| IIª-IIae q. 123 pr. Consequenter, post iustitiam, considerandum est de fortitudine. Et primo, de ipsa virtute fortitudinis; secundo, de partibus eius; tertio, de dono ei correspondente; quarto, de praeceptis ad ipsam pertinentibus. Circa fortitudinem autem consideranda sunt tria, primo quidem, de ipsa fortitudine; secundo, de actu praecipuo eius, scilicet de martyrio; tertio, de vitiis oppositis. Circa primum quaeruntur duodecim. Primo, utrum fortitudo sit virtus. Secundo, utrum sit virtus specialis. Tertio, utrum sit circa timores et audacias. Quarto, utrum sit solum circa timorem mortis. Quinto, utrum sit solum in rebus bellicis. Sexto, utrum sustinere sit praecipuus actus eius. Septimo, utrum operetur propter proprium bonum. Octavo, utrum habeat delectationem in suo actu. Nono, utrum fortitudo maxime consistat in repentinis. Decimo, utrum utatur ira in sua operatione. Undecimo, utrum sit virtus cardinalis. Duodecimo, de comparatione eius ad alias virtutes cardinales. | Question 123. Fortitude 1. Is fortitude a virtue? 2. Is it a special virtue? 3. Is fortitude only about fear and daring? 4. Is it only about fear of death? 5. Is it only in warlike matters? 6. Is endurance its chief act? 7. Is its action directed to its own good? 8. Does it take pleasure in its own action? 9. Does fortitude deal chiefly with sudden occurrences? 10. Does it make use of anger in its action? 11. Is it a cardinal virtue? 12. Its comparison with the other cardinal virtues |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortitudo non sit virtus. Dicit enim apostolus, II ad Cor. XII, virtus in infirmitate perficitur. Sed fortitudo infirmitati opponitur. Ergo fortitudo non est virtus. | Objection 1. It seems that fortitude is not a virtue. For the Apostle says (2 Corinthians 12:9): "Virtue is perfected in infirmity." But fortitude is contrary to infirmity. Therefore fortitude is not a virtue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, si est virtus, aut est theologica, aut intellectualis, aut moralis. Sed fortitudo neque continetur inter virtutes theologicas, neque inter intellectuales, ut ex supra dictis patet. Neque etiam videtur esse virtus moralis. Quia, ut philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., videntur aliqui esse fortes propter ignorantiam, aut etiam propter experientiam, sicut milites, quae magis pertinent ad artem quam ad virtutem moralem, quidam etiam dicuntur esse fortes propter aliquas passiones, puta propter timorem comminationum vel dehonorationis, aut etiam propter tristitiam vel iram, seu spem; virtus autem moralis non operatur ex passione, sed ex electione, ut supra habitum est. Ergo fortitudo non est virtus. | Objection 2. Further, if it is a virtue, it is either theological, intellectual, or moral. Now fortitude is not contained among the theological virtues, nor among the intellectual virtues, as may be gathered from what we have said above (I-II, 57, 2; I-II, 62, 3). Neither, apparently, is it contained among the moral virtues, since according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 7,8): "Some seem to be brave through ignorance; or through experience, as soldiers," both of which cases seem to pertain to act rather than to moral virtue, "and some are called brave on account of certain passions"; for instance, on account of fear of threats, or of dishonor, or again on account of sorrow, anger, or hope. But moral virtue does not act from passion but from choice, as stated above (I-II, 55, 4). Therefore fortitude is not a virtue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, virtus humana maxime consistit in anima, est enim bona qualitas mentis, ut supra iam dictum est. Sed fortitudo videtur consistere in corpore, vel saltem corporis complexionem sequi. Ergo videtur quod fortitudo non sit virtus. | Objection 3. Further, human virtue resides chiefly in the soul, since it is a "good quality of the mind," as stated above (Ethic. iii, 7,8). But fortitude, seemingly, resides in the body, or at least results from the temperament of the body. Therefore it seems that fortitude is not a virtue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus, in libro de moribus Eccle., fortitudinem inter virtutes numerat. | On the contrary, Augustine (De Morib. Eccl. xv, xxi, xxii) numbers fortitude among the virtues. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in II Ethic., virtus est quae bonum facit habentem, et opus eius bonum reddit, unde virtus hominis, de qua loquimur, est quae bonum facit hominem, et opus eius bonum reddit. Bonum autem hominis est secundum rationem esse, secundum Dionysium, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Et ideo ad virtutem humanam pertinet ut faciat hominem et opus eius secundum rationem esse. Quod quidem tripliciter contingit. Uno modo, secundum quod ipsa ratio rectificatur, quod fit per virtutes intellectuales. Alio modo, secundum quod ipsa rectitudo rationis in rebus humanis instituitur, quod pertinet ad iustitiam. Tertio, secundum quod tolluntur impedimenta huius rectitudinis in rebus humanis ponendae. Dupliciter autem impeditur voluntas humana ne rectitudinem rationis sequatur. Uno modo, per hoc quod attrahitur ab aliquo delectabili ad aliud quam rectitudo rationis requirat, et hoc impedimentum tollit virtus temperantiae. Alio modo, per hoc quod voluntatem repellit ab eo quod est secundum rationem, propter aliquid difficile quod incumbit. Et ad hoc impedimentum tollendum requiritur fortitudo mentis, qua scilicet huiusmodi difficultatibus resistat, sicut et homo per fortitudinem corporalem impedimenta corporalia superat et repellit. Unde manifestum est quod fortitudo est virtus, inquantum facit hominem secundum rationem esse. | I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6) "virtue is that which makes its possessor good, and renders his work good." Hence human virtue, of which we are speaking now, is that which makes a man good, and tenders his work good. Now man's good is to be in accordance with reason, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv, 22). Wherefore it belongs to human virtue to make man good, to make his work accord with reason. This happens in three ways: first, by rectifying reason itself, and this is done by the intellectual virtues; secondly, by establishing the rectitude of reason in human affairs, and this belongs to justice; thirdly, by removing the obstacles to the establishment of this rectitude in human affairs. Now the human will is hindered in two ways from following the rectitude of reason. First, through being drawn by some object of pleasure to something other than what the rectitude of reason requires; and this obstacle is removed by the virtue of temperance. Secondly, through the will being disinclined to follow that which is in accordance with reason, on account of some difficulty that presents itself. On order to remove this obstacle fortitude of the mind is requisite, whereby to resist the aforesaid difficulty even as a man, by fortitude of body, overcomes and removes bodily obstacles. Hence it is evident that fortitude is a virtue, in so far as it conforms man to reason. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod virtus animae non perficitur in infirmitate animae, sed in infirmitate carnis, de qua apostolus loquebatur. Hoc autem ad fortitudinem mentis pertinet, quod infirmitatem carnis fortiter ferat, quod pertinet ad virtutem patientiae vel fortitudinis. Et quod homo propriam infirmitatem recognoscat, pertinet ad perfectionem quae dicitur humilitas. | Reply to Objection 1. The virtue of the soul is perfected, not in the infirmity of the soul, but in the infirmity of the body, of which the Apostle was speaking. Now it belongs to fortitude of the mind to bear bravely with infirmities of the flesh, and this belongs to the virtue of patience or fortitude, as also to acknowledge one's own infirmity, and this belongs to the perfection that is called humility. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod exteriorem virtutis actum quandoque aliqui efficiunt non habentes virtutem, ex aliqua alia causa quam ex virtute. Et ideo philosophus, in III Ethic., ponit quinque modos eorum qui similitudinarie dicuntur fortes, quasi exercentes actum fortitudinis praeter virtutem. Quod quidem contingit tripliciter. Primo quidem, quia feruntur in id quod est difficile ac si non esset difficile. Quod in tres modos dividitur. Quandoque enim hoc accidit propter ignorantiam, quia scilicet homo non percipit magnitudinem periculi. Quandoque autem hoc accidit propter hoc quod homo est bonae spei ad pericula vincenda, puta cum expertus est se saepe pericula evasisse. Quandoque autem hoc accidit propter scientiam et artem quandam, sicut contingit in militibus, qui propter peritiam armorum et exercitium non reputant gravia pericula belli, aestimantes se per suam artem posse contra ea defendi; sicut Vegetius dicit, in libro de re militari, nemo facere metuit quod se bene didicisse confidit. Alio modo agit aliquis actum fortitudinis sine virtute, propter impulsum passionis, vel tristitiae, quam vult repellere; vel etiam irae. Tertio modo, propter electionem, non quidem finis debiti, sed alicuius temporalis commodi acquirendi, puta honoris, voluptatis vel lucri; vel alicuius incommodi vitandi, puta vituperii, afflictionis vel damni. | Reply to Objection 2. Sometimes a person performs the exterior act of a virtue without having the virtue, and from some other cause than virtue. Hence the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 8) mentions five ways in which people are said to be brave by way of resemblance, through performing acts of fortitude without having the virtue. This may be done in three ways. First, because they tend to that which is difficult as though it were not difficult: and this again happens in three ways, for sometimes this is owing to ignorance, through not perceiving the greatness of the danger; sometimes it is owing to the fact that one is hopeful of overcoming dangers--when, for instance, one has often experienced escape from danger; and sometimes this is owing to a certain science and art, as in the case of soldiers who, through skill and practice in the use of arms, think little of the dangers of battle, as they reckon themselves capable of defending themselves against them; thus Vegetius says (De Re Milit. i), "No man fears to do what he is confident of having learned to do well." Secondly, a man performs an act of fortitude without having the virtue, through the impulse of a passion, whether of sorrow that he wishes to cast off, or again of anger. Thirdly, through choice, not indeed of a due end, but of some temporal advantage to be obtained, such as honor, pleasure, or gain, or of some disadvantage to be avoided, such as blame, pain, or loss. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ad similitudinem corporalis fortitudinis dicitur fortitudo animae, quae ponitur virtus, ut dictum est. Nec tamen est contra rationem virtutis quod ex naturali complexione aliquis habeat naturalem inclinationem ad virtutem, ut supra dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3. The fortitude of the soul which is reckoned a virtue, as explained in the Reply to the First Objection, is so called from its likeness to fortitude of the body. Nor is it inconsistent with the notion of virtue, that a man should have a natural inclination to virtue by reason of his natural temperament, as stated above (I-II, 63, 1). |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortitudo non sit specialis virtus. Dicitur enim Sap. VIII, quod sapientia sobrietatem et prudentiam docet, iustitiam et virtutem, et ponitur ibi virtus pro fortitudine. Cum ergo nomen virtutis sit commune omnibus virtutibus, videtur quod fortitudo sit generalis virtus. | Objection 1. It seems that fortitude is not a special virtue. For it is written (Wisdom 8:7): "She teacheth temperance, and prudence, and justice, and fortitude," where the text has "virtue" for "fortitude." Since then the term "virtue" is common to all virtues, it seems that fortitude is a general virtue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit, in I de Offic., non mediocris animi est fortitudo, quae sola defendit ornamenta virtutum omnium, et iudicia custodit; et quae inexpiabili praelio adversus omnia vitia decertat. Invicta ad labores, fortis ad pericula, rigidior adversus voluptates, avaritiam fugat tanquam labem quandam quae virtutem effeminet. Et idem postea subdit de aliis vitiis. Hoc autem non potest convenire alicui speciali virtuti. Ergo fortitudo non est specialis virtus. | Objection 2. Further, Ambrose says (De Offic. i): "Fortitude is not lacking in courage, for alone she defends the honor of the virtues and guards their behests. She it is that wages an inexorable war on all vice, undeterred by toil, brave in face of dangers, steeled against pleasures, unyielding to lusts, avoiding covetousness as a deformity that weakens virtue"; and he says the same further on in connection with other vices. Now this cannot apply to any special virtue. Therefore fortitude is not a special virtue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, nomen fortitudinis a firmitate sumptum esse videtur. Sed firmiter se habere pertinet ad omnem virtutem, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Ergo fortitudo est generalis virtus. | Objection 3. Further, fortitude would seem to derive its name from firmness. But it belongs to every virtue to stand firm, as stated in Ethic. ii. Therefore fortitude is a general virtue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod in XXII Moral., Gregorius connumerat eam aliis virtutibus. | On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxii) numbers it among the other virtues. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, nomen fortitudinis dupliciter accipi potest. Uno modo, secundum quod absolute importat quandam animi firmitatem. Et secundum hoc est generalis virtus, vel potius conditio cuiuslibet virtutis, quia sicut philosophus dicit, in II Ethic., ad virtutem requiritur firmiter et immobiliter operari. Alio modo potest accipi fortitudo secundum quod importat firmitatem animi in sustinendis et repellendis his in quibus maxime difficile est firmitatem habere, scilicet in aliquibus periculis gravibus. Unde Tullius dicit, in sua rhetorica, quod fortitudo est considerata periculorum susceptio et laborum perpessio. Et sic fortitudo ponitur specialis virtus, utpote materiam determinatam habens. | I answer that, As stated above (I-II, 61, 3,4), the term "fortitude" can be taken in two ways. First, as simply denoting a certain firmness of mind, and in this sense it is a general virtue, or rather a condition of every virtue, since as the Philosopher states (Ethic. ii), it is requisite for every virtue to act firmly and immovably. Secondly, fortitude may be taken to denote firmness only in bearing and withstanding those things wherein it is most difficult to be firm, namely in certain grave dangers. Therefore Tully says (Rhet. ii), that "fortitude is deliberate facing of dangers and bearing of toils." On this sense fortitude is reckoned a special virtue, because it has a special matter. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod secundum philosophum, in I de caelo, nomen virtutis refertur ad ultimum potentiae. Dicitur autem uno modo potentia naturalis secundum quam aliquis potest resistere corrumpentibus, alio modo secundum quod est principium agendi, ut patet in V Metaphys. Et ideo, quia haec acceptio est communior, nomen virtutis secundum quod importat ultimum talis potentiae, est commune, nam virtus communiter sumpta nihil est aliud quam habitus quo quis potest bene operari. Secundum autem quod importat ultimum potentiae primo modo dictae, qui quidem est modus magis specialis, attribuitur speciali virtuti scilicet fortitudini, ad quam pertinet firmiter stare contra quaecumque impugnantia. | Reply to Objection 1. According to the Philosopher (De Coelo i, 116) the word virtue refers to the extreme limit of a power. Now a natural power is, in one sense, the power of resisting corruptions, and in another sense is a principle of action, as stated in Metaph. v, 17. And since this latter meaning is the more common, the term "virtue," as denoting the extreme limit of such a power, is a common term, for virtue taken in a general sense is nothing else than a habit whereby one acts well. But as denoting the extreme limit of power in the first sense, which sense is more specific, it is applied to a special virtue, namely fortitude, to which it belongs to stand firm against all kinds of assaults. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Ambrosius accipit fortitudinem large, secundum quod importat animi firmitatem respectu quorumcumque impugnantium. Et tamen etiam secundum quod est specialis virtus habens determinatam materiam, coadiuvat ad resistendum impugnationibus omnium vitiorum. Qui enim potest firmiter stare in his quae sunt difficillima ad sustinendum, consequens est quod sit idoneus ad resistendum aliis quae sunt minus difficilia. | Reply to Objection 2. Ambrose takes fortitude in a broad sense, as denoting firmness of mind in face of assaults of all kinds. Nevertheless even as a special virtue with a determinate matter, it helps to resist the assaults of all vices. For he that can stand firm in things that are most difficult to bear, is prepared, in consequence, to resist those which are less difficult. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de fortitudine primo modo dicta. | Reply to Objection 3. This objection takes fortitude in the first sense. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortitudo non sit circa timores et audacias. Dicit enim Gregorius, VII Moral., iustorum fortitudo est carnem vincere, propriis voluptatibus contraire, delectationem vitae praesentis extinguere. Ergo fortitudo magis videtur esse circa delectationes quam circa timores et audacias. | Objection 1. It seems that fortitude is not about fear and daring. For Gregory says (Moral. vii): "The fortitude of the just man is to overcome the flesh, to withstand self-indulgence, to quench the lusts of the present life." Therefore fortitude seems to be about pleasures rather than about fear and daring. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, Tullius dicit, in sua rhetorica, quod ad fortitudinem pertinet susceptio periculorum et perpessio laborum. Sed hoc non videtur pertinere ad passionem timoris vel audaciae, sed magis ad actiones hominis laboriosas, vel ad exteriores res periculosas. Ergo fortitudo non est circa timores et audacias. | Objection 2. Further, Tully says (De Invent. Rhet. ii), that it belongs to fortitude to face dangers and to bear toil. But this seemingly has nothing to do with the passions of fear and daring, but rather with a man's toilsome deeds and external dangers. Therefore fortitude is not about fear and daring. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, timori non solum opponitur audacia, sed etiam spes, ut supra habitum est, cum de passionibus ageretur. Ergo fortitudo non magis debet esse circa audaciam quam circa spem. | Objection 3. Further, not only daring, but also hope, is opposed to fear, as stated above (I-II, 45, 1, ad 2) in the treatise on passions. Therefore fortitude should not be about daring any more than about hope. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in II et in III Ethic., quod fortitudo est circa timorem et audaciam. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 7; iii, 9) that fortitude is about fear and daring. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ad virtutem fortitudinis pertinet removere impedimentum quo retrahitur voluntas a sequela rationis. Quod autem aliquis retrahatur ab aliquo difficili, pertinet ad rationem timoris, qui importat recessum quendam a malo difficultatem habente, ut supra habitum est, cum de passionibus ageretur. Et ideo fortitudo principaliter est circa timores rerum difficilium, quae retrahere possunt voluntatem a sequela rationis. Oportet autem huiusmodi rerum difficilium impulsum non solum firmiter tolerare cohibendo timorem, sed etiam moderate aggredi, quando scilicet oportet ea exterminare, ad securitatem in posterum habendam. Quod videtur pertinere ad rationem audaciae. Et ideo fortitudo est circa timores et audacias, quasi cohibitiva timorum, et moderativa audaciarum. | I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), it belongs to the virtue of fortitude to remove any obstacle that withdraws the will from following the reason. Now to be withdrawn from something difficult belongs to the notion of fear, which denotes withdrawal from an evil that entails difficulty, as stated above (I-II, 42, 3,5) in the treatise on passions. Hence fortitude is chiefly about fear of difficult things, which can withdraw the will from following the reason. And it behooves one not only firmly to bear the assault of these difficulties by restraining fear, but also moderately to withstand them, when, to wit, it is necessary to dispel them altogether in order to free oneself therefrom for the future, which seems to come under the notion of daring. Therefore fortitude is about fear and daring, as curbing fear and moderating daring. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Gregorius ibi loquitur de fortitudine iustorum secundum quod communiter se habet ad omnem virtutem. Unde praemittit quaedam pertinentia ad temperantiam, ut dictum est, et subdit de his quae pertinent proprie ad fortitudinem secundum quod est specialis virtus, dicens, huius mundi aspera pro aeternis praemiis amare. | Reply to Objection 1. Gregory is speaking then of the fortitude of the just man, as to its common relation to all virtues. Hence he first of all mentions matters pertaining to temperance, as in the words quoted, and then adds that which pertains properly to fortitude as a special virtue, by saying: "To love the trials of this life for the sake of an eternal reward." |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod res periculosae et actus laboriosi non retrahunt voluntatem a via rationis nisi inquantum timentur. Et ideo oportet quod fortitudo sit immediate circa timores et audacias, mediate autem circa pericula et labores, sicut circa obiecta praedictarum passionum. | Reply to Objection 2. Dangers and toils do not withdraw the will from the course of reason, except in so far as they are an object of fear. Hence fortitude needs to be immediately about fear and daring, but mediately about dangers and toils, these being the objects of those passions. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod spes opponitur timori ex parte obiecti, quia spes est de bono, timor de malo. Audacia autem est circa idem obiectum, et opponitur timori secundum accessum et recessum, ut supra dictum est. Et quia fortitudo proprie respicit temporalia mala retrahentia a virtute, ut patet per definitionem Tullii; inde est quod fortitudo proprie est circa timorem et audaciam, non autem circa spem, nisi inquantum connectitur audaciae, ut supra habitum est. | Reply to Objection 3. Hope is opposed to fear on the part of the object, for hope is of good, fear of evil: whereas daring is about the same object, and is opposed to fear by way of approach and withdrawal, as stated above (I-II, 45, 1). And since fortitude properly regards those temporal evils that withdraw one from virtue, as appears from Tully's definition quoted in the Second Objection, it follows that fortitude properly is about fear and daring and not about hope, except in so far as it is connected with daring, as stated above (I-II, 45, 2). |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortitudo non solum sit circa pericula mortis. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de moribus Eccle., quod fortitudo est amor facile tolerans omnia propter id quod amatur. Et in VI musicae dicit quod fortitudo est affectio quae nullas adversitates mortemve formidat. Ergo fortitudo non est solum circa pericula mortis, sed circa omnia alia adversa. | Objection 1. It seems that fortitude is not only about dangers of death. For Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. xv) that "fortitude is love bearing all things readily for the sake of the object beloved": and (Music. vi) he says that fortitude is "the love which dreads no hardship, not even death." Therefore fortitude is not only about danger of death, but also about other afflictions. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, oportet omnes passiones animae per aliquam virtutem ad medium reduci. Sed non est dare aliquam aliam virtutem reducentem ad medium alios timores. Ergo fortitudo non solum est circa timores mortis, sed etiam circa alios timores. | Objection 2. Further, all the passions of the soul need to be reduced to a mean by some virtue. Now there is no other virtue reducing fears to a mean. Therefore fortitude is not only about fear of death, but also about other fears. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, nulla virtus est in extremis. Sed timor mortis est in extremo, quia est maximus timorum, ut dicitur in III Ethic. Ergo virtus fortitudinis non est circa timores mortis. | Objection 3. Further, no virtue is about extremes. But fear of death is about an extreme, since it is the greatest of fears, as stated in Ethic. iii. Therefore the virtue of fortitude is not about fear of death. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Andronicus dicit, quod fortitudo est virtus irascibilis non facile obstupescibilis a timoribus qui sunt circa mortem. | On the contrary, Andronicus says that "fortitude is a virtue of the irascible faculty that is not easily deterred by the fear of death." |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, ad virtutem fortitudinis pertinet ut voluntatem hominis tueatur ne retrahatur a bono rationis propter timorem mali corporalis. Oportet autem bonum rationis firmiter tenere contra quodcumque malum, quia nullum bonum corporale aequivalet bono rationis. Et ideo oportet quod fortitudo animi dicatur quae firmiter retinet voluntatem hominis in bono rationis contra maxima mala, quia qui stat firmus contra maiora, consequens est quod stet firmus contra minora, sed non convertitur; et hoc etiam ad rationem virtutis pertinet, ut respiciat ultimum. Maxime autem terribile inter omnia corporalia mala est mors, quae tollit omnia corporalia bona, unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de moribus Eccle., quod vinculum corporis, ne concutiatur atque vexetur, laboris et doloris; ne auferatur autem atque perimatur, mortis terrore animam quatit. Et ideo virtus fortitudinis est circa timores periculorum mortis. | I answer that, As stated above (Article 3), it belongs to the virtue of fortitude to guard the will against being withdrawn from the good of reason through fear of bodily evil. Now it behooves one to hold firmly the good of reason against every evil whatsoever, since no bodily good is equivalent to the good of the reason. Hence fortitude of soul must be that which binds the will firmly to the good of reason in face of the greatest evils: because he that stands firm against great things, will in consequence stand firm against less things, but not conversely. Moreover it belongs to the notion of virtue that it should regard something extreme: and the most fearful of all bodily evils is death, since it does away all bodily goods. Wherefore Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. xxii) that "the soul is shaken by its fellow body, with fear of toil and pain, lest the body be stricken and harassed with fear of death lest it be done away and destroyed." Therefore the virtue of fortitude is about the fear of dangers of death. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod fortitudo bene se habet in omnibus adversis tolerandis. Non tamen ex toleratione quorumlibet adversorum reputatur homo simpliciter fortis, sed solum ex hoc quod bene tolerat etiam maxima mala. Ex aliis autem dicitur aliquis fortis secundum quid. | Reply to Objection 1. Fortitude behaves well in bearing all manner of adversity: yet a man is not reckoned brave simply through bearing any kind of adversity, but only through bearing well even the greatest evils; while through bearing others he is said to be brave in a restricted sense. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod quia timor ex amore nascitur, quaecumque virtus moderatur amorem aliquorum bonorum, consequens est ut moderetur timorem contrariorum malorum. Sicut liberalitas, quae moderatur amorem pecuniarum, per consequens etiam moderatur timorem amissionis earum. Et idem apparet in temperantia et in aliis virtutibus. Sed amare propriam vitam est naturale. Et ideo oportuit esse specialem virtutem quae moderaretur timores mortis. | Reply to Objection 2. Since fear is born of love, any virtue that moderates the love of certain goods must in consequence moderate the fear of contrary evils: thus liberality, which moderates the love of money, as a consequence, moderates the fear of losing it, and the same is the case with temperance and other virtues. But to love one's own life is natural: and hence the necessity of a special virtue modifying the fear of death. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod extremum in virtutibus attenditur secundum excessum rationis rectae. Et ideo si aliquis maxima pericula subeat secundum rationem, non est virtuti contrarium. | Reply to Objection 3. In virtues the extreme consists in exceeding right reason: wherefore to undergo the greatest dangers in accordance with reason is not contrary to virtue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortitudo non consistat proprie circa pericula mortis quae sunt in bello. Martyres enim praecipue de fortitudine commendantur. Sed martyres non commendantur de rebus bellicis. Ergo fortitudo non proprie consistit circa pericula mortis quae sunt in bellicis. | Objection 1. It seems that fortitude is not properly about dangers of death in battle. For martyrs above all are commended for their fortitude. But martyrs are not commended in connection with battle. Therefore fortitude is not properly about dangers of death in battle. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit, in I de Offic., quod fortitudo dividitur in res bellicas et domesticas. Tullius etiam dicit, in I de Offic., quod cum plerique arbitrentur res bellicas maiores esse quam urbanas, minuenda est haec opinio, sed si vere volumus iudicare, multae res extiterunt urbanae maiores clarioresque quam bellicae. Sed circa maiora maior fortitudo consistit. Ergo non proprie consistit fortitudo circa mortem quae est in bello. | Objection 2. Further, Ambrose says (De Offic. i) that "fortitude is applicable both to warlike and to civil matters": and Tully (De Offic. i), under the heading, "That it pertains to fortitude to excel in battle rather than in civil life," says: "Although not a few think that the business of war is of greater importance than the affairs of civil life, this opinion must be qualified: and if we wish to judge the matter truly, there are many things in civil life that are more important and more glorious than those connected with war." Now greater fortitude is about greater things. Therefore fortitude is not properly concerned with death in battle. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, bella ordinantur ad pacem temporalem reipublicae conservandam, dicit enim Augustinus, XIX de Civ. Dei, quod intentione pacis bella aguntur. Sed pro pace temporali reipublicae non videtur quod aliquis debeat se periculo mortis exponere, cum talis pax sit multarum lasciviarum occasio. Ergo videtur quod virtus fortitudinis non consistat circa mortis bellicae pericula. | Objection 3. Further, war is directed to the preservation of a country's temporal peace: for Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix) that "wars are waged in order to insure peace." Now it does not seem that one ought to expose oneself to the danger of death for the temporal peace of one's country, since this same peace is the occasion of much license in morals. Therefore it seems that the virtue of fortitude is not about the danger of death in battle. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod maxime est fortitudo circa mortem quae est in bello. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii) that fortitude is chiefly about death in battle. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, fortitudo confirmat animum hominis contra maxima pericula, quae sunt pericula mortis. Sed quia fortitudo virtus est, ad cuius rationem pertinet quod semper tendat in bonum, consequens est ut homo pericula mortis non refugiat propter aliquod bonum prosequendum. Pericula autem mortis quae est ex aegritudine, vel ex tempestate maris, vel ex incursu latronum, vel si qua alia sunt huiusmodi, non videntur directe alicui imminere ex hoc quod prosequatur aliquod bonum. Sed pericula mortis quae est in bellicis directe imminent homini propter aliquod bonum, inquantum scilicet defendit bonum commune per iustum bellum. Potest autem aliquod esse iustum bellum dupliciter. Uno modo, generale, sicut cum aliqui decertant in acie. Alio modo, particulare, puta cum aliquis iudex, vel etiam privata persona, non recedit a iusto iudicio timore gladii imminentis vel cuiuscumque periculi, etiam si sit mortiferum. Pertinet ergo ad fortitudinem firmitatem animi praebere contra pericula mortis non solum quae imminent in bello communi, sed etiam quae imminent in particulari impugnatione, quae communi nomine bellum dici potest. Et secundum hoc, concedendum est quod fortitudo proprie est circa pericula mortis quae est in bello. Sed et circa pericula cuiuscumque alterius mortis fortis bene se habet, praesertim quia et cuiuslibet mortis homo potest periculum subire propter virtutem; puta cum aliquis non refugit amico infirmanti obsequi propter timorem mortiferae infectionis; vel cum non refugit itinerari ad aliquod pium negotium prosequendum propter timorem naufragii vel latronum. | I answer that, As stated above (Article 4), fortitude strengthens a man's mind against the greatest danger, which is that of death. Now fortitude is a virtue; and it is essential to virtue ever to tend to good; wherefore it is in order to pursue some good that man does not fly from the danger of death. But the dangers of death arising out of sickness, storms at sea, attacks from robbers, and the like, do not seem to come on a man through his pursuing some good. on the other hand, the dangers of death which occur in battle come to man directly on account of some good, because, to wit, he is defending the common good by a just fight. Now a just fight is of two kinds. First, there is the general combat, for instance, of those who fight in battle; secondly, there is the private combat, as when a judge or even private individual does not refrain from giving a just judgment through fear of the impending sword, or any other danger though it threaten death. Hence it belongs to fortitude to strengthen the mind against dangers of death, not only such as arise in a general battle, but also such as occur in singular combat, which may be called by the general name of battle. Accordingly it must be granted that fortitude is properly about dangers of death occurring in battle. Moreover, a brave man behaves well in face of danger of any other kind of death; especially since man may be in danger of any kind of death on account of virtue: thus may a man not fail to attend on a sick friend through fear of deadly infection, or not refuse to undertake a journey with some godly object in view through fear of shipwreck or robbers. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod martyres sustinent personales impugnationes propter summum bonum, quod est Deus. Ideo eorum fortitudo praecipue commendatur. Nec est extra genus fortitudinis quae est circa bellica. Unde dicuntur fortes facti in bello. | Reply to Objection 1. Martyrs face the fight that is waged against their own person, and this for the sake of the sovereign good which is God; wherefore their fortitude is praised above all. Nor is it outside the genus of fortitude that regards warlike actions, for which reason they are said to have been valiant in battle. [Office of Martyrs, ex. Heb. xi. 34.] |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod res domesticae vel urbanae distinguuntur contra res bellicas, quae scilicet pertinent ad bella communia. In ipsis tamen rebus domesticis vel urbanis possunt imminere pericula mortis ex impugnationibus quibusdam, quae sunt quaedam particularia bella. Et ita etiam circa huiusmodi potest esse proprie dicta fortitudo. | Reply to Objection 2. Personal and civil business is differentiated from the business of war that regards general wars. However, personal and civil affairs admit of dangers of death arising out of certain conflicts which are private wars, and so with regard to these also there may be fortitude properly so called. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod pax reipublicae est secundum se bona, nec redditur mala ex hoc quod aliqui male ea utuntur. Nam et multi alii sunt qui bene ea utuntur, et multo peiora mala per eam prohibentur, scilicet homicidia, sacrilegia, quam ex ea occasionentur, quae praecipue pertinent ad vitia carnis. | Reply to Objection 3. The peace of the state is good in itself, nor does it become evil because certain persons make evil use of it. For there are many others who make good use of it; and many evils prevented by it, such as murders and sacrileges, are much greater than those which are occasioned by it, and which belong chiefly to the sins of the flesh. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sustinere non sit principalis actus fortitudinis. Virtus enim est circa difficile et bonum, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed difficilius est aggredi quam sustinere. Ergo sustinere non est praecipuus fortitudinis actus. | Objection 1. It seems that endurance is not the chief act of fortitude. For virtue "is about the difficult and the good" (Ethic. ii, 3). Now it is more difficult to attack than to endure. Therefore endurance is not the chief act of fortitude. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, maioris potentiae esse videtur quod aliquid possit in aliud agere quam quod ipsum ab alio non immutetur. Sed aggredi est in aliud agere, sustinere autem est immobile perseverare. Cum ergo fortitudo perfectionem potentiae nominet, videtur quod magis ad fortitudinem pertineat aggredi quam sustinere. | Objection 2. Further, to be able to act on another seems to argue greater power than not to be changed by another. Now to attack is to act on another, and to endure is to persevere unchangeably. Since then fortitude denotes perfection of power, it seems that it belongs to fortitude to attack rather than to endure. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, magis distat ab uno contrariorum aliud contrarium quam simplex eius negatio. Sed ille qui sustinet hoc solum habet quod non timet, ille autem qui aggreditur contrarie movetur timenti, quia insequitur. Ergo videtur quod, cum fortitudo maxime retrahat animum a timore, quod magis pertineat ad eam aggredi quam sustinere. | Objection 3. Further, one contrary is more distant from the other than its mere negation. Now to endure is merely not to fear, whereas to attack denotes a movement contrary to that of fear, since it implies pursuit. Since then fortitude above all withdraws the mind from fear, it seems that it regards attack rather than endurance. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod in sustinendo tristia maxime aliqui fortes dicuntur. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 9) that "certain persons are" said to be brave chiefly because they endure affliction. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, et philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., fortitudo magis est circa timores reprimendos quam circa audacias moderandas. Difficilius enim est timorem reprimere quam audaciam moderari, eo quod ipsum periculum, quod est obiectum audaciae et timoris, de se confert aliquid ad repressionem audaciae, sed operatur ad augmentum timoris. Aggredi autem pertinet ad fortitudinem secundum quod moderatur audaciam, sed sustinere sequitur repressionem timoris. Et ideo principalior actus est fortitudinis sustinere, idest immobiliter sistere in periculis, quam aggredi. | I answer that, As stated above (Article 3), and according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 9), "fortitude is more concerned to allay fear, than to moderate daring." For it is more difficult to allay fear than to moderate daring, since the danger which is the object of daring and fear, tends by its very nature to check daring, but to increase fear. Now to attack belongs to fortitude in so far as the latter moderates daring, whereas to endure follows the repression of fear. Therefore the principal act of fortitude is endurance, that is to stand immovable in the midst of dangers rather than to attack them. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sustinere est difficilius quam aggredi, triplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia sustinere videtur aliquis ab aliquo fortiori invadente, qui autem aggreditur invadit per modum fortioris. Difficilius autem est pugnare cum fortiori quam cum debiliori. Secundo, quia ille qui sustinet iam sentit pericula imminentia, ille autem qui aggreditur habet ea ut futura. Difficilius autem est non moveri a praesentibus quam a futuris. Tertio, quia sustinere importat diuturnitatem temporis, sed aggredi potest aliquis ex subito motu. Difficilius autem est diu manere immobilem quam subito motu moveri ad aliquid arduum. Unde philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod quidam sunt praevolantes ante pericula, in ipsis autem discedunt, fortes autem e contrario se habent. | Reply to Objection 1. Endurance is more difficult than aggression, for three reasons. First, because endurance seemingly implies that one is being attacked by a stronger person, whereas aggression denotes that one is attacking as though one were the stronger party; and it is more difficult to contend with a stronger than with a weaker. Secondly, because he that endures already feels the presence of danger, whereas the aggressor looks upon danger as something to come; and it is more difficult to be unmoved by the present than by the future. Thirdly, because endurance implies length of time, whereas aggression is consistent with sudden movements; and it is more difficult to remain unmoved for a long time, than to be moved suddenly to something arduous. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that "some hurry to meet danger, yet fly when the danger is present; this is not the behavior of a brave man." |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod sustinere importat quidem passionem corporis, sed actum animae fortissime inhaerentis bono, ex quo sequitur quod non cedat passioni corporali iam imminenti. Virtus autem magis attenditur circa animam quam circa corpus. | Reply to Objection 2. Endurance denotes indeed a passion of the body, but an action of the soul cleaving most resolutely [fortissime] to good, the result being that it does not yield to the threatening passion of the body. Now virtue concerns the soul rather than the body. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui sustinet non timet, praesente iam causa timoris, quam non habet praesentem ille qui aggreditur. | Reply to Objection 3. He that endures fears not, though he is confronted with the cause of fear, whereas this cause is not present to the aggressor. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortis non operetur propter bonum proprii habitus. Finis enim in rebus agendis, etsi sit prior in intentione, est tamen posterior in executione. Sed actus fortitudinis in executione est posterior quam ipse fortitudinis habitus. Non ergo potest esse quod fortis agat propter bonum proprii habitus. | Objection 1. It seems that the brave man does not act for the sake of the good of his habit. For in matters of action the end, though first in intention, is last in execution. Now the act of fortitude, in the order of execution, follows the habit of fortitude. Therefore it is impossible for the brave man to act for the sake of the good of his habit. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, XIII de Trin., virtutes, quas propter solam beatitudinem amamus, sic persuadere quidam nobis audent, scilicet dicendo eas propter se appetendas, ut ipsam beatitudinem non amemus. Quod si faciunt, etiam ipsas utique amare desistemus, quando illam propter quam solam istas amavimus, non amamus. Sed fortitudo est virtus quaedam. Ergo actus fortitudinis non est ad ipsam fortitudinem, sed ad beatitudinem referendus. | Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "We love virtues for the sake of happiness, and yet some make bold to counsel us to be virtuous," namely by saying that we should desire virtue for its own sake, "without loving happiness. If they succeed in their endeavor, we shall surely cease to love virtue itself, since we shall no longer love that for the sake of which alone we love virtue." But fortitude is a virtue. Therefore the act of fortitude is directed not to fortitude but to happiness. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de moribus Eccle., quod fortitudo est amor omnia propter Deum facile perferens. Deus autem non est ipse habitus fortitudinis, sed aliquid melius, sicut oportet finem esse meliorem his quae sunt ad finem. Non ergo fortis agit propter bonum proprii habitus. | Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. xv) that "fortitude is love ready to bear all things for God's sake." Now God is not the habit of fortitude, but something better, since the end must needs be better than what is directed to the end. Therefore the brave man does not act for the sake of the good of his habit. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod forti fortitudo est bonum, talis autem et finis. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 7) that "to the brave man fortitude itself is a good": and such is his end. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est finis, scilicet proximus, et ultimus. Finis autem proximus uniuscuiusque agentis est ut similitudinem suae formae in alterum inducat, sicut finis ignis calefacientis est ut inducat similitudinem sui caloris in patiente, et finis aedificatoris est ut inducat similitudinem suae artis in materia. Quodcumque autem bonum ex hoc sequitur, si sit intentum, potest dici finis remotus agentis. Sicut autem in factibilibus materia exterior disponitur per artem, ita etiam in agibilibus per prudentiam disponuntur actus humani. Sic ergo dicendum est quod fortis sicut finem proximum intendit ut similitudinem sui habitus exprimat in actu, intendit enim agere secundum convenientiam sui habitus. Finis autem remotus est beatitudo, vel Deus. | I answer that, An end is twofold: proximate and ultimate. Now the proximate end of every agent is to introduce a likeness of that agent's form into something else: thus the end of fire in heating is to introduce the likeness of its heat into some passive matter, and the end of the builder is to introduce into matter the likeness of his art. Whatever good ensues from this, if it be intended, may be called the remote end of the agent. Now just as in things made, external matter is fashioned by art, so in things done, human deeds are fashioned by prudence. Accordingly we must conclude that the brave man intends as his proximate end to reproduce in action a likeness of his habit, for he intends to act in accordance with his habit: but his remote end is happiness or God. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 7 ad 1 Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. Nam prima ratio procedebat ac si ipsa essentia habitus esset finis, non autem similitudo eius in actu, ut dictum est. | This suffices for the Replies to the Objections: for the First Objection proceeds as though the very essence of a habit were its end, instead of the likeness of the habit in act, as stated. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 7 ad 2 Alia vero duo procedunt de fine ultimo. | The other two objections consider the ultimate end. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortis delectetur in suo actu. Delectatio enim est operatio connaturalis habitus non impedita, ut dicitur in X Ethic. Sed operatio fortis procedit ex habitu, qui agit in modum naturae. Ergo fortis habet delectationem in suo actu. | Objection 1. It seems that the brave man delights in his act. For "delight is the unhindered action of a connatural habit" (Ethic. x, 4,6,8). Now the brave deed proceeds from a habit which acts after the manner of nature. Therefore the brave man takes pleasure in his act. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, Galat. V, super illud, fructus autem spiritus caritas, gaudium, pax, dicit Ambrosius quod opera virtutum dicuntur fructus quia mentem hominis sancta et sincera delectatione reficiunt. Sed fortis agit opera virtutis. Ergo habet delectationem in suo actu. | Objection 2. Further, Ambrose, commenting on Galatians 5:22, "But the fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace," says that deeds of virtue are called "fruits because they refresh man's mind with a holy and pure delight." Now the brave man performs acts of virtue. Therefore he takes pleasure in his act. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, debilius vincitur a fortiori. Sed fortis plus amat bonum virtutis quam proprium corpus, quod periculis mortis exponit. Ergo delectatio de bono virtutis evacuat dolorem corporalem. Et ita delectabiliter omnino operatur. | Objection 3. Further, the weaker is overcome by the stronger. Now the brave man has a stronger love for the good of virtue than for his own body, which he exposes to the danger of death. Therefore the delight in the good of virtue banishes the pain of the body; and consequently the brave man does all things with pleasure. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod fortis in suo actu nihil delectabile videtur habere. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 9) that "the brave man seems to have no delight in his act." |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod sicut supra dictum est, cum de passionibus ageretur, duplex est delectatio, una quidem corporalis, quae consequitur tactum corporalem; alia autem animalis, quae consequitur apprehensionem animae. Et haec proprie consequitur opera virtutum, quia in eis consideratur bonum rationis. Principalis vero actus fortitudinis est sustinere aliqua tristia secundum apprehensionem animae, puta quod homo amittit corporalem vitam (quam virtuosus amat, non solum inquantum est quoddam bonum naturale, sed etiam inquantum est necessaria ad opera virtutum) et quae ad eam pertinent, et iterum sustinere aliqua dolorosa secundum tactum corporis, puta vulnera et flagella. Et ideo fortis ex una parte habet unde delectetur, scilicet secundum delectationem animalem, scilicet de ipso actu virtutis et de fine eius, ex alia vero parte habet unde doleat, et animaliter, dum considerat amissionem propriae vitae, et corporaliter. Unde, ut legitur II Machab. VI, Eleazarus dixit, diros corporis sustineo dolores, secundum animam vero, propter timorem tuum, libenter haec patior. Sensibilis autem dolor corporis facit non sentiri animalem delectationem virtutis, nisi forte propter superabundantem Dei gratiam, quae fortius elevat animam ad divina, in quibus delectatur, quam a corporalibus poenis afficiatur; sicut beatus Tiburtius, cum super carbones incensos nudis plantis incederet, dixit quod videbatur sibi super roseos flores ambulare. Facit tamen virtus fortitudinis ut ratio non absorbeatur a corporalibus doloribus. Tristitiam autem animalem superat delectatio virtutis, inquantum homo praefert bonum virtutis corporali vitae et quibuscumque ad eam pertinentibus. Et ideo philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod a forti non requiritur ut delectetur, quasi delectationem sentiens, sed sufficit quod non tristetur. | I answer that, As stated above (I-II, 31, 3,4,5) where we were treating of the passions, pleasure is twofold; one is bodily, resulting from bodily contact, the other is spiritual, resulting from an apprehension of the soul. It is the latter which properly results from deeds of virtue, since in them we consider the good of reason. Now the principal act of fortitude is to endure, not only certain things that are unpleasant as apprehended by the soul--for instance, the loss of bodily life, which the virtuous man loves not only as a natural good, but also as being necessary for acts of virtue, and things connected with them--but also to endure things unpleasant in respect of bodily contact, such as wounds and blows. Hence the brave man, on one side, has something that affords him delight, namely as regards spiritual pleasure, in the act itself of virtue and the end thereof: while, on the other hand, he has cause for both spiritual sorrow, in the thought of losing his life, and for bodily pain. Hence we read (2 Maccabees 6:30) that Eleazar said: "I suffer grievous pains in body: but in soul am well content to suffer these things because I fear Thee." Now the sensible pain of the body makes one insensible to the spiritual delight of virtue, without the copious assistance of God's grace, which has more strength to raise the soul to the Divine things in which it delights, than bodily pains have to afflict it. Thus the Blessed Tiburtius, while walking barefoot on the burning coal, said that he felt as though he were walking on roses. Yet the virtue of fortitude prevents the reason from being entirely overcome by bodily pain. And the delight of virtue overcomes spiritual sorrow, inasmuch as a man prefers the good of virtue to the life of the body and to whatever appertains thereto. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 3; iii, 9) that "it is not necessary for a brave man to delight so as to perceive his delight, but it suffices for him not to be sad." |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod vehementia actus vel passionis unius potentiae impedit aliam potentiam in suo actu. Et ideo per dolorem sensus impeditur mens fortis ne in propria operatione delectationem sentiat. | Reply to Objection 1. The vehemence of the action or passion of one power hinders the action of another power: wherefore the pain in his senses hinders the mind of the brave man from feeling delight in its proper operation. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod opera virtutum sunt delectabilia praecipue propter finem, possunt autem ex sui natura esse tristia. Et praecipue hoc contingit in fortitudine. Unde philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod non in omnibus virtutibus operari delectabiliter existit, praeter inquantum finem attingit. | Reply to Objection 2. Deeds of virtue are delightful chiefly on account of their end; yet they can be painful by their nature, and this is principally the case with fortitude. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 9) that "to perform deeds with pleasure does not happen in all virtues, except in so far as one attains the end." |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod tristitia animalis vincitur in forti a delectatione virtutis. Sed quia dolor corporalis est sensibilior, et apprehensio sensitiva magis est homini in manifesto, inde est quod a magnitudine corporalis doloris quasi evanescit delectatio spiritualis, quae est de fine virtutis. | Reply to Objection 3. In the brave man spiritual sorrow is overcome by the delight of virtue. Yet since bodily pain is more sensible, and the sensitive apprehension is more in evidence to man, it follows that spiritual pleasure in the end of virtue fades away, so to speak, in the presence of great bodily pain. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 9 arg. 1 Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortitudo non maxime consistat in repentinis. Illud enim videtur esse in repentinis quod ex inopinato provenit. Sed Tullius dicit, in sua rhetorica, quod fortitudo est considerata periculorum susceptio et laborum perpessio. Ergo fortitudo non consistit maxime in repentinis. | Objection 1. It seems that fortitude does not deal chiefly with sudden occurrences. For it would seem that things occur suddenly when they are unforeseen. But Tully says (De Invent. Rhet. ii) that "fortitude is the deliberate facing of danger, and bearing of toil." Therefore fortitude does not deal chiefly with sudden happenings. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 9 arg. 2 Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit, in I de Offic., fortis viri est non dissimulare cum aliquid immineat, sed praetendere, et tanquam de specula quadam mentis obviare cogitatione provida rebus futuris, ne forte dicat postea, ideo ista incidi, quia non arbitrabar posse evenire. Sed ubi est aliquid repentinum, ibi non potest provideri in futuro. Ergo operatio fortitudinis non est circa repentina. | Objection 2. Further, Ambrose says (De Offic. i): "The brave man is not unmindful of what may be likely to happen; he takes measures beforehand, and looks out as from the conning-tower of his mind, so as to encounter the future by his forethought, lest he should say afterwards: This befell me because I did not think it could possibly happen." But it is not possible to be prepared for the future in the case of sudden occurrences. Therefore the operation of fortitude is not concerned with sudden happenings. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 9 arg. 3 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod fortis est bonae spei. Sed spes expectat aliquid in futurum, quod repugnat repentino. Ergo operatio fortitudinis non consistit circa repentina. | Objection 3. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that the "brave man is of good hope." But hope looks forward to the future, which is inconsistent with sudden occurrences. Therefore the operation of fortitude is not concerned with sudden happenings. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 9 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod fortitudo maxime est circa quaecumque mortem inferunt, repentina existentia. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that "fortitude is chiefly about sudden dangers of death." |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 9 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in operatione fortitudinis duo sunt consideranda. Unum quidem, quantum ad electionem ipsius. Et sic fortitudo non est circa repentina. Eligit enim fortis praemeditari pericula quae possunt imminere, ut eis resistere possit, aut facilius ea ferre, quia, ut Gregorius dicit, in quadam homilia, iacula quae praevidentur minus feriunt, et nos mala mundi facilius ferimus, si contra ea clipeo praescientiae praemunimur. Aliud vero est considerandum in operatione fortitudinis quantum ad manifestationem virtuosi habitus. Et sic fortitudo maxime est circa repentina, quia secundum philosophum, in III Ethic., in repentinis periculis maxime manifestatur fortitudinis habitus. Habitus enim agit in modum naturae. Unde quod aliquis absque praemeditatione faciat ea quae sunt virtutis, cum necessitas imminet propter repentina pericula, hoc maxime manifestat quod sit fortitudo habitualiter in anima confirmata. Potest autem aliquis etiam qui habitu fortitudinis caret, ex diuturna praemeditatione animum suum contra pericula praeparare. Qua praeparatione etiam fortis utitur, cum tempus adest. | I answer that, Two things must be considered in the operation of fortitude. One is in regard to its choice: and thus fortitude is not about sudden occurrences: because the brave man chooses to think beforehand of the dangers that may arise, in order to be able to withstand them, or to bear them more easily: since according to Gregory (Hom. xxv in Evang.), "the blow that is foreseen strikes with less force, and we are able more easily to bear earthly wrongs, if we are forearmed with the shield of foreknowledge." The other thing to be considered in the operation of fortitude regards the display of the virtuous habit: and in this way fortitude is chiefly about sudden occurrences, because according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 8) the habit of fortitude is displayed chiefly in sudden dangers: since a habit works by way of nature. Wherefore if a person without forethought does that which pertains to virtue, when necessity urges on account of some sudden danger, this is a very strong proof that habitual fortitude is firmly seated in his mind. Yet is it possible for a person even without the habit of fortitude, to prepare his mind against danger by long forethought: in the same way as a brave man prepares himself when necessary. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 9 ad arg. Et per hoc patet responsio ab obiecta. | This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 10 arg. 1 Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortis non utatur ira in suo actu. Nullus enim debet assumere quasi instrumentum suae actionis illud quo non potest uti pro suo arbitrio. Sed homo non potest uti ira pro suo arbitrio, ut scilicet possit eam assumere cum velit et deponere cum velit, ut enim philosophus dicit, in libro de memoria, quando passio corporalis mota est, non statim quiescit ut homo vult. Ergo fortis non debet assumere iram ad suam operationem. | Objection 1. It seems that the brave man does not use anger in his action. For no one should employ as an instrument of his action that which he cannot use at will. Now man cannot use anger at will, so as to take it up and lay it aside when he will. For, as the Philosopher says (De Memoria ii), when a bodily passion is in movement, it does not rest at once just as one wishes. Therefore a brave man should not employ anger for his action. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 10 arg. 2 Praeterea, ille qui per seipsum sufficit ad aliquid agendum, non debet in auxilium sui assumere illud quod est infirmius et imperfectius. Sed ratio per seipsam sufficit ad opus fortitudinis exequendum, in quo iracundia deficit. Unde Seneca dicit, in libro de ira, non ad providendum tantum, sed ad res gerendas satis est per se ipsa ratio. Et quid stultius est quam hanc ab iracundia petere praesidium, rem stabilem ab incerta, fidelem ab infida, sanam ab aegra? Ergo fortitudo non debet iram assumere. | Objection 2. Further, if a man is competent to do a thing by himself, he should not seek the assistance of something weaker and more imperfect. Now the reason is competent to achieve by itself deeds of fortitude, wherein anger is impotent: wherefore Seneca says (De Ira i): "Reason by itself suffices not only to make us prepared for action but also to accomplish it. On fact is there greater folly than for reason to seek help from anger? the steadfast from the unstaid, the trusty from the untrustworthy, the healthy from the sick?" Therefore a brave man should not make use of anger. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 10 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut propter iram aliqui vehementius opera fortitudinis exequuntur, ita etiam et propter tristitiam vel concupiscentiam, unde philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod ferae propter tristitiam seu dolorem incitantur ad pericula, et adulteri propter concupiscentiam multa audacia operantur. Sed fortitudo non assumit ad suum actum neque tristitiam neque concupiscentiam. Ergo, pari ratione, non debet assumere iram. | Objection 3. Further, just as people are more earnest in doing deeds of fortitude on account of anger, so are they on account of sorrow or desire; wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that wild beasts are incited to face danger through sorrow or pain, and adulterous persons dare many things for the sake of desire. Now fortitude employs neither sorrow nor desire for its action. Therefore in like manner it should not employ anger. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 10 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod furor cooperatur fortibus. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that "anger helps the brave." |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 10 co. Respondeo dicendum quod de ira et ceteris animae passionibus, sicut supra dictum est, aliter sunt locuti Peripatetici, et aliter Stoici. Stoici enim et iram et omnes alias animae passiones ab animo sapientis, sive virtuosi, excludebant. Peripatetici vero, quorum princeps fuit Aristoteles, iram et alias animae passiones attribuebant virtuosis, sed moderatas ratione. Et forte quantum ad rem non differebant, sed solum quantum ad modum loquendi. Nam Peripatetici omnes motus appetitus sensitivi, qualitercumque se habentes, passiones animae nominabant, ut supra habitum est, et quia appetitus sensitivus movetur per imperium rationis ad hoc quod cooperetur ad promptius agendum, idcirco ponebant et iram et alias passiones animae assumendas esse a virtuosis, moderatas secundum imperium rationis. Stoici vero vocabant passiones animae immoderatos quosdam affectus appetitus sensitivi (unde nominabant eos aegritudines vel morbos), et ideo penitus eos a virtute separabant. Sic ergo iram moderatam assumit fortis ad suum actum, non autem iram immoderatam. | I answer that, As stated above (I-II, 24, 2), concerning anger and the other passions there was a difference of opinion between the Peripatetics and the Stoics. For the Stoics excluded anger and all other passions of the soul from the mind of a wise or good man: whereas the Peripatetics, of whom Aristotle was the chief, ascribed to virtuous men both anger and the other passions of the soul albeit modified by reason. And possibly they differed not in reality but in their way of speaking. For the Peripatetics, as stated above (I-II, 24, 2), gave the name of passions to all the movements of the sensitive appetite, however they may comport themselves. And since the sensitive appetite is moved by the command of reason, so that it may cooperate by rendering action more prompt, they held that virtuous persons should employ both anger and the other passions of the soul, modified according to the dictate of reason. On the other hand, the Stoics gave the name of passions to certain immoderate emotions of the sensitive appetite, wherefore they called them sicknesses or diseases, and for this reason severed them altogether from virtue. Accordingly the brave man employs moderate anger for his action, but not immoderate anger. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 10 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ira moderata secundum rationem subiicitur imperio rationis. Unde consequens est ut homo ea utatur pro suo arbitrio, non autem si esset immoderata. | Reply to Objection 1. Anger that is moderated in accordance with reason is subject to the command of reason: so that man uses it at his will, which would not be the case were it immoderate. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 10 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio non assumit iram ad sui actum quasi auxilium ab ea accipiens, sed quia utitur appetitu sensitivo ut instrumento, sicut et membris corporis. Nec est inconveniens si instrumentum sit imperfectius principali agente, ut martellus fabro. Seneca autem sectator fuit Stoicorum, et directe contra Aristotelem verba praemissa proponit. | Reply to Objection 2. Reason employs anger for its action, not as seeking its assistance, but because it uses the sensitive appetite as an instrument, just as it uses the members of the body. Nor is it unbecoming for the instrument to be more imperfect than the principal agent, even as the hammer is more imperfect than the smith. Moreover, Seneca was a follower of the Stoics, and the above words were aimed by him directly at Aristotle. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 10 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, cum fortitudo, sicut dictum est, habeat duos actus, scilicet sustinere et aggredi, non assumit iram ad actum sustinendi, quia hunc actum sola ratio per se facit, sed ad actum aggrediendi. Ad quem magis assumit iram quam alias passiones, quia ad iram pertinet insilire in rem contristantem, et sic directe cooperatur fortitudini in aggrediendo. Tristitia autem, secundum propriam rationem, succumbit nocivo, sed per accidens coadiuvat ad aggrediendum; vel inquantum tristitia est causa irae, ut supra dictum est; vel inquantum aliquis periculo se exponit ut tristitiam fugiat. Similiter etiam concupiscentia, secundum propriam rationem, tendit in bonum delectabile, cui per se repugnat aggressio periculorum, sed per accidens quandoque coadiuvat ad aggrediendum, inquantum scilicet aliquis potius vult pericula incidere quam delectabili carere. Et ideo philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod inter fortitudines quae sunt ex passione, naturalissima esse videtur quae est per iram, et accipiens electionem et cuius gratia (scilicet debitum finem), fortitudo (scilicet, fuit vera). | Reply to Objection 3. Whereas fortitude, as stated above (Article 6), has two acts, namely endurance and aggression, it employs anger, not for the act of endurance, because the reason by itself performs this act, but for the act of aggression, for which it employs anger rather than the other passions, since it belongs to anger to strike at the cause of sorrow, so that it directly cooperates with fortitude in attacking. On the other hand, sorrow by its very nature gives way to the thing that hurts; though accidentally it helps in aggression, either as being the cause of anger, as stated above (I-II, 47, 3), or as making a person expose himself to danger in order to escape from sorrow. On like manner desire, by its very nature, tends to a pleasurable good, to which it is directly contrary to withstand danger: yet accidentally sometimes it helps one to attack, in so far as one prefers to risk dangers rather than lack pleasure. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 5): "Of all the cases in which fortitude arises from a passion, the most natural is when a man is brave through anger, making his choice and acting for a purpose," i.e. for a due end; "this is true fortitude." |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 11 arg. 1 Ad undecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortitudo non sit virtus cardinalis. Ira enim, ut dictum est, maximam affinitatem habet ad fortitudinem. Sed ira non ponitur passio principalis, nec etiam audacia, quae ad fortitudinem pertinet. Ergo nec fortitudo debet poni virtus cardinalis. | Objection 1. It seems that fortitude is not a cardinal virtue. For, as stated above (Question 123, Article 10), anger is closely allied with fortitude. Now anger is not accounted a principal passion; nor is daring which belongs to fortitude. Therefore neither should fortitude be reckoned a cardinal virtue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 11 arg. 2 Praeterea, virtus ordinatur ad bonum. Sed fortitudo non directe ordinatur ad bonum, sed magis ad malum, scilicet ad sustinendum pericula et labores, ut Tullius dicit. Ergo fortitudo non est virtus cardinalis. | Objection 2. Further, the object of virtue is good. But the direct object of fortitude is not good, but evil, for it is endurance of evil and toil, as Tully says (De Inv. Rhet. ii). Therefore fortitude is not a cardinal virtue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 11 arg. 3 Praeterea, virtus cardinalis est circa ea in quibus praecipue versatur vita humana, sicut ostium in cardine vertitur. Sed fortitudo est circa pericula mortis, quae raro occurrunt in vita humana. Ergo fortitudo non debet poni virtus cardinalis sive principalis. | Objection 3. Further, the cardinal virtues are about those things upon which human life is chiefly occupied, just as a door turns upon a hinge (cardine). But fortitude is about dangers of death which are of rare occurrence in human life. Therefore fortitude should not be reckoned a cardinal or principal virtue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 11 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius, XXII Moral., et Ambrosius, super Luc., et Augustinus, in libro de moribus Eccle., numerant fortitudinem inter quatuor virtutes cardinales seu principales. | On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxii), Ambrose in his commentary on Luke 6:20, and Augustine (De Moribus Eccl. xv), number fortitude among the four cardinal or principal virtues. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 11 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, virtutes cardinales seu principales dicuntur quae praecipue sibi vindicant id quod pertinet communiter ad virtutes. Inter alias autem communes virtutis conditiones, una ponitur firmiter operari, ut patet in II Ethic. Laudem autem firmitatis potissime sibi vindicat fortitudo. Tanto enim magis laudatur qui firmiter stat, quanto habet gravius impellens ad cadendum vel retrocedendum. Impellit autem hominem ad discedendum ab eo quod est secundum rationem et bonum delectans et malum affligens, sed gravius impellit dolor corporis quam voluptas, dicit enim Augustinus, in libro octoginta trium quaest., nemo est qui non magis dolorem fugiat quam affectat voluptatem, quandoquidem videmus et immanissimas bestias a maximis voluptatibus exterreri dolorum metu. Et inter dolores animi et pericula maxime timentur ea quae ducunt ad mortem, contra quae firmiter stat fortis. Unde fortitudo est virtus cardinalis. | I answer that, As stated above (Prima Secundae Partis, Question 61, Article 3 and Article 4), those virtues are said to be cardinal or principal which have a foremost claim to that which belongs to the virtues in common. And among other conditions of virtue in general is one that is stated to "act steadfastly", according to Ethic. ii, 4. Now fortitude above all lays claim to praise for steadfastness. Because he that stands firm is so much the more praised, as he is more strongly impelled to fall or recede. Now man is impelled to reced from that which is in accordance with reason, both by the pleasing good and the displeasing evil. But bodily pain impels him more strongly than pleasure. For Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 36): "There is none that does not shun pain more than he desires pleasure. For we perceive that even the most untamed beasts are deterred from the greatest pleasures by the fear of pain." And among the pains of the mind and dangers those are mostly feared which lead to death, and it is against them that the brave man stands firm. Therefore fortitude is a cardinal virtue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 11 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod audacia et ira non cooperantur fortitudini ad actum eius qui est sustinere, in quo praecipue commendatur firmitas eius. Per hunc enim actum fortis cohibet timorem, qui est passio principalis, ut supra habitum est. | Reply to Objection 1. Daring and anger do not cooperate with fortitude in its act of endurance, wherein its steadfastness is chiefly commended: for it is by that act that the brave man curbs fear, which is a principal passion, as stated above (Prima Secundae Pars, Question 25, Article 4). |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 11 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod virtus ordinatur ad bonum rationis, quod conservari oportet contra impulsus malorum. Fortitudo autem ordinatur ad mala corporalia sicut ad contraria, quibus resistit, ad bonum autem rationis sicut ad finem, quem intendit conservare. | Reply to Objection 2. Virtue is directed to the good of reason which it behooves to safeguard against the onslaught of evils. And fortitude is directed to evils of the body, as contraries which it withstands, and to the good of reason, as the end, which it intends to safeguard. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 11 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod quamvis pericula mortis raro immineant, tamen occasiones horum periculorum frequenter occurrunt, dum scilicet homini adversarii mortales suscitantur propter iustitiam quam sequitur, et propter alia bona quae facit. | Reply to Objection 3. Though dangers of death are of rare occurrence, yet the occasions of those dangers occur frequently, since on account of justice which he pursues, and also on account of other good deeds, man encounters mortal adversaries. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 12 arg. 1 Ad duodecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortitudo praecellat inter omnes virtutes. Dicit enim Ambrosius, in I de Offic., est fortitudo velut ceteris excelsior. | Objection 1. It seems that fortitude excels among all other virtues. For Ambrose says (De Offic. i): "Fortitude is higher, so to speak, than the rest." |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 12 arg. 2 Praeterea, virtus est circa difficile et bonum. Sed fortitudo est circa difficillima. Ergo est maxima virtutum. | Objection 2. Further, virtue is about that which is difficult and good. But fortitude is about most difficult things. Therefore it is the greatest of the virtues. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 12 arg. 3 Praeterea, dignior est persona hominis quam res eius. Sed fortitudo est circa personam hominis, quam aliquis periculo mortis exponit propter bonum virtutis, iustitia autem et aliae virtutes morales sunt circa alias res exteriores. Ergo fortitudo est praecipua inter virtutes morales. | Objection 3. Further, the person of a man is more excellent than his possessions. But fortitude is about a man's person, for it is this that a man exposes to the danger of death for the good of virtue: whereas justice and the other moral virtues are about other and external things. Therefore fortitude is the chief of the moral virtues. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 12 s. c. 1 Sed contra est quod Tullius dicit, in I de Offic., in iustitia virtutis splendor est maximus, ex qua viri boni nominantur. | Objection 4.On the contrary, Tully says (De Offic. i): "Justice is the most resplendent of the virtues and gives its name to a good man." |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 12 s. c. 2 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in I Rhet., necesse est maximas esse virtutes quae maxime aliis utiles sunt. Sed liberalitas videtur magis utilis quam fortitudo. Ergo est maior virtus. | Objection 5. Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 19): "Those virtues must needs be greatest which are most profitable to others." Now liberality seems to be more useful than fortitude. Therefore it is a greater virtue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 12 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in VI de Trin., in his quae non mole magna sunt, idem est esse maius quod melius. Unde tanto aliqua virtus maior est quanto melior est. Bonum autem rationis est hominis bonum, secundum Dionysium, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Hoc autem bonum essentialiter quidem habet prudentia, quae est perfectio rationis. Iustitia autem est huius boni factiva, inquantum scilicet ad ipsam pertinet ordinem rationis ponere in omnibus rebus humanis. Aliae autem virtutes sunt conservativae huius boni, inquantum scilicet moderantur passiones, ne abducant hominem a bono rationis. Et in ordine harum fortitudo tenet locum praecipuum, quia timor periculorum mortis maxime est efficax ad hoc quod hominem faciat recedere a bono rationis. Post quam ordinatur temperantia, quia etiam delectationes tactus maxime inter cetera impediunt bonum rationis. Id autem quod essentialiter dicitur, potius est eo quod dicitur effective, et hoc etiam potius est eo quod dicitur conservative, secundum remotionem impedimenti. Unde inter virtutes cardinales prudentia est potior; secunda, iustitia; tertia, fortitudo; quarta, temperantia. Et post has, ceterae virtutes. | I answer that, As Augustine says (De Trin. vi), "In things that are great, but not in bulk, to be great is to be good": wherefore the better a virtue the greater it is. Now reason's good is man's good, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) prudence, since it is a perfection of reason, has the good essentially: while justice effects this good, since it belongs to justice to establish the order of reason in all human affairs: whereas the other virtues safeguard this good, inasmuch as they moderate the passions, lest they lead man away from reason's good. As to the order of the latter, fortitude holds the first place, because fear of dangers of death has the greatest power to make man recede from the good of reason: and after fortitude comes temperance, since also pleasures of touch excel all others in hindering the good of reason. Now to be a thing essentially ranks before effecting it, and the latter ranks before safeguarding it by removing obstacles thereto. Wherefore among the cardinal virtues, prudence ranks first, justice second, fortitude third, temperance fourth, and after these the other virtues. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 12 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Ambrosius fortitudinem aliis virtutibus praefert secundum quandam generalem utilitatem, prout scilicet et in rebus bellicis et in rebus civilibus seu domesticis utilis est. Unde ipse ibidem praemittit, nunc de fortitudine tractemus, quae, velut excelsior ceteris, dividitur in res bellicas et domesticas. | Reply to Objection 1. Ambrose places fortitude before the other virtues, in respect of a certain general utility, inasmuch as it is useful both in warfare, and in matters relating to civil or home life. Hence he begins by saying (De Offic. i): "Now we come to treat of fortitude, which being higher so to speak than the others, is applicable both to warlike and to civil matters." |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 12 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio virtutis magis consistit in bono quam in difficili. Unde magis est mensuranda magnitudo virtutis secundum rationem boni quam secundum rationem difficilis. | Reply to Objection 2. Virtue essentially regards the good rather than the difficult. Hence the greatness of a virtue is measured according to its goodness rather than its difficulty. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 12 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod homo non exponit personam suam mortis periculis nisi propter iustitiam conservandam. Et ideo laus fortitudinis dependet quodammodo ex iustitia. Unde dicit Ambrosius, in I de Offic., quod fortitudo sine iustitia iniquitatis est materia, quo enim validior est, eo promptior ut inferiorem opprimat. | Reply to Objection 3. A man does not expose his person to dangers of death except in order to safeguard justice: wherefore the praise awarded to fortitude depends somewhat on justice. Hence Ambrose says (De Offic. i) that "fortitude without justice is an occasion of injustice; since the stronger a man is the more ready is he to oppress the weaker." |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 12 ad 4 Quartum concedimus. | The Fourth argument is granted. |
| IIª-IIae q. 123 a. 12 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod liberalitas utilis est in quibusdam particularibus beneficiis. Sed fortitudo habet utilitatem generalem ad conservandum totum iustitiae ordinem. Et ideo philosophus dicit, in I Rhet., quod iusti et fortes maxime amantur, quia sunt maxime utiles et in bello et in pace. | Reply to Objection 5. Liberality is useful in conferring certain particular favors: whereas a certain general utility attaches to fortitude, since it safeguards the whole order of justice. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 9) that "just and brave men are most beloved, because they are most useful in war and peace." |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 pr. Deinde considerandum est de martyrio. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quinque. Primo, utrum martyrium sit actus virtutis. Secundo, cuius virtutis sit actus. Tertio, de perfectione huius actus. Quarto, de poena martyrii. Quinto, de causa. | Question 124. Martyrdom 1. Is martyrdom an act of virtue? 2. Of what virtue is it the act? 3. The perfection of this act 4. The pain of martyrdom 5. Its cause |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod martyrium non sit actus virtutis. Omnis enim actus virtutis est voluntarius. Sed martyrium quandoque non est voluntarium, ut patet de innocentibus pro Christo occisis, de quibus dicit Hilarius, super Matth., quod in aeternitatis profectum per martyrii gloriam efferebantur. Ergo martyrium non est actus virtutis. | Objection 1. It seems that martyrdom is not an act of virtue. For all acts of virtue are voluntary. But martyrdom is sometimes not voluntary, as in the case of the Innocents who were slain for Christ's sake, and of whom Hillary says (Super Matth. i) that "they attained the ripe age of eternity through the glory of martyrdom." Therefore martyrdom is not an act of virtue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, nullum illicitum est actus virtutis. Sed occidere seipsum est illicitum, ut supra habitum est. Per quod tamen martyrium consummatur, dicit enim Augustinus, in I de Civ. Dei, quod quaedam sanctae feminae, tempore persecutionis, ut insectatores suae pudicitiae devitarent, se in fluvium deiecerunt, eoque modo defunctae sunt; earumque martyria in Catholica Ecclesia veneratione celeberrima frequentantur. Non ergo martyrium est actus virtutis. | Objection 2. Further, nothing unlawful is an act of virtue. Now it is unlawful to kill oneself, as stated above (Question 64, Article 5), and yet martyrdom is achieved by so doing: for Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i) that "during persecution certain holy women, in order to escape from those who threatened their chastity, threw themselves into a river, and so ended their lives, and their martyrdom is honored in the Catholic Church with most solemn veneration." Therefore martyrdom is not an act of virtue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, laudabile est quod aliquis sponte se offerat ad exequendum actum virtutis. Sed non est laudabile quod aliquis martyrio se ingerat, sed magis videtur esse praesumptuosum et periculosum. Non ergo martyrium est actus virtutis. | Objection 3. Further, it is praiseworthy to offer oneself to do an act of virtue. But it is not praiseworthy to court martyrdom, rather would it seem to be presumptuous and rash. Therefore martyrdom is not an act of virtue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod praemium beatitudinis non debetur nisi actui virtutis. Debetur autem martyrio, secundum illud Matth. V, beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam, quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum. Ergo martyrium est actus virtutis. | On the contrary, The reward of beatitude is not due save to acts of virtue. Now it is due to martyrdom, since it is written (Matthew 5:10): "Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Therefore martyrdom is an act of virtue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ad virtutem pertinet quod aliquis in bono rationis conservetur. Consistit autem bonum rationis in veritate, sicut in proprio obiecto; et in iustitia, sicut in proprio effectu, sicut ex supra dictis patet. Pertinet autem ad rationem martyrii ut aliquis firmiter stet in veritate et iustitia contra persequentium impetus. Unde manifestum est quod martyrium est actus virtutis. | I answer that, As stated above (123, 1 and 3), it belongs to virtue to safeguard man in the good of reason. Now the good of reason consists in the truth as its proper object, and in justice as its proper effect, as shown above (109, 1 and 2; 123, 12). And martyrdom consists essentially in standing firmly to truth and justice against the assaults of persecution. Hence it is evident that martyrdom is an act of virtue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt quod in innocentibus acceleratus est miraculose usus liberi arbitrii, ita quod etiam voluntarie martyrium passi sunt. Sed quia hoc per auctoritatem Scripturae non comprobatur, ideo melius dicendum est quod martyrii gloriam, quam in aliis propria voluntas meretur, illi parvuli occisi per Dei gratiam sunt assecuti. Nam effusio sanguinis propter Christum vicem gerit Baptismi. Unde sicut pueris baptizatis per gratiam baptismalem meritum Christi operatur ad gloriam obtinendam, ita in occisis propter Christum meritum martyrii Christi operatur ad palmam martyrii consequendam. Unde Augustinus dicit, in quodam sermone de Epiphania, quasi eos alloquens, ille de vestra corona dubitabit in passione pro Christo, qui etiam parvulis Baptismum prodesse non aestimat Christi. Non habebatis aetatem qua in passurum Christum crederetis, sed habebatis carnem in qua pro Christo passuro passionem sustineretis. | Reply to Objection 1. Some have said that in the case of the Innocents the use of their free will was miraculously accelerated, so that they suffered martyrdom even voluntarily. Since, however, Scripture contains no proof of this, it is better to say that these babes in being slain obtained by God's grace the glory of martyrdom which others acquire by their own will. For the shedding of one's blood for Christ's sake takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore just as in the case of baptized children the merit of Christ is conducive to the acquisition of glory through the baptismal grace, so in those who were slain for Christ's sake the merit of Christ's martyrdom is conducive to the acquisition of the martyr's palm. Hence Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (De Diversis lxvi), as though he were addressing them: "A man that does not believe that children are benefited by the baptism of Christ will doubt of your being crowned in suffering for Christ. You were not old enough to believe in Christ's future sufferings, but you had a body wherein you could endure suffering of Christ Who was to suffer." |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus ibidem dicit, esset possibile quod aliquibus fide dignis testificationibus divina persuasit auctoritas Ecclesiae ut dictarum sanctarum memoriam honoraret. | Reply to Objection 2. Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i) that "possibly the Church was induced by certain credible witnesses of Divine authority thus to honor the memory of those holy women [Cf. 64, 1, ad 2]." |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod praecepta legis dantur de actibus virtutis. Dictum autem est supra quaedam praecepta legis divinae tradita esse secundum praeparationem animi, ut scilicet homo sit paratus hoc vel illud faciendi cum fuerit opportunum. Ita etiam et aliqua pertinent ad actum virtutis secundum animi praeparationem, ut scilicet, superveniente tali casu, homo secundum rationem agat. Et hoc praecipue videtur observandum in martyrio, quod consistit in debita sustinentia passionum iniuste inflictarum, non autem debet homo occasionem dare alteri iniuste agendi, sed si alius iniuste egerit, ipse debet moderate tolerare. | Reply to Objection 3. The precepts of the Law are about acts of virtue. Now it has been stated (I-II, 108, 1, ad 4) that some of the precepts of the Divine Law are to be understood in reference to the preparation of the mind, in the sense that man ought to be prepared to do such and such a thing, whenever expedient. On the same way certain things belong to an act of virtue as regards the preparation of the mind, so that in such and such a case a man should act according to reason. And this observation would seem very much to the point in the case of martyrdom, which consists in the right endurance of sufferings unjustly inflicted. Nor ought a man to give another an occasion of acting unjustly: yet if anyone act unjustly, one ought to endure it in moderation. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod martyrium non sit actus fortitudinis. Dicitur enim martyr in Graeco quasi testis. Testimonium autem redditur fidei Christi, secundum illud Act. I, eritis mihi testes in Ierusalem, et cetera. Et maximus dicit, in quodam sermone, mater martyrii fides Catholica est, in qua illustres athletae suo sanguine subscripserunt. Ergo martyrium est potius actus fidei quam fortitudinis. | Objection 1. It seems that martyrdom is not an act of fortitude. For the Greek martyr signifies a witness. Now witness is borne to the faith of Christ. according to Acts 1:8, "You shall be witnesses unto Me," etc. and Maximus says in a sermon: "The mother of martyrs is the Catholic faith which those glorious warriors have sealed with their blood." Therefore martyrdom is an act of faith rather than of fortitude. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, actus laudabilis ad illam virtutem praecipue pertinet quae ad ipsum inclinat, et quae ab ipso manifestatur, et sine qua ipse non valet. Sed ad martyrium praecipue inclinat caritas, unde in quodam sermone maximi dicitur, caritas Christi in martyribus suis vicit. Maxime etiam caritas per actum martyrii manifestatur, secundum illud Ioan. XV, maiorem dilectionem nemo habet quam ut animam suam ponat quis pro amicis suis. Sine caritate etiam martyrium nihil valet, secundum illud I ad Cor. XIII, si tradidero corpus meum ita ut ardeam, caritatem autem non habuero, nihil mihi prodest. Ergo martyrium magis est actus caritatis quam fortitudinis. | Objection 2. Further, a praiseworthy act belongs chiefly to the virtue which inclines thereto, is manifested thereby, and without which the act avails nothing. Now charity is the chief incentive to martyrdom: Thus Maximus says in a sermon: "The charity of Christ is victorious in His martyrs." Again the greatest proof of charity lies in the act of martyrdom, according to John 15:13, "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Moreover without charity martyrdom avails nothing, according to 1 Corinthians 13:3, "If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." Therefore martyrdom is an act of charity rather than of fortitude. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in quodam sermone de sancto Cypriano, facile est martyrem celebrando venerari, magnum vero fidem eius et patientiam imitari. Sed in unoquoque actu virtutis praecipue laudabilis redditur virtus cuius est actus. Ergo martyrium magis est actus patientiae quam fortitudinis. | Objection 3. Further, Augustine says in a sermon on St. Cyprian: "It is easy to honor a martyr by singing his praises, but it is a great thing to imitate his faith and patience." Now that which calls chiefly for praise in a virtuous act, is the virtue of which it is the act. Therefore martyrdom is an act of patience rather than of fortitude. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Cyprianus dicit, in epistola ad martyres et confessores, o beati martyres, quibus vos laudibus praedicem? O milites fortissimi, robur corporis vestri quo praeconio vocis explicem? Quilibet autem laudatur de virtute cuius actum exercet. Ergo martyrium est actus fortitudinis. | On the contrary, Cyprian says (Ep. ad Mart. et Conf. ii): "Blessed martyrs, with what praise shall I extol you? Most valiant warriors, how shall I find words to proclaim the strength of your courage?" Now a person is praised on account of the virtue whose act he performs. Therefore martyrdom is an act of fortitude. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex supra dictis patet, ad fortitudinem pertinet ut confirmet hominem in bono virtutis contra pericula, et praecipue contra pericula mortis, et maxime eius quae est in bello. Manifestum est autem quod in martyrio homo firmiter confirmatur in bono virtutis, dum fidem et iustitiam non deserit propter imminentia pericula mortis, quae etiam in quodam certamine particulari a persecutoribus imminent. Unde Cyprianus dicit, in quodam sermone, vidit admirans praesentium multitudo caeleste certamen, et in praelio stetisse servos Christi voce libera, mente incorrupta, virtute divina. Unde manifestum est quod martyrium est fortitudinis actus. Et propter hoc de martyribus legit Ecclesia, fortes facti sunt in bello. | I answer that, As stated above (123, 1, seqq.), it belongs to fortitude to strengthen man in the good of virtue, especially against dangers, and chiefly against dangers of death, and most of all against those that occur in battle. Now it is evident that in martyrdom man is firmly strengthened in the good of virtue, since he cleaves to faith and justice notwithstanding the threatening danger of death, the imminence of which is moreover due to a kind of particular contest with his persecutors. Hence Cyprian says in a sermon (Ep. ad Mart. et Conf. ii): "The crowd of onlookers wondered to see an unearthly battle, and Christ's servants fighting erect, undaunted in speech, with souls unmoved, and strength divine." Wherefore it is evident that martyrdom is an act of fortitude; for which reason the Church reads in the office of Martyrs: They "became valiant in battle" [Hebrews 11:34. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in actu fortitudinis duo sunt consideranda. Quorum unum est bonum in quo fortis firmatur, et hoc est fortitudinis finis. Aliud est ipsa firmitas, qua quis non cedit contrariis prohibentibus ab illo bono, et in hoc consistit essentia fortitudinis. Sicut autem fortitudo civilis firmat animum hominis in iustitia humana, propter cuius conservationem mortis pericula sustinet; ita etiam fortitudo gratuita firmat animum hominis in bono iustitiae Dei, quae est per fidem Iesu Christi, ut dicitur Rom. III. Et sic martyrium comparatur ad fidem sicut ad finem in quo aliquis firmatur, ad fortitudinem autem sicut ad habitum elicientem. | Reply to Objection 1. Two things must be considered in the act of fortitude. one is the good wherein the brave man is strengthened, and this is the end of fortitude; the other is the firmness itself, whereby a man does not yield to the contraries that hinder him from achieving that good, and in this consists the essence of fortitude. Now just as civic fortitude strengthens a man's mind in human justice, for the safeguarding of which he braves the danger of death, so gratuitous fortitude strengthens man's soul in the good of Divine justice, which is "through faith in Christ Jesus," according to Romans 3:22. Thus martyrdom is related to faith as the end in which one is strengthened, but to fortitude as the eliciting habit. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ad actum martyrii inclinat quidem caritas sicut primum et principale motivum, per modum virtutis imperantis, fortitudo autem sicut motivum proprium, per modum virtutis elicientis. Et inde etiam est quod martyrium est actus caritatis ut imperantis, fortitudinis autem ut elicientis. Et inde est quod utramque virtutem manifestat. Quod autem sit meritorium, habet ex caritate, sicut et quilibet virtutis actus. Et ideo sine caritate non valet. | Reply to Objection 2. Charity inclines one to the act of martyrdom, as its first and chief motive cause, being the virtue commanding it, whereas fortitude inclines thereto as being its proper motive cause, being the virtue that elicits it. Hence martyrdom is an act of charity as commanding, and of fortitude as eliciting. For this reason also it manifests both virtues. It is due to charity that it is meritorious, like any other act of virtue: and for this reason it avails not without charity. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, principalior actus fortitudinis est sustinere, ad quem pertinet martyrium; non autem ad secundarium actum eius, qui est aggredi. Et quia patientia deservit fortitudini ex parte actus principalis qui est sustinere, inde est etiam quod concomitanter in martyribus patientia commendatur. | Reply to Objection 3. As stated above (Question 123, Article 6), the chief act of fortitude is endurance: to this and not to its secondary act, which is aggression, martyrdom belongs. And since patience serves fortitude on the part of its chief act, viz. endurance, hence it is that martyrs are also praised for their patience. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod martyrium non sit actus maximae perfectionis. Illud enim ad perfectionem vitae videtur pertinere quod cadit sub consilio, non sub praecepto, quia scilicet non est de necessitate salutis. Sed martyrium videtur esse de necessitate salutis, dicit enim apostolus, Rom. X, corde creditur ad iustitiam, ore autem fit confessio ad salutem; et I Ioann. III dicitur quod nos debemus pro fratribus animam ponere. Ergo martyrium non pertinet ad perfectionem. | Objection 1. It seems that martyrdom is not an act of the greatest perfection. For seemingly that which is a matter of counsel and not of precept pertains to perfection, because, to wit, it is not necessary for salvation. But it would seem that martyrdom is necessary for salvation, since the Apostle says (Romans 10:10), "With the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation," and it is written (1 John 3:16), that "we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." Therefore martyrdom does not pertain to perfection. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, ad maiorem perfectionem pertinere videtur quod aliquis det Deo animam, quod fit per obedientiam, quam quod det Deo proprium corpus, quod fit per martyrium, unde Gregorius dicit, ult. Moral., quod obedientia cunctis victimis praefertur. Ergo martyrium non est actus maximae perfectionis. | Objection 2. Further, it seems to point to greater perfection that a man give his soul to God, which is done by obedience, than that he give God his body, which is done by martyrdom: wherefore Gregory says (Moral. xxxv) that "obedience is preferable to all sacrifices." Therefore martyrdom is not an act of the greatest perfection. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, melius esse videtur aliis prodesse quam seipsum in bono conservare, quia bonum gentis melius est quam bonum unius hominis, secundum philosophum, in I Ethic. Sed ille qui martyrium sustinet, sibi soli prodest, ille autem qui docet, proficit multis. Ergo actus docendi et gubernandi subditos est perfectior quam actus martyrii. | Objection 3. Further, it would seem better to do good to others than to maintain oneself in good, since the "good of the nation is better than the good of the individual," according to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 2). Now he that suffers martyrdom profits himself alone, whereas he that teaches does good to many. Therefore the act of teaching and guiding subjects is more perfect than the act of martyrdom. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus, in libro de sancta Virginit., praefert martyrium virginitati, quae ad perfectionem pertinet. Ergo videtur martyrium maxime ad perfectionem pertinere. | On the contrary, Augustine (De Sanct. Virgin. xlvi) prefers martyrdom to virginity which pertains to perfection. Therefore martyrdom seems to belong to perfection in the highest degree. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod de aliquo actu virtutis dupliciter loqui possumus. Uno modo, secundum speciem ipsius actus, prout comparatur ad virtutem proxime elicientem ipsum. Et sic non potest esse quod martyrium, quod consistit in debita tolerantia mortis, sit perfectissimus inter virtutis actus. Quia tolerare mortem non est laudabile secundum se, sed solum secundum quod ordinatur ad aliquod bonum quod consistit in actu virtutis, puta ad fidem et dilectionem Dei. Unde ille actus virtutis, cum sit finis, melior est. Alio modo potest considerari actus virtutis secundum quod comparatur ad primum motivum, quod est amor caritatis. Et ex hac parte praecipue aliquis actus habet quod ad perfectionem vitae pertineat, quia, ut apostolus dicit, Coloss. III, caritas est vinculum perfectionis. Martyrium autem, inter omnes actus virtuosos, maxime demonstrat perfectionem caritatis. Quia tanto magis ostenditur aliquis aliquam rem amare, quanto pro ea rem magis amatam contemnit, et rem magis odiosam eligit pati. Manifestum est autem quod inter omnia alia bona praesentis vitae, maxime amat homo ipsam vitam, et e contrario maxime odit ipsam mortem, et praecipue cum doloribus corporalium tormentorum, quorum metu etiam bruta animalia a maximis voluptatibus absterrentur, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro octoginta trium quaest. Et secundum hoc patet quod martyrium inter ceteros actus humanos est perfectior secundum suum genus, quasi maximae caritatis signum, secundum illud Ioan. XV, maiorem caritatem nemo habet quam ut animam suam ponat quis pro amicis suis. | I answer that, We may speak of an act of virtue in two ways. First, with regard to the species of that act, as compared to the virtue proximately eliciting it. On this way martyrdom, which consists in the due endurance of death, cannot be the most perfect of virtuous acts, because endurance of death is not praiseworthy in itself, but only in so far as it is directed to some good consisting in an act of virtue, such as faith or the love of God, so that this act of virtue being the end is better. A virtuous act may be considered in another way, in comparison with its first motive cause, which is the love of charity, and it is in this respect that an act comes to belong to the perfection of life, since, as the Apostle says (Colossians 3:14), that "charity . . . is the bond of perfection." Now, of all virtuous acts martyrdom is the greatest proof of the perfection of charity: since a man's love for a thing is proved to be so much the greater, according as that which he despises for its sake is more dear to him, or that which he chooses to suffer for its sake is more odious. But it is evident that of all the goods of the present life man loves life itself most, and on the other hand he hates death more than anything, especially when it is accompanied by the pains of bodily torment, "from fear of which even dumb animals refrain from the greatest pleasures," as Augustine observes (Q83, qu. 36). And from this point of view it is clear that martyrdom is the most perfect of human acts in respect of its genus, as being the sign of the greatest charity, according to John 15:13: "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends." |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nullus est actus perfectionis sub consilio cadens qui in aliquo eventu non cadat sub praecepto, quasi de necessitate salutis existens, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de adulterinis coniugiis, quod aliquis incidit in necessitatem continentiae servandae propter absentiam vel infirmitatem uxoris. Et ideo non est contra perfectionem martyrii si in aliquo casu sit de necessitate salutis. Est enim aliquis casus in quo martyrium perferre non est de necessitate salutis, puta cum ex zelo fidei et caritate fraterna multoties leguntur sancti martyres sponte se obtulisse martyrio. Illa autem praecepta sunt intelligenda secundum praeparationem animi. | Reply to Objection 1. There is no act of perfection, which is a matter of counsel, but what in certain cases is a matter of precept, as being necessary for salvation. Thus Augustine declares (De Adult. Conjug. xiii) that a man is under the obligation of observing continency, through the absence or sickness of his wife. Hence it is not contrary to the perfection of martyrdom if in certain cases it be necessary for salvation, since there are cases when it is not necessary for salvation to suffer martyrdom; thus we read of many holy martyrs who through zeal for the faith or brotherly love gave themselves up to martyrdom of their own accord. As to these precepts, they are to be understood as referring to the preparation of the mind. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod martyrium complectitur id quod summum in obedientia esse potest, ut scilicet aliquis sit obediens usque ad mortem, sicut de Christo legitur, Philipp. II, quod factus est obediens usque ad mortem. Unde patet quod martyrium secundum se est perfectius quam obedientia absolute dicta. | Reply to Objection 2. Martyrdom embraces the highest possible degree of obedience, namely obedience unto death; thus we read of Christ (Philippians 2:8) that He became "obedient unto death." Hence it is evident that martyrdom is of itself more perfect than obedience considered absolutely. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de martyrio secundum propriam speciem actus, ex qua non habet excellentiam inter omnes actus virtutum, sicut nec fortitudo est excellentior inter omnes virtutes. | Reply to Objection 3. This argument considers martyrdom according to the proper species of its act, whence it derives no excellence over all other virtuous acts; thus neither is fortitude more excellent than all virtues. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod mors non sit de ratione martyrii. Dicit enim Hieronymus, in sermone de assumptione, recte dixerim quod Dei genitrix virgo et martyr fuit, quamvis in pace vitam finierit. Et Gregorius dicit, quamvis occasio persecutionis desit, habet tamen pax suum martyrium, quia etsi carnis colla ferro non subiicimus, spirituali tamen gladio carnalia desideria in mente trucidamus. Ergo absque passione mortis potest esse martyrium. | Objection 1. It seems that death is not essential to martyrdom. For Jerome says in a sermon on the Assumption (Epist. ad Paul. et Eustoch.): "I should say rightly that the Mother of God was both virgin and martyr, although she ended her days in peace": and Gregory says (Hom. iii in Evang.): "Although persecution has ceased to offer the opportunity, yet the peace we enjoy is not without its martyrdom, since even if we no longer yield the life of the body to the sword, yet do we slay fleshly desires in the soul with the sword of the spirit." Therefore there can be martyrdom without suffering death. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, pro integritate carnis servanda aliquae mulieres leguntur laudabiliter vitam suam contempsisse, et ita videtur quod corporalis integritas castitatis praeferatur vitae corporali. Sed quandoque ipsa integritas carnis aufertur, vel auferri intentatur, pro confessione fidei Christianae, ut patet de Agnete et Lucia. Ergo videtur quod martyrium magis debeat dici si aliqua mulier pro fide Christi integritatem carnis perdat, quam si etiam vitam perderet corporalem. Unde et Lucia dixit, si me invitam feceris violari, castitas mihi duplicabitur ad coronam. | Objection 2. Further, we read of certain women as commended for despising life for the sake of safeguarding the integrity of the flesh: wherefore seemingly the integrity of chastity is preferable to the life of the body. Now sometimes the integrity of the flesh has been forfeited or has been threatened in confession of the Christian faith, as in the case of Agnes and Lucy. Therefore it seems that the name of martyr should be accorded to a woman who forfeits the integrity of the flesh for the sake of Christ's faith, rather than if she were to forfeit even the life of the body: wherefore also Lucy said: "If thou causest me to be violated against my will, my chastity will gain me a twofold crown." |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, martyrium est fortitudinis actus. Ad fortitudinem autem pertinet non solum mortem non formidare, sed nec alias adversitates, ut Augustinus dicit, in VI musicae. Sed multae sunt aliae adversitates praeter mortem, quas aliqui possunt sustinere pro fide Christi, sicut carcerem, exilium, rapinam bonorum, ut patet ad Heb. X. Unde et sancti Marcelli Papae martyrium celebratur, qui tamen fuit in carcere mortuus. Ergo non est de necessitate martyrii quod aliquis sustineat poenam mortis. | Objection 3. Further, martyrdom is an act of fortitude. But it belongs to fortitude to brave not only death but also other hardships, as Augustine declares (Music. vi). Now there are many other hardships besides death, which one may suffer for Christ's faith, namely imprisonment, exile, being stripped of one's goods, as mentioned in Hebrews 10:34, for which reason we celebrate the martyrdom of Pope Saint Marcellus, notwithstanding that he died in prison. Therefore it is not essential to martyrdom that one suffer the pain of death. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 4 arg. 4 Praeterea, martyrium est actus meritorius, ut dictum est. Sed actus meritorius non potest esse post mortem. Ergo ante mortem. Et ita mors non est de ratione martyrii. | Objection 4. Further, martyrdom is a meritorious act, as stated above (2, ad 1; 3). Now it cannot be a meritorious act after death. Therefore it is before death; and consequently death is not essential to martyrdom. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod maximus dicit, in quodam sermone, de martyre, quod vincit pro fide moriendo qui vinceretur sine fide vivendo. | On the contrary, Maximus says in a sermon on the martyrs that "in dying for the faith he conquers who would have been vanquished in living without faith." |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, martyr dicitur quasi testis fidei Christianae, per quam nobis visibilia pro invisibilibus contemnenda proponuntur, ut dicitur Heb. XI. Ad martyrium ergo pertinet ut homo testificetur fidem, se opere ostendens cuncta praesentia contemnere, ut ad futura et ad invisibilia bona perveniat. Quandiu autem homini remanet vita corporalis, nondum opere se ostendit temporalia cuncta despicere, consueverunt enim homines et consanguineos et omnia bona possessa contemnere, et etiam dolores corporis pati, ut vitam conservent. Unde et Satan contra Iob induxit, pellem pro pelle, et cuncta quae habet homo, dabit pro anima sua, idest pro vita corporali. Et ideo ad perfectam rationem martyrii requiritur quod aliquis mortem sustineat propter Christum. | I answer that As stated above (Article 2), a martyr is so called as being a witness to the Christian faith, which teaches us to despise things visible for the sake of things invisible, as stated in Hebrews 11. Accordingly it belongs to martyrdom that a man bear witness to the faith in showing by deed that he despises all things present, in order to obtain invisible goods to come. Now so long as a man retains the life of the body he does not show by deed that he despises all things relating to the body. For men are wont to despise both their kindred and all they possess, and even to suffer bodily pain, rather than lose life. Hence Satan testified against Job (Job 2:4): "Skin for skin, and all that a man hath he will give for his soul" [Douay: 'life'] i.e. for the life of his body. Therefore the perfect notion of martyrdom requires that a man suffer death for Christ's sake. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illae auctoritates, et si quae similes inveniuntur, loquuntur de martyrio per quandam similitudinem. | Reply to Objection 1. The authorities quoted, and the like that one may meet with, speak of martyrdom by way of similitude. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in muliere quae integritatem carnis perdit, vel ad perdendum eam damnatur, occasione fidei Christianae, non est apud homines manifestum utrum hoc mulier patiatur propter amorem fidei Christianae, vel magis pro contemptu castitatis. Et ideo apud homines non redditur per hoc testimonium sufficiens. Unde hoc non proprie habet rationem martyrii. Sed apud Deum, qui corda scrutatur, potest hoc ad praemium deputari, sicut Lucia dixit. | Reply to Objection 2. When a woman forfeits the integrity of the flesh, or is condemned to forfeit it under pretext of the Christian faith, it is not evident to men whether she suffers this for love of the Christian faith, or rather through contempt of chastity. Wherefore in the sight of men her testimony is not held to be sufficient, and consequently this is not martyrdom properly speaking. On the sight of God, however, Who searcheth the heart, this may be deemed worthy of a reward, as Lucy said. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, fortitudo principaliter consistit circa pericula mortis, circa alia autem consequenter. Et ideo nec martyrium proprie dicitur pro sola tolerantia carceris vel exilii vel rapinae divitiarum, nisi forte secundum quod ex his sequitur mors. | Reply to Objection 3. As stated above (123, 4,5), fortitude regards danger of death chiefly, and other dangers consequently; wherefore a person is not called a martyr merely for suffering imprisonment, or exile, or forfeiture of his wealth, except in so far as these result in death. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 4 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod meritum martyrii non est post mortem, sed in ipsa voluntaria sustinentia mortis, prout scilicet aliquis voluntarie patitur inflictionem mortis. Contingit tamen quandoque quod aliquis post mortalia vulnera suscepta pro Christo, vel quascumque alias tribulationes continuatas usque ad mortem, quas a persecutoribus patitur pro fide Christi, diu aliquis vivat. In quo statu actus martyrii meritorius est, et etiam ipso eodem tempore quo huiusmodi afflictiones patitur. | Reply to Objection 4. The merit of martyrdom is not after death, but in the voluntary endurance of death, namely in the fact that a person willingly suffers being put to death. It happens sometimes, however, that a man lives for some time after being mortally wounded for Christ's sake, or after suffering for the faith of Christ any other kind of hardship inflicted by persecution and continued until death ensues. The act of martyrdom is meritorious while a man is in this state, and at the very time that he is suffering these hardships. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sola fides sit causa martyrii. Dicitur enim I Pet. IV, nemo vestrum patiatur quasi homicida aut fur, aut aliquid huiusmodi, si autem ut Christianus, non erubescat, glorificet autem Deum in isto nomine. Sed ex hoc dicitur aliquis Christianus quod tenet fidem Christi. Ergo sola fides Christi dat patientibus martyrii gloriam. | Objection 1. It seems that faith alone is the cause of martyrdom. For it is written (1 Peter 4:15-16): "Let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a railer, or a coveter of other men's things. But if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this name." Now a man is said to be a Christian because he holds the faith of Christ. Therefore only faith in Christ gives the glory of martyrdom to those who suffer. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, martyr dicitur quasi testis. Testimonium autem non redditur nisi veritati. Non autem aliquis dicitur martyr ex testimonio cuiuslibet veritatis, sed solum ex testimonio veritatis divinae. Alioquin, si quis moreretur pro confessione veritatis geometriae, vel alterius scientiae speculativae, esset martyr, quod videtur ridiculum. Ergo sola fides est martyrii causa. | Objection 2. Further, a martyr is a kind of witness. But witness is borne to the truth alone. Now one is not called a martyr for bearing witness to any truth, but only for witnessing to the Divine truth, otherwise a man would be a martyr if he were to die for confessing a truth of geometry or some other speculative science, which seems ridiculous. Therefore faith alone is the cause of martyrdom. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, inter alia virtutum opera illa videntur esse potiora quae ordinantur ad bonum commune, quia bonum gentis melius est quam bonum unius hominis, secundum philosophum, in I Ethic. Si ergo aliquod aliud bonum esset causa martyrii, maxime videretur quod illi martyres essent qui pro defensione reipublicae moriuntur. Quod Ecclesiae observatio non habet, non enim militum qui in bello iusto moriuntur martyria celebrantur. Ergo sola fides videtur esse martyrii causa. | Objection 3. Further, those virtuous deeds would seem to be of most account which are directed to the common good, since "the good of the nation is better than the good of the individual," according to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 2). If, then, some other good were the cause of martyrdom, it would seem that before all those would be martyrs who die for the defense of their country. Yet this is not consistent with Church observance, for we do not celebrate the martyrdom of those who die in a just war. Therefore faith alone is the cause of martyrdom. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. V, beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam, quod pertinet ad martyrium, ut Glossa ibidem dicit. Ad iustitiam autem pertinet non solum fides, sed etiam aliae virtutes. Ergo etiam aliae virtutes possunt esse martyrii causa. | On the contrary, It is written (Matthew 5:10): "Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake," which pertains to martyrdom, according to a gloss, as well as Jerome's commentary on this passage. Now not only faith but also the other virtues pertain to justice. Therefore other virtues can be the cause of martyrdom. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, martyres dicuntur quasi testes, quia scilicet corporalibus suis passionibus usque ad mortem testimonium perhibent veritati, non cuicumque, sed veritati quae secundum pietatem est, quae per Christum nobis innotuit; unde et martyres Christi dicuntur, quasi testes ipsius. Huiusmodi autem est veritas fidei. Et ideo cuiuslibet martyrii causa est fidei veritas. Sed ad fidei veritatem non solum pertinet ipsa credulitas cordis, sed etiam exterior protestatio. Quae quidem fit non solum per verba quibus aliquis confitetur fidem, sed etiam per facta quibus aliquis fidem se habere ostendit, secundum illud Iac. II, ego ostendam tibi ex operibus fidem meam. Unde et de quibusdam dicitur Tit. I, confitentur se nosse Deum, factis autem negant. Et ideo omnium virtutum opera, secundum quod referuntur in Deum, sunt quaedam protestationes fidei, per quam nobis innotescit quod Deus huiusmodi opera a nobis requirit, et nos pro eis remunerat. Et secundum hoc possunt esse martyrii causa. Unde et beati Ioannis Baptistae martyrium in Ecclesia celebratur, qui non pro neganda fide, sed pro reprehensione adulterii mortem sustinuit. | I answer that, As stated above (Article 4), martyrs are so called as being witnesses, because by suffering in body unto death they bear witness to the truth; not indeed to any truth, but to the truth which is in accordance with godliness, and was made known to us by Christ: wherefore Christ's martyrs are His witnesses. Now this truth is the truth of faith. Wherefore the cause of all martyrdom is the truth of faith. But the truth of faith includes not only inward belief, but also outward profession, which is expressed not only by words, whereby one confesses the faith, but also by deeds, whereby a person shows that he has faith, according to James 2:18, "I will show thee, by works, my faith." Hence it is written of certain people (Titus 1:16): "They profess that they know God but in their works they deny Him." Thus all virtuous deeds, inasmuch as they are referred to God, are professions of the faith whereby we come to know that God requires these works of us, and rewards us for them: and in this way they can be the cause of martyrdom. For this reason the Church celebrates the martyrdom of Blessed John the Baptist, who suffered death, not for refusing to deny the faith, but for reproving adultery. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christianus dicitur qui Christi est. Dicitur autem aliquis esse Christi non solum ex eo quod habet fidem Christi, sed etiam ex eo quod spiritu Christi ad opera virtuosa procedit, secundum illud Rom. VIII, si quis spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est eius; et etiam ex hoc quod, ad imitationem Christi, peccatis moritur, secundum illud Galat. V, qui Christi sunt, carnem suam crucifixerunt, cum vitiis et concupiscentiis. Et ideo ut Christianus patitur non solum qui patitur pro fidei confessione quae fit per verba, sed etiam quicumque patitur pro quocumque bono opere faciendo, vel pro quocumque peccato vitando, propter Christum, quia totum hoc pertinet ad fidei protestationem. | Reply to Objection 1. A Christian is one who is Christ's. Now a person is said to be Christ's, not only through having faith in Christ, but also because he is actuated to virtuous deeds by the Spirit of Christ, according to Romans 8:9, "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His"; and again because in imitation of Christ he is dead to sins, according to Galatians 5:24, "They that are Christ's have crucified their flesh with the vices and concupiscences." Hence to suffer as a Christian is not only to suffer in confession of the faith, which is done by words, but also to suffer for doing any good work, or for avoiding any sin, for Christ's sake, because this all comes under the head of witnessing to the faith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod veritas aliarum scientiarum non pertinet ad cultum divinitatis. Et ideo non dicitur esse secundum pietatem. Unde nec eius confessio potest esse directe martyrii causa. Sed quia omne mendacium peccatum est, ut supra habitum est, vitatio mendacii, contra quamcumque veritatem sit, inquantum mendacium est peccatum divinae legi contrarium, potest esse martyrii causa. | Reply to Objection 2. The truth of other sciences has no connection with the worship of the Godhead: hence it is not called truth according to godliness, and consequently the confession thereof cannot be said to be the direct cause of martyrdom. Yet, since every lie is a sin, as stated above (110, 3,4), avoidance of a lie, to whatever truth it may be contrary, may be the cause of martyrdom inasmuch as a lie is a sin against the Divine Law. |
| IIª-IIae q. 124 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod bonum reipublicae est praecipuum inter bona humana. Sed bonum divinum, quod est propria causa martyrii, est potius quam humanum. Quia tamen bonum humanum potest effici divinum, ut si referatur in Deum; potest esse quodcumque bonum humanum martyrii causa secundum quod in Deum refertur. | Reply to Objection 3. The good of one's country is paramount among human goods: yet the Divine good, which is the proper cause of martyrdom, is of more account than human good. Nevertheless, since human good may become Divine, for instance when it is referred to God, it follows that any human good in so far as it is referred to God, may be the cause of martyrdom. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 pr. Deinde considerandum est de vitiis oppositis fortitudini. Et primo, de timore; secundo, de intimiditate; tertio, de audacia. Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum timor sit peccatum. Secundo, utrum opponatur fortitudini. Tertio, utrum sit peccatum mortale. Quarto, utrum excuset vel diminuat peccatum. | Question 125. Fear 1. Is fear a sin? 2. Is it opposed to fortitude? 3. Is it a mortal sin? 4. Does it excuse from sin, or diminishes it? |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod timor non sit peccatum. Timor enim est passio quaedam, ut supra habitum est. Sed passionibus nec laudamur nec vituperamur, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Cum igitur omne peccatum sit vituperabile, videtur quod timor non sit peccatum. | Objection 1. It seems that fear is not a sin. For fear is a passion, as stated above (I-II, 23, 4; 42). Now we are neither praised nor blamed for passions, as stated in Ethic. ii. Since then every sin is blameworthy, it seems that fear is not a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, nihil quod in lege divina mandatur est peccatum, quia lex domini est immaculata, ut dicitur in Psalmo. Sed timor mandatur in lege Dei, dicitur enim ad Ephes. VI, servi, obedite dominis carnalibus, cum timore et tremore. Timor ergo non est peccatum. | Objection 2. Further, nothing that is commanded in the Divine Law is a sin: since the "law of the Lord is unspotted" (Psalm 18:8). Yet fear is commanded in God's law, for it is written (Ephesians 6:5): "Servants, be obedient to them that are your lords according to the flesh, with fear and trembling." Therefore fear is not a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, nihil quod naturaliter inest homini est peccatum, quia peccatum est contra naturam, ut Damascenus dicit, II libro. Sed timere est homini naturale, unde philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod erit aliquis insanus, vel sine sensu doloris, si nihil timeat, neque terraemotum neque inundationes. Ergo timor non est peccatum. | Objection 3. Further, nothing that is naturally in man is a sin, for sin is contrary to nature according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. iii). Now fear is natural to man: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 7) that "a man would be insane or insensible to pain, if nothing, not even earthquakes nor deluges, inspired him with fear." Therefore fear is not a sin.. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Matth. X, nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus. Et Ezech. II dicitur, ne timeas eos, neque sermones eorum metuas. | On the contrary, our Lord said (Matthew 10:28): "Fear ye not them that kill the body," and it is written (Ezekiel 2:6): "Fear not, neither be thou afraid of their words." |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod aliquid dicitur esse peccatum in actibus humanis propter inordinationem, nam bonum humani actus in ordine quodam existit, ut ex supra dictis patet. Est autem hic debitus ordo, ut appetitus regimini rationis subdatur. Ratio autem dictat aliqua esse fugienda, et aliqua esse prosequenda; et inter fugienda, quaedam dictat magis esse fugienda quam alia; et similiter inter prosequenda, quaedam dictat esse magis prosequenda quam alia; et quantum est bonum prosequendum, tantum est aliquod oppositum malum fugiendum. Inde est quod ratio dictat quaedam bona magis esse prosequenda quam quaedam mala fugienda. Quando ergo appetitus fugit ea quae ratio dictat esse sustinenda ne desistat ab aliis quae magis prosequi debet, timor inordinatus est, et habet rationem peccati. Quando vero appetitus timendo refugit id quod est secundum rationem fugiendum, tunc appetitus non est inordinatus, nec peccatum. | I answer that, A human act is said to be a sin on account of its being inordinate, because the good of a human act consists in order, as stated above (109, 2; 114, 1). Now this due order requires that the appetite be subject to the ruling of reason. And reason dictates that certain things should be shunned and some sought after. Among things to be shunned, it dictates that some are to be shunned more than others; and among things to be sought after, that some are to be sought after more than others. Moreover, the more a good is to be sought after, the more is the opposite evil to be shunned. The result is that reason dictates that certain goods are to be sought after more than certain evils are to be avoided. Accordingly when the appetite shuns what the reason dictates that we should endure rather than forfeit others that we should rather seek for, fear is inordinate and sinful. On the other hand, when the appetite fears so as to shun what reason requires to be shunned, the appetite is neither inordinate nor sinful. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod timor communiter dictus secundum suam rationem importat universaliter fugam, unde quantum ad hoc non importat rationem boni vel mali. Et similiter est de qualibet alia passione. Et ideo philosophus dicit quod passiones non sunt laudabiles neque vituperabiles, quia scilicet non laudantur neque vituperantur qui irascuntur vel timent, sed qui circa hoc aut ordinate aut inordinate se habent. | Reply to Objection 1. Fear in its generic acceptation denotes avoidance in general. Hence in this way it does not include the notion of good or evil: and the same applies to every other passion. Wherefore the Philosopher says that passions call for neither praise nor blame, because, to wit, we neither praise nor blame those who are angry or afraid, but only those who behave thus in an ordinate or inordinate manner. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod timor ille ad quem inducit apostolus, est conveniens rationi, ut scilicet servus timeat ne deficiat ab obsequiis quae domino debet impendere. | Reply to Objection 2. The fear which the Apostle inculcates is in accordance with reason, namely that servants should fear lest they be lacking in the service they owe their masters. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod mala quibus homo resistere non potest, et ex quorum sustinentia nihil boni provenit homini, ratio dictat esse fugienda. Et ideo timor talium non est peccatum. | Reply to Objection 3. Reason dictates that we should shun the evils that we cannot withstand, and the endurance of which profits us nothing. Hence there is no sin in fearing them. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatum timoris non opponatur fortitudini. Fortitudo enim est circa pericula mortis, ut supra habitum est. Sed peccatum timoris non semper pertinet ad pericula mortis. Quia super illud Psalmi, beati omnes qui timent dominum, dicit Glossa quod humanus timor est quo timemus pati pericula carnis, vel perdere mundi bona. Et super illud Matth. XXVI, oravit tertio eundem sermonem etc., dicit Glossa quod triplex est malus timor, scilicet timor mortis, timor vilitatis, et timor doloris. Non ergo peccatum timoris opponitur fortitudini. | Objection 1. It seems that the sin of fear is not contrary to fortitude: because fortitude is about dangers of death, as stated above (123, A4,5). But the sin of fear is not always connected with dangers of death, for a gloss on Psalm 127:1, "Blessed are all they that fear the Lord," says that "it is human fear whereby we dread to suffer carnal dangers, or to lose worldly goods." Again a gloss on Matthew 27:44, "He prayed the third time, saying the selfsame word," says that "evil fear is threefold, fear of death, fear of pain, and fear of contempt." Therefore the sin of fear is not contrary to fortitude. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, praecipuum quod commendatur in fortitudine est quod exponit se periculis mortis. Sed quandoque aliquis ex timore servitutis vel ignominiae exponit se morti, sicut Augustinus, in I de Civ. Dei, narrat de Catone, qui, ut non incurreret Caesaris servitutem, morti se tradidit. Ergo peccatum timoris non opponitur fortitudini, sed magis habet similitudinem cum ipsa. | Objection 2. Further, the chief reason why a man is commended for fortitude is that he exposes himself to the danger of death. Now sometimes a man exposes himself to death through fear of slavery or shame. Thus Augustine relates (De Civ. Dei i) that Cato, in order not to be Caesar's slave, gave himself up to death. Therefore the sin of fear bears a certain likeness to fortitude instead of being opposed thereto. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, omnis desperatio ex aliquo timore procedit. Sed desperatio non opponitur fortitudini, sed magis spei, ut supra habitum est. Ergo neque timoris peccatum opponitur fortitudini. | Objection 3. Further, all despair arises from fear. But despair is opposed not to fortitude but to hope, as stated above (20, 1; I-II, 40, 4). Neither therefore is the sin of fear opposed to fortitude. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus, in II et III Ethic., timiditatem ponit fortitudini oppositam. | On the contrary, The Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 7; iii, 7) states that timidity is opposed to fortitude. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra habitum est, omnis timor ex amore procedit, nullus enim timet nisi contrarium eius quod amat. Amor autem non determinatur ad aliquod genus virtutis vel vitii, sed amor ordinatus includitur in qualibet virtute, quilibet enim virtuosus amat proprium bonum virtutis; amor autem inordinatus includitur in quolibet peccato, ex amore enim inordinato procedit inordinata cupiditas. Unde similiter inordinatus timor includitur in quolibet peccato, sicut avarus timet amissionem pecuniae, intemperatus amissionem voluptatis, et sic de aliis. Sed timor praecipuus est periculorum mortis, ut probatur in III Ethic. et ideo talis timoris inordinatio opponitur fortitudini, quae est circa pericula mortis. Et propter hoc antonomastice dicitur timiditas fortitudini opponi. | I answer that, As stated above (19, 3; I-II, 43, 1), all fear arises from love; since no one fears save what is contrary to something he loves. Now love is not confined to any particular kind of virtue or vice: but ordinate love is included in every virtue, since every virtuous man loves the good proper to his virtue; while inordinate love is included in every sin, because inordinate love gives use to inordinate desire. Hence in like manner inordinate fear is included in every sin; thus the covetous man fears the loss of money, the intemperate man the loss of pleasure, and so on. But the greatest fear of all is that which has the danger of death for its object, as we find proved in Ethic. iii, 6. Wherefore the inordinateness of this fear is opposed to fortitude which regards dangers of death. For this reason timidity is said to be antonomastically* opposed to fortitude. [Antonomasia is the figure of speech whereby we substitute the general for the individual term; e.g. The Philosopher for Aristotle: and so timidity, which is inordinate fear of any evil, is employed to denote inordinate fear of the danger of death.] |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod auctoritates illae loquuntur de timore inordinato communiter sumpto, qui diversis virtutibus opponi potest. | Reply to Objection 1. The passages quoted refer to inordinate fear in its generic acceptation, which can be opposed to various virtues. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod actus humani praecipue diiudicantur ex fine, ut ex supra dictis patet. Ad fortem autem pertinet ut se exponat periculis mortis propter bonum, sed ille qui se periculis mortis exponit ut fugiat servitutem vel aliquid laboriosum, a timore vincitur, quod est fortitudini contrarium. Unde philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod mori fugientem inopiam vel cupidinem vel aliquid triste, non est fortis, sed magis timidi, mollities enim est fugere laboriosa. | Reply to Objection 2. Human acts are estimated chiefly with reference to the end, as stated above (I-II, 01, 3; I-II, 18, 6): and it belongs to a brave man to expose himself to danger of death for the sake of a good. But a man who exposes himself to danger of death in order to escape from slavery or hardships is overcome by fear, which is contrary to fortitude. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 7), that "to die in order to escape poverty, lust, or something disagreeable is an act not of fortitude but of cowardice: for to shun hardships is a mark of effeminacy." |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sicut spes est principium audaciae, ita timor est principium desperationis. Unde sicut ad fortem, qui utitur audacia moderate, praeexigitur spes, ita e converso desperatio ex aliquo timore procedit. Non autem oportet quod quaelibet desperatio procedat ex quolibet timore, sed ex eo qui est sui generis. Desperatio autem quae opponitur spei, ad aliud genus refertur, scilicet ad res divinas, quam timor qui opponitur fortitudini, qui pertinet ad pericula mortis. Unde ratio non sequitur. | Reply to Objection 3. As stated above (I-II, 45, 2), fear is the beginning of despair even as hope is the beginning of daring. Wherefore, just as fortitude which employs daring in moderation presupposes hope, so on the other hand despair proceeds from some kind of fear. It does not follow, however, that any kind of despair results from any kind of fear, but that only from fear of the same kind. Now the despair that is opposed to hope is referred to another kind, namely to Divine things; whereas the fear that is opposed to fortitude regards dangers of death. Hence the argument does not prove. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod timor non sit peccatum mortale. Timor enim, ut supra dictum est, est in irascibili, quae est pars sensualitatis. Sed in sensualitate est tantum peccatum veniale, ut supra habitum est. Ergo timor non est peccatum mortale. | Objection 1. It seems that fear is not a mortal sin. For, as stated above (I-II, 23, 1), fear is in the irascible faculty which is a part of the sensuality. Now there is none but venial sin in the sensuality, as stated above (I-II, 74, 4). Therefore fear is not a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, omne peccatum mortale totaliter cor avertit a Deo. Hoc autem non facit timor, quia super illud Iudic. VII, qui formidolosus est etc., dicit Glossa quod timidus est qui primo aspectu congressum trepidat, non tamen corde terretur, sed reparari et animari potest. Ergo timor non est peccatum mortale. | Objection 2. Further, every mortal sin turns the heart wholly from God. But fear does not this, for a gloss on Judges 7:3, "Whosoever is fearful," etc., says that "a man is fearful when he trembles at the very thought of conflict; yet he is not so wholly terrified at heart, but that he can rally and take courage." Therefore fear is not a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, peccatum mortale non solum retrahit a perfectione, sed etiam a praecepto. Sed timor non retrahit a praecepto, sed solum a perfectione, quia super illud Deut. XX, quis est homo formidolosus et corde pavido, etc., dicit Glossa, docet non posse quemquam perfectionem contemplationis vel militiae spiritualis accipere qui adhuc nudari terrenis opibus pertimescit. Ergo timor non est peccatum mortale. | Objection 3. Further, mortal sin is a lapse not only from perfection but also from a precept. But fear does not make one lapse from a precept, but only from perfection; for a gloss on Deuteronomy 20:8, "What man is there that is fearful and fainthearted?" says: "We learn from this that no man can take up the profession of contemplation or spiritual warfare, if he still fears to be despoiled of earthly riches." Therefore fear is not a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra, pro solo peccato mortali debetur poena Inferni. Quae tamen debetur timidis, secundum illud Apoc. XXI, timidis et incredulis et execratis, etc., pars erit in stagno ignis et sulphuris, quod est mors secunda. Ergo timiditas est peccatum mortale. | On the contrary, For mortal sin alone is the pain of hell due: and yet this is due to the fearful, according to Apocalypse 21:8, "But the fearful and unbelieving and the abominable," etc., "shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone which is the second death." Therefore fear is a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, timor peccatum est secundum quod est inordinatus, prout scilicet refugit quod non est secundum rationem refugiendum. Haec autem inordinatio timoris quandoque quidem consistit in solo appetitu sensitivo, non superveniente consensu rationalis appetitus, et sic non potest esse peccatum mortale, sed solum veniale. Quandoque vero huiusmodi inordinatio timoris pertingit usque ad appetitum rationalem, qui dicitur voluntas, quae ex libero arbitrio refugit aliquid non secundum rationem. Et talis inordinatio timoris quandoque est peccatum mortale, quandoque veniale. Si enim quis propter timorem quo refugit periculum mortis, vel quodcumque aliud temporale malum, sic dispositus est ut faciat aliquid prohibitum, vel praetermittat aliquid quod est praeceptum in lege divina, talis timor est peccatum mortale. Alioquin erit peccatum veniale. | I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), fear is a sin through being inordinate, that is to say, through shunning what ought not to be shunned according to reason. Now sometimes this inordinateness of fear is confined to the sensitive appetites, without the accession of the rational appetite's consent: and then it cannot be a mortal, but only a venial sin. But sometimes this inordinateness of fear reaches to the rational appetite which is called the will, which deliberately shuns something against the dictate of reason: and this inordinateness of fear is sometimes a mortal, sometimes a venial sin. For if a man through fear of the danger of death or of any other temporal evil is so disposed as to do what is forbidden, or to omit what is commanded by the Divine law, such fear is a mortal sin: otherwise it is a venial sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de timore secundum quod sistit infra sensualitatem. | Reply to Objection 1. This argument considers fear as confined to the sensuality. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod etiam Glossa illa potest intelligi de timore in sensualitate existente. Vel potest melius dici quod ille toto corde terretur cuius animum timor vincit irreparabiliter. Potest autem contingere quod, etiam si timor sit peccatum mortale, non tamen aliquis ita obstinate terretur quin persuasionibus revocari possit, sicut quandoque aliquis mortaliter peccans concupiscentiae consentiendo, revocatur, ne opere impleat quod proposuit facere. | Reply to Objection 2. This gloss also can be understood as referring to the fear that is confined within the sensuality. Or better still we may reply that a man is terrified with his whole heart when fear banishes his courage beyond remedy. Now even when fear is a mortal sin, it may happen nevertheless that one is not so wilfully terrified that one cannot be persuaded to put fear aside: thus sometimes a man sins mortally by consenting to concupiscence, and is turned aside from accomplishing what he purposed doing. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Glossa illa loquitur de timore revocante hominem a bono quod non est de necessitate praecepti, sed de perfectione consilii. Talis autem timor non est peccatum mortale, sed quandoque veniale; quandoque etiam non est peccatum, puta cum aliquis habet rationabilem causam timoris. | Reply to Objection 3. This gloss speaks of the fear that turns man aside from a good that is necessary, not for the fulfilment of a precept, but for the perfection of a counsel. Such like fear is not a mortal sin, but is sometimes venial: and sometimes it is not a sin, for instance when one has a reasonable cause for fear. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod timor non excuset a peccato. Timor enim est peccatum, ut dictum est. Sed peccatum non excusat a peccato, sed magis aggravat ipsum. Ergo timor non excusat a peccato. | Objection 1. It seems that fear does not excuse from sin. For fear is a sin, as stated above (Article 1). But sin does not excuse from sin, rather does it aggravate it. Therefore fear does not excuse from sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, si aliquis timor excusat a peccato, maxime excusaret timor mortis, qui dicitur cadere in constantem virum. Sed hic timor non videtur excusare, quia cum mors ex necessitate immineat omnibus, non videtur esse timenda. Ergo timor non excusat a peccato. | Objection 2. Further, if any fear excuses from sin, most of all would this be true of the fear of death, to which, as the saying is, a courageous man is subject. Yet this fear, seemingly, is no excuse, because, since death comes, of necessity, to all, it does not seem to be an object of fear. Therefore fear does not excuse from sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, timor omnis aut est mali temporalis, aut spiritualis. Sed timor mali spiritualis non potest excusare peccatum, quia non inducit ad peccandum, sed magis retrahit a peccato. Timor etiam mali temporalis non excusat a peccato, quia sicut philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., inopiam non oportet timere, neque aegritudinem, neque quaecumque non a propria malitia procedunt. Ergo videtur quod timor nullo modo excusat a peccato. | Objection 3. Further, all fear is of evil, either temporal or spiritual. Now fear of spiritual evil cannot excuse sin, because instead of inducing one to sin, it withdraws one from sin: and fear of temporal evil does not excuse from sin, because according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 6), "one should not fear poverty, nor sickness, nor anything that is not a result of one's own wickedness." Therefore it seems that in no sense does fear excuse from sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod in decretis, qu. I, dicitur, vim passus et invitus ab haereticis ordinatus colorem habet excusationis. | On the contrary, It is stated in the Decretals (I, 1, Cap. Constat.): "A man who has been forcibly and unwillingly ordained by heretics, has an ostensible excuse." |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, timor intantum habet rationem peccati inquantum est contra ordinem rationis. Ratio autem iudicat quaedam mala esse magis aliis fugienda. Et ideo quicumque, ut fugiat mala quae sunt secundum rationem magis fugienda, non refugit mala quae sunt minus fugienda, non est peccatum. Sicut magis est fugienda mors corporalis quam amissio rerum, unde si quis, propter timorem mortis, latronibus aliquid promitteret aut daret, excusaretur a peccato quod incurreret si sine causa legitima, praetermissis bonis, quibus esset magis dandum, peccatoribus largiretur. Si autem aliquis per timorem fugiens mala quae secundum rationem sunt minus fugienda, incurrat mala quae secundum rationem sunt magis fugienda, non posset totaliter a peccato excusari, quia timor talis inordinatus esset. Sunt autem magis timenda mala animae quam mala corporis; et mala corporis quam mala exteriorum rerum. Et ideo si quis incurrat mala animae, idest peccata, fugiens mala corporis, puta flagella vel mortem, aut mala exteriorum rerum, puta damnum pecuniae; aut si sustineat mala corporis ut vitet damnum pecuniae; non excusatur totaliter a peccato. Diminuitur tamen aliquid eius peccatum, quia minus voluntarium est quod ex timore agitur; imponitur enim homini quaedam necessitas aliquid faciendi propter imminentem timorem. Unde philosophus huiusmodi quae ex timore fiunt, dicit esse non simpliciter voluntaria, sed mixta ex voluntario et involuntario. | I answer that, As stated above (Article 3), fear is sinful in so far as it runs counter to the order of reason. Now reason judges certain evils to be shunned rather than others. Wherefore it is no sin not to shun what is less to be shunned in order to avoid what reason judges to be more avoided: thus death of the body is more to be avoided than the loss of temporal goods. Hence a man would be excused from sin if through fear of death he were to promise or give something to a robber, and yet he would be guilty of sin were he to give to sinners, rather than to the good to whom he should give in preference. On the other hand, if through fear a man were to avoid evils which according to reason are less to be avoided, and so incur evils which according to reason are more to be avoided, he could not be wholly excused from sin, because such like fear would be inordinate. Now the evils of the soul are more to be feared than the evils of the body. and evils of the body more than evils of external things. Wherefore if one were to incur evils of the soul, namely sins, in order to avoid evils of the body, such as blows or death, or evils of external things, such as loss of money; or if one were to endure evils of the body in order to avoid loss of money, one would not be wholly excused from sin. Yet one's sin would be extenuated somewhat, for what is done through fear is less voluntary, because when fear lays hold of a man he is under a certain necessity of doing a certain thing. Hence the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1) says that these things that are done through fear are not simply voluntary, but a mixture of voluntary and involuntary. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod timor non excusat ex ea parte qua est peccatum, sed ex ea parte qua est involuntarium. | Reply to Objection 1. Fear excuses, not in the point of its sinfulness, but in the point of its involuntariness. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet mors omnibus immineat ex necessitate, tamen ipsa diminutio temporis vitae est quoddam malum, et per consequens timendum. | Reply to Objection 2. Although death comes, of necessity, to all, yet the shortening of temporal life is an evil and consequently an object of fear. |
| IIª-IIae q. 125 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod secundum Stoicos, qui ponebant bona temporalia non esse hominis bona, sequitur ex consequenti quod mala temporalia non sint hominis mala, et per consequens nullo modo timenda. Sed secundum Augustinum, in libro de Lib. Arbit., huiusmodi temporalia sunt minima bona. Quod etiam Peripatetici senserunt. Et ideo contraria eorum sunt quidem timenda, non tamen multum, ut pro eis recedatur ab eo quod est bonum secundum virtutem. | Reply to Objection 3. According to the opinion of Stoics, who held temporal goods not to be man's goods, it follows in consequence that temporal evils are not man's evils, and that therefore they are nowise to be feared. But according to Augustine (De Lib. Arb. ii) these temporal things are goods of the least account, and this was also the opinion of the Peripatetics. Hence their contraries are indeed to be feared; but not so much that one ought for their sake to renounce that which is good according to virtue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 126 pr. Deinde considerandum est de vitio intimiditatis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo, utrum intimidum esse sit peccatum. Secundo, utrum opponatur fortitudini. | Question 126. Fearlessness 1. Is it a sin to be fearless? 2. Is it opposed to fortitude? |
| IIª-IIae q. 126 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod intimiditas non sit peccatum. Quod enim ponitur pro commendatione viri iusti, non est peccatum. Sed in commendationem viri iusti dicitur, Prov. XXVIII, iustus, quasi leo confidens, absque terrore erit. Ergo esse impavidum non est peccatum. | Objection 1. It seems that fearlessness is not a sin. For that which is reckoned to the praise of a just man is not a sin. Now it is written in praise of the just man (Proverbs 28:1): "The just, bold as a lion, shall be without dread." Therefore it is not a sin to be without fear. |
| IIª-IIae q. 126 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, maxime terribilis est mors, secundum philosophum, in III Ethic. Sed nec mortem oportet timere, secundum illud Matth. X, nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus, nec etiam aliquid quod ab homine possit inferri, secundum illud Isaiae li, quis tu, ut timeas ab homine mortali? Ergo impavidum esse non est peccatum. | Objection 2. Further, nothing is so fearful as death, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 6). Yet one ought not to fear even death, according to Matthew 10:28, "Fear ye not them that kill the body," etc., nor anything that can be inflicted by man, according to Isaiah 51:12, "Who art thou, that thou shouldst be afraid of a mortal man?" Therefore it is not a sin to be fearless. |
| IIª-IIae q. 126 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, timor ex amore nascitur, ut supra dictum est. Sed nihil mundanum amare pertinet ad perfectionem virtutis, quia, ut Augustinus dicit, in XIV de Civ. Dei, amor Dei usque ad contemptum sui, facit cives civitatis caelestis. Ergo nihil humanum formidare videtur non esse peccatum. | Objection 3. Further, fear is born of love, as stated above (Question 125, Article 2). Now it belongs to the perfection of virtue to love nothing earthly, since according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv), "the love of God to the abasement of self makes us citizens of the heavenly city." Therefore it is seemingly not a sin to fear nothing earthly. |
| IIª-IIae q. 126 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod de iudice iniquo dicitur, Luc. XVIII, quod nec Deum timebat, nec hominem reverebatur. | On the contrary, It is said of the unjust judge (Luke 18:2) that "he feared not God nor regarded man." |
| IIª-IIae q. 126 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, quia timor ex amore nascitur, idem iudicium videtur esse de amore et de timore. Agitur autem nunc de timore quo mala temporalia timentur, qui provenit ex temporalium bonorum amore. Inditum autem est unicuique naturaliter ut propriam vitam amet, et ea quae ad ipsam ordinantur, tamen debito modo, ut scilicet amentur huiusmodi non quasi finis constituatur in eis, sed secundum quod eis utendum est propter ultimum finem. Unde quod aliquis deficiat a debito modo amoris ipsorum, est contra naturalem inclinationem, et per consequens est peccatum. Nunquam tamen a tali amore totaliter aliquis decidit, quia id quod est naturae totaliter perdi non potest. Propter quod apostolus dicit, ad Ephes. V, quod nemo unquam carnem suam odio habuit. Unde etiam illi qui seipsos interimunt, ex amore carnis suae hoc faciunt, quam volunt a praesentibus angustiis liberari. Unde contingere potest quod aliquis minus quam debeat timeat, mortem et alia temporalia mala, propter hoc quod minus debito amet ea. Sed quod nihil horum timeat, non potest ex totali defectu amoris contingere, sed ex eo quod aestimat mala opposita bonis quae amat, sibi supervenire non posse. Quod quandoque contingit ex superbia animi de se praesumentis et alios contemnentis, secundum quod dicitur Iob XLI, factus est ut nullum timeret, omne sublime videt. Quandoque autem contingit ex defectu rationis, sicut philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod Celtae propter stultitiam nihil timent. Unde patet quod esse impavidum est vitiosum, sive causetur ex defectu amoris, sive causetur ex elatione animi, sive causetur ex stoliditate; quae tamen excusat a peccato si sit invincibilis. | I answer that, Since fear is born of love, we must seemingly judge alike of love and fear. Now it is here a question of that fear whereby one dreads temporal evils, and which results from the love of temporal goods. And every man has it instilled in him by nature to love his own life and whatever is directed thereto; and to do so in due measure, that is, to love these things not as placing his end therein, but as things to be used for the sake of his last end. Hence it is contrary to the natural inclination, and therefore a sin, to fall short of loving them in due measure. Nevertheless, one never lapses entirely from this love: since what is natural cannot be wholly lost: for which reason the Apostle says (Ephesians 5:29): "No man ever hated his own flesh." Wherefore even those that slay themselves do so from love of their own flesh, which they desire to free from present stress. Hence it may happen that a man fears death and other temporal evils less than he ought, for the reason that he loves them* less than he ought. [Viz. the contrary goods. One would expect 'se' instead of 'ea.' We should then read: For the reason that he loves himself less than he ought.] But that he fear none of these things cannot result from an entire lack of love, but only from the fact that he thinks it impossible for him to be afflicted by the evils contrary to the goods he loves. This is sometimes the result of pride of soul presuming on self and despising others, according to the saying of Job 41:24-25: "He [Vulgate: 'who'] was made to fear no one, he beholdeth every high thing": and sometimes it happens through a defect in the reason; thus the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 7) that the "Celts, through lack of intelligence, fear nothing." ["A man would deserve to be called insane and senseless if there were nothing that he feared, not even an earthquake nor a storm at sea, as is said to be the case with the Celts."] It is therefore evident that fearlessness is a vice, whether it result from lack of love, pride of soul, or dullness of understanding: yet the latter is excused from sin if it be invincible. |
| IIª-IIae q. 126 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod iustus commendatur a timore retrahente eum a bono, non quod sit absque omni timore. Dicitur enim Eccli. I, qui sine timore est, non poterit iustificari. | Reply to Objection 1. The just man is praised for being without fear that withdraws him from good; not that he is altogether fearless, for it is written (Sirach 1:28): "He that is without fear cannot be justified." |
| IIª-IIae q. 126 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod mors, vel quidquid aliud ab homine mortali potest inferri, non est ea ratione timendum ut a iustitia recedatur. Est tamen timendum inquantum per hoc homo potest impediri ab operibus virtuosis, vel quantum ad se, vel quantum ad profectum quem in aliis facit. Unde dicitur Prov. XIV, sapiens timet, et declinat a malo. | Reply to Objection 2. Death and whatever else can be inflicted by mortal man are not to be feared so that they make us forsake justice: but they are to be feared as hindering man in acts of virtue, either as regards himself, or as regards the progress he may cause in others. Hence it is written (Proverbs 14:16): "A wise man feareth and declineth from evil." |
| IIª-IIae q. 126 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod bona temporalia debent contemni quantum nos impediunt ab amore et timore Dei. Et secundum hoc etiam non debent timeri, unde dicitur Eccli. XXXIV, qui timet Deum nihil trepidabit. Non autem debent contemni bona temporalia inquantum instrumentaliter nos iuvant ad ea quae sunt divini amoris et timoris. | Reply to Objection 3. Temporal goods are to be despised as hindering us from loving and serving God, and on the same score they are not to be feared; wherefore it is written (Sirach 34:16): "He that feareth the Lord shall tremble at nothing." But temporal goods are not to be despised, in so far as they are helping us instrumentally to attain those things that pertain to Divine fear and love. |
| IIª-IIae q. 126 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod esse impavidum non opponatur fortitudini. De habitibus enim iudicamus per actus. Sed nullus actus fortitudinis impeditur per hoc quod aliquis est impavidus, remoto enim timore, aliquis et fortiter sustinet et audacter aggreditur. Ergo esse impavidum non opponitur fortitudini. | Objection 1. It seems that fearlessness is not opposed to fortitude. For we judge of habits by their acts. Now no act of fortitude is hindered by a man being fearless: since if fear be removed, one is both brave to endure, and daring to attack. Therefore fearlessness is not opposed to fortitude. |
| IIª-IIae q. 126 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, esse impavidum est vitiosum vel propter defectum debiti amoris, vel propter superbiam, vel propter stultitiam. Sed defectus debiti amoris opponitur caritati; superbia autem humilitati; stultitia autem prudentiae, sive sapientiae. Ergo vitium impaviditatis non opponitur fortitudini. | Objection 2. Further, fearlessness is a vice, either through lack of due love, or on account of pride, or by reason of folly. Now lack of due love is opposed to charity, pride is contrary to humility, and folly to prudence or wisdom. Therefore the vice of fearlessness is not opposed to fortitude. |
| IIª-IIae q. 126 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, virtuti opponuntur vitia sicut extrema medio. Sed unum medium ex una parte non habet nisi unum extremum. Cum ergo fortitudini ex una parte opponatur timor, ex alia vero parte opponatur ei audacia, videtur quod impaviditas ei non opponatur. | Objection 3. Further, vices are opposed to virtue and extremes to the mean. But one mean has only one extreme on the one side. Since then fortitude has fear opposed to it on the one side and daring on the other, it seems that fearlessness is not opposed thereto. |
| IIª-IIae q. 126 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus, in III Ethic., ponit impaviditatem fortitudini oppositam. | On the contrary, The Philosopher (Ethic. iii) reckons fearlessness to be opposed to fortitude. |
| IIª-IIae q. 126 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, fortitudo est circa timores et audacias. Omnis autem virtus moralis ponit modum rationis in materia circa quam est. Unde ad fortitudinem pertinet timor moderatus secundum rationem, ut scilicet homo timeat quod oportet, et quando oportet, et similiter de aliis. Hic autem modus rationis corrumpi potest, sicut per excessum, ita et per defectum. Unde sicut timiditas opponitur fortitudini per excessum timoris, inquantum scilicet homo timet quod non oportet, vel secundum quod non oportet; ita etiam impaviditas opponitur ei per defectum timoris, inquantum scilicet non timet aliquis quod oportet timere. | I answer that, As stated above (Question 123, Article 3), fortitude is concerned about fear and daring. Now every moral virtue observes the rational mean in the matter about which it is concerned. Hence it belongs to fortitude that man should moderate his fear according to reason, namely that he should fear what he ought, and when he ought, and so forth. Now this mode of reason may be corrupted either by excess or by deficiency. Wherefore just as timidity is opposed to fortitude by excess of fear, in so far as a man fears what he ought not, and as he ought not, so too fearlessness is opposed thereto by deficiency of fear, in so far as a man fears not what he ought to fear. |
| IIª-IIae q. 126 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod actus fortitudinis est timorem sustinere et aggredi non qualitercumque, sed secundum rationem. Quod non facit impavidus. | Reply to Objection 1. The act of fortitude is to endure death without fear, and to be aggressive, not anyhow, but according to reason: this the fearless man does not do. |
| IIª-IIae q. 126 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod impaviditas ex sua specie corrumpit medium fortitudinis, et ideo directe fortitudini opponitur. Sed secundum suas causas, nihil prohibet quin opponatur aliis virtutibus. | Reply to Objection 2. Fearlessness by its specific nature corrupts the mean of fortitude, wherefore it is opposed to fortitude directly. But in respect of its causes nothing hinders it from being opposed to other virtues. |
| IIª-IIae q. 126 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod vitium audaciae opponitur fortitudini secundum excessum audaciae, impaviditas autem secundum defectum timoris. Fortitudo autem in utraque passione medium ponit. Unde non est inconveniens quod secundum diversa habeat diversa extrema. | Reply to Objection 3. The vice of daring is opposed to fortitude by excess of daring, and fearlessness by deficiency of fear. Fortitude imposes the mean on each passion. Hence there is nothing unreasonable in its having different extremes in different respects. |
| IIª-IIae q. 127 pr. Deinde considerandum est de audacia. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo, utrum audacia sit peccatum. Secundo, utrum opponatur fortitudini. | Question 127. Daring 1. Is daring a sin? 2. Is it opposed to fortitude? |
| IIª-IIae q. 127 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod audacia non sit peccatum. Dicitur enim Iob XXXIX, de equo, per quem significatur bonus praedicator, secundum Gregorium, in Moral., quod audacter in occursum pergit armatis. Sed nullum vitium cedit in commendationem alicuius. Ergo esse audacem non est peccatum. | Objection 1. It seems that daring is not a sin. For it is written (Job 39:21) concerning the horse, by which according to Gregory (Moral. xxxi) the godly preacher is denoted, that "he goeth forth boldly to meet armed men [Vulgate: 'he pranceth boldly, he goeth forth to meet armed men']." But no vice redounds to a man's praise. Therefore it is not a sin to be daring. |
| IIª-IIae q. 127 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, sicut philosophus dicit, in VI Ethic., oportet consiliari quidem tarde, operari autem velociter consiliata. Sed ad hanc velocitatem operandi iuvat audacia. Ergo audacia non est peccatum, sed magis aliquid laudabile. | Objection 2. Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 9), "one should take counsel in thought, and do quickly what has been counseled." But daring helps this quickness in doing. Therefore daring is not sinful but praiseworthy. |
| IIª-IIae q. 127 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, audacia est quaedam passio quae causatur a spe, ut supra habitum est, cum de passionibus ageretur. Sed spes non ponitur peccatum, sed magis virtus. Ergo nec audacia debet poni peccatum. | Objection 3. Further, daring is a passion caused by hope, as stated above (I-II, 45, 2) when we were treating of the passions. But hope is accounted not a sin but a virtue. Neither therefore should daring be accounted a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 127 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Eccli. VIII, cum audace non eas in via, ne forte gravet mala sua in te. Nullius autem societas est declinanda nisi propter peccatum. Ergo audacia est peccatum. | On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 8:18): "Go not on the way with a bold man, lest he burden thee with his evils." Now no man's fellowship is to be avoided save on account of sin. Therefore daring is a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 127 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod audacia, sicut supra dictum est, est passio quaedam. Passio autem quandoque quidem est moderata secundum rationem, quandoque autem caret modo rationis, vel per excessum vel per defectum; et secundum hoc est passio vitiosa. Sumuntur autem quandoque nomina passionum a superabundanti, sicut ira dicitur non quaecumque, sed superabundans, prout scilicet est vitiosa. Et hoc etiam modo audacia, per superabundantiam dicta, ponitur esse peccatum. | I answer that, Daring, as stated above (I-II, 23, 1; 55), is a passion. Now a passion is sometimes moderated according to reason, and sometimes it lacks moderation, either by excess or by deficiency, and on this account the passion is sinful. Again, the names of the passions are sometimes employed in the sense of excess, thus we speak of anger meaning not any but excessive anger, in which case it is sinful, and in the same way daring as implying excess is accounted a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 127 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod audacia ibi sumitur secundum quod est moderata ratione. Sic enim pertinet ad virtutem fortitudinis. | Reply to Objection 1. The daring spoken of there is that which is moderated by reason, for in that sense it belongs to the virtue of fortitude. |
| IIª-IIae q. 127 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod operatio festina commendabilis est post consilium, quod est actus rationis. Sed si quis ante consilium vellet festine agere, non esset hoc laudabile, sed vitiosum, esset enim quaedam praecipitatio actionis, quod est vitium prudentiae oppositum, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo audacia, quae operatur ad velocitatem operandi, intantum laudabilis est inquantum a ratione ordinatur. | Reply to Objection 2. It is praiseworthy to act quickly after taking counsel, which is an act of reason. But to wish to act quickly before taking counsel is not praiseworthy but sinful; for this would be to act rashly, which is a vice contrary to prudence, as stated above (Question 58, Article 3). Wherefore daring which leads one to act quickly is so far praiseworthy as it is directed by reason. |
| IIª-IIae q. 127 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod quaedam vitia innominata sunt, et similiter quaedam virtutes, ut patet per philosophum, in IV Ethic. Et ideo oportuit quibusdam passionibus uti nomine virtutum et vitiorum. Praecipue autem illis passionibus utimur ad vitia designanda quarum obiectum est malum, sicut patet de odio, timore et ira, et etiam audacia. Spes autem et amor habent bonum pro obiecto. Et ideo magis eis utimur ad designanda nomina virtutum. | Reply to Objection 3. Some vices are unnamed, and so also are some virtues, as the Philosopher remarks (Ethic. ii, 7; iv, 4,5,6). Hence the names of certain passions have to be applied to certain vices and virtues: and in order to designate vices we employ especially the names of those passions the object of which is an evil, as in the case of hatred, fear, anger and daring. But hope and love have a good for this object, and so we use them rather to designate virtues. |
| IIª-IIae q. 127 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod audacia non opponatur fortitudini. Superfluitas enim audaciae videtur ex animi praesumptione procedere. Sed praesumptio pertinet ad superbiam, quae opponitur humilitati. Ergo audacia magis opponitur humilitati quam fortitudini. | Objection 1. It seems that daring is not opposed to fortitude. For excess of daring seems to result from presumption of mind. But presumption pertains to pride which is opposed to humility. Therefore daring is opposed to humility rather than to fortitude. |
| IIª-IIae q. 127 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, audacia non videtur esse vituperabilis nisi inquantum ex ea provenit vel nocumentum aliquod ipsi audaci, qui se periculis inordinate ingerit; vel etiam aliis, quos per audaciam aggreditur vel in pericula praecipitat. Sed hoc videtur ad iniustitiam pertinere. Ergo audacia, secundum quod est peccatum, non opponitur fortitudini, sed iustitiae. | Objection 2. Further, daring does not seem to call for blame, except in so far as it results in harm either to the daring person who puts himself in danger inordinately, or to others whom he attacks with daring, or exposes to danger. But this seemingly pertains to injustice. Therefore daring, as designating a sin, is opposed, not to fortitude but to justice. |
| IIª-IIae q. 127 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, fortitudo est et circa timores et circa audacias, ut supra habitum est. Sed quia timiditas opponitur fortitudini secundum excessum timoris, habet aliud vitium oppositum timiditati secundum defectum timoris. Si ergo audacia opponatur fortitudini propter excessum audaciae, pari ratione opponetur ei aliquod vitium propter audaciae defectum. Sed hoc non invenitur. Ergo nec audacia debet poni vitium oppositum fortitudini. | Objection 3. Further, fortitude is concerned about fear and daring, as stated above (Question 123, Article 3). Now since timidity is opposed to fortitude in respect of an excess of fear, there is another vice opposed to timidity in respect of a lack of fear. If then, daring is opposed to fortitude, in the point of excessive daring, there will likewise be a vice opposed to it in the point of deficient daring. But there is no such vice. Therefore neither should daring be accounted a vice in opposition to fortitude. |
| IIª-IIae q. 127 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus, in II et III Ethic., ponit audaciam fortitudini oppositam. | On the contrary, The Philosopher in both the Second and Third Books of Ethics accounts daring to be opposed to fortitude. |
| IIª-IIae q. 127 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, ad virtutem moralem pertinet modum rationis observare in materia circa quam est. Et ideo omne vitium quod importat immoderantiam circa materiam alicuius virtutis moralis, opponitur illi virtuti morali sicut immoderatum moderato. Audacia autem, secundum quod sonat in vitium, importat excessum passionis quae audacia dicitur. Unde manifestum est quod opponitur virtuti fortitudinis, quae est circa timores et audacias, ut supra dictum est. | I answer that, As stated above (Question 126, Article 2), it belongs to a moral virtue to observe the rational mean in the matter about which it is concerned. Wherefore every vice that denotes lack of moderation in the matter of a moral virtue is opposed to that virtue, as immoderate to moderate. Now daring, in so far as it denotes a vice, implies excess of passion, and this excess goes by the name of daring. Wherefore it is evident that it is opposed to the virtue of fortitude which is concerned about fear and daring, as stated above (Question 122, Article 3). |
| IIª-IIae q. 127 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod oppositio vitii ad virtutem non attenditur principaliter secundum causam vitii, sed secundum ipsam vitii speciem. Et ideo non oportet quod audacia opponatur eidem virtuti cui opponitur praesumptio, quae est causa ipsius. | Reply to Objection 1. Opposition between vice and virtue does not depend chiefly on the cause of the vice but on the vice's very species. Wherefore it is not necessary that daring be opposed to the same virtue as presumption which is its cause. |
| IIª-IIae q. 127 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod sicut directa oppositio vitii non attenditur circa eius causam, ita etiam non attenditur secundum eius effectum. Nocumentum autem quod provenit ex audacia est effectus ipsius. Unde nec etiam secundum hoc attenditur oppositio audaciae. | Reply to Objection 2. Just as the direct opposition of a vice does not depend on its cause, so neither does it depend on its effect. Now the harm done by daring is its effect. Wherefore neither does the opposition of daring depend on this. |
| IIª-IIae q. 127 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod motus audaciae consistit in invadendo id quod est homini contrarium, ad quod natura inclinat, nisi inquantum talis inclinatio impeditur per timorem patiendi nocumentum ab eo. Et ideo vitium quod excedit in audacia non habet contrarium defectum nisi timiditatem tantum. Sed audacia non semper concomitatur tantum defectum timiditatis. Quia sicut philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., audaces sunt praevolantes et volentes ante pericula, sed in ipsis discedunt, scilicet prae timore. | Reply to Objection 3. The movement of daring consists in a man taking the offensive against that which is in opposition to him: and nature inclines him to do this except in so far as such inclination is hindered by the fear of receiving harm from that source. Hence the vice which exceeds in daring has no contrary deficiency, save only timidity. Yet daring does not always accompany so great a lack of timidity, for as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 7), "the daring are precipitate and eager to meet danger, yet fail when the danger is present," namely through fear. |