perfection of their natural genius, or of some habit superadded thereto, nevertheless, on account of the pleasures of the body, it must needs happen that their attention is frequently withdrawn from this subtle contemplation: wherefore the unclean can know some truths, but their uncleanness is a clog on their knowledge. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod caro non agit in partem intellectivam alterando ipsam, sed impediendo operationem ipsius per modum praedictum. | Reply to Objection 2. The flesh acts on the intellective faculties, not by altering them, but by impeding their operation in the aforesaid manner. |
| IIª-IIae q. 15 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod vitia carnalia, quo magis sunt remota a mente, eo magis eius intentionem ad remotiora distrahunt. Unde magis impediunt mentis contemplationem. | Reply to Objection 3. It is owing to the fact that the carnal vices are further removed from the mind, that they distract the mind's attention to more remote things, so that they hinder the mind's contemplation all the more. |