| IIª-IIae q. 64 pr. Deinde considerandum est de vitiis oppositis commutativae iustitiae. Et primo considerandum est de peccatis quae committuntur circa involuntarias commutationes; secundo, de peccatis quae committuntur circa commutationes voluntarias. Committuntur autem peccata circa involuntarias commutationes per hoc quod aliquod nocumentum proximo infertur contra eius voluntatem, quod quidem potest fieri dupliciter, scilicet facto, et verbo. Facto quidem, cum proximus laeditur vel in persona propria; vel in persona coniuncta; vel in propriis rebus. De his ergo per ordinem considerandum est. Et primo, de homicidio, per quod maxime nocetur proximo. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. Primo, utrum occidere animalia bruta, vel etiam plantas, sit peccatum. Secundo, utrum occidere peccatorem sit licitum. Tertio, utrum hoc liceat privatae personae, vel solum publicae. Quarto, utrum hoc liceat clerico. Quinto, utrum liceat alicui occidere seipsum. Sexto, utrum liceat occidere hominem iustum. Septimo, utrum liceat alicui occidere hominem seipsum defendendo. Octavo, utrum homicidium casuale sit peccatum mortale. | Question 64. Murder 1. Is it a sin to kill dumb animals or even plants? 2. Is it lawful to kill a sinner? 3. Is this lawful to a private individual, or to a public person only? 4. Is this lawful to a cleric? 5. Is it lawful to kill oneself? 6. Is it lawful to kill a just man? 7. Is it lawful to kill a man in self-defense? 8. Is accidental homicide a mortal sin? |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod occidere quaecumque viventia sit illicitum. Dicit enim apostolus, ad Rom. XIII, qui ordinationi Dei resistit, ipse sibi damnationem acquirit. Sed per ordinationem divinae providentiae omnia viventia conservantur, secundum illud Psalm., qui producit in montibus faenum, et dat iumentis escam ipsorum. Ergo mortificare quaecumque viventia videtur esse illicitum. | Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to kill any living thing. For the Apostle says (Romans 13:2): "They that resist the ordinance of God purchase to themselves damnation [Vulgate: 'He that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist, purchase themselves damnation.']." Now Divine providence has ordained that all living things should be preserved, according to Psalm 146:8-9, "Who maketh grass to grow on the mountains . . . Who giveth to beasts their food." Therefore it seems unlawful to take the life of any living thing. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, homicidium est peccatum ex eo quod homo privatur vita. Sed vita communis est omnibus animalibus et plantis. Ergo eadem ratione videtur esse peccatum occidere bruta animalia et plantas. | Objection 2. Further, murder is a sin because it deprives a man of life. Now life is common to all animals and plants. Hence for the same reason it is apparently a sin to slay dumb animals and plants. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, in lege divina non determinatur specialis poena nisi peccato. Sed occidenti ovem vel bovem alterius statuitur poena determinata in lege divina, ut patet Exod. XXII. Ergo occisio brutorum animalium est peccatum. | Objection 3. Further, in the Divine law a special punishment is not appointed save for a sin. Now a special punishment had to be inflicted, according to the Divine law, on one who killed another man's ox or sheep (Exodus 22:1). Therefore the slaying of dumb animals is a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in I de Civ. Dei, cum audimus, non occides, non accipimus hoc dictum esse de fructetis, quia nullus eis est sensus, nec de irrationalibus animalibus, quia nulla nobis ratione sociantur. Restat ergo ut de homine intelligamus quod dictum est, non occides. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 20): "When we hear it said, 'Thou shalt not kill,' we do not take it as referring to trees, for they have no sense, nor to irrational animals, because they have no fellowship with us. Hence it follows that the words, 'Thou shalt not kill' refer to the killing of a man." |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod nullus peccat ex hoc quod utitur re aliqua ad hoc ad quod est. In rerum autem ordine imperfectiora sunt propter perfectiora, sicut etiam in generationis via natura ab imperfectis ad perfecta procedit. Et inde est quod sicut in generatione hominis prius est vivum, deinde animal, ultimo autem homo; ita etiam ea quae tantum vivunt, ut plantae, sunt communiter propter omnia animalia, et animalia sunt propter hominem. Et ideo si homo utatur plantis ad utilitatem animalium, et animalibus ad utilitatem hominum, non est illicitum, ut etiam per philosophum patet, in I Polit. Inter alios autem usus maxime necessarius esse videtur ut animalia plantis utantur in cibum, et homines animalibus, quod sine mortificatione eorum fieri non potest. Et ideo licitum est et plantas mortificare in usum animalium, et animalia in usum hominum, ex ipsa ordinatione divina, dicitur enim Gen. I, ecce, dedi vobis omnem herbam et universa ligna, ut sint vobis in escam et cunctis animantibus. Et Gen. IX dicitur, omne quod movetur et vivit, erit vobis in cibum. | I answer that, There is no sin in using a thing for the purpose for which it is. Now the order of things is such that the imperfect are for the perfect, even as in the process of generation nature proceeds from imperfection to perfection. Hence it is that just as in the generation of a man there is first a living thing, then an animal, and lastly a man, so too things, like the plants, which merely have life, are all alike for animals, and all animals are for man. Wherefore it is not unlawful if man use plants for the good of animals, and animals for the good of man, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 3). Now the most necessary use would seem to consist in the fact that animals use plants, and men use animals, for food, and this cannot be done unless these be deprived of life: wherefore it is lawful both to take life from plants for the use of animals, and from animals for the use of men. On fact this is in keeping with the commandment of God Himself: for it is written (Genesis 1:29-30): "Behold I have given you every herb . . . and all trees . . . to be your meat, and to all beasts of the earth": and again (Genesis 9:3): "Everything that moveth and liveth shall be meat to you." |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex ordinatione divina conservatur vita animalium et plantarum non propter seipsam, sed propter hominem. Unde ut Augustinus dicit, in I de Civ. Dei, iustissima ordinatione creatoris et vita et mors eorum nostris usibus subditur. | Reply to Objection 1. According to the Divine ordinance the life of animals and plants is preserved not for themselves but for man. Hence, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 20), "by a most just ordinance of the Creator, both their life and their death are subject to our use." |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod animalia bruta et plantae non habent vitam rationalem, per quam a seipsis agantur, sed semper aguntur quasi ab alio, naturali quodam impulsu. Et hoc est signum quod sunt naturaliter serva, et aliorum usibus accommodata. | Reply to Objection 2. Dumb animals and plants are devoid of the life of reason whereby to set themselves in motion; they are moved, as it were by another, by a kind of natural impulse, a sign of which is that they are naturally enslaved and accommodated to the uses of others. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui occidit bovem alterius peccat quidem, non quia occidit bovem, sed quia damnificat hominem in re sua. Unde non continetur sub peccato homicidii, sed sub peccato furti vel rapinae. | Reply to Objection 3. He that kills another's ox, sins, not through killing the ox, but through injuring another man in his property. Wherefore this is not a species of the sin of murder but of the sin of theft or robbery. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit licitum occidere homines peccatores. Dominus enim, Matth. XIII, in parabola, prohibuit extirpare zizania, qui sunt filii nequam, ut ibidem dicitur. Sed omne quod est prohibitum a Deo est peccatum. Ergo occidere peccatorem est peccatum. | Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to kill men who have sinned. For our Lord in the parable (Matthew 13) forbade the uprooting of the cockle which denotes wicked men according to a gloss. Now whatever is forbidden by God is a sin. Therefore it is a sin to kill a sinner. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, iustitia humana conformatur iustitiae divinae. Sed secundum divinam iustitiam peccatores ad poenitentiam reservantur, secundum illud Ezech. XVIII, nolo mortem peccatoris, sed ut convertatur et vivat. Ergo videtur esse omnino iniustum quod peccatores occidantur. | Objection 2. Further, human justice is conformed to Divine justice. Now according to Divine justice sinners are kept back for repentance, according to Ezekiel 33:11, "I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." Therefore it seems altogether unjust to kill sinners. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, illud quod est secundum se malum nullo bono fine fieri licet, ut patet per Augustinum, in libro contra mendacium, et per philosophum, in II Ethic. Sed occidere hominem secundum se est malum, quia ad omnes homines debemus caritatem habere; amicos autem volumus vivere et esse, ut dicitur in IX Ethic. Ergo nullo modo licet hominem peccatorem interficere. | Objection 3. Further, it is not lawful, for any good end whatever, to do that which is evil in itself, according to Augustine (Contra Mendac. vii) and the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6). Now to kill a man is evil in itself, since we are bound to have charity towards all men, and "we wish our friends to live and to exist," according to Ethic. ix, 4. Therefore it is nowise lawful to kill a man who has sinned. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Exod. XXII, maleficos non patieris vivere; et in Psalm., in matutino interficiebam omnes peccatores terrae. | On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 22:18): "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live"; and (Psalm 100:8): "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land." |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, licitum est occidere animalia bruta inquantum ordinantur naturaliter ad hominum usum, sicut imperfectum ordinatur ad perfectum. Omnis autem pars ordinatur ad totum ut imperfectum ad perfectum. Et ideo omnis pars naturaliter est propter totum. Et propter hoc videmus quod si saluti totius corporis humani expediat praecisio alicuius membri, puta cum est putridum et corruptivum aliorum, laudabiliter et salubriter abscinditur. Quaelibet autem persona singularis comparatur ad totam communitatem sicut pars ad totum. Et ideo si aliquis homo sit periculosus communitati et corruptivus ipsius propter aliquod peccatum, laudabiliter et salubriter occiditur, ut bonum commune conservetur, modicum enim fermentum totam massam corrumpit, ut dicitur I ad Cor. V. | I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man's use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump" (1 Corinthians 5:6). |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dominus abstinendum mandavit ab eradicatione zizaniorum ut tritico parceretur, idest bonis. Quod quidem fit quando non possunt occidi mali quin simul occidantur et boni, vel quia latent inter bonos; vel quia habent multos sequaces, ita quod sine bonorum periculo interfici non possunt; ut Augustinus dicit, contra Parmen. Unde dominus docet magis esse sinendum malos vivere, et ultionem reservandum usque ad extremum iudicium, quam quod boni simul occidantur. Quando vero ex occisione malorum non imminet periculum bonis, sed magis tutela et salus, tunc licite possunt mali occidi. | Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Deus, secundum ordinem suae sapientiae, quandoque statim peccatores occidit, ad liberationem bonorum; quandoque autem eis poenitendi tempus concedit; secundum quod ipse novit suis electis expedire. Et hoc etiam humana iustitia imitatur pro posse, illos enim qui sunt perniciosi in alios, occidit; eos vero qui peccant aliis graviter non nocentes, ad poenitentiam reservat. | Reply to Objection 2. According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod homo peccando ab ordine rationis recedit, et ideo decidit a dignitate humana, prout scilicet homo est naturaliter liber et propter seipsum existens, et incidit quodammodo in servitutem bestiarum, ut scilicet de ipso ordinetur secundum quod est utile aliis; secundum illud Psalm., homo, cum in honore esset, non intellexit, comparatus est iumentis insipientibus, et similis factus est illis; et Prov. XI dicitur, qui stultus est serviet sapienti. Et ideo quamvis hominem in sua dignitate manentem occidere sit secundum se malum, tamen hominem peccatorem occidere potest esse bonum, sicut occidere bestiam, peior enim est malus homo bestia, et plus nocet, ut philosophus dicit, in I Polit. et in VII Ethic. | Reply to Objection 3. By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. This is expressed in Psalm 48:21: "Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them," and Proverbs 11:29: "The fool shall serve the wise." Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6). |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod occidere hominem peccatorem liceat privatae personae. In lege enim divina nihil illicitum mandatur. Sed Exod. XXXII praecepit Moyses, occidat unusquisque proximum suum, fratrem et amicum suum, pro peccato vituli conflatilis. Ergo etiam privatis personis licet peccatorem occidere. | Objection 1. It would seem lawful for a private individual to kill a man who has sinned. For nothing unlawful is commanded in the Divine law. Yet, on account of the sin of the molten calf, Moses commanded (Exodus 32:27): "Let every man kill his brother, and friend, and neighbor." Therefore it is lawful for private individuals to kill a sinner. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, homo propter peccatum bestiis comparatur, ut dictum est. Sed occidere bestiam sylvestrem, maxime nocentem, cuilibet privatae personae licet. Ergo, pari ratione, occidere hominem peccatorem. | Objection 2. Further, as stated above (2, ad 3), man, on account of sin, is compared to the beasts. Now it is lawful for any private individual to kill a wild beast, especially if it be harmful. Therefore for the same reason, it is lawful for any private individual to kill a man who has sinned. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, laudabile est quod homo, etiam si sit privata persona, operetur quod est utile bono communi. Sed occisio maleficorum est utilis bono communi, ut dictum est. Ergo laudabile est si etiam privatae personae malefactores occidant. | Objection 3. Further, a man, though a private individual, deserves praise for doing what is useful for the common good. Now the slaying of evildoers is useful for the common good, as stated above (Article 2). Therefore it is deserving of praise if even private individuals kill evil-doers. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in I de Civ. Dei, qui sine aliqua publica administratione maleficum interfecerit, velut homicida iudicabitur, et tanto amplius quanto sibi potestatem a Deo non concessam usurpare non timuit. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i) [Can. Quicumque percutit, caus. xxiii, qu. 8: "A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him." |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, occidere malefactorem licitum est inquantum ordinatur ad salutem totius communitatis. Et ideo ad illum solum pertinet cui committitur cura communitatis conservandae, sicut ad medicum pertinet praecidere membrum putridum quando ei commissa fuerit cura salutis totius corporis. Cura autem communis boni commissa est principibus habentibus publicam auctoritatem. Et ideo eis solum licet malefactores occidere, non autem privatis personis. | I answer that, As stated above (Article 2), it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community's welfare. Thus it belongs to a physician to cut off a decayed limb, when he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ille aliquid facit cuius auctoritate fit, ut patet per Dionysium, XIII cap. Cael. Hier. Et ideo, ut Augustinus dicit, in I de Civ. Dei, non ipse occidit qui ministerium debet iubenti sicut adminiculum gladius utenti. Unde illi qui occiderunt proximos et amicos ex mandato domini, non hoc fecisse ipsi videntur, sed potius ille cuius auctoritate fecerunt, sicut et miles interficit hostem auctoritate principis, et minister latronem auctoritate iudicis. | Reply to Objection 1. The person by whose authority a thing is done really does the thing as Dionysius declares (Coel. Hier. iii). Hence according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei i, 21), "He slays not who owes his service to one who commands him, even as a sword is merely the instrument to him that wields it." Wherefore those who, at the Lord's command, slew their neighbors and friends, would seem not to have done this themselves, but rather He by whose authority they acted thus: just as a soldier slays the foe by the authority of his sovereign, and the executioner slays the robber by the authority of the judge. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod bestia naturaliter est distincta ab homine. Unde super hoc non requiritur aliquod iudicium an sit occidenda, si sit sylvestris. Si vero sit domestica, requiretur iudicium non propter ipsam, sed propter damnum domini. Sed homo peccator non est naturaliter distinctus ab hominibus iustis. Et ideo indiget publico iudicio, ut discernatur an sit occidendus propter communem salutem. | Reply to Objection 2. A beast is by nature distinct from man, wherefore in the case of a wild beast there is no need for an authority to kill it; whereas, in the case of domestic animals, such authority is required, not for their sake, but on account of the owner's loss. On the other hand a man who has sinned is not by nature distinct from good men; hence a public authority is requisite in order to condemn him to death for the common good. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod facere aliquid ad utilitatem communem quod nulli nocet, hoc est licitum cuilibet privatae personae. Sed si sit cum nocumento alterius, hoc non debet fieri nisi secundum iudicium eius ad quem pertinet existimare quid sit subtrahendum partibus pro salute totius. | Reply to Objection 3. It is lawful for any private individual to do anything for the common good, provided it harm nobody: but if it be harmful to some other, it cannot be done, except by virtue of the judgment of the person to whom it pertains to decide what is to be taken from the parts for the welfare of the whole. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod occidere malefactores liceat clericis. Clerici enim praecipue debent implere quod apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. IV, imitatores mei estote, sicut et ego Christi, per quod nobis indicitur ut Deum et sanctos eius imitemur. Sed ipse Deus, quem colimus, occidit malefactores, secundum illud Psalm., qui percussit Aegyptum cum primogenitis eorum. Moyses etiam a Levitis fecit interfici viginti tria millia hominum propter adorationem vituli, ut habetur Exod. XXXII. Et Phinees, sacerdos, interfecit Israelitem coeuntem cum Madianitide, ut habetur Num. XXV. Samuel etiam interfecit Agag, regem Amalec; et Elias sacerdotes Baal; et Mathathias eum qui ad sacrificandum accesserat; et in novo testamento, Petrus Ananiam et Saphiram. Ergo videtur quod etiam clericis liceat occidere malefactores. | Objection 1. It would seem lawful for clerics to kill evil-doers. For clerics especially should fulfil the precept of the Apostle (1 Corinthians 4:16): "Be ye followers of me as I also am of Christ," whereby we are called upon to imitate God and His saints. Now the very God whom we worship puts evildoers to death, according to Psalm 135:10, "Who smote Egypt with their firstborn." Again Moses made the Levites slay twenty-three thousand men on account of the worship of the calf (Exodus 32), the priest Phinees slew the Israelite who went in to the woman of Madian (Numbers 25), Samuel killed Agag king of Amalec (1 Samuel 15), Elias slew the priests of Baal (1 Kings 18), Mathathias killed the man who went up to the altar to sacrifice (1 Maccabees 2); and, in the New Testament, Peter killed Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5). Therefore it seems that even clerics may kill evil-doers. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, potestas spiritualis est maior quam temporalis, et Deo coniunctior. Sed potestas temporalis licite malefactores occidit tanquam Dei minister, ut dicitur Rom. XIII. Ergo multo magis clerici, qui sunt Dei ministri spiritualem potestatem habentes, licite possunt malefactores occidere. | Objection 2. Further, spiritual power is greater than the secular and is more united to God. Now the secular power as "God's minister" lawfully puts evil-doers to death, according to Romans 13:4. Much more therefore may clerics, who are God's ministers and have spiritual power, put evil-doers to death. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, quicumque licite suscipit aliquod officium, licite potest ea exercere quae ad officium illud pertinent. Sed officium principis terrae est malefactores occidere, ut dictum est. Ergo clerici qui sunt terrarum principes, licite possunt occidere malefactores. | Objection 3. Further, whosoever lawfully accepts an office, may lawfully exercise the functions of that office. Now it belongs to the princely office to slay evildoers, as stated above (Article 3). Therefore those clerics who are earthly princes may lawfully slay malefactors. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur I ad Tim. III, oportet episcopum sine crimine esse, non vinolentum, non percussorem. | On the contrary, It is written (1 Timothy 3:2-3): "It behooveth . . . a bishop to be without crime [Vulgate: 'blameless.' 'Without crime' is the reading in Titus 1:7] . . . not given to wine, no striker." |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod non licet clericis occidere, duplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia sunt electi ad altaris ministerium, in quo repraesentatur passio Christi occisi, qui cum percuteretur, non repercutiebat, ut dicitur I Pet. II. Et ideo non competit ut clerici sint percussores aut occisores, debent enim ministri suum dominum imitari, secundum illud Eccli. X, secundum iudicem populi, sic et ministri eius. Alia ratio est quia clericis committitur ministerium novae legis, in qua non determinatur poena occisionis vel mutilationis corporalis. Et ideo, ut sint idonei ministri novi testamenti, debent a talibus abstinere. | I answer that, It is unlawful for clerics to kill, for two reasons. First, because they are chosen for the ministry of the altar, whereon is represented the Passion of Christ slain "Who, when He was struck did not strike [Vulgate: 'When He suffered, He threatened not']" (1 Peter 2:23). Therefore it becomes not clerics to strike or kill: for ministers should imitate their master, according to Sirach 10:2, "As the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers." The other reason is because clerics are entrusted with the ministry of the New Law, wherein no punishment of death or of bodily maiming is appointed: wherefore they should abstain from such things in order that they may be fitting ministers of the New Testament. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus universaliter in omnibus operatur quae recta sunt, in unoquoque tamen secundum eius congruentiam. Et ideo unusquisque debet Deum imitari in hoc quod sibi specialiter congruit. Unde licet Deus corporaliter etiam malefactores occidat, non tamen oportet quod omnes in hoc eum imitentur. Petrus autem non propria auctoritate vel manu Ananiam et Saphiram interfecit, sed magis divinam sententiam de eorum morte promulgavit. Sacerdotes autem vel Levitae veteris testamenti erant ministri veteris legis, secundum quam poenae corporales infligebantur, et ideo etiam eis occidere propria manu congruebat. | Reply to Objection 1. God works in all things without exception whatever is right, yet in each one according to its mode. Wherefore everyone should imitate God in that which is specially becoming to him. Hence, though God slays evildoers even corporally, it does not follow that all should imitate Him in this. As regards Peter, he did not put Ananias and Saphira to death by his own authority or with his own hand, but published their death sentence pronounced by God. The Priests or Levites of the Old Testament were the ministers of the Old Law, which appointed corporal penalties, so that it was fitting for them to slay with their own hands. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ministerium clericorum est in melioribus ordinatum quam sint corporales occisiones, scilicet in his quae pertinent ad salutem spiritualem. Et ideo non congruit eis quod minoribus se ingerant. | Reply to Objection 2. The ministry of clerics is concerned with better things than corporal slayings, namely with things pertaining to spiritual welfare, and so it is not fitting for them to meddle with minor matters. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod praelati Ecclesiarum accipiunt officia principum terrae non ut ipsi iudicium sanguinis exerceant per seipsos, sed quod eorum auctoritate per alios exerceatur. | Reply to Objection 3. Ecclesiastical prelates accept the office of earthly princes, not that they may inflict capital punishment themselves, but that this may be carried into effect by others in virtue of their authority. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod alicui liceat seipsum occidere. Homicidium enim est peccatum inquantum iustitiae contrariatur. Sed nullus potest sibi ipsi iniustitiam facere, ut probatur in V Ethic. Ergo nullus peccat occidendo seipsum. | Objection 1. It would seem lawful for a man to kill himself. For murder is a sin in so far as it is contrary to justice. But no man can do an injustice to himself, as is proved in Ethic. v, 11. Therefore no man sins by killing himself. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, occidere malefactores licet habenti publicam potestatem. Sed quandoque ille qui habet publicam potestatem est malefactor. Ergo licet ei occidere seipsum. | Objection 2. Further, it is lawful, for one who exercises public authority, to kill evil-doers. Now he who exercises public authority is sometimes an evil-doer. Therefore he may lawfully kill himself. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, licitum est quod aliquis spontanee minus periculum subeat ut maius periculum vitet, sicut licitum est quod aliquis etiam sibi ipsi amputet membrum putridum ut totum corpus salvetur. Sed quandoque aliquis per occisionem sui ipsius vitat maius malum, vel miseram vitam vel turpitudinem alicuius peccati. Ergo licet alicui occidere seipsum. | Objection 3. Further, it is lawful for a man to suffer spontaneously a lesser danger that he may avoid a greater: thus it is lawful for a man to cut off a decayed limb even from himself, that he may save his whole body. Now sometimes a man, by killing himself, avoids a greater evil, for example an unhappy life, or the shame of sin. Therefore a man may kill himself. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 5 arg. 4 Praeterea, Samson seipsum interfecit, ut habetur Iudic. XVI, qui tamen connumeratur inter sanctos, ut patet Heb. XI. Ergo licitum est alicui occidere seipsum. | Objection 4. Further, Samson killed himself, as related in Judges 16, and yet he is numbered among the saints (Hebrews 11). Therefore it is lawful for a man to kill himself. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 5 arg. 5 Praeterea, II Machab. XIV dicitur quod Razias quidam seipsum interfecit, eligens nobiliter mori potius quam subditus fieri peccatoribus et contra natales suos iniuriis agi. Sed nihil quod nobiliter fit et fortiter, est illicitum. Ergo occidere seipsum non est illicitum. | Objection 5. Further, it is related (2 Maccabees 14:42) that a certain Razias killed himself, "choosing to die nobly rather than to fall into the hands of the wicked, and to suffer abuses unbecoming his noble birth." Now nothing that is done nobly and bravely is unlawful. Therefore suicide is not unlawful. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in I de Civ. Dei, restat ut de homine intelligamus quod dictum est, non occides. Nec alterum ergo, nec te. Neque enim aliud quam hominem occidit qui seipsum occidit. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 20): "Hence it follows that the words 'Thou shalt not kill' refer to the killing of a man--not another man; therefore, not even thyself. For he who kills himself, kills nothing else than a man." |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod seipsum occidere est omnino illicitum triplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia naturaliter quaelibet res seipsam amat, et ad hoc pertinet quod quaelibet res naturaliter conservat se in esse et corrumpentibus resistit quantum potest. Et ideo quod aliquis seipsum occidat est contra inclinationem naturalem, et contra caritatem, qua quilibet debet seipsum diligere. Et ideo occisio sui ipsius semper est peccatum mortale, utpote contra naturalem legem et contra caritatem existens. Secundo, quia quaelibet pars id quod est, est totius. Quilibet autem homo est pars communitatis, et ita id quod est, est communitatis. Unde in hoc quod seipsum interficit, iniuriam communitati facit, ut patet per philosophum, in V Ethic. Tertio, quia vita est quoddam donum divinitus homini attributum, et eius potestati subiectum qui occidit et vivere facit. Et ideo qui seipsum vita privat in Deum peccat, sicut qui alienum servum interficit peccat in dominum cuius est servus; et sicut peccat ille qui usurpat sibi iudicium de re sibi non commissa. Ad solum enim Deum pertinet iudicium mortis et vitae, secundum illud Deut. XXXII, ego occidam, et vivere faciam. | I answer that, It is altogether unlawful to kill oneself, for three reasons. First, because everything naturally loves itself, the result being that everything naturally keeps itself in being, and resists corruptions so far as it can. Wherefore suicide is contrary to the inclination of nature, and to charity whereby every man should love himself. Hence suicide is always a mortal sin, as being contrary to the natural law and to charity. Secondly, because every part, as such, belongs to the whole. Now every man is part of the community, and so, as such, he belongs to the community. Hence by killing himself he injures the community, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. v, 11). Thirdly, because life is God's gift to man, and is subject to His power, Who kills and makes to live. Hence whoever takes his own life, sins against God, even as he who kills another's slave, sins against that slave's master, and as he who usurps to himself judgment of a matter not entrusted to him. For it belongs to God alone to pronounce sentence of death and life, according to Deuteronomy 32:39, "I will kill and I will make to live." |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homicidium est peccatum non solum quia contrariatur iustitiae, sed etiam quia contrariatur caritati quam habere debet aliquis ad seipsum. Et ex hac parte occisio sui ipsius est peccatum per comparationem ad seipsum. Per comparationem autem ad communitatem et ad Deum, habet rationem peccati etiam per oppositionem ad iustitiam. | Reply to Objection 1. Murder is a sin, not only because it is contrary to justice, but also because it is opposed to charity which a man should have towards himself: in this respect suicide is a sin in relation to oneself. On relation to the community and to God, it is sinful, by reason also of its opposition to justice. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ille qui habet publicam potestatem potest licite malefactorem occidere per hoc quod potest de ipso iudicare. Nullus autem est iudex sui ipsius. Unde non licet habenti publicam potestatem seipsum occidere propter quodcumque peccatum. Licet tamen ei se committere iudicio aliorum. | Reply to Objection 2. One who exercises public authority may lawfully put to death an evil-doer, since he can pass judgment on him. But no man is judge of himself. Wherefore it is not lawful for one who exercises public authority to put himself to death for any sin whatever: although he may lawfully commit himself to the judgment of others. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod homo constituitur dominus sui ipsius per liberum arbitrium. Et ideo licite potest homo de seipso disponere quantum ad ea quae pertinent ad hanc vitam, quae hominis libero arbitrio regitur. Sed transitus de hac vita ad aliam feliciorem non subiacet libero arbitrio hominis, sed potestati divinae. Et ideo non licet homini seipsum interficere ut ad feliciorem transeat vitam. Similiter etiam nec ut miserias quaslibet praesentis vitae evadat. Quia ultimum malorum huius vitae et maxime terribile est mors, ut patet per philosophum, in III Ethic. Et ita inferre sibi mortem ad alias huius vitae miserias evadendas est maius malum assumere ad minoris mali vitationem. Similiter etiam non licet seipsum occidere propter aliquod peccatum commissum. Tum quia in hoc sibi maxime nocet quod sibi adimit necessarium poenitentiae tempus. Tum etiam quia malefactorem occidere non licet nisi per iudicium publicae potestatis. Similiter etiam non licet mulieri seipsam occidere ne ab alio corrumpatur. Quia non debet in se committere crimen maximum, quod est sui ipsius occisio, ut vitet minus crimen alienum (non enim est crimen mulieris per violentiam violatae, si consensus non adsit, quia non inquinatur corpus nisi de consensu mentis, ut Lucia dixit). Constat autem minus esse peccatum fornicationem vel adulterium quam homicidium, et praecipue sui ipsius, quod est gravissimum, quia sibi ipsi nocet, cui maximam dilectionem debet. Est etiam periculosissimum, quia non restat tempus ut per poenitentiam expietur. Similiter etiam nulli licet seipsum occidere ob timorem ne consentiat in peccatum. Quia non sunt facienda mala ut veniant bona, vel ut vitentur mala, praesertim minora et minus certa. Incertum enim est an aliquis in futurum consentiat in peccatum, potens est enim Deus hominem, quacumque tentatione superveniente, liberare a peccato. | Reply to Objection 3. Man is made master of himself through his free-will: wherefore he can lawfully dispose of himself as to those matters which pertain to this life which is ruled by man's free-will. But the passage from this life to another and happier one is subject not to man's free-will but to the power of God. Hence it is not lawful for man to take his own life that he may pass to a happier life, nor that he may escape any unhappiness whatsoever of the present life, because the ultimate and most fearsome evil of this life is death, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. iii, 6). Therefore to bring death upon oneself in order to escape the other afflictions of this life, is to adopt a greater evil in order to avoid a lesser. On like manner it is unlawful to take one's own life on account of one's having committed a sin, both because by so doing one does oneself a very great injury, by depriving oneself of the time needful for repentance, and because it is not lawful to slay an evildoer except by the sentence of the public authority. Again it is unlawful for a woman to kill herself lest she be violated, because she ought not to commit on herself the very great sin of suicide, to avoid the lesser sir; of another. For she commits no sin in being violated by force, provided she does not consent, since "without consent of the mind there is no stain on the body," as the Blessed Lucy declared. Now it is evident that fornication and adultery are less grievous sins than taking a man's, especially one's own, life: since the latter is most grievous, because one injures oneself, to whom one owes the greatest love. Moreover it is most dangerous since no time is left wherein to expiate it by repentance. Again it is not lawful for anyone to take his own life for fear he should consent to sin, because "evil must not be done that good may come" (Romans 3:8) or that evil may be avoided especially if the evil be of small account and an uncertain event, for it is uncertain whether one will at some future time consent to a sin, since God is able to deliver man from sin under any temptation whatever. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 5 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in I de Civ. Dei, nec Samson aliter excusatur quod seipsum cum hostibus ruina domus oppressit, nisi quia latenter spiritus hoc iusserat, qui per illum miracula faciebat. Et eandem rationem assignat de quibusdam sanctis feminis quae tempore persecutionis seipsas occiderunt, quarum memoria in Ecclesia celebratur. | Reply to Objection 4. As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 21), "not even Samson is to be excused that he crushed himself together with his enemies under the ruins of the house, except the Holy Ghost, Who had wrought many wonders through him, had secretly commanded him to do this." He assigns the same reason in the case of certain holy women, who at the time of persecution took their own lives, and who are commemorated by the Church. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 5 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod ad fortitudinem pertinet quod aliquis ab alio mortem pati non refugiat propter bonum virtutis, et ut vitet peccatum. Sed quod aliquis sibi ipsi inferat mortem ut vitet mala poenalia, habet quidem quandam speciem fortitudinis, propter quod quidam seipsos interfecerunt aestimantes se fortiter agere, de quorum numero Razias fuit, non tamen est vera fortitudo, sed magis quaedam mollities animi non valentis mala poenalia sustinere, ut patet per philosophum, in III Ethic., et per Augustinum, in I de Civ. Dei. | Reply to Objection 5. It belongs to fortitude that a man does not shrink from being slain by another, for the sake of the good of virtue, and that he may avoid sin. But that a man take his own life in order to avoid penal evils has indeed an appearance of fortitude (for which reason some, among whom was Razias, have killed themselves thinking to act from fortitude), yet it is not true fortitude, but rather a weakness of soul unable to bear penal evils, as the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 7) and Augustine (De Civ. Dei 22,23) declare. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod liceat in aliquo casu interficere innocentem. Divinus enim timor non manifestatur per peccatum, quin magis timor domini expellit peccatum, ut dicitur Eccli. I. Sed Abraham commendatus est quod timuerit dominum, quia voluit interficere filium innocentem. Ergo potest aliquis innocentem interficere sine peccato. | Objection 1. It would seem that in some cases it is lawful to kill the innocent. The fear of God is never manifested by sin, since on the contrary "the fear of the Lord driveth out sin" (Sirach 1:27). Now Abraham was commended in that he feared the Lord, since he was willing to slay his innocent son. Therefore one may, without sin, kill an innocent person. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, in genere peccatorum quae contra proximum committuntur, tanto videtur aliquid esse maius peccatum quanto maius nocumentum infertur ei in quem peccatur. Sed occisio plus nocet peccatori quam innocenti, qui de miseria huius vitae ad caelestem gloriam transit per mortem. Cum ergo liceat in aliquo casu peccatorem occidere, multo magis licet occidere innocentem vel iustum. | Objection 2. Further, among those sins that are committed against one's neighbor, the more grievous seem to be those whereby a more grievous injury is inflicted on the person sinned against. Now to be killed is a greater injury to a sinful than to an innocent person, because the latter, by death, passes forthwith from the unhappiness of this life to the glory of heaven. Since then it is lawful in certain cases to kill a sinful man, much more is it lawful to slay an innocent or a righteous person. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, illud quod fit secundum ordinem iustitiae non est peccatum. Sed quandoque cogitur aliquis secundum ordinem iustitiae occidere innocentem, puta cum iudex, qui debet secundum allegata iudicare, condemnat ad mortem eum quem scit innocentem, per falsos testes convictum; et similiter minister qui iniuste condemnatum occidit obediens iudici. Ergo absque peccato potest aliquis occidere innocentem. | Objection 3. Further, what is done in keeping with the order of justice is not a sin. But sometimes a man is forced, according to the order of justice, to slay an innocent person: for instance, when a judge, who is bound to judge according to the evidence, condemns to death a man whom he knows to be innocent but who is convicted by false witnesses; and again the executioner, who in obedience to the judge puts to death the man who has been unjustly sentenced. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Exod. XXIII, innocentem et iustum non occides. | On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 23:7): "The innocent and just person thou shalt not put to death." |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod aliquis homo dupliciter considerari potest, uno modo, secundum se; alio modo, per comparationem ad aliud. Secundum se quidem considerando hominem, nullum occidere licet, quia in quolibet, etiam peccatore, debemus amare naturam, quam Deus fecit, quae per occisionem corrumpitur. Sed sicut supra dictum est, occisio peccatoris fit licita per comparationem ad bonum commune, quod per peccatum corrumpitur. Vita autem iustorum est conservativa et promotiva boni communis, quia ipsi sunt principalior pars multitudinis. Et ideo nullo modo licet occidere innocentem. | I answer that, An individual man may be considered in two ways: first, in himself; secondly, in relation to something else. If we consider a man in himself, it is unlawful to kill any man, since in every man though he be sinful, we ought to love the nature which God has made, and which is destroyed by slaying him. Nevertheless, as stated above (Article 2) the slaying of a sinner becomes lawful in relation to the common good, which is corrupted by sin. On the other hand the life of righteous men preserves and forwards the common good, since they are the chief part of the community. Therefore it is in no way lawful to slay the innocent. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus habet dominium mortis et vitae, eius enim ordinatione moriuntur et peccatores et iusti. Et ideo ille qui mandato Dei occidit innocentem, talis non peccat, sicut nec Deus, cuius est executor, et ostenditur Deum timere, eius mandatis obediens. | Reply to Objection 1. God is Lord of death and life, for by His decree both the sinful and the righteous die. Hence he who at God's command kills an innocent man does not sin, as neither does God Whose behest he executes: indeed his obedience to God's commands is a proof that he fears Him. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in pensanda gravitate peccati magis est considerandum illud quod est per se quam illud quod est per accidens. Unde ille qui occidit iustum gravius peccat quam ille qui occidit peccatorem. Primo quidem, quia nocet ei quem plus debet diligere, et ita magis contra caritatem agit. Secundo, quia iniuriam infert ei qui est minus dignus, et ita magis contra iustitiam agit. Tertio, quia privat communitatem maiori bono. Quarto, quia magis Deum contemnit, secundum illud Luc. X, qui vos spernit, me spernit. Quod autem iustus occisus ad gloriam perducatur a Deo, per accidens se habet ad occisionem. | Reply to Objection 2. In weighing the gravity of a sin we must consider the essential rather than the accidental. Wherefore he who kills a just man, sins more grievously than he who slays a sinful man: first, because he injures one whom he should love more, and so acts more in opposition to charity: secondly, because he inflicts an injury on a man who is less deserving of one, and so acts more in opposition to justice: thirdly, because he deprives the community of a greater good: fourthly, because he despises God more, according to Luke 10:16, "He that despiseth you despiseth Me." On the other hand it is accidental to the slaying that the just man whose life is taken be received by God into glory. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod iudex, si scit aliquem esse innocentem qui falsis testibus convincitur, debet diligentius examinare testes, ut inveniat occasionem liberandi innoxium, sicut Daniel fecit. Si autem hoc non potest, debet eum ad superiorem remittere iudicandum. Si autem nec hoc potest, non peccat secundum allegata sententiam ferens, quia non ipse occidit innocentem, sed illi qui eum asserunt nocentem. Minister autem iudicis condemnantis innocentem, si sententia intolerabilem errorem contineat, non debet obedire, alias excusarentur carnifices qui martyres occiderunt. Si vero non contineat manifestam iniustitiam, non peccat praeceptum exequendo, quia ipse non habet discutere superioris sententiam; nec ipse occidit innocentem, sed iudex, cui ministerium adhibet. | Reply to Objection 3. If the judge knows that man who has been convicted by false witnesses, is innocent he must, like Daniel, examine the witnesses with great care, so as to find a motive for acquitting the innocent: but if he cannot do this he should remit him for judgment by a higher tribunal. If even this is impossible, he does not sin if he pronounce sentence in accordance with the evidence, for it is not he that puts the innocent man to death, but they who stated him to be guilty. He that carries out the sentence of the judge who has condemned an innocent man, if the sentence contains an inexcusable error, he should not obey, else there would be an excuse for the executions of the martyrs: if however it contain no manifest injustice, he does not has no right to discuss the judgment of his superior; nor is it he who slays the innocent man, but the judge whose minister he is. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod nulli liceat occidere aliquem se defendendo. Dicit enim Augustinus, ad Publicolam, de occidendis hominibus ne ab eis quisquam occidatur, non mihi placet consilium, nisi forte sit miles, aut publica functione teneatur, ut non pro se hoc faciat sed pro aliis, accepta legitima potestate, si eius congruat personae. Sed ille qui se defendendo occidit aliquem, ad hoc eum occidit ne ipse ab eo occidatur. Ergo hoc videtur esse illicitum. | Objection 1. It would seem that nobody may lawfully kill a man in self-defense. For Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): "I do not agree with the opinion that one may kill a man lest one be killed by him; unless one be a soldier, exercise a public office, so that one does it not for oneself but for others, having the power to do so, provided it be in keeping with one's person." Now he who kills a man in self-defense, kills him lest he be killed by him. Therefore this would seem to be unlawful. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, in I de Lib. Arb. dicitur, quomodo apud divinam providentiam a peccato liberi sunt qui pro his rebus quas contemni oportet, humana caede polluti sunt? Eas autem res dicit esse contemnendas quas homines inviti amittere possunt, ut ex praemissis patet. Horum autem est vita corporalis. Ergo pro conservanda vita corporali nulli licitum est hominem occidere. | Objection 2. Further, he says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5): "How are they free from sin in sight of Divine providence, who are guilty of taking a man's life for the sake of these contemptible things?" Now among contemptible things he reckons "those which men may forfeit unwillingly," as appears from the context (De Lib. Arb. i, 5): and the chief of these is the life of the body. Therefore it is unlawful for any man to take another's life for the sake of the life of his own body. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, Nicolaus Papa dicit, et habetur in decretis, dist. l, de clericis pro quibus consuluisti, scilicet qui se defendendo Paganum occiderunt, si postea per poenitentiam possent ad pristinum statum redire aut ad altiorem ascendere, scito nos nullam occasionem dare, nec ullam tribuere licentiam eis quemlibet hominem quolibet modo occidendi. Sed ad praecepta moralia servanda tenentur communiter clerici et laici. Ergo etiam laicis non est licitum occidere aliquem se defendendo. | Objection 3. Further, Pope Nicolas [Nicolas I, Dist. 1, can. De his clericis] says in the Decretals: "Concerning the clerics about whom you have consulted Us, those, namely, who have killed a pagan in self-defense, as to whether, after making amends by repenting, they may return to their former state, or rise to a higher degree; know that in no case is it lawful for them to kill any man under any circumstances whatever." Now clerics and laymen are alike bound to observe the moral precepts. Therefore neither is it lawful for laymen to kill anyone in self-defense. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 7 arg. 4 Praeterea, homicidium est gravius peccatum quam simplex fornicatio vel adulterium. Sed nulli licet committere simplicem fornicationem vel adulterium, vel quodcumque aliud peccatum mortale, pro conservatione propriae vitae, quia vita spiritualis praeferenda est corporali. Ergo nulli licet, defendendo seipsum, alium occidere ut propriam vitam conservet. | Objection 4. Further, murder is a more grievous sin than fornication or adultery. Now nobody may lawfully commit simple fornication or adultery or any other mortal sin in order to save his own life; since the spiritual life is to be preferred to the life of the body. Therefore no man may lawfully take another's life in self-defense in order to save his own life. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 7 arg. 5 Praeterea, si arbor est mala, et fructus, ut dicitur Matth. VII. Sed ipsa defensio sui videtur esse illicita, secundum illud Rom. XII, non vos defendentes, carissimi. Ergo et occisio hominis exinde procedens est illicita. | Objection 5. Further, if the tree be evil, so is the fruit, according to Matthew 7:17. Now self-defense itself seems to be unlawful, according to Romans 12:19: "Not defending [Douay: 'revenging'] yourselves, my dearly beloved." Therefore its result, which is the slaying of a man, is also unlawful. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod Exod. XXII dicitur, si effringens fur domum sive suffodiens fuerit inventus, et, accepto vulnere, mortuus fuerit, percussor non erit reus sanguinis. Sed multo magis licitum est defendere propriam vitam quam propriam domum. Ergo etiam si aliquis occidat aliquem pro defensione vitae suae, non erit reus homicidii. | On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 22:2): "If a thief be found breaking into a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die; he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood." Now it is much more lawful to defend one's life than one's house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kill another in defense of his own life. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod nihil prohibet unius actus esse duos effectus, quorum alter solum sit in intentione, alius vero sit praeter intentionem. Morales autem actus recipiunt speciem secundum id quod intenditur, non autem ab eo quod est praeter intentionem, cum sit per accidens, ut ex supradictis patet. Ex actu igitur alicuius seipsum defendentis duplex effectus sequi potest, unus quidem conservatio propriae vitae; alius autem occisio invadentis. Actus igitur huiusmodi ex hoc quod intenditur conservatio propriae vitae, non habet rationem illiciti, cum hoc sit cuilibet naturale quod se conservet in esse quantum potest. Potest tamen aliquis actus ex bona intentione proveniens illicitus reddi si non sit proportionatus fini. Et ideo si aliquis ad defendendum propriam vitam utatur maiori violentia quam oporteat, erit illicitum. Si vero moderate violentiam repellat, erit licita defensio, nam secundum iura, vim vi repellere licet cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae. Nec est necessarium ad salutem ut homo actum moderatae tutelae praetermittat ad evitandum occisionem alterius, quia plus tenetur homo vitae suae providere quam vitae alienae. Sed quia occidere hominem non licet nisi publica auctoritate propter bonum commune, ut ex supradictis patet; illicitum est quod homo intendat occidere hominem ut seipsum defendat, nisi ei qui habet publicam auctoritatem, qui, intendens hominem occidere ad sui defensionem, refert hoc ad publicum bonum, ut patet in milite pugnante contra hostes, et in ministro iudicis pugnante contra latrones. Quamvis et isti etiam peccent si privata libidine moveantur. | I answer that, Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense." Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. But as it is unlawful to take a man's life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod auctoritas Augustini intelligenda est in eo casu quo quis intendit occidere hominem ut seipsum a morte liberet. | Reply to Objection 1. The words quoted from Augustine refer to the case when one man intends to kill another to save himself from death. The passage quoted in the Second Objection is to be understood in the same sense. Hence he says pointedly, "for the sake of these things," whereby he indicates the intention. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 7 ad 2 In quo etiam casu intelligitur auctoritas inducta ex libro de libero arbitrio. Unde signanter dicitur, pro his rebus, in quo designatur intentio. Et per hoc patet responsio ad secundum. | This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod irregularitas consequitur actum homicidii etiam si sit absque peccato, ut patet in iudice qui iuste aliquem condemnat ad mortem. Et propter hoc clericus, etiam si se defendendo interficiat aliquem, irregularis est, quamvis non intendat occidere, sed seipsum defendere. | Reply to Objection 3. Irregularity results from the act though sinless of taking a man's life, as appears in the case of a judge who justly condemns a man to death. For this reason a cleric, though he kill a man in self-defense, is irregular, albeit he intends not to kill him, but to defend himself. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 7 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod actus fornicationis vel adulterii non ordinatur ad conservationem propriae vitae ex necessitate, sicut actus ex quo quandoque sequitur homicidium. | Reply to Objection 4. The act of fornication or adultery is not necessarily directed to the preservation of one's own life, as is the act whence sometimes results the taking of a man's life. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 7 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod ibi prohibetur defensio quae est cum livore vindictae. Unde Glossa dicit, non vos defendentes, idest, non sitis referientes adversarios. | Reply to Objection 5. The defense forbidden in this passage is that which comes from revengeful spite. Hence a gloss says: "Not defending yourselves--that is, not striking your enemy back." |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis casualiter occidens hominem incurrat homicidii reatum. Legitur enim Gen. IV quod Lamech, credens interficere bestiam, interfecit hominem, et reputatum est ei ad homicidium. Ergo reatum homicidii incurrit qui casualiter hominem occidit. | Objection 1. It would seem that one is guilty of murder through killing someone by chance. For we read (Genesis 4:23-24) that Lamech slew a man in mistake for a wild beast [The text of the Bible does not say so, but this was the Jewish traditional commentary on Genesis 4:23, and that he was accounted guilty of murder. Therefore one incurs the guilt of murder through killing a man by chance. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, Exod. XXI dicitur quod si quis percusserit mulierem praegnantem et aborsum fecerit, si mors eius fuerit subsecuta, reddet animam pro anima. Sed hoc potest fieri absque intentione occisionis. Ergo homicidium casuale habet homicidii reatum. | Objection 2. Further, it is written (Exodus 21:22): "If . . . one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed . . . if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life." Yet this may happen without any intention of causing her death. Therefore one is guilty of murder through killing someone by chance. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, in decretis, dist. l, inducuntur plures canones in quibus casualia homicidia puniuntur. Sed poena non debetur nisi culpae. Ergo ille qui casualiter occidit hominem, incurrit homicidii culpam. | Objection 3. Further, the Decretals [Dist. 1 contain several canons prescribing penalties for unintentional homicide. Now penalty is not due save for guilt. Therefore he who kills a man by chance, incurs the guilt of murder. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, ad Publicolam, absit ut ea quae propter bonum ac licitum facimus, si quid per haec, praeter nostram voluntatem, cuiquam mali acciderit, nobis imputetur. Sed contingit quandoque ut propter bonum aliquid facientibus homicidium consequatur casualiter. Ergo non imputatur facienti ad culpam. | On the contrary, Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): "When we do a thing for a good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us." Now it sometimes happens by chance that a person is killed as a result of something done for a good purpose. Therefore the person who did it is not accounted guilty. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in II Physic., casus est causa agens praeter intentionem. Et ideo ea quae casualia sunt, simpliciter loquendo, non sunt intenta neque voluntaria. Et quia omne peccatum est voluntarium, secundum Augustinum, consequens est quod casualia, inquantum huiusmodi, non sunt peccata. Contingit tamen id quod non est actu et per se volitum vel intentum, esse per accidens volitum et intentum, secundum quod causa per accidens dicitur removens prohibens. Unde ille qui non removet ea ex quibus sequitur homicidium, si debeat removere, erit quodammodo homicidium voluntarium. Hoc autem contingit dupliciter, uno modo, quando dans operam rebus illicitis, quas vitare debebat, homicidium incurrit; alio modo, quando non adhibet debitam sollicitudinem. Et ideo secundum iura, si aliquis det operam rei licitae, debitam diligentiam adhibens, et ex hoc homicidium sequatur, non incurrit homicidii reatum, si vero det operam rei illicitae, vel etiam det operam rei licitae non adhibens diligentiam debitam, non evadit homicidii reatum si ex eius opere mors hominis consequatur. | I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Phys. ii, 6) "chance is a cause that acts beside one's intention." Hence chance happenings, strictly speaking, are neither intended nor voluntary. And since every sin is voluntary, according to Augustine (De Vera Relig. xiv) it follows that chance happenings, as such, are not sins. Nevertheless it happens that what is not actually and directly voluntary and intended, is voluntary and intended accidentally, according as that which removes an obstacle is called an accidental cause. Wherefore he who does not remove something whence homicide results whereas he ought to remove it, is in a sense guilty of voluntary homicide. This happens in two ways: first when a man causes another's death through occupying himself with unlawful things which he ought to avoid: secondly, when he does not take sufficient care. Hence, according to jurists, if a man pursue a lawful occupation and take due care, the result being that a person loses his life, he is not guilty of that person's death: whereas if he be occupied with something unlawful, or even with something lawful, but without due care, he does not escape being guilty of murder, if his action results in someone's death. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Lamech non adhibuit sufficientem diligentiam ad homicidium vitandum, et ideo reatum homicidii non evasit. | Reply to Objection 1. Lamech did not take sufficient care to avoid taking a man's life: and so he was not excused from being guilty of homicide. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ille qui percutit mulierem praegnantem dat operam rei illicitae. Et ideo si sequatur mors vel mulieris vel puerperii animati, non effugiet homicidii crimen, praecipue cum ex tali percussione in promptu sit quod mors sequatur. | Reply to Objection 2. He that strikes a woman with child does something unlawful: wherefore if there results the death either of the woman or of the animated fetus, he will not be excused from homicide, especially seeing that death is the natural result of such a blow. |
| IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod secundum canones imponitur poena his qui casualiter occidunt dantes operam rei illicitae, vel non adhibentes diligentiam debitam. | Reply to Objection 3. According to the canons a penalty, is inflicted on those who cause death unintentionally, through doing something unlawful, or failing to take sufficient care. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 pr. Deinde considerandum est de peccatis aliarum iniuriarum quae in personam committuntur. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, de mutilatione membrorum. Secundo, de verberatione. Tertio, de incarceratione. Quarto, utrum peccatum huiusmodi iniuriarum aggravetur ex hoc quod committitur in personam coniunctam aliis. | Question 65. Other injuries committed on the person 1. The mutilation of members 2. Blows 3. Imprisonment 4. Are the sins that consist in inflicting such like injuries aggravated through being perpetrated on persons connected with others? |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod mutilare aliquem membro in nullo casu possit esse licitum. Damascenus enim dicit, in II libro, quod peccatum committitur per hoc quod receditur ab eo quod est secundum naturam in id quod est contra naturam. Sed secundum naturam a Deo institutam est quod corpus hominis sit integrum membris; contra naturam autem est quod sit membro diminutum. Ergo mutilare aliquem membro semper videtur esse peccatum. | Objection 1. It would seem that in no case can it be lawful to maim anyone. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 20) that "sin consists in departing from what is according to nature, towards that which is contrary to nature." Now according to nature it is appointed by God that a man's body should be entire in its members, and it is contrary to nature that it should be deprived of a member. Therefore it seems that it is always a sin to maim a person. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, sicut se habet tota anima ad totum corpus, ita se habent partes animae ad partes corporis, ut dicitur in II de anima. Sed non licet aliquem privare anima occidendo ipsum, nisi publica potestate. Ergo etiam non licet aliquem mutilare membro, nisi forte secundum publicam potestatem. | Objection 2. Further, as the whole soul is to the whole body, so are the parts of the soul to the parts of the body (De Anima ii, 1). But it is unlawful to deprive a man of his soul by killing him, except by public authority. Therefore neither is it lawful to maim anyone, except perhaps by public authority. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, salus animae praeferenda est saluti corporali. Sed non licet aliquem mutilare se membro propter salutem animae, puniuntur enim secundum statuta Nicaeni Concilii qui se castraverunt propter castitatem servandam. Ergo propter nullam aliam causam licet aliquem membro mutilare. | Objection 3. Further, the welfare of the soul is to be preferred to the welfare of the body. Now it is not lawful for a man to maim himself for the sake of the soul's welfare: since the council of Nicea [P. I, sect. 4, can. i] punished those who castrated themselves that they might preserve chastity. Therefore it is not lawful for any other reason to maim a person. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Exod. XXI, oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente, manum pro manu, pedem pro pede. | On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 21:24): "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod cum membrum aliquod sit pars totius humani corporis, est propter totum, sicut imperfectum propter perfectum. Unde disponendum est de membro humani corporis secundum quod expedit toti. Membrum autem humani corporis per se quidem utile est ad bonum totius corporis, per accidens tamen potest contingere quod sit nocivum, puta cum membrum putridum est totius corporis corruptivum. Si ergo membrum sanum fuerit et in sua naturali dispositione consistens, non potest praecidi absque totius hominis detrimento. Sed quia ipse totus homo ordinatur ut ad finem ad totam communitatem cuius est pars, ut supra dictum est; potest contingere quod abscisio membri, etsi vergat in detrimentum totius corporis, ordinatur tamen ad bonum communitatis, inquantum alicui infertur in poenam ad cohibitionem peccatorum. Et ideo sicut per publicam potestatem aliquis licite privatur totaliter vita propter aliquas maiores culpas, ita etiam privatur membro propter aliquas culpas minores. Hoc autem non est licitum alicui privatae personae, etiam volente illo cuius est membrum, quia per hoc fit iniuria communitati, cuius est ipse homo et omnes partes eius. Si vero membrum propter putredinem sit totius corporis corruptivum, tunc licitum est, de voluntate eius cuius est membrum, putridum membrum praescindere propter salutem totius corporis, quia unicuique commissa est cura propriae salutis. Et eadem ratio est si fiat voluntate eius ad quem pertinet curare de salute eius qui habet membrum corruptum. Aliter autem aliquem membro mutilare est omnino illicitum. | I answer that, Since a member is part of the whole human body, it is for the sake of the whole, as the imperfect for the perfect. Hence a member of the human body is to be disposed of according as it is expedient for the body. Now a member of the human body is of itself useful to the good of the whole body, yet, accidentally it may happen to be hurtful, as when a decayed member is a source of corruption to the whole body. Accordingly so long as a member is healthy and retains its natural disposition, it cannot be cut off without injury to the whole body. But as the whole of man is directed as to his end to the whole of the community of which he is a part, as stated above (61, 1; 64, 2,5), it may happen that although the removal of a member may be detrimental to the whole body, it may nevertheless be directed to the good of the community, in so far as it is applied to a person as a punishment for the purpose of restraining sin. Hence just as by public authority a person is lawfully deprived of life altogether on account of certain more heinous sins, so is he deprived of a member on account of certain lesser sins. But this is not lawful for a private individual, even with the consent of the owner of the member, because this would involve an injury to the community, to whom the man and all his parts belong. If, however, the member be decayed and therefore a source of corruption to the whole body, then it is lawful with the consent of the owner of the member, to cut away the member for the welfare of the whole body, since each one is entrusted with the care of his own welfare. The same applies if it be done with the consent of the person whose business it is to care for the welfare of the person who has a decayed member: otherwise it is altogether unlawful to maim anyone. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nihil prohibet id quod est contra particularem naturam esse secundum naturam universalem, sicut mors et corruptio in rebus naturalibus est contra particularem naturam eius quod corrumpitur, cum tamen sit secundum naturam universalem. Et similiter mutilare aliquem membro, etsi sit contra naturam particularem corporis eius qui mutilatur, est tamen secundum naturalem rationem in comparatione ad bonum commune. | Reply to Objection 1. Nothing prevents that which is contrary to a particular nature from being in harmony with universal nature: thus death and corruption, in the physical order, are contrary to the particular nature of the thing corrupted, although they are in keeping with universal nature. On like manner to maim anyone, though contrary to the particular nature of the body of the person maimed, is nevertheless in keeping with natural reason in relation to the common good. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod totius hominis vita non ordinatur ad aliquid proprium ipsius hominis, sed ad ipsam potius omnia quae sunt hominis ordinantur. Et ideo privare aliquem vita in nullo casu pertinet ad aliquem nisi ad publicam potestatem, cui committitur procuratio boni communis. Sed praecisio membri potest ordinari ad propriam salutem unius hominis. Et ideo in aliquo casu potest ad ipsum pertinere. | Reply to Objection 2. The life of the entire man is not directed to something belonging to man; on the contrary whatever belongs to man is directed to his life. Hence in no case does it pertain to a person to take anyone's life, except to the public authority to whom is entrusted the procuring of the common good. But the removal of a member can be directed to the good of one man, and consequently in certain cases can pertain to him. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod membrum non est praecidendum propter corporalem salutem totius nisi quando aliter toti subveniri non potest. Saluti autem spirituali semper potest aliter subveniri quam per membri praecisionem, quia peccatum subiacet voluntati. Et ideo in nullo casu licet membrum praecidere propter quodcumque peccatum vitandum. Unde Chrysostomus, exponens illud Matth. XIX, sunt eunuchi qui seipsos castraverunt propter regnum caelorum, dicit, non membrorum abscisionem, sed malarum cogitationum interemptionem. Maledictioni enim est obnoxius qui membrum abscidit, etenim quae homicidarum sunt talis praesumit. Et postea subdit, neque concupiscentia mansuetior ita fit, sed molestior. Aliunde enim habet fontes sperma quod in nobis est, et praecipue a proposito incontinenti et mente negligente, nec ita abscisio membri comprimit tentationes, ut cogitationis frenum. | Reply to Objection 3. A member should not be removed for the sake of the bodily health of the whole, unless otherwise nothing can be done to further the good of the whole. Now it is always possible to further one's spiritual welfare otherwise than by cutting off a member, because sin is always subject to the will: and consequently in no case is it allowable to maim oneself, even to avoid any sin whatever. Hence Chrysostom, in his exposition on Matthew 19:12 (Hom. lxii in Matth.), "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven," says: "Not by maiming themselves, but by destroying evil thoughts, for a man is accursed who maims himself, since they are murderers who do such things." And further on he says: "Nor is lust tamed thereby, on the contrary it becomes more importunate, for the seed springs in us from other sources, and chiefly from an incontinent purpose and a careless mind: and temptation is curbed not so much by cutting off a member as by curbing one's thoughts." |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non liceat patribus verberare filios, aut dominis servos. Dicit enim apostolus, ad Ephes. VI, vos, patres, nolite ad iracundiam provocare filios vestros. Et infra subdit, et vos, domini, eadem facite servis, remittentes minas. Sed propter verbera aliqui ad iracundiam provocantur. Sunt etiam minis graviora. Ergo neque patres filios, neque domini servos debent verberare. | Objection 1. It would seem unlawful for parents to strike their children, or masters their slaves. For the Apostle says (Ephesians 6:4): "You, fathers, provoke not your children to anger"; and further on (Ephesians 6:6): "And you, masters, do the same thing to your slaves [Vulgate: 'to them'] forbearing threatenings." Now some are provoked to anger by blows, and become more troublesome when threatened. Therefore neither should parents strike their children, nor masters their slaves. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in X Ethic., quod sermo paternus habet solum monitionem, non autem coactionem. Sed quaedam coactio est per verbera. Ergo parentibus non licet filios verberare. | Objection 2. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 9) that "a father's words are admonitory and not coercive." Now blows are a kind of coercion. Therefore it is unlawful for parents to strike their children. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, unicuique licet alteri disciplinam impendere, hoc enim pertinet ad eleemosynas spirituales, ut supra dictum est. Si ergo parentibus licet propter disciplinam filios verberare, pari ratione cuilibet licebit quemlibet verberare. Quod patet esse falsum. Ergo et primum. | Objection 3. Further, everyone is allowed to impart correction, for this belongs to the spiritual almsdeeds, as stated above (Question 32, Article 2). If, therefore, it is lawful for parents to strike their children for the sake of correction, for the same reason it will be lawful for any person to strike anyone, which is clearly false. Therefore the same conclusion follows. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Prov. XIII, qui parcit virgae, odit filium suum; et infra XXIII, noli subtrahere a puero disciplinam. Si enim percusseris eum virga, non morietur, tu virga percuties eum, et animam eius de Inferno liberabis. Et Eccli. XXXIII dicitur, servo malevolo tortura et compedes. | On the contrary, It is written (Proverbs 13:24): "He that spareth the rod hateth his son," and further on (Proverbs 23:13): "Withhold not correction from a child, for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." Again it is written (Sirach 33:28): "Torture and fetters are for a malicious slave." |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod per verberationem nocumentum quoddam infertur corpori eius qui verberatur, aliter tamen quam in mutilatione, nam mutilatio tollit corporis integritatem, verberatio vero tantummodo afficit sensum dolore. Unde multo minus nocumentum est quam membri mutilatio. Nocumentum autem inferre alicui non licet nisi per modum poenae propter iustitiam. Nullus autem iuste punit aliquem nisi sit eius ditioni subiectus. Et ideo verberare aliquem non licet nisi habenti potestatem aliquam super illum qui verberatur. Et quia filius subditur potestati patris, et servus potestati domini, licite potest verberare pater filium et dominus servum, causa correctionis et disciplinae. | I answer that, Harm is done a body by striking it, yet not so as when it is maimed: since maiming destroys the body's integrity, while a blow merely affects the sense with pain, wherefore it causes much less harm than cutting off a member. Now it is unlawful to do a person a harm, except by way of punishment in the cause of justice. Again, no man justly punishes another, except one who is subject to his jurisdiction. Therefore it is not lawful for a man to strike another, unless he have some power over the one whom he strikes. And since the child is subject to the power of the parent, and the slave to the power of his master, a parent can lawfully strike his child, and a master his slave that instruction may be enforced by correction. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum ira sit appetitus vindictae, praecipue concitatur ira cum aliquis se reputat laesum iniuste, ut patet per philosophum, in II Rhet. Et ideo per hoc quod patribus interdicitur ne filios ad iracundiam provocent, non prohibetur quin filios verberent causa disciplinae, sed quod non immoderate eos affligant verberibus. Quod vero inducitur dominis quod remittant minas, potest dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo, ut remisse minis utantur, quod pertinet ad moderationem disciplinae. Alio modo, ut aliquis non semper impleat quod comminatus est, quod pertinet ad hoc quod iudicium quo quis comminatus est poenam, quandoque per remissionis misericordiam temperetur. | Reply to Objection 1. Since anger is a desire for vengeance, it is aroused chiefly when a man deems himself unjustly injured, as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii). Hence when parents are forbidden to provoke their children to anger, they are not prohibited from striking their children for the purpose of correction, but from inflicting blows on them without moderation. The command that masters should forbear from threatening their slaves may be understood in two ways. First that they should be slow to threaten, and this pertains to the moderation of correction; secondly, that they should not always carry out their threats, that is that they should sometimes by a merciful forgiveness temper the judgment whereby they threatened punishment. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod maior potestas maiorem debet habere coactionem. Sicut autem civitas est perfecta communitas, ita princeps civitatis habet perfectam potestatem coercendi, et ideo potest infligere poenas irreparabiles, scilicet occisionis vel mutilationis. Pater autem et dominus, qui praesunt familiae domesticae, quae est imperfecta communitas, habent imperfectam potestatem coercendi secundum leviores poenas, quae non inferunt irreparabile nocumentum. Et huiusmodi est verberatio. | Reply to Objection 2. The greater power should exercise the greater coercion. Now just as a city is a perfect community, so the governor of a city has perfect coercive power: wherefore he can inflict irreparable punishments such as death and mutilation. On the other hand the father and the master who preside over the family household, which is an imperfect community, have imperfect coercive power, which is exercised by inflicting lesser punishments, for instance by blows, which do not inflict irreparable harm. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod exhibere disciplinam volenti cuilibet licet. Sed disciplinam nolenti adhibere est solum eius cui alterius cura committitur. Et ad hoc pertinet aliquem verberibus castigare. | Reply to Objection 3. It is lawful for anyone to impart correction to a willing subject. But to impart it to an unwilling subject belongs to those only who have charge over him. To this pertains chastisement by blows. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non liceat aliquem hominem incarcerare. Actus enim est malus ex genere qui cadit supra indebitam materiam, ut supra dictum est. Sed homo, habens naturalem arbitrii libertatem, est indebita materia incarcerationis, quae libertati repugnat. Ergo illicitum est aliquem incarcerare. | Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to imprison a man. An act which deals with undue matter is evil in its genus, as stated above (I-II, 18, 2). Now man, having a free-will, is undue matter for imprisonment which is inconsistent with free-will. Therefore it is unlawful to imprison a man. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, humana iustitia regulari debet ex divina. Sed sicut dicitur Eccli. XV, Deus reliquit hominem in manu consilii sui. Ergo videtur quod non est aliquis coercendus vinculis vel carcere. | Objection 2. Further, human justice should be ruled by Divine justice. Now according to Sirach 15:14, "God left man in the hand of his own counsel." Therefore it seems that a man ought not to be coerced by chains or prisons. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, nullus est cohibendus nisi ab opere malo, a quo quilibet licite potest alium impedire. Si ergo incarcerare aliquem esset licitum ad hoc quod cohiberetur a malo, cuilibet esset licitum aliquem incarcerare. Quod patet esse falsum. Ergo et primum. | Objection 3. Further, no man should be forcibly prevented except from doing an evil deed; and any man can lawfully prevent another from doing this. If, therefore, it were lawful to imprison a man, in order to restrain him from evil deeds, it would be lawful for anyone to put a man in prison; and this is clearly false. Therefore the same conclusion follows. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Levit. XXIV legitur quendam missum fuisse in carcerem propter peccatum blasphemiae. | On the contrary, We read in Leviticus 24 that a man was imprisoned for the sin of blasphemy. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in bonis corporis tria per ordinem considerantur. Primo quidem, integritas corporalis substantiae, cui detrimentum affertur per occisionem vel mutilationem. Secundo, delectatio vel quies sensus, cui opponitur verberatio, vel quidlibet sensum dolore afficiens. Tertio, motus et usus membrorum, qui impeditur per ligationem vel incarcerationem, seu quamcumque detentionem. Et ideo incarcerare aliquem, vel qualitercumque detinere, est illicitum nisi fiat secundum ordinem iustitiae, aut in poenam aut ad cautelam alicuius mali vitandi. | I answer that, In the goods three things may be considered in due order. First, the substantial integrity of the body, and this is injured by death or maiming. Secondly, pleasure or rest of the senses, and to this striking or anything causing a sense of pain is opposed. Thirdly, the movement or use of the members, and this is hindered by binding or imprisoning or any kind of detention. Therefore it is unlawful to imprison or in any way detain a man, unless it be done according to the order of justice, either in punishment, or as a measure of precaution against some evil. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homo qui abutitur potestate sibi data, meretur eam amittere. Et ideo homo qui peccando abusus est libero usu suorum membrorum, conveniens est incarcerationis materia. | Reply to Objection 1. A man who abuses the power entrusted to him deserves to lose it, and therefore when a man by sinning abuses the free use of his members, he becomes a fitting matter for imprisonment. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Deus quandoque, secundum ordinem suae sapientiae, peccatores cohibet ne possint peccata implere, secundum illud Iob V, qui dissipat cogitationes malignorum, ne possint implere manus eorum quod coeperant. Quandoque vero eos permittit quod volunt agere. Et similiter secundum humanam iustitiam non pro qualibet culpa homines incarcerantur, sed pro aliquibus. | Reply to Objection 2. According to the order of His wisdom God sometimes restrains a sinner from accomplishing a sin, according to Job 5:12: "Who bringeth to nought the designs of the malignant, so that their hand cannot accomplish what they had begun, while sometimes He allows them to do what they will." On like manner, according to human justice, men are imprisoned, not for every sin but for certain ones. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod detinere hominem ad horam ab aliquo opere illicito statim perpetrando, cuilibet licet, sicut cum aliquis detinet aliquem ne se praecipitet, vel ne alium feriat. Sed simpliciter aliquem includere vel ligare ad eum solum pertinet qui habet disponere universaliter de actibus et vita alterius, quia per hoc impeditur non solum a malis, sed etiam a bonis agendis. | Reply to Objection 3. It is lawful for anyone to restrain a man for a time from doing some unlawful deed there and then: as when a man prevents another from throwing himself over a precipice, or from striking another. But to him alone who has the right of disposing in general of the actions and of the life of another does it belong primarily to imprison or fetter, because by so doing he hinders him from doing not only evil but also good deeds. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatum non aggravetur ex hoc quod praedictae iniuriae inferuntur in personas aliis coniunctas. Huiusmodi enim iniuriae habent rationem peccati prout nocumentum alicui infertur contra eius voluntatem. Sed magis est contra hominis voluntatem malum quod in personam propriam infertur quam quod infertur in personam coniunctam. Ergo iniuria illata in personam coniunctam est minor. | Objection 1. It would seem that the sin is not aggravated by the fact that the aforesaid injuries are perpetrated on those who are connected with others. Such like injuries take their sinful character from inflicting an injury on another against his will. Now the evil inflicted on a man's own person is more against his will than that which is inflicted on a person connected with him. Therefore an injury inflicted on a person connected with another is less grievous. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, in sacra Scriptura praecipue reprehenduntur qui pupillis et viduis iniurias inferunt, unde dicitur Eccli. XXXV, non despiciet preces pupilli, nec viduam, si effundat loquelam gemitus. Sed vidua et pupillus non sunt personae aliis coniunctae. Ergo ex hoc quod infertur iniuria personis coniunctis non aggravatur peccatum. | Objection 2. Further, Holy Writ reproves those especially who do injuries to orphans and widows: hence it is written (Sirach 35:17): "He will not despise the prayers of the fatherless, nor the widow when she poureth out her complaint." Now the widow and the orphan are not connected with other persons. Therefore the sin is not aggravated through an injury being inflicted on one who is connected with others. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, persona coniuncta habet propriam voluntatem, sicut et principalis persona. Potest ergo aliquid ei esse voluntarium quod est contra voluntatem principalis personae, ut patet in adulterio, quod placet uxori et displicet viro. Sed huiusmodi iniuriae habent rationem peccati prout consistunt in involuntaria commutatione. Ergo huiusmodi iniuriae minus habent de ratione peccati. | Objection 3. Further, the person who is connected has a will of his own just as the principal person has, so that something may be voluntary for him and yet against the will of the principal person, as in the case of adultery which pleases the woman but not the husband. Now these injuries are sinful in so far as they consist in an involuntary commutation. Therefore such like injuries are of a less sinful nature. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Deut. XXVIII, ad quandam exaggerationem dicitur, filii tui et filiae tuae tradentur alteri populo videntibus oculis tuis. | On the contrary, It is written (Deuteronomy 28:32) as though indicating an aggravating circumstance: "Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given to another people, thy eyes looking on [Vulgate: 'May thy sons and thy daughters be given,' etc.]." |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quanto aliqua iniuria in plures redundat, ceteris paribus, tanto gravius est peccatum. Et inde est quod gravius est peccatum si aliquis percutiat principem quam personam privatam, quia redundat in iniuriam totius multitudinis, ut supra dictum est. Cum autem infertur iniuria in aliquam personam coniunctam alteri qualitercumque, iniuria illa pertinet ad duas personas. Et ideo, ceteris paribus, ex hoc ipso aggravatur peccatum. Potest tamen contingere quod secundum aliquas circumstantias sit gravius peccatum quod fit contra personam nulli coniunctam, vel propter dignitatem personae, vel propter magnitudinem nocumenti. | I answer that, Other things being equal, an injury is a more grievous sin according as it affects more persons; and hence it is that it is a more grievous sin to strike or injure a person in authority than a private individual, because it conduces to the injury of the whole community, as stated above (I-II, 73, 09). Now when an injury is inflicted on one who is connected in any way with another, that injury affects two persons, so that, other things being equal, the sin is aggravated by this very fact. It may happen, however, that in view of certain circumstances, a sin committed against one who is not connected with any other person, is more grievous, on account of either the dignity of the person, or the greatness of the injury. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod iniuria illata in personam coniunctam minus est nociva personae cui coniungitur quam si in ipsam immediate inferretur, et ex hac parte est minus peccatum. Sed hoc totum quod pertinet ad iniuriam personae cui coniungitur, superadditur peccato quod quis incurrit ex eo quod aliam personam secundum se laedit. | Reply to Objection 1. An injury inflicted on a person connected with others is less harmful to the persons with whom he is connected, than if it were perpetrated immediately on them, and from this point of view it is a less grievous sin. But all that belongs to the injury of the person with whom he is connected, is added to the sin of which a man is guilty through injuring the other one in himself. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod iniuriae illatae in viduas et pupillos magis exaggerantur, tum quia magis opponuntur misericordiae. Tum quia idem nocumentum huiusmodi personis inflictum est eis gravius, quia non habent relevantem. | Reply to Objection 2. Injuries done to widows and orphans are more insisted upon both through being more opposed to mercy, and because the same injury done to such persons is more grievous to them since they have no one to turn to for relief. |
| IIª-IIae q. 65 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod per hoc quod uxor voluntarie consentit in adulterium, minoratur quidem peccatum et iniuria ex parte ipsius mulieris, gravius enim esset si adulter violenter eam opprimeret. Non tamen per hoc tollitur iniuria ex parte viri, quia uxor non habet potestatem sui corporis, sed vir, ut dicitur I ad Cor. VII. Et eadem ratio est de similibus. De adulterio tamen, quod non solum iustitiae, sed etiam castitati opponitur, erit locus infra agendi in tractatu de temperantia. | Reply to Objection 3. The fact that the wife voluntarily consents to the adultery, lessens the sin and injury, so far as the woman is concerned, for it would be more grievous, if the adulterer oppressed her by violence. But this does not remove the injury as affecting her husband, since "the wife hath not power of her own body; but the husband" (1 Corinthians 7:4). The same applies to similar cases. of adultery, however, as it is opposed not only to justice but also to chastity, we shall speak in the treatise on Temperance (154, 8). |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 pr. Deinde considerandum est de peccatis iustitiae oppositis per quae infertur nocumentum proximo in rebus, scilicet de furto et rapina. Et circa hoc quaeruntur novem. Primo, utrum naturalis sit homini possessio exteriorum rerum. Secundo, utrum licitum sit quod aliquis rem aliquam possideat quasi propriam. Tertio, utrum furtum sit occulta acceptio rei alienae. Quarto, utrum rapina sit peccatum specie differens a furto. Quinto, utrum omne furtum sit peccatum. Sexto, utrum furtum sit peccatum mortale. Septimo, utrum liceat furari in necessitate. Octavo, utrum omnis rapina sit peccatum mortale. Nono, utrum rapina sit gravius peccatum quam furtum. | Question 66. Theft and robbery 1. Is it natural to man to possess external things? 2. Is it lawful for a man to possess something as his own? 3. Is theft the secret taking of another's property? 4. Is robbery a species of sin distinct from theft? 5. Is every theft a sin? 6. Is theft a mortal sin? 7. Is it lawful to thieve in a case of necessity? 8. Is every robbery a mortal sin? 9. Is robbery a more grievous sin than theft? |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit naturalis homini possessio exteriorum rerum. Nullus enim debet sibi attribuere quod Dei est. Sed dominium omnium creaturarum est proprie Dei, secundum illud Psalm., domini est terra et cetera. Ergo non est naturalis homini rerum possessio. | Objection 1. It would seem that it is not natural for man to possess external things. For no man should ascribe to himself that which is God's. Now the dominion over all creatures is proper to God, according to Psalm 23:1, "The earth is the Lord's," etc. Therefore it is not natural for man to possess external things. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, Basilius, exponens verbum divitis dicentis, Luc. XII, congregabo omnia quae nata sunt mihi et bona mea, dicit, dic mihi, quae tua? Unde ea sumens in vitam tulisti? Sed illa quae homo possidet naturaliter, potest aliquis convenienter dicere esse sua. Ergo homo non possidet naturaliter exteriora bona. | Objection 2. Further, Basil in expounding the words of the rich man (Luke 12:18), "I will gather all things that are grown to me, and my goods," says [Hom. in Luc. xii, 18]: "Tell me: which are thine? where did you take them from and bring them into being?" Now whatever man possesses naturally, he can fittingly call his own. Therefore man does not naturally possess external things. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut Ambrosius dicit, in libro de Trin., dominus nomen est potestatis. Sed homo non habet potestatem super res exteriores, nihil enim potest circa earum naturam immutare. Ergo possessio exteriorum rerum non est homini naturalis. | Objection 3. Further, according to Ambrose (De Trin. i [De Fide, ad Gratianum, i, 1) "dominion denotes power." But man has no power over external things, since he can work no change in their nature. Therefore the possession of external things is not natural to man. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalm., omnia subiecisti sub pedibus eius, scilicet hominis. | On the contrary, It is written (Psalm 8:8): "Thou hast subjected all things under his feet." |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod res exterior potest dupliciter considerari. Uno modo, quantum ad eius naturam, quae non subiacet humanae potestati, sed solum divinae, cui omnia ad nutum obediunt. Alio modo, quantum ad usum ipsius rei. Et sic habet homo naturale dominium exteriorum rerum, quia per rationem et voluntatem potest uti rebus exterioribus ad suam utilitatem, quasi propter se factis; semper enim imperfectiora sunt propter perfectiora, ut supra habitum est. Et ex hac ratione philosophus probat, in I Polit., quod possessio rerum exteriorum est homini naturalis. Hoc autem naturale dominium super ceteras creaturas, quod competit homini secundum rationem, in qua imago Dei consistit, manifestatur in ipsa hominis creatione, Gen. I, ubi dicitur, faciamus hominem ad similitudinem et imaginem nostram, et praesit piscibus maris, et cetera. | I answer that, External things can be considered in two ways. First, as regards their nature, and this is not subject to the power of man, but only to the power of God Whose mere will all things obey. Secondly, as regards their use, and in this way, man has a natural dominion over external things, because, by his reason and will, he is able to use them for his own profit, as they were made on his account: for the imperfect is always for the sake of the perfect, as stated above (Question 64, Article 1). It is by this argument that the Philosopher proves (Polit. i, 3) that the possession of external things is natural to man. Moreover, this natural dominion of man over other creatures, which is competent to man in respect of his reason wherein God's image resides, is shown forth in man's creation (Genesis 1:26) by the words: "Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea," etc. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus habet principale dominium omnium rerum. Et ipse secundum suam providentiam ordinavit res quasdam ad corporalem hominis sustentationem. Et propter hoc homo habet naturale rerum dominium quantum ad potestatem utendi ipsis. | Reply to Objection 1. God has sovereign dominion over all things: and He, according to His providence, directed certain things to the sustenance of man's body. For this reason man has a natural dominion over things, as regards the power to make use of them. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod dives ille reprehenditur ex hoc quod putabat exteriora bona esse principaliter sua, quasi non accepisset ea ab alio, scilicet a Deo. | Reply to Objection 2. The rich man is reproved for deeming external things to belong to him principally, as though he had not received them from another, namely from God. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de dominio exteriorum rerum quantum ad naturas ipsarum, quod quidem dominium soli Deo convenit, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3. This argument considers the dominion over external things as regards their nature. Such a dominion belongs to God alone, as stated above. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non liceat alicui rem aliquam quasi propriam possidere. Omne enim quod est contra ius naturale est illicitum. Sed secundum ius naturale omnia sunt communia, cui quidem communitati contrariatur possessionum proprietas. Ergo illicitum est cuilibet homini appropriare sibi aliquam rem exteriorem. | Objection 1. It would seem unlawful for a man to possess a thing as his own. For whatever is contrary to the natural law is unlawful. Now according to the natural law all things are common property: and the possession of property is contrary to this community of goods. Therefore it is unlawful for any man to appropriate any external thing to himself. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, Basilius dicit, exponens praedictum verbum divitis, sicut qui, praeveniens ad spectacula, prohiberet advenientes, sibi appropriando quod ad communem usum ordinatur; similes sunt divites qui communia, quae praeoccupaverunt, aestimant sua esse. Sed illicitum esset praecludere viam aliis ad potiendum communibus bonis. Ergo illicitum est appropriare sibi aliquam rem communem. | Objection 2. Further, Basil in expounding the words of the rich man quoted above (1, Objection 2), says: "The rich who deem as their own property the common goods they have seized upon, are like to those who by going beforehand to the play prevent others from coming, and appropriate to themselves what is intended for common use." Now it would be unlawful to prevent others from obtaining possession of common goods. Therefore it is unlawful to appropriate to oneself what belongs to the community. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit, et habetur in decretis, dist. XLVII, Can. sicut hi, proprium nemo dicat quod est commune. Appellat autem communes res exteriores, sicut patet ex his quae praemittit. Ergo videtur illicitum esse quod aliquis appropriet sibi aliquam rem exteriorem. | Objection 3. Further, Ambrose says [Serm. lxiv, de temp.], and his words are quoted in the Decretals [Dist. xlvii., Can. Sicut hi.]: "Let no man call his own that which is common property": and by "common" he means external things, as is clear from the context. Therefore it seems unlawful for a man to appropriate an external thing to himself. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de Haeres., apostolici dicuntur qui se hoc nomine arrogantissime vocaverunt, eo quod in suam communionem non acciperent utentes coniugibus, et res proprias possidentes, quales habet Catholica Ecclesia et monachos et clericos plurimos. Sed ideo isti haeretici sunt quoniam, se ab Ecclesia separantes, nullam spem putant eos habere qui utuntur his rebus, quibus ipsi carent. Est ergo erroneum dicere quod non liceat homini propria possidere. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Haeres., haer. 40): "The 'Apostolici' are those who with extreme arrogance have given themselves that name, because they do not admit into their communion persons who are married or possess anything of their own, such as both monks and clerics who in considerable number are to be found in the Catholic Church." Now the reason why these people are heretics was because severing themselves from the Church, they think that those who enjoy the use of the above things, which they themselves lack, have no hope of salvation. Therefore it is erroneous to maintain that it is unlawful for a man to possess property. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod circa rem exteriorem duo competunt homini. Quorum unum est potestas procurandi et dispensandi. Et quantum ad hoc licitum est quod homo propria possideat. Et est etiam necessarium ad humanam vitam, propter tria. Primo quidem, quia magis sollicitus est unusquisque ad procurandum aliquid quod sibi soli competit quam aliquid quod est commune omnium vel multorum, quia unusquisque, laborem fugiens, relinquit alteri id quod pertinet ad commune; sicut accidit in multitudine ministrorum. Alio modo, quia ordinatius res humanae tractantur si singulis immineat propria cura alicuius rei procurandae, esset autem confusio si quilibet indistincte quaelibet procuraret. Tertio, quia per hoc magis pacificus status hominum conservatur, dum unusquisque re sua contentus est. Unde videmus quod inter eos qui communiter et ex indiviso aliquid possident, frequentius iurgia oriuntur. Aliud vero quod competit homini circa res exteriores est usus ipsarum. Et quantum ad hoc non debet homo habere res exteriores ut proprias, sed ut communes, ut scilicet de facili aliquis ea communicet in necessitates aliorum. Unde apostolus dicit, I ad Tim. ult., divitibus huius saeculi praecipe facile tribuere, communicare. | I answer that, Two things are competent to man in respect of exterior things. One is the power to procure and dispense them, and in this regard it is lawful for man to possess property. Moreover this is necessary to human life for three reasons. First because every man is more careful to procure what is for himself alone than that which is common to many or to all: since each one would shirk the labor and leave to another that which concerns the community, as happens where there is a great number of servants. Secondly, because human affairs are conducted in more orderly fashion if each man is charged with taking care of some particular thing himself, whereas there would be confusion if everyone had to look after any one thing indeterminately. Thirdly, because a more peaceful state is ensured to man if each one is contented with his own. Hence it is to be observed that quarrels arise more frequently where there is no division of the things possessed. The second thing that is competent to man with regard to external things is their use. On this respect man ought to possess external things, not as his own, but as common, so that, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need. Hence the Apostle says (1 Timothy 6:17-18): "Charge the rich of this world . . . to give easily, to communicate to others," etc. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod communitas rerum attribuitur iuri naturali, non quia ius naturale dictet omnia esse possidenda communiter et nihil esse quasi proprium possidendum, sed quia secundum ius naturale non est distinctio possessionum, sed magis secundum humanum condictum, quod pertinet ad ius positivum, ut supra dictum est. Unde proprietas possessionum non est contra ius naturale; sed iuri naturali superadditur per adinventionem rationis humanae. | Reply to Objection 1. Community of goods is ascribed to the natural law, not that the natural law dictates that all things should be possessed in common and that nothing should be possessed as one's own: but because the division of possessions is not according to the natural law, but rather arose from human agreement which belongs to positive law, as stated above (57, 2,3). Hence the ownership of possessions is not contrary to the natural law, but an addition thereto devised by human reason. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ille qui, praeveniens ad spectacula, praepararet aliis viam, non illicite ageret, sed ex hoc illicite agit quod alios prohibet. Et similiter dives non illicite agit si, praeoccupans possessionem rei quae a principio erat communis, aliis communicat, peccat autem si alios ab usu illius rei indiscrete prohibeat. Unde Basilius ibidem dicit, cur tu abundas, ille vero mendicat, nisi ut tu bonae dispensationis merita consequaris, ille vero patientiae praemiis coronetur? | Reply to Objection 2. A man would not act unlawfully if by going beforehand to the play he prepared the way for others: but he acts unlawfully if by so doing he hinders others from going. On like manner a rich man does not act unlawfully if he anticipates someone in taking possession of something which at first was common property, and gives others a share: but he sins if he excludes others indiscriminately from using it. Hence Basil says (Hom. in Luc. xii, 18): "Why are you rich while another is poor, unless it be that you may have the merit of a good stewardship, and he the reward of patience?" |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod cum dicit Ambrosius, nemo proprium dicat quod est commune, loquitur de proprietate quantum ad usum. Unde subdit, plus quam sufficeret sumptui, violenter obtentum est. | Reply to Objection 3. When Ambrose says: "Let no man call his own that which is common," he is speaking of ownership as regards use, wherefore he adds: "He who spends too much is a robber." |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit de ratione furti occulte accipere rem alienam. Illud enim quod diminuit peccatum non videtur ad rationem peccati pertinere. Sed in occulto peccare pertinet ad diminutionem peccati, sicut e contrario ad exaggerandum peccatum quorundam dicitur Isaiae III, peccatum suum quasi Sodoma praedicaverunt, nec absconderunt. Ergo non est de ratione furti occulta acceptio rei alienae. | Objection 1. It would seem that it is not essential to theft to take another's thing secretly. For that which diminishes a sin, does not, apparently, belong to the essence of a sin. Now to sin secretly tends to diminish a sin, just as, on the contrary, it is written as indicating an aggravating circumstance of the sin of some (Isaiah 3:9): "They have proclaimed abroad their sin as Sodom, and they have not hid it." Therefore it is not essential to theft that it should consist in taking another's thing secretly. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit, et habetur in decretis, dist. XLVII, neque minus est criminis habenti tollere quam, cum possis et abundas, indigentibus denegare. Ergo sicut furtum consistit in acceptione rei alienae, ita et in detentione ipsius. | Objection 2. Further, Ambrose says [Serm. lxiv, de temp., 2, Objection 3, Can. Sicut hi.]: and his words are embodied in the Decretals [Dist. xlvii]: "It is no less a crime to take from him that has, than to refuse to succor the needy when you can and are well off." Therefore just as theft consists in taking another's thing, so does it consist in keeping it back. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, homo potest furtim ab alio accipere etiam quod suum est puta rem quam apud alium deposuit, vel quae est ab eo iniuste ablata. Non est ergo de ratione furti quod sit occulta acceptio rei alienae. | Objection 3. Further, a man may take by stealth from another, even that which is his own, for instance a thing that he has deposited with another, or that has been taken away from him unjustly. Therefore it is not essential to theft that it should consist in taking another's thing secretly. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., fur a furvo dictus est, idest a fusco, nam noctis utitur tempore. | On the contrary, Isidore says (Etym. x): "'Fur' [thief] is derived from 'furvus' and so from 'fuscus' [dark], because he takes advantage of the night." |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ad rationem furti tria concurrunt. Quorum primum convenit sibi secundum quod contrariatur iustitiae, quae unicuique tribuit quod suum est. Et ex hoc competit ei quod usurpat alienum. Secundum vero pertinet ad rationem furti prout distinguitur a peccatis quae sunt contra personam, sicut ab homicidio et adulterio. Et secundum hoc competit furto quod sit circa rem possessam. Si quis enim accipiat id quod est alterius non quasi possessio, sed quasi pars, sicut si amputet membrum; vel sicut persona coniuncta, ut si auferat filiam vel uxorem, non habet proprie rationem furti. Tertia differentia est quae complet furti rationem, ut scilicet occulte usurpetur alienum. Et secundum hoc propria ratio furti est ut sit occulta acceptio rei alienae. | I answer that, Three things combine together to constitute theft. The first belongs to theft as being contrary to justice, which gives to each one that which is his, so that it belongs to theft to take possession of what is another's. The second thing belongs to theft as distinct from those sins which are committed against the person, such as murder and adultery, and in this respect it belongs to theft to be about a thing possessed: for if a man takes what is another's not as a possession but as a part (for instance, if he amputates a limb), or as a person connected with him (for instance, if he carry off his daughter or his wife), it is not strictly speaking a case of theft. The third difference is that which completes the nature of theft, and consists in a thing being taken secretly: and in this respect it belongs properly to theft that it consists in "taking another's thing secretly." |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod occultatio quandoque quidem est causa peccati, puta cum quis utitur occultatione ad peccandum, sicut accidit in fraude et dolo. Et hoc modo non diminuit, sed constituit speciem peccati. Et ita est in furto. Alio modo occultatio est simplex circumstantia peccati. Et sic diminuit peccatum, tum quia est signum verecundiae; tum quia tollit scandalum. | Reply to Objection 1. Secrecy is sometimes a cause of sin, as when a man employs secrecy in order to commit a sin, for instance in fraud and guile. On this way it does not diminish sin, but constitutes a species of sin: and thus it is in theft. On another way secrecy is merely a circumstance of sin, and thus it diminishes sin, both because it is a sign of shame, and because it removes scandal. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod detinere id quod alteri debetur eandem rationem nocumenti habet cum acceptione. Et ideo sub iniusta acceptione intelligitur etiam iniusta detentio. | Reply to Objection 2. To keep back what is due to another, inflicts the same kind of injury as taking a thing unjustly: wherefore an unjust detention is included in an unjust taking. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod nihil prohibet id quod est simpliciter unius, secundum quid esse alterius. Sicut res deposita est simpliciter quidem deponentis, sed est eius apud quem deponitur quantum ad custodiam. Et id quod est per rapinam ablatum est rapientis, non simpliciter, sed quantum ad detentionem. | Reply to Objection 3. Nothing prevents that which belongs to one person simply, from belonging to another in some respect: thus a deposit belongs simply to the depositor, but with regard to its custody it is the depositary's, and the thing stolen is the thief's, not simply, but as regards its custody. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod furtum et rapina non sint peccata differentia specie. Furtum enim et rapina differunt secundum occultum et manifestum, furtum enim importat occultam acceptionem, rapina vero violentam et manifestam. Sed in aliis generibus peccatorum occultum et manifestum non diversificant speciem. Ergo furtum et rapina non sunt peccata specie diversa. | Objection 1. It would seem that theft and robbery are not sins of different species. For theft and robbery differ as "secret" and "manifest": because theft is taking something secretly, while robbery is to take something violently and openly. Now in the other kinds of sins, the secret and the manifest do not differ specifically. Therefore theft and robbery are not different species of sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, moralia recipiunt speciem a fine, ut supra dictum est. Sed furtum et rapina ordinantur ad eundem finem, scilicet ad habendum aliena. Ergo non differunt specie. | Objection 2. Further, moral actions take their species from the end, as stated above (I-II, 01, 3; 18, 6). Now theft and robbery are directed to the same end, viz. the possession of another's property. Therefore they do not differ specifically. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut rapitur aliquid ad possidendum, ita rapitur mulier ad delectandum, unde et Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., quod raptor dicitur corruptor, et rapta corrupta. Sed raptus dicitur sive mulier auferatur publice, sive occulte. Ergo et res possessa rapi dicitur sive occulte, sive publice rapiatur. Ergo non differunt furtum et rapina. | Objection 3. Further, just as a thing is taken by force for the sake of possession, so is a woman taken by force for pleasure: wherefore Isidore says (Etym. x) that "he who commits a rape is called a corrupter, and the victim of the rape is said to be corrupted." Now it is a case of rape whether the woman be carried off publicly or secretly. Therefore the thing appropriated is said to be taken by force, whether it be done secretly or publicly. Therefore theft and robbery do not differ. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus, in V Ethic., distinguit furtum a rapina, ponens furtum occultum, rapinam vero violentam. | On the contrary, The Philosopher (Ethic. v, 2) distinguishes theft from robbery, and states that theft is done in secret, but that robbery is done openly. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod furtum et rapina sunt vitia iustitiae opposita, inquantum aliquis alter facit iniustum. Nullus autem patitur iniustum volens, ut probatur in V Ethic. Et ideo furtum et rapina ex hoc habent rationem peccati quod acceptio est involuntaria ex parte eius cui aliquid subtrahitur. Involuntarium autem dupliciter dicitur, scilicet per ignorantiam, et violentiam, ut habetur in III Ethic. Et ideo aliam rationem peccati habet rapina, et aliam furtum. Et propter hoc differunt specie. | I answer that, Theft and robbery are vices contrary to justice, in as much as one man does another an injustice. Now "no man suffers an injustice willingly," as stated in Ethic. v, 9. Wherefore theft and robbery derive their sinful nature, through the taking being involuntary on the part of the person from whom something is taken. Now the involuntary is twofold, namely, through violence and through ignorance, as stated in Ethic. iii, 1. Therefore the sinful aspect of robbery differs from that of theft: and consequently they differ specifically. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in aliis generibus peccatorum non attenditur ratio peccati ex aliquo involuntario, sicut attenditur in peccatis oppositis iustitiae. Et ideo ubi occurrit diversa ratio involuntarii, est diversa species peccati. | Reply to Objection 1. In the other kinds of sin the sinful nature is not derived from something involuntary, as in the sins opposed to justice: and so where there is a different kind of involuntary, there is a different species of sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod finis remotus est idem rapinae et furti, sed hoc non sufficit ad identitatem speciei, quia est diversitas in finibus proximis. Raptor enim vult per propriam potestatem obtinere, fur vero per astutiam. | Reply to Objection 2. The remote end of robbery and theft is the same. But this is not enough for identity of species, because there is a difference of proximate ends, since the robber wishes to take a thing by his own power, but the thief, by cunning. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod raptus mulieris non potest esse occultus ex parte mulieris quae rapitur. Et ideo etiam si sit occultus ex parte aliorum, quibus rapitur, adhuc remanet ratio rapinae ex parte mulieris, cui violentia infertur. | Reply to Objection 3. The robbery of a woman cannot be secret on the part of the woman who is taken: wherefore even if it be secret as regards the others from whom she is taken, the nature of robbery remains on the part of the woman to whom violence is done. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod furtum non semper sit peccatum. Nullum enim peccatum cadit sub praecepto divino, dicitur enim Eccli. XV, nemini mandavit impie agere. Sed Deus invenitur praecepisse furtum, dicitur enim Exod. XII, fecerunt filii Israel sicut praeceperat dominus Moysi, et expoliaverunt Aegyptios. Ergo furtum non semper est peccatum. | Objection 1. It would seem that theft is not always a sin. For no sin is commanded by God, since it is written (Sirach 15:21): "He hath commanded no man to do wickedly." Yet we find that God commanded theft, for it is written (Exodus 12:35-36): "And the children of Israel did as the Lord had commanded Moses [Vulgate: 'as Moses had commanded']. . . and they stripped the Egyptians." Therefore theft is not always a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, ille qui invenit rem non suam, si eam accipiat, videtur furtum committere, quia accipit rem alienam. Sed hoc videtur esse licitum secundum naturalem aequitatem; ut iuristae dicunt. Ergo videtur quod furtum non semper sit peccatum. | Objection 2. Further, if a man finds a thing that is not his and takes it, he seems to commit a theft, for he takes another's property. Yet this seems lawful according to natural equity, as the jurists hold. [See loc. cit. in Reply.] Therefore it seems that theft is not always a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, ille qui accipit rem suam non videtur peccare, cum non agat contra iustitiam, cuius aequalitatem non tollit. Sed furtum committitur etiam si aliquis rem suam occulte accipiat ab altero detentam vel custoditam. Ergo videtur quod furtum non semper sit peccatum. | Objection 3. Further, he that takes what is his own does not seem to sin, because he does not act against justice, since he does not destroy its equality. Yet a man commits a theft even if he secretly take his own property that is detained by or in the safe-keeping of another. Therefore it seems that theft is not always a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Exod. XX, non furtum facies. | On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 20:15): "Thou shalt not steal." |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod si quis consideret furti rationem, duas rationes peccati in eo inveniet. Primo quidem, propter contrarietatem ad iustitiam, quae reddit unicuique quod suum est. Et sic furtum iustitiae opponitur, inquantum furtum est acceptio rei alienae. Secundo, ratione doli seu fraudis, quam fur committit occulte et quasi ex insidiis rem alienam usurpando. Unde manifestum est quod omne furtum est peccatum. | I answer that, If anyone consider what is meant by theft, he will find that it is sinful on two counts. First, because of its opposition to justice, which gives to each one what is his, so that for this reason theft is contrary to justice, through being a taking of what belongs to another. Secondly, because of the guile or fraud committed by the thief, by laying hands on another's property secretly and cunningly. Wherefore it is evident that every theft is a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod accipere rem alienam vel occulte vel manifeste auctoritate iudicis hoc decernentis, non est furtum, quia iam fit sibi debitum per hoc quod sententialiter sibi est adiudicatum. Unde multo minus furtum fuit quod filii Israel tulerunt spolia Aegyptiorum de praecepto domini hoc decernentis pro afflictionibus quibus Aegyptii eos sine causa afflixerant. Et ideo signanter dicitur Sap. X, iusti tulerunt spolia impiorum. | Reply to Objection 1. It is no theft for a man to take another's property either secretly or openly by order of a judge who has commanded him to do so, because it becomes his due by the very fact that it is adjudicated to him by the sentence of the court. Hence still less was it a theft for the Israelites to take away the spoils of the Egyptians at the command of the Lord, Who ordered this to be done on account of the ill-treatment accorded to them by the Egyptians without any cause: wherefore it is written significantly (Wisdom 10:19): "The just took the spoils of the wicked." |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod circa res inventas est distinguendum. Quaedam enim sunt quae nunquam fuerunt in bonis alicuius, sicut lapilli et gemmae quae inveniuntur in littore maris, et talia occupanti conceduntur. Et eadem ratio est de thesauris antiquo tempore sub terra occultatis, quorum non est aliquis possessor, nisi quod secundum leges civiles tenetur inventor medietatem dare domino agri, si in alieno agro invenerit; propter quod in parabola Evangelii dicitur, Matth. XIII, de inventore thesauri absconditi in agro, quod emit agrum, quasi ut haberet ius possidendi totum thesaurum. Quaedam vero res inventae fuerunt de propinquo in alicuius bonis. Et tunc, si quis eas accipiat non animo retinendi, sed animo restituendi domino, qui eas pro derelictis non habet, non committit furtum. Et similiter si pro derelictis habeantur, et hoc credat inventor, licet sibi retineat, non committit furtum. Alias autem committitur peccatum furti. Unde Augustinus dicit, in quadam homilia, et habetur XIV, qu. V, si quid invenisti et non reddidisti, rapuisti. | Reply to Objection 2. With regard to treasure-trove a distinction must be made. For some there are that were never in anyone's possession, for instance precious stones and jewels, found on the seashore, and such the finder is allowed to keep [Dig. I, viii, De divis. rerum: Inst. II, i, De rerum divis.]. The same applies to treasure hidden underground long since and belonging to no man, except that according to civil law the finder is bound to give half to the owner of the land, if the treasure trove be in the land of another person [Inst. II, i, 39: Cod. X, xv, De Thesauris]. Hence in the parable of the Gospel (Matthew 13:44) it is said of the finder of the treasure hidden in a field that he bought the field, as though he purposed thus to acquire the right of possessing the whole treasure. On the other Land the treasure-trove may be nearly in someone's possession: and then if anyone take it with the intention, not of keeping it but of returning it to the owner who does not look upon such things as unappropriated, he is not guilty of theft. On like manner if the thing found appears to be unappropriated, and if the finder believes it to be so, although he keep it, he does not commit a theft [Inst. II, i, 47]. In any other case the sin of theft is committed [Dig. XLI, i, De acquirend, rerum dominio, 9: Inst. II, i, 48]: wherefore Augustine says in a homily (Serm. clxxviii; De Verb. Apost.): "If thou hast found a thing and not returned it, thou hast stolen it" (Dig. xiv, 5, can. Si quid invenisti). |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui furtim accipit rem suam apud alium depositam, gravat depositarium, quia tenetur ad restituendum, vel ad ostendendum se esse innoxium. Unde manifestum est quod peccat, et tenetur ad relevandum gravamen depositarii. Qui vero furtim accipit rem suam apud alium iniuste detentam, peccat quidem, non quia gravet eum qui detinet, et ideo non tenetur ad restituendum aliquid vel ad recompensandum, sed peccat contra communem iustitiam, dum ipse sibi usurpat suae rei iudicium, iuris ordine praetermisso. Et ideo tenetur Deo satisfacere, et dare operam ut scandalum proximorum, si inde exortum fuerit, sedetur. | Reply to Objection 3. He who by stealth takes his own property which is deposited with another man burdens the depositary, who is bound either to restitution, or to prove himself innocent. Hence he is clearly guilty of sin, and is bound to ease the depositary of his burden. On the other hand he who, by stealth, takes his own property, if this be unjustly detained by another, he sins indeed; yet not because he burdens the retainer, and so he is not bound to restitution or compensation: but he sins against general justice by disregarding the order of justice and usurping judgment concerning his own property. Hence he must make satisfaction to God and endeavor to allay whatever scandal he may have given his neighbor by acting this way. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod furtum non sit peccatum mortale. Dicitur enim Prov. VI, non grandis est culpae cum quis furatus fuerit. Sed omne peccatum mortale est grandis culpae. Ergo furtum non est peccatum mortale. | Objection 1. It would seem that theft is not a mortal sin. For it is written (Proverbs 6:30): "The fault is not so great when a man hath stolen." But every mortal sin is a great fault. Therefore theft is not a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, peccato mortali mortis poena debetur. Sed pro furto non infligitur in lege poena mortis, sed solum poena damni, secundum illud Exod. XXII, si quis furatus fuerit bovem aut ovem, quinque boves pro uno bove restituet, et quatuor oves pro una ove. Ergo furtum non est peccatum mortale. | Objection 2. Further, mortal sin deserves to be punished with death. But in the Law theft is punished not by death but by indemnity, according to Exodus 22:1, "If any man steal an ox or a sheep . . . he shall restore five oxen for one ox, and four sheep for one sheep." Therefore theft is not a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, furtum potest committi in parvis rebus, sicut et in magnis. Sed inconveniens videtur quod pro furto alicuius parvae rei, puta unius acus vel unius pennae, aliquis puniatur morte aeterna. Ergo furtum non est peccatum mortale. | Objection 3. Further, theft can be committed in small even as in great things. But it seems unreasonable for a man to be punished with eternal death for the theft of a small thing such as a needle or a quill. Therefore theft is not a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod nullus damnatur secundum divinum iudicium nisi pro peccato mortali. Condemnatur autem aliquis pro furto, secundum illud Zach. V, haec est maledictio quae egreditur super faciem omnis terrae, quia omnis fur sicut ibi scriptum est condemnatur. Ergo furtum est peccatum mortale. | On the contrary, No man is condemned by the Divine judgment save for a mortal sin. Yet a man is condemned for theft, according to Zechariah 5:3, "This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the earth; for every thief shall be judged as is there written." Therefore theft is a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra habitum est, peccatum mortale est quod contrariatur caritati, secundum quam est spiritualis animae vita. Caritas autem consistit quidem principaliter in dilectione Dei, secundario vero in dilectione proximi, ad quam pertinet ut proximo bonum velimus et operemur. Per furtum autem homo infert nocumentum proximo in suis rebus, et si passim homines sibi invicem furarentur, periret humana societas. Unde furtum, tanquam contrarium caritati, est peccatum mortale. | I answer that, As stated above, (Question 59, Article 4 and Prima Secundae Partis, Question 72, Article 5), a mortal sin is one that is contrary to charity as the spiritual life of the soul. Now charity consists principally in the love of God, and secondarily in the love of our neighbor, which is shown in our wishing and doing him well. But theft is a means of doing harm to our neighbor in his belongings; and if men were to rob one another habitually, human society would be undone. Therefore theft, as being opposed to charity, is a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod furtum dicitur non esse grandis culpae duplici ratione. Primo quidem, propter necessitatem inducentem ad furandum, quae diminuit vel totaliter tollit culpam, ut infra patebit. Unde subdit, furatur enim ut esurientem impleat animam. Alio modo dicitur furtum non esse grandis culpae per comparationem ad reatum adulterii, quod punitur morte. Unde subditur de fure quod deprehensus reddet septuplum, qui autem adulter est, perdet animam suam. | Reply to Objection 1. The statement that theft is not a great fault is in view of two cases. First, when a person is led to thieve through necessity. This necessity diminishes or entirely removes sin, as we shall show further on (Question 66, Article 7). Hence the text continues: "For he stealeth to fill his hungry soul." Secondly, theft is stated not to be a great fault in comparison with the guilt of adultery, which is punished with death. Hence the text goes on to say of the thief that "if he be taken, he shall restore sevenfold . . . but he that is an adulterer . . . shall destroy his own soul." |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod poenae praesentis vitae magis sunt medicinales quam retributivae, retributio enim reservatur divino iudicio, quod est secundum veritatem in peccantes. Et ideo secundum iudicium praesentis vitae non pro quolibet peccato mortali infligitur poena mortis, sed solum pro illis quae inferunt irreparabile nocumentum, vel etiam pro illis quae habent aliquam horribilem deformitatem. Et ideo pro furto, quod reparabile damnum infert, non infligitur secundum praesens iudicium poena mortis, nisi furtum aggravetur per aliquam gravem circumstantiam, sicut patet de sacrilegio, quod est furtum rei sacrae, et de peculatu, quod est furtum rei communis, ut patet per Augustinum, super Ioan.; et de plagio, quod est furtum hominis, pro quo quis morte punitur, ut patet Exod. XXI. | Reply to Objection 2. The punishments of this life are medicinal rather than retributive. For retribution is reserved to the Divine judgment which is pronounced against sinners "according to the truth" (Rom. ii, 2). Wherefore, according to the judgment of the present life the death punishment is inflicted, not for every mortal sin, but only for such as inflict an irreparable harm, or again for such as contain some horrible deformity. Hence according to the present judgment the pain of death is not inflicted for theft which does not inflict an irreparable harm, except when it is aggravated by some grave circumstance, as in the case of sacrilege which is the theft of a sacred thing, of peculation, which is theft of common property, as Augustine states (Tract. 1, super Joan.), and of kidnaping which is stealing a man, for which the pain of death is inflicted (Exodus 21:16). |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod illud quod modicum est ratio apprehendit quasi nihil. Et ideo in his quae minima sunt homo non reputat sibi nocumentum inferri, et ille qui accipit potest praesumere hoc non esse contra voluntatem eius cuius est res. Et pro tanto si quis furtive huiusmodi res minimas accipiat, potest excusari a peccato mortali. Si tamen habeat animum furandi et inferendi nocumentum proximo, etiam in talibus minimis potest esse peccatum mortale, sicut et in solo cogitatu per consensum. | Reply to Objection 3. Reason accounts as nothing that which is little: so that a man does not consider himself injured in very little matters: and the person who takes such things can presume that this is not against the will of the owner. And if a person take such like very little things, he may be proportionately excused from mortal sin. Yet if his intention is to rob and injure his neighbor, there may be a mortal sin even in these very little things, even as there may be through consent in a mere thought. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non liceat alicui furari propter necessitatem. Non enim imponitur poenitentia nisi peccanti. Sed extra, de furtis, dicitur, si quis per necessitatem famis aut nuditatis furatus fuerit cibaria, vestem vel pecus, poeniteat hebdomadas tres. Ergo non licet furari propter necessitatem. | Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to steal through stress of need. For penance is not imposed except on one who has sinned. Now it is stated (Extra, De furtis, Cap. Si quis): "If anyone, through stress of hunger or nakedness, steal food, clothing or beast, he shall do penance for three weeks." Therefore it is not lawful to steal through stress of need. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in II Ethic., quod quaedam confestim nominata convoluta sunt cum malitia, inter quae ponit furtum. Sed illud quod est secundum se malum non potest propter aliquem bonum finem bonum fieri. Ergo non potest aliquis licite furari ut necessitati suae subveniat. | Objection 2. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6) that "there are some actions whose very name implies wickedness," and among these he reckons theft. Now that which is wicked in itself may not be done for a good end. Therefore a man cannot lawfully steal in order to remedy a need. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, homo debet diligere proximum sicut seipsum. Sed non licet furari ad hoc quod aliquis per eleemosynam proximo subveniat; ut Augustinus dicit, in libro contra mendacium. Ergo etiam non licet furari ad subveniendum propriae necessitati. | Objection 3. Further, a man should love his neighbor as himself. Now, according to Augustine (Contra Mendac. vii), it is unlawful to steal in order to succor one's neighbor by giving him an alms. Therefore neither is it lawful to steal in order to remedy one's own needs. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod in necessitate sunt omnia communia. Et ita non videtur esse peccatum si aliquis rem alterius accipiat, propter necessitatem sibi factam communem. | On the contrary, In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another's property, for need has made it common. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ea quae sunt iuris humani non possunt derogare iuri naturali vel iuri divino. Secundum autem naturalem ordinem ex divina providentia institutum, res inferiores sunt ordinatae ad hoc quod ex his subveniatur hominum necessitati. Et ideo per rerum divisionem et appropriationem, de iure humano procedentem, non impeditur quin hominis necessitati sit subveniendum ex huiusmodi rebus. Et ideo res quas aliqui superabundanter habent, ex naturali iure debentur pauperum sustentationi. Unde Ambrosius dicit, et habetur in decretis, dist. XLVII, esurientium panis est quem tu detines; nudorum indumentum est quod tu recludis; miserorum redemptio et absolutio est pecunia quam tu in terram defodis. Sed quia multi sunt necessitatem patientes, et non potest ex eadem re omnibus subveniri, committitur arbitrio uniuscuiusque dispensatio propriarum rerum, ut ex eis subveniat necessitatem patientibus. Si tamen adeo sit urgens et evidens necessitas ut manifestum sit instanti necessitati de rebus occurrentibus esse subveniendum, puta cum imminet personae periculum et aliter subveniri non potest; tunc licite potest aliquis ex rebus alienis suae necessitati subvenire, sive manifeste sive occulte sublatis. Nec hoc proprie habet rationem furti vel rapinae. | I answer that, Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right. Now according to the natural order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring man's needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man's needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose [Loc. cit., 2, Objection 3] says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals (Dist. xlvii, can. Sicut ii): "It is the hungry man's bread that you withhold, the naked man's cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man's ransom and freedom." Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod decretalis illa loquitur in casu in quo non est urgens necessitas. | Reply to Objection 1. This decretal considers cases where there is no urgent need. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod uti re aliena occulte accepta in casu necessitatis extremae non habet rationem furti, proprie loquendo. Quia per talem necessitatem efficitur suum illud quod quis accipit ad sustentandam propriam vitam. | Reply to Objection 2. It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another's property in a case of extreme need: because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in casu similis necessitatis etiam potest aliquis occulte rem alienam accipere ut subveniat proximo sic indigenti. | Reply to Objection 3. In a case of a like need a man may also take secretly another's property in order to succor his neighbor in need. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod rapina possit fieri sine peccato. Praeda enim per violentiam accipitur; quod videtur ad rationem rapinae pertinere, secundum praedicta. Sed praedam accipere ab hostibus licitum est, dicit enim Ambrosius, in libro de patriarchis, cum praeda fuerit in potestate victoris, decet militarem disciplinam ut regi serventur omnia, scilicet ad distribuendum. Ergo rapina in aliquo casu est licita. | Objection 1. It would seem that robbery may be committed without sin. For spoils are taken by violence, and this seems to belong to the essence of robbery, according to what has been said (4). Now it is lawful to take spoils from the enemy; for Ambrose says (De Patriarch. 4 [De Abraham i, 3): "When the conqueror has taken possession of the spoils, military discipline demands that all should be reserved for the sovereign," in order, to wit, that he may distribute them. Therefore in certain cases robbery is lawful. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, licitum est auferre ab aliquo id quod non est eius. Sed res quas infideles habent non sunt eorum, dicit enim Augustinus, in epistola ad Vinc. Donatist., res falso appellatis vestras, quas nec iuste possidetis, et secundum leges terrenorum regum amittere iussi estis. Ergo videtur quod ab infidelibus aliquis licite rapere posset. | Objection 2. Further, it is lawful to take from a man what is not his. Now the things which unbelievers have are not theirs, for Augustine says (Ep. ad Vincent. Donat. xciii.): "You falsely call things your own, for you do not possess them justly, and according to the laws of earthly kings you are commanded to forfeit them." Therefore it seems that one may lawfully rob unbelievers. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, terrarum principes multa a suis subditis violenter extorquent; quod videtur ad rationem rapinae pertinere. Grave autem videtur dicere quod in hoc peccent, quia sic fere omnes principes damnarentur. Ergo rapina in aliquo casu est licita. | Objection 3. Further, earthly princes violently extort many things from their subjects: and this seems to savor of robbery. Now it would seem a grievous matter to say that they sin in acting thus, for in that case nearly every prince would be damned. Therefore in some cases robbery is lawful. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est quod de quolibet licite accepto potest fieri Deo sacrificium vel oblatio. Non autem potest fieri de rapina, secundum illud Isaiae LXI, ego dominus diligens iudicium, et odio habens rapinam in holocaustum. Ergo per rapinam aliquid accipere non est licitum. | On the contrary, Whatever is taken lawfully may be offered to God in sacrifice and oblation. Now this cannot be done with the proceeds of robbery, according to Isaiah 61:8, "I am the Lord that love judgment, and hate robbery in a holocaust." Therefore it is not lawful to take anything by robbery. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod rapina quandam violentiam et coactionem importat per quam, contra iustitiam, alicui aufertur quod suum est. In societate autem hominum nullus habet coactionem nisi per publicam potestatem. Et ideo quicumque per violentiam aliquid alteri aufert, si sit privata persona non utens publica potestate, illicite agit et rapinam committit, sicut patet in latronibus. Principibus vero publica potestas committitur ad hoc quod sint iustitiae custodes. Et ideo non licet eis violentia et coactione uti nisi secundum iustitiae tenorem, et hoc vel contra hostes pugnando, vel contra cives malefactores puniendo. Et quod per talem violentiam aufertur non habet rationem rapinae, cum non sit contra iustitiam. Si vero contra iustitiam aliqui per publicam potestatem violenter abstulerint res aliorum, illicite agunt et rapinam committunt, et ad restitutionem tenentur. | I answer that, Robbery implies a certain violence and coercion employed in taking unjustly from a man that which is his. Now in human society no man can exercise coercion except through public authority: and, consequently, if a private individual not having public authority takes another's property by violence, he acts unlawfully and commits a robbery, as burglars do. As regards princes, the public power is entrusted to them that they may be the guardians of justice: hence it is unlawful for them to use violence or coercion, save within the bounds of justice--either by fighting against the enemy, or against the citizens, by punishing evil-doers: and whatever is taken by violence of this kind is not the spoils of robbery, since it is not contrary to justice. On the other hand to take other people's property violently and against justice, in the exercise of public authority, is to act unlawfully and to be guilty of robbery; and whoever does so is bound to restitution. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod circa praedam distinguendum est. Quia si illi qui depraedantur hostes habeant bellum iustum, ea quae per violentiam in bello acquirunt eorum efficiuntur. Et hoc non habet rationem rapinae, unde nec ad restitutionem tenentur. Quamvis possint in acceptione praedae iustum bellum habentes peccare per cupiditatem ex prava intentione, si scilicet non propter iustitiam, sed propter praedam principaliter pugnent, dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de Verb. Dom., quod propter praedam militare peccatum est. Si vero illi qui praedam accipiunt habeant bellum iniustum, rapinam committunt, et ad restitutionem tenentur. | Reply to Objection 1. A distinction must be made in the matter of spoils. For if they who take spoils from the enemy, are waging a just war, such things as they seize in the war become their own property. This is no robbery, so that they are not bound to restitution. Nevertheless even they who are engaged in a just war may sin in taking spoils through cupidity arising from an evil intention, if, to wit, they fight chiefly not for justice but for spoil. For Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xix; Serm. lxxxii) that "it is a sin to fight for booty." If, however, those who take the spoil, are waging an unjust war, they are guilty of robbery, and are bound to restitution. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod intantum aliqui infideles iniuste res suas possident, inquantum eas secundum leges terrenorum principum amittere iussi sunt. Et ideo ab eis possunt per violentiam subtrahi, non privata auctoritate, sed publica. | Reply to Objection 2. Unbelievers possess their goods unjustly in so far as they are ordered by the laws of earthly princes to forfeit those goods. Hence these may be taken violently from them, not by private but by public authority. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod si principes a subditis exigant quod eis secundum iustitiam debetur propter bonum commune conservandum, etiam si violentia adhibeatur, non est rapina. Si vero aliquid principes indebite extorqueant per violentiam, rapina est, sicut et latrocinium. Unde dicit Augustinus, in IV de Civ. Dei, remota iustitia, quid sunt regna nisi magna latrocinia? Quia et latrocinia quid sunt nisi parva regna? Et Ezech. XXII dicitur, principes eius in medio eius quasi lupi rapientes praedam. Unde et ad restitutionem tenentur, sicut et latrones. Et tanto gravius peccant quam latrones, quanto periculosius et communius contra publicam iustitiam agunt, cuius custodes sunt positi. | Reply to Objection 3. It is no robbery if princes exact from their subjects that which is due to them for the safe-guarding of the common good, even if they use violence in so doing: but if they extort something unduly by means of violence, it is robbery even as burglary is. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei iv, 4): "If justice be disregarded, what is a king but a mighty robber? since what is a robber but a little king?" And it is written (Ezekiel 22:27): "Her princes in the midst of her, are like wolves ravening the prey." Wherefore they are bound to restitution, just as robbers are, and by so much do they sin more grievously than robbers, as their actions are fraught with greater and more universal danger to public justice whose wardens they are. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 9 arg. 1 Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod furtum sit gravius peccatum quam rapina. Furtum enim, super acceptionem rei alienae, habet adiunctam fraudem et dolum, quod non est in rapina. Sed fraus et dolus de se habent rationem peccati, ut supra habitum est. Ergo furtum videtur esse gravius peccatum quam rapina. | Objection 1. It would seem that theft is a more grievous sin than robbery. For theft adds fraud and guile to the taking of another's property: and these things are not found in robbery. Now fraud and guile are sinful in themselves, as stated above (55, 4,5). Therefore theft is a more grievous sin than robbery. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 9 arg. 2 Praeterea, verecundia est timor de turpi actu, ut dicitur in IV Ethic. Sed magis verecundantur homines de furto quam de rapina. Ergo furtum est turpius quam rapina. | Objection 2. Further, shame is fear about a wicked deed, as stated in Ethic. iv, 9. Now men are more ashamed of theft than of robbery. Therefore theft is more wicked than robbery. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 9 arg. 3 Praeterea, quanto aliquod peccatum pluribus nocet, tanto gravius esse videtur. Sed per furtum potest nocumentum inferri et magnis et parvis, per rapinam autem solum impotentibus, quibus potest violentia inferri. Ergo gravius videtur esse peccatum furti quam rapinae. | Objection 3. Further, the more persons a sin injures the more grievous it would seem to be. Now the great and the lowly may be injured by theft: whereas only the weak can be injured by robbery, since it is possible to use violence towards them. Therefore the sin of theft seems to be more grievous than the sin of robbery. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 9 s. c. Sed contra est quod secundum leges gravius punitur rapina quam furtum. | On the contrary, According to the laws robbery is more severely punished than theft. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 9 co. Respondeo dicendum quod rapina et furtum habent rationem peccati, sicut supra dictum est, propter involuntarium quod est ex parte eius cui aliquid aufertur; ita tamen quod in furto est involuntarium per ignorantiam, in rapina autem involuntarium per violentiam. Magis est autem aliquid involuntarium per violentiam quam per ignorantiam, quia violentia directius opponitur voluntati quam ignorantia. Et ideo rapina est gravius peccatum quam furtum. Est et alia ratio. Quia per rapinam non solum infertur alicui damnum in rebus, sed etiam vergit in quandam personae ignominiam sive iniuriam. Et hoc praeponderat fraudi vel dolo, quae pertinent ad furtum. | I answer that, Robbery and theft are sinful, as stated above (A4,6), on account of the involuntariness on the part of the person from whom something is taken: yet so that in theft the involuntariness is due to ignorance, whereas in robbery it is due to violence. Now a thing is more involuntary through violence than through ignorance, because violence is more directly opposed to the will than ignorance. Therefore robbery is a more grievous sin than theft. There is also another reason, since robbery not only inflicts a loss on a person in his things, but also conduces to the ignominy and injury of his person, and this is of graver import than fraud or guile which belong to theft. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 9 ad 1 Unde patet responsio ad primum. | Hence the Reply to the First Objection is evident. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 9 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod homines sensibilibus inhaerentes magis gloriantur de virtute exteriori, quae manifestatur in rapina, quam de virtute interiori, quae tollitur per peccatum. Et ideo minus verecundantur de rapina quam de furto. | Reply to Objection 2. Men who adhere to sensible things think more of external strength which is evidenced in robbery, than of internal virtue which is forfeit through sin: wherefore they are less ashamed of robbery than of theft. |
| IIª-IIae q. 66 a. 9 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod licet pluribus possit noceri per furtum quam per rapinam, tamen graviora nocumenta possunt inferri per rapinam quam per furtum. Unde ex hoc etiam rapina est detestabilior. | Reply to Objection 3. Although more persons may be injured by theft than by robbery, yet more grievous injuries may be inflicted by robbery than by theft: for which reason also robbery is more odious. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 pr. Deinde considerandum est de vitiis oppositis commutativae iustitiae quae consistunt in verbis in quibus laeditur proximus. Et primo, de his quae pertinent ad iudicium; secundo, de nocumentis verborum quae fiunt extra iudicium. Circa primum quinque consideranda occurrunt, primo quidem, de iniustitia iudicis in iudicando; secundo, de iniustitia accusatoris in accusando; tertio, de iniustitia ex parte rei in sua defensione; quarto, de iniustitia testis in testificando; quinto, de iniustitia advocati in patrocinando. Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum aliquis possit iuste iudicare eum qui non est sibi subditus. Secundo, utrum liceat iudicium ferre contra veritatem quam novit, propter ea quae sibi proponuntur. Tertio, utrum iudex possit aliquem iuste condemnare non accusatum. Quarto, utrum licite possit poenam relaxare. | Question 67. The injustice of a judge, in judging 1. Can a man justly judge one who is not his subject? 2. Is it lawful for a judge, on account of the evidence, to deliver judgment in opposition to the truth which is known to him? 3. Can a judge justly sentence a man who is not accused? 4. Can he justly remit the punishment? |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis possit iuste iudicare eum qui non est sibi subditus. Dicitur enim Dan. XIII quod Daniel seniores de falso testimonio convictos suo iudicio condemnavit. Sed illi seniores non erant subditi Danieli, quinimmo ipsi erant iudices populi. Ergo aliquis potest licite iudicare sibi non subditum. | Objection 1. It would seem that a man can justly judge one who is not subject to his jurisdiction. For it is stated (Daniel 13) that Daniel sentenced the ancients who were convicted of bearing false witness. But these ancients were not subject to Daniel; indeed they were judges of the people. Therefore a man may lawfully judge one that is not subject to his jurisdiction. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, Christus non erat alicuius hominis subditus, quinimmo ipse erat rex regum et dominus dominantium. Sed ipse exhibuit se iudicio hominis. Ergo videtur quod aliquis licite possit iudicare aliquem qui non est subditus eius. | Objection 2. Further, Christ was no man's subject, indeed He was "King of kings and Lord of lords" (Apocalypse 19:16). Yet He submitted to the judgment of a man. Therefore it seems that a man may lawfully judge one that is not subject to his jurisdiction. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, secundum iura quilibet sortitur forum secundum rationem delicti. Sed quandoque ille qui delinquit non est subditus eius ad quem pertinet forum illius loci, puta cum est alterius dioecesis, vel cum est exemptus. Ergo videtur quod aliquis possit iudicare eum qui non est sibi subditus. | Objection 3. Further, according to the law [Cap. Licet ratione, de Foro Comp.] a man is tried in this or that court according to his kind of offense. Now sometimes the defendant is not the subject of the man whose business it is to judge in that particular place, for instance when the defendant belongs to another diocese or is exempt. Therefore it seems that a man may judge one that is not his subject. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, super illud Deut. XXIII, si intraveris segetem et cetera. Falcem iudicii mittere non potest in eam rem quae alteri videtur esse commissa. | On the contrary, Gregory [Regist. xi, epist. 64 in commenting on Deuteronomy 23:25, "If thou go into thy friend's corn," etc. says: "Thou mayest not put the sickle of judgment to the corn that is entrusted to another." |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod sententia iudicis est quasi quaedam particularis lex in aliquo particulari facto. Et ideo sicut lex generalis debet habere vim coactivam, ut patet per philosophum, in X Ethic.; ita etiam et sententia iudicis debet habere vim coactivam, per quam constringatur utraque pars ad servandam sententiam iudicis, alioquin iudicium non esset efficax. Potestatem autem coactivam non habet licite in rebus humanis nisi ille qui fungitur publica potestate. Et qui ea funguntur superiores reputantur respectu eorum in quos, sicut in subditos, potestatem accipiunt, sive habeant ordinarie, sive per commissionem. Et ideo manifestum est quod nullus potest iudicare aliquem nisi sit aliquo modo subditus eius, vel per commissionem vel per potestatem ordinariam. | I answer that, A judge's sentence is like a particular law regarding some particular fact. Wherefore just as a general law should have coercive power, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. x, 9), so too the sentence of a judge should have coercive power, whereby either party is compelled to comply with the judge's sentence; else the judgment would be of no effect. Now coercive power is not exercised in human affairs, save by those who hold public authority: and those who have this authority are accounted the superiors of those over whom they preside whether by ordinary or by delegated authority. Hence it is evident that no man can judge others than his subjects and this in virtue either of delegated or of ordinary authority. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Daniel accepit potestatem ad iudicandum illos seniores quasi commissam ex instinctu divino. Quod significatur per hoc quod ibi dicitur, quod suscitavit dominus spiritum pueri iunioris. | Reply to Objection 1. In judging those ancients Daniel exercised an authority delegated to him by Divine instinct. This is indicated where it is said (Daniel 13:45) that "the Lord raised up the . . . spirit of a young boy." |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in rebus humanis aliqui propria sponte possunt se subiicere aliorum iudicio, quamvis non sint eis superiores, sicut patet in his qui compromittunt in aliquos arbitros. Et inde est quod necesse est arbitrium poena vallari, quia arbitri, qui non sunt superiores, non habent de se plenam potestatem coercendi. Sic igitur et Christus propria sponte humano iudicio se subdidit, sicut etiam et Leo Papa iudicio imperatoris se subdidit. | Reply to Objection 2. In human affairs a man may submit of his own accord to the judgment of others although these be not his superiors, an example of which is when parties agree to a settlement by arbitrators. Wherefore it is necessary that the arbitrator should be upheld by a penalty, since the arbitrators through not exercising authority in the case, have not of themselves full power of coercion. Accordingly in this way did Christ of his own accord submit to human judgment: and thus too did Pope Leo [Leo IV] submit to the judgment of the emperor [Can. Nos si incompetenter, caus. ii, qu. 7. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod episcopus in cuius dioecesi aliquis delinquit, efficitur superior eius ratione delicti, etiam si sit exemptus, nisi forte delinquat in re aliqua exempta, puta in administratione bonorum alicuius monasterii exempti. Sed si aliquis exemptus committat furtum vel homicidium vel aliquid huiusmodi, potest per ordinarium iuste condemnari. | Reply to Objection 3. The bishop of the defendant's diocese becomes the latter's superior as regards the fault committed, even though he be exempt: unless perchance the defendant offend in a matter exempt from the bishop's authority, for instance in administering the property of an exempt monastery. But if an exempt person commits a theft, or a murder or the like, he may be justly condemned by the ordinary. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod iudici non liceat iudicare contra veritatem quam novit, propter ea quae in contrarium proponuntur. Dicitur enim Deut. XVII, venies ad sacerdotes levitici generis, et ad iudicem qui fuerit in illo tempore, quaeresque ab eis, qui indicabunt tibi iudicii veritatem. Sed quandoque aliqua proponuntur contra veritatem, sicut cum aliquid per falsos testes probatur. Ergo non licet iudici iudicare secundum ea quae proponuntur et probantur, contra veritatem quam ipse novit. | Objection 1. It would seem unlawful for a judge to pronounce judgment against the truth that he knows, on account of evidence to the contrary. For it is written (Deuteronomy 17:9): "Thou shalt come to the priests of the Levitical race, and to the judge that shall be at that time; and thou shalt ask of them, and they shall show thee the truth of the judgment." Now sometimes certain things are alleged against the truth, as when something is proved by means of false witnesses. Therefore it is unlawful for a judge to pronounce judgment according to what is alleged and proved in opposition to the truth which he knows. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, homo in iudicando debet divino iudicio conformari, quia Dei iudicium est, ut dicitur Deut. I. Sed iudicium Dei est secundum veritatem, ut dicitur Rom. II, et Isaiae XI praedicitur de Christo, non secundum visionem oculorum iudicabit, neque secundum auditum aurium arguet, sed iudicabit in iustitia pauperes, et arguet in aequitate pro mansuetis terrae. Ergo iudex non debet, secundum ea quae coram ipso probantur, sententiam ferre contra ea quae ipse novit. | Objection 2. Further, in pronouncing judgment a man should conform to the Divine judgment, since "it is the judgment of God" (Deuteronomy 1:17). Now "the judgment of God is according to the truth" (Romans 2:2), and it was foretold of Christ (Isaiah 11:3-4): "He shall not judge according to the sight of the eyes, nor reprove according to the hearing of the ears. But He shall judge the poor with justice, and shall reprove with equity for the meek of the earth." Therefore the judge ought not to pronounce judgment according to the evidence before him if it be contrary to what he knows himself. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, idcirco in iudicio probationes requiruntur ut fides fiat iudici de rei veritate, unde in his quae sunt notoria non requiritur iudicialis ordo, secundum illud I ad Tim. V, quorundam hominum peccata manifesta sunt, praecedentia ad iudicium. Si ergo iudex per se cognoscat veritatem, non debet attendere ad ea quae probantur, sed sententiam ferre secundum veritatem quam novit. | Objection 3. Further, the reason why evidence is required in a court of law, is that the judge may have a faithful record of the truth of the matter, wherefore in matters of common knowledge there is no need of judicial procedure, according to 1 Timothy 5:24, "Some men's sins are manifest, going before to judgment." Consequently, if the judge by his personal knowledge is aware of the truth, he should pay no heed to the evidence, but should pronounce sentence according to the truth which he knows. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, nomen conscientiae importat applicationem scientiae ad aliquid agibile, ut in primo habitum est. Sed facere contra conscientiam est peccatum. Ergo iudex peccat si sententiam ferat, secundum allegata, contra conscientiam veritatis quam habet. | Objection 4. Further, the word "conscience" denotes application of knowledge to a matter of action as stated in I, 79, 13. Now it is a sin to act contrary to one's knowledge. Therefore a judge sins if he pronounces sentence according to the evidence but against his conscience of the truth. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, super Psalt., bonus iudex nihil ex arbitrio suo facit, sed secundum leges et iura pronuntiat. Sed hoc est iudicare secundum ea quae in iudicio proponuntur et probantur. Ergo iudex debet secundum huiusmodi iudicare, et non secundum proprium arbitrium. | On the contrary, Augustine [Ambrose, Super Ps. 118, serm. 20 says in his commentary on the Psalter: "A good judge does nothing according to his private opinion but pronounces sentence according to the law and the right." Now this is to pronounce judgment according to what is alleged and proved in court. Therefore a judge ought to pronounce judgment in accordance with these things, and not according to his private opinion. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, iudicare pertinet ad iudicem secundum quod fungitur publica potestate. Et ideo informari debet in iudicando non secundum id quod ipse novit tanquam privata persona, sed secundum id quod sibi innotescit tanquam personae publicae. Hoc autem innotescit sibi et in communi, et in particulari. In communi quidem, per leges publicas vel divinas vel humanas, contra quas nullas probationes admittere debet. In particulari autem negotio aliquo, per instrumenta et testes et alia huiusmodi legitima documenta, quae debet sequi in iudicando magis quam id quod ipse novit tanquam privata persona. Ex quo tamen ad hoc adiuvari potest ut districtius discutiat probationes inductas, ut possit earum defectum investigare. Quod si eas non possit de iure repellere, debet, sicut dictum est, eas in iudicando sequi. | I answer that, As stated above (1; 60, 2,6) it is the duty of a judge to pronounce judgment in as much as he exercises public authority, wherefore his judgment should be based on information acquired by him, not from his knowledge as a private individual, but from what he knows as a public person. Now the latter knowledge comes to him both in general and in particular --in general through the public laws, whether Divine or human, and he should admit no evidence that conflicts therewith--in some particular matter, through documents and witnesses, and other legal means of information, which in pronouncing his sentence, he ought to follow rather than the information he has acquired as a private individual. And yet this same information may be of use to him, so that he can more rigorously sift the evidence brought forward, and discover its weak points. If, however, he is unable to reject that evidence juridically, he must, as stated above, follow it in pronouncing sentence. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ideo praemittitur in verbis illis de quaestione iudicibus facienda, ut intelligatur quod iudices debent veritatem iudicare secundum ea quae fuerunt sibi proposita. | Reply to Objection 1. The reason why, in the passage quoted, it is stated that the judges should first of all be asked their reasons, is to make it clear that the judges ought to judge the truth in accordance with the evidence. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Deo competit iudicare secundum propriam potestatem. Et ideo in iudicando informatur secundum veritatem quam ipse cognoscit, non secundum hoc quod ab aliis accipit. Et eadem ratio est de Christo, qui est verus Deus et homo. Alii autem iudices non iudicant secundum propriam potestatem. Et ideo non est similis ratio. | Reply to Objection 2. To judge belongs to God in virtue of His own power: wherefore His judgment is based on the truth which He Himself knows, and not on knowledge imparted by others: the same is to be said of Christ, Who is true God and true man: whereas other judges do not judge in virtue of their own power, so that there is no comparison. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod apostolus loquitur in casu quando aliquid non solum est manifestum iudici, sed sibi et aliis, ita quod reus nullo modo crimen infitiari potest, sed statim ex ipsa evidentia facti convincitur. Si autem sit manifestum iudici et non aliis, vel aliis et non iudici, tunc est necessaria iudicii discussio. | Reply to Objection 3. The Apostle refers to the case where something is well known not to the judge alone, but both to him and to others, so that the guilty party can by no means deny his guilt (as in the case of notorious criminals), and is convicted at once from the evidence of the fact. If, on the other hand, it be well known to the judge, but not to others, or to others, but not to the judge, then it is necessary for the judge to sift the evidence. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod homo in his quae ad propriam personam pertinent, debet informare conscientiam suam ex propria scientia. Sed in his quae pertinent ad publicam potestatem, debet informare conscientiam suam secundum ea quae in publico iudicio sciri possunt, et cetera. | Reply to Objection 4. In matters touching his own person, a man must form his conscience from his own knowledge, but in matters concerning the public authority, he must form his conscience in accordance with the knowledge attainable in the public judicial procedure. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod iudex possit aliquem iudicare etiam si non sit alius accusator. Humana enim iustitia derivatur a iustitia divina. Sed Deus peccatores iudicat etiam si nullus sit accusator. Ergo videtur quod homo possit in iudicio alium condemnare etiam si non adsit accusator. | Objection 1. It would seem that a judge may pass sentence on a man who is not accused. For human justice is derived from Divine justice. Now God judges the sinner even though there be no accuser. Therefore it seems that a man may pass sentence of condemnation on a man even though there be no accuser. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, accusator requiritur in iudicio ad hoc quod deferat crimen ad iudicem. Sed quandoque potest crimen ad iudicem devenire alio modo quam per accusationem, sicut per denuntiationem vel per infamiam, vel etiam si ipse iudex videat. Ergo iudex potest aliquem condemnare absque accusatore. | Objection 2. Further, an accuser is required in judicial procedure in order that he may relate the crime to the judge. Now sometimes the crime may come to the judge's knowledge otherwise than by accusation; for instance, by denunciation, or by evil report, or through the judge himself being an eye-witness. Therefore a judge may condemn a man without there being an accuser. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, facta sanctorum in Scripturis narrantur quasi quaedam exemplaria humanae vitae. Sed Daniel simul fuit accusator et iudex contra iniquos senes, ut patet Dan. XIII. Ergo non est contra iustitiam si aliquis aliquem damnet tanquam iudex, et ipsemet sit accusator. | Objection 3. Further, the deeds of holy persons are related in Holy Writ, as models of human conduct. Now Daniel was at the same time the accuser and the judge of the wicked ancients (Daniel 13). Therefore it is not contrary to justice for a man to condemn anyone as judge while being at the same time his accuser. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod, I ad Cor. V, Ambrosius, exponens sententiam apostoli de fornicatore, dicit quod iudicis non est sine accusatore damnare, quia dominus Iudam, cum fuisset fur, quia non est accusatus, minime abiecit. | On the contrary, Ambrose in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 5:2, expounding the Apostle's sentence on the fornicator, says that "a judge should not condemn without an accuser, since our Lord did not banish Judas, who was a thief, yet was not accused." |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod iudex est interpres iustitiae, unde sicut philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., ad iudicem confugiunt sicut ad quandam iustitiam animatam. Iustitia autem, sicut supra habitum est, non est ad seipsum, sed ad alterum. Et ideo oportet quod iudex inter aliquos duos diiudicet, quod quidem fit cum unus est actor et alius est reus. Et ideo in criminibus non potest aliquem iudicio condemnare iudex nisi habeat accusatorem, secundum illud Act. XXV, non est consuetudo Romanis damnare aliquem hominem prius quam is qui accusatur praesentes habeat accusatores, locumque defendendi accipiat ad abluenda crimina quae ei obiiciebantur. | I answer that, A judge is an interpreter of justice. Wherefore, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 4), "men have recourse to a judge as to one who is the personification of justice." Now, as stated above (Question 58, Article 2), justice is not between a man and himself but between one man and another. Hence a judge must needs judge between two parties, which is the case when one is the prosecutor, and the other the defendant. Therefore in criminal cases the judge cannot sentence a man unless the latter has an accuser, according to Acts 25:16: "It is not the custom of the Romans to condemn any man, before that he who is accused have his accusers present, and have liberty to make his answer, to clear himself of the crimes" of which he is accused. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus in suo iudicio utitur conscientia peccantis quasi accusatore, secundum illud Rom. II, inter se invicem cogitationum accusantium, aut etiam defendentium. Vel etiam evidentia facti quantum ad ipsum, secundum illud Gen. IV vox sanguinis fratris tui Abel clamat ad me de terra. | Reply to Objection 1. God, in judging man, takes the sinner's conscience as his accuser, according to Romans 2:15, "Their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another"; or again, He takes the evidence of the fact as regards the deed itself, according to Genesis 4:10, "The voice of thy brother's blood crieth to Me from the earth." |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod publica infamia habet locum accusatoris. Unde super illud Gen. IV, vox sanguinis fratris tui etc., dicit Glossa, evidentia patrati sceleris accusatore non eget. In denuntiatione vero, sicut supra dictum est, non intenditur punitio peccantis, sed emendatio, et ideo nihil agitur contra eum cuius peccatum denuntiatur, sed pro eo. Et ideo non est ibi necessarius accusator. Poena autem infertur propter rebellionem ad Ecclesiam, quae, quia est manifesta, tenet locum accusatoris. Ex eo autem quod ipse iudex videt, non potest procedere ad sententiam ferendam, nisi secundum ordinem publici iudicii. | Reply to Objection 2. Public disgrace takes the place of an accuser. Hence a gloss on Genesis 4:10, "The voice of thy brother's blood," etc. says: "There is no need of an accuser when the crime committed is notorious." On a case of denunciation, as stated above (Question 33, Article 07), the amendment, not the punishment, of the sinner is intended: wherefore when a man is denounced for a sin, nothing is done against him, but for him, so that no accuser is required. The punishment that is inflicted is on account of his rebellion against the Church, and since this rebellion is manifest, it stands instead of an accuser. The fact that the judge himself was an eye-witness, does not authorize him to proceed to pass sentence, except according to the order of judicial procedure. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Deus in suo iudicio procedit ex propria notitia veritatis, non autem homo, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo homo non potest esse simul accusator, iudex et testis, sicut Deus. Daniel autem accusator fuit simul et iudex quasi divini iudicii executor, cuius instinctu movebatur, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3. God, in judging man, proceeds from His own knowledge of the truth, whereas man does not, as stated above (Article 2). Hence a man cannot be accuser, witness and judge at the same time, as God is. Daniel was at once accuser and judge, because he was the executor of the sentence of God, by whose instinct he was moved, as stated above (1, ad 1). |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod iudex licite possit poenam relaxare. Dicitur enim Iac. II, iudicium sine misericordia ei qui non facit misericordiam. Sed nullus punitur propter hoc quod non facit illud quod licite facere non potest. Ergo quilibet iudex potest licite misericordiam facere, relaxando poenam. | Objection 1. It would seem that the judge can lawfully remit the punishment. For it is written (James 2:13): "Judgment without mercy" shall be done "to him that hath not done mercy." Now no man is punished for not doing what he cannot do lawfully. Therefore any judge can lawfully do mercy by remitting the punishment. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, iudicium humanum debet imitari iudicium divinum. Sed Deus poenitentibus relaxat poenam, quia non vult mortem peccatoris, ut dicitur Ezech. XVIII. Ergo etiam homo iudex potest poenitenti licite laxare poenam. | Objection 2. Further, human judgment should imitate the Divine judgment. Now God remits the punishment to sinners, because He desires not the death of the sinner, according to Ezekiel 18:23. Therefore a human judge also may lawfully remit the punishment to one who repents. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, unicuique licet facere quod alicui prodest et nulli nocet. Sed absolvere reum a poena prodest ei et nulli nocet. Ergo iudex licite potest reum a poena absolvere. | Objection 3. Further, it is lawful for anyone to do what is profitable to some one and harmful to none. Now the remission of his punishment profits the guilty man and harms nobody. Therefore the judge can lawfully loose a guilty man from his punishment. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Deut. XIII de eo qui persuadet servire diis alienis, non parcat ei oculus tuus ut miserearis et occultes eum, sed statim interficies eum. Et de homicida dicitur Deut. XIX, morietur, nec misereberis eius. | On the contrary, It is written (Deuteronomy 13:8-9) concerning anyone who would persuade a man to serve strange gods: "Neither let thy eye spare him to pity and conceal him, but thou shalt presently put him to death": and of the murderer it is written (Deuteronomy 19:12-13): "He shall die. Thou shalt not pity him." |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex dictis patet, duo sunt, quantum ad propositum pertinet, circa iudicem consideranda, quorum unum est quod ipse habet iudicare inter accusatorem et reum; aliud autem est quod ipse non fert iudicii sententiam quasi ex propria, sed quasi ex publica potestate. Duplici ergo ratione impeditur iudex ne reum a poena absolvere possit. Primo quidem, ex parte accusatoris, ad cuius ius quandoque pertinet ut reus puniatur, puta propter aliquam iniuriam in ipsum commissam, cuius relaxatio non est in arbitrio alicuius iudicis, quia quilibet iudex tenetur ius suum reddere unicuique. Alio modo impeditur ex parte reipublicae, cuius potestate fungitur, ad cuius bonum pertinet quod malefactores puniantur. Sed tamen quantum ad hoc differt inter inferiores iudices et supremum iudicem, scilicet principem, cui est plenarie potestas publica commissa. Iudex enim inferior non habet potestatem absolvendi reum a poena, contra leges a superiore sibi impositas. Unde super illud Ioan. XIX, non haberes adversum me potestatem ullam, dicit Augustinus, talem Deus dederat Pilato potestatem ut esset sub Caesaris potestate, ne ei omnino liberum esset accusatum absolvere. Sed princeps, qui habet plenariam potestatem in republica, si ille qui passus est iniuriam velit eam remittere, poterit reum licite absolvere, si hoc publicae utilitati viderit non esse nocivum. | I answer that, As may be gathered from what has been said (A2,3), with regard to the question in point, two things may be observed in connection with a judge. One is that he has to judge between accuser and defendant, while the other is that he pronounces the judicial sentence, in virtue of his power, not as a private individual but as a public person. Accordingly on two counts a judge is hindered from loosing a guilty person from his punishment. First on the part of the accuser, whose right it sometimes is that the guilty party should be punished--for instance on account of some injury committed against the accuser--because it is not in the power of a judge to remit such punishment, since every judge is bound to give each man his right. Secondly, he finds a hindrance on the part of the commonwealth, whose power he exercises, and to whose good it belongs that evil-doers should be punished. Nevertheless in this respect there is a difference between judges of lower degree and the supreme judge, i.e. the sovereign, to whom the entire public authority is entrusted. For the inferior judge has no power to exempt a guilty man from punishment against the laws imposed on him by his superior. Wherefore Augustine in commenting on John 19:11, "Thou shouldst not have any power against Me," says (Tract. cxvi in Joan.): "The power which God gave Pilate was such that he was under the power of Caesar, so that he was by no means free to acquit the person accused." On the other hand the sovereign who has full authority in the commonwealth, can lawfully remit the punishment to a guilty person, provided the injured party consent to the remission, and that this do not seem detrimental to the public good. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod misericordia iudicis habet locum in his quae arbitrio iudicis relinquuntur, in quibus boni viri est ut sit diminutivus poenarum, sicut philosophus dicit, in V Ethic. In his autem quae sunt determinata secundum legem divinam vel humanam, non est suum misericordiam facere. | Reply to Objection 1. There is a place for the judge's mercy in matters that are left to the judge's discretion, because in like matters a good man is slow to punish as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But in matters that are determined in accordance with Divine or human laws, it is not left to him to show mercy. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Deus habet supremam potestatem iudicandi, et ad ipsum pertinet quidquid contra aliquem peccatur. Et ideo liberum est ei poenam remittere, praecipue cum peccato ex hoc poena maxime debeatur quod est contra ipsum. Non tamen remittit poenam nisi secundum quod decet suam bonitatem, quae est omnium legum radix. | Reply to Objection 2. God has supreme power of judging, and it concerns Him whatever is done sinfully against anyone. Therefore He is free to remit the punishment, especially since punishment is due to sin chiefly because it is done against Him. He does not, however, remit the punishment, except in so far as it becomes His goodness, which is the source of all laws. |
| IIª-IIae q. 67 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod iudex, si inordinate poenam remitteret, nocumentum inferret et communitati, cui expedit ut maleficia puniantur, ad hoc quod peccata vitentur, unde Deut. XIII, post poenam seductoris, subditur, ut omnis Israel, audiens, timeat, et nequaquam ultra faciat quispiam huius rei simile. Nocet etiam personae cui est illata iniuria, quae recompensationem accipit per quandam restitutionem honoris in poena iniuriantis. | Reply to Objection 3. If the judge were to remit punishment inordinately, he would inflict an injury on the community, for whose good it behooves ill-deeds to be punished, in order that. men may avoid sin. Hence the text, after appointing the punishment of the seducer, adds (Deuteronomy 13:11): "That all Israel hearing may fear, and may do no more anything like this." He would also inflict harm on the injured person; who is compensated by having his honor restored in the punishment of the man who has injured him. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 pr. Deinde considerandum est de his quae pertinent ad iniustam accusationem. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum homo accusare teneatur. Secundo, utrum accusatio sit facienda in scriptis. Tertio, quomodo accusatio sit vitiosa. Quarto, qualiter male accusantes sint puniendi. | Question 68. Matters concerning unjust accusation 1. Is a man bound to accuse? 2. Should the accusation be made in writing? 3. How is an accusation vitiated? 4. How should those be punished who have accused a man wrongfully? |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo non teneatur accusare. Nullus enim excusatur ab impletione divini praecepti propter peccatum, quia iam ex suo peccato commodum reportaret. Sed aliqui propter peccatum redduntur inhabiles ad accusandum, sicut excommunicati, infames, et illi qui sunt de maioribus criminibus accusati prius quam innoxii demonstrentur. Ergo homo non tenetur ex praecepto divino ad accusandum. | Objection 1. It would seem that a man is not bound to accuse. For no man is excused on account of sin from fulfilling a Divine precept, since he would thus profit by his sin. Yet on account of sin some are disqualified from accusing, such as those who are excommunicate or of evil fame, or who are accused of grievous crimes and are not yet proved to be innocent [1 Timothy 1:5. Therefore a man is not bound by a Divine precept to accuse. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, omne debitum ex caritate dependet, quae est finis praecepti, unde dicitur Rom. XIII, nemini quidquam debeatis, nisi ut invicem diligatis. Sed illud quod est caritatis homo debet omnibus, maioribus et minoribus, subditis et praelatis. Cum igitur subditi non debeant praelatos accusare, nec minores suos maiores, ut per plura capitula probatur II, qu. VII; videtur quod nullus ex debito teneatur accusare. | Objection 2. Further, every duty depends on charity which is "the end of the precept" [Can. Definimus, caus. iv, qu. 1; caus. vi, qu. 1: wherefore it is written (Romans 13:8): "Owe no man anything, but to love one another." Now that which belongs to charity is a duty that man owes to all both of high and of low degree, both superiors and inferiors. Since therefore subjects should not accuse their superiors, nor persons of lower degree, those of a higher degree, as shown in several chapters (Decret. II, qu. vii), it seems that it is no man's duty to accuse. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, nullus tenetur contra fidelitatem agere quam debet amico, quia non debet alteri facere quod sibi non vult fieri. Sed accusare aliquem quandoque est contra fidelitatem quam quis debet amico, dicitur enim Prov. XI, qui ambulat fraudulenter revelat arcana, qui autem fidelis est celat amici commissum. Ergo homo non tenetur ad accusandum. | Objection 3. Further, no man is bound to act against the fidelity which he owes his friend; because he ought not to do to another what he would not have others do to him. Now to accuse anyone is sometimes contrary to the fidelity that one owes a friend; for it is written (Proverbs 11:13): "He that walketh deceitfully, revealeth secrets; but he that is faithful, concealeth the thing committed to him by his friend." Therefore a man is not bound to accuse. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Levit. V, si peccaverit anima, et audierit vocem iurantis, testisque fuerit quod aut ipse vidit aut conscius est, nisi indicaverit, portabit iniquitatem suam. | On the contrary, It is written (Leviticus 5:1): "If any one sin, and hear the voice of one swearing, and is a witness either because he himself hath seen, or is privy to it: if he do not utter it, he shall bear his iniquity." |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, haec est differentia inter denuntiationem et accusationem, quod in denuntiatione attenditur emendatio fratris, in accusatione autem attenditur punitio criminis. Poenae autem praesentis vitae non per se expetuntur, quia non est hic ultimum retributionis tempus, sed inquantum sunt medicinales, conferentes vel ad emendationem personae peccantis, vel ad bonum reipublicae, cuius quies procuratur per punitionem peccantium. Quorum primum intenditur in denuntiatione, ut dictum est, secundum autem proprie pertinet ad accusationem. Et ideo si crimen fuerit tale quod vergat in detrimentum reipublicae, tenetur homo ad accusationem, dummodo sufficienter possit probare, quod pertinet ad officium accusatoris, puta cum peccatum alicuius vergit in multitudinis corruptelam corporalem seu spiritualem. Si autem non fuerit tale peccatum quod in multitudinem redundet, vel etiam si sufficientem probationem adhibere non possit, non tenetur ad intentandum accusationem, quia ad hoc nullus tenetur quod non potest debito modo perficere. | I answer that, As stated above (33, 6,7; 67, 3, ad 2), the difference between denunciation and accusation is that in denunciation we aim at a brother's amendment, whereas in accusation we intend the punishment of his crime. Now the punishments of this life are sought, not for their own sake, because this is not the final time of retribution, but in their character of medicine, conducing either to the amendment of the sinner, or to the good of the commonwealth whose calm is ensured by the punishment of evil-doers. The former of these is intended in denunciation, as stated, whereas the second regards properly accusation. Hence in the case of a crime that conduces to the injury of the commonwealth, a man is bound to accusation, provided he can offer sufficient proof, since it is the accuser's duty to prove: as, for example, when anyone's sin conduces to the bodily or spiritual corruption of the community. If, however, the sin be not such as to affect the community, or if he cannot offer sufficient proof, a man is not bound to attempt to accuse, since no man is bound to do what he cannot duly accomplish. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nihil prohibet per peccatum reddi aliquem impotentem ad ea quae homines facere tenentur, sicut ad merendum vitam aeternam, et ad assumendum ecclesiastica sacramenta. Nec tamen ex hoc homo reportat commodum, quinimmo deficere ab his quae tenetur facere est gravissima poena, quia virtuosi actus sunt quaedam hominis perfectiones. | Reply to Objection 1. Nothing prevents a man being debarred by sin from doing what men are under an obligation to do: for instance from meriting eternal life, and from receiving the sacraments of the Church. Nor does a man profit by this: indeed it is a most grievous fault to fail to do what one is bound to do, since virtuous acts are perfections of man. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod subditi praelatos suos accusare prohibentur qui non affectione caritatis, sed sua pravitate vitam eorum diffamare et reprehendere quaerunt; vel etiam si subditi accusare volentes, fuerint criminosi; ut habetur II, qu. VII. Alioquin, si fuerint alias idonei ad accusandum, licet subditis ex caritate suos praelatos accusare. | Reply to Objection 2. Subjects are debarred from accusing their superiors, "if it is not the affection of charity but their own wickedness that leads them to defame and disparage the conduct of their superiors" [Append. Grat. ad can. Sunt nonnulli, caus. ii, qu. 7 --or again if the subject who wishes to accuse his superior is himself guilty of crime [Decret. II, qu. vii, can. Praesumunt.]. Otherwise, provided they be in other respects qualified to accuse, it is lawful for subjects to accuse their superiors out of charity. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod revelare secreta in malum personae, est contra fidelitatem, non autem si revelentur propter bonum commune, quod semper praeferendum est bono privato. Et ideo contra bonum commune nullum secretum licet recipere. Nec tamen est omnino secretum quod per sufficientes testes potest probari. | Reply to Objection 3. It is contrary to fidelity to make known secrets to the injury of a person; but not if they be revealed for the good of the community, which should always be preferred to a private good. Hence it is unlawful to receive any secret in detriment to the common good: and yet a thing is scarcely a secret when there are sufficient witnesses to prove it. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit necessarium accusationem in scriptis fieri. Scriptura enim adinventa est ad subveniendum humanae memoriae circa praeterita. Sed accusatio in praesenti agitur. Ergo accusatio Scriptura non indiget. | Objection 1. It would seem unnecessary for the accusation to be made in writing. For writing was devised as an aid to the human memory of the past. But an accusation is made in the present. Therefore the accusation needs not to be made in writing. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, II, qu. VIII, dicitur, nullus absens accusare potest, nec ab aliquo accusari. Sed Scriptura ad hoc videtur esse utilis ut absentibus aliquid significetur, ut patet per Augustinum, X de Trin. Ergo in accusatione non est necessaria Scriptura, praesertim cum canon dicat quod per scripta nullius accusatio suscipiatur. | Objection 2. Further, it is laid down (Decret. II, qu. viii, can. Per scripta) that "no man may accuse or be accused in his absence." Now writing seems to be useful in the fact that it is a means of notifying something to one who is absent, as Augustine declares (De Trin. x, 1). Therefore the accusation need not be in writing: and all the more that the canon declares that "no accusation in writing should be accepted." |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut crimen alicuius manifestatur per accusationem, ita per denuntiationem. Sed in denuntiatione non est Scriptura necessaria. Ergo videtur quod neque etiam in accusatione. | Objection 3. Further, a man's crime is made known by denunciation, even as by accusation. Now writing is unnecessary in denunciation. Therefore it is seemingly unnecessary in accusation. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur II, qu. VIII, accusatorum personae sine scripto nunquam recipiantur. | On the contrary, It is laid down (Decret. II, qu. viii, can. Accusatorum) that "the role of accuser must never be sanctioned without the accusation be in writing." |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, quando in criminibus per modum accusationis agitur, accusator constituitur pars, ita quod iudex inter accusatorem et eum qui accusatur medius constituitur ad examen iustitiae, in quo oportet, quantum possibile est, secundum certitudinem procedere. Quia vero ea quae verbotenus dicuntur facile labuntur a memoria, non posset iudici esse certum quid et qualiter dictum sit, cum debet proferre sententiam, nisi esset in scriptis redactum. Et ideo rationabiliter institutum est ut accusatio, sicut et alia quae in iudicio aguntur, redigantur in scriptis. | I answer that, As stated above (Question 67, Article 3), when the process in a criminal case goes by way of accusation, the accuser is in the position of a party, so that the judge stands between the accuser and the accused for the purpose of the trial of justice, wherein it behooves one to proceed on certainties, as far as possible. Since however verbal utterances are apt to escape one's memory, the judge would be unable to know for certain what had been said and with what qualifications, when he comes to pronounce sentence, unless it were drawn up in writing. Hence it has with reason been established that the accusation, as well as other parts of the judicial procedure, should be put into writing. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod difficile est singula verba, propter eorum multitudinem et varietatem, retinere, cuius signum est quod multi, eadem verba audientes, si interrogentur, non referent ea similiter etiam post modicum tempus. Et tamen modica verborum differentia sensum variat. Et ideo, etiam si post modicum tempus debeat iudicis sententia promulgari, expedit tamen ad certitudinem iudicii ut accusatio redigatur in scriptis. | Reply to Objection 1. Words are so many and so various that it is difficult to remember each one. A proof of this is the fact that if a number of people who have heard the same words be asked what was said, they will not agree in repeating them, even after a short time. And since a slight difference of words changes the sense, even though the judge's sentence may have to be pronounced soon afterwards, the certainty of judgment requires that the accusation be drawn up in writing. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Scriptura non solum necessaria est propter absentiam personae quae significat vel cui est aliquid significandum, sed etiam propter dilationem temporis, ut dictum est. Et ideo cum dicit canon, per scripta nullius accusatio suscipiatur, intelligendum est ab absente, qui per epistolam accusationem mittat. Non tamen excluditur quin, si praesens fuerit, necessaria sit Scriptura. | Reply to Objection 2. Writing is needed not only on account of the absence of the person who has something to notify, or of the person to whom something is notified, but also on account of the delay of time as stated above (ad 1). Hence when the canon says, "Let no accusation be accepted in writing" it refers to the sending of an accusation by one who is absent: but it does not exclude the necessity of writing when the accuser is present. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod denuntiator non obligat se ad probandum, unde nec punitur si probare nequiverit. Et propter hoc in denuntiatione non est necessaria Scriptura, sed sufficit si aliquis verbo denuntiet Ecclesiae, quae ex officio suo procedet ad fratris emendationem. | Reply to Objection 3. The denouncer does not bind himself to give proofs: wherefore he is not punished if he is unable to prove. For this reason writing is unnecessary in a denunciation: and it suffices that the denunciation be made verbally to the Church, who will proceed, in virtue of her office, to the correction of the brother. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod accusatio non reddatur iniusta per calumniam, praevaricationem et tergiversationem. Quia sicut dicitur II, qu. III, calumniari est falsa crimina intendere. Sed quandoque aliquis alteri falsum crimen obiicit ex ignorantia facti, quae excusat. Ergo videtur quod non semper reddatur iniusta accusatio si sit calumniosa. | Objection 1. It would seem that an accusation is not rendered unjust by calumny, collusion or evasion. For according to Decret. II, qu. iii [Append. Grat. ad can. Si quem poenituerit.], "calumny consists in falsely charging a person with a crime." Now sometimes one man falsely accuses another of a crime through ignorance of fact which excuses him. Therefore it seems that an accusation is not always rendered unjust through being slanderous. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, ibidem dicitur quod praevaricari est vera crimina abscondere. Sed hoc non videtur esse illicitum, quia homo non tenetur ad omnia crimina detegenda, ut supra dictum est. Ergo videtur quod accusatio non reddatur iniusta ex praevaricatione. | Objection 2. Further, it is stated by the same authority that "collusion consists in hiding the truth about a crime." But seemingly this is not unlawful, because one is not bound to disclose every crime, as stated above (1; 33, 7). Therefore it seems that an accusation is not rendered unjust by collusion. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut ibidem dicitur, tergiversari est in universo ab accusatione desistere. Sed hoc absque iniustitia fieri potest, dicitur enim ibidem, si quem poenituerit criminaliter accusationem et inscriptionem fecisse de eo quod probare non potuerit, si ei cum accusato innocente convenerit, invicem se absolvant. Ergo accusatio non redditur iniusta per tergiversationem. | Objection 3. Further, it is stated by the same authority that "evasion consists in withdrawing altogether from an accusation." But this can be done without injustice: for it is stated there also: "If a man repent of having made a wicked accusation and inscription* in a matter which he cannot prove, and come to an understanding with the innocent party whom he has accused, let them acquit one another." [The accuser was bound by Roman Law to endorse (se inscribere) the writ of accusation. The effect of this endorsement or inscription was that the accuser bound himself, if he failed to prove the accusation, to suffer the same punishment as the accused would have to suffer if proved guilty.] Therefore evasion does not render an accusation unjust. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod ibidem dicitur, accusatorum temeritas tribus modis detegitur, aut enim calumniantur, aut praevaricantur, aut tergiversantur. | On the contrary, It is stated by the same authority: "The rashness of accusers shows itself in three ways. For they are guilty either of calumny, or of collusion, or of evasion." |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, accusatio ordinatur ad bonum commune, quod intenditur per cognitionem criminis. Nullus autem debet alicui nocere iniuste ut bonum commune promoveat. Et ideo in accusatione duplici ratione contingit esse peccatum. Uno modo, ex eo quod iniuste agit contra eum qui accusatur, falsa crimina ei imponendo, quod est calumniari. Alio modo, ex parte reipublicae, cuius bonum principaliter intenditur in accusatione, dum aliquis impedit malitiose punitionem peccati. Quod iterum dupliciter contingit. Uno modo, fraudem in accusatione adhibendo. Et hoc pertinet ad praevaricationem, nam praevaricator est quasi varicator, qui adversam partem adiuvat, prodita causa sua. Alio modo, totaliter ab accusatione desistendo. Quod est tergiversari, in hoc enim quod desistit ab hoc quod coeperat, quasi tergum vertere videtur. | I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), accusation is ordered for the common good which it aims at procuring by means of knowledge of the crime. Now no man ought to injure a person unjustly, in order to promote the common good. Wherefore a man may sin in two ways when making an accusation: first through acting unjustly against the accused, by charging him falsely with the commission of a crime, i.e. by calumniating him; secondly, on the part of the commonwealth, whose good is intended chiefly in an accusation, when anyone with wicked intent hinders a sin being punished. This again happens in two ways: first by having recourse to fraud in making the accusation. This belongs to collusion [prevaricatio] for "he that is guilty of collusion is like one who rides astraddle [varicator], because he helps the other party, and betrays his own side" [Append. Grat. ad can. Si quem poenituerit.]. Secondly by withdrawing altogether from the accusation. This is evasion [tergiversatio] for by desisting from what he had begun he seems to turn his back [tergum vertere]. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homo non debet ad accusationem procedere nisi de re sibi omnino certa, in quo ignorantia facti locum non habeat. Nec tamen qui falsum crimen alicui imponit calumniatur, sed solum qui ex malitia in falsam accusationem prorumpit. Contingit enim quandoque ex animi levitate ad accusationem procedere, quia scilicet aliquis nimis faciliter credit quod audivit, et hoc temeritatis est. Aliquando autem ex iusto errore movetur aliquis ad accusandum. Quae omnia secundum prudentiam iudicis debent discerni, ut non prorumpat eum calumniatum fuisse qui vel ex levitate animi vel ex iusto errore in falsam accusationem prorupit. | Reply to Objection 1. A man ought not to proceed to accuse except of what he is quite certain about, wherein ignorance of fact has no place. Yet he who falsely charges another with a crime is not a calumniator unless he gives utterance to false accusations out of malice. For it happens sometimes that a man through levity of mind proceeds to accuse someone, because he believes too readily what he hears, and this pertains to rashness; while, on the other hand sometimes a man is led to make an accusation on account of an error for which he is not to blame. All these things must be weighed according to the judge's prudence, lest he should declare a man to have been guilty of calumny, who through levity of mind or an error for which he is not to be blamed has uttered a false accusation. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod non quicumque abscondit vera crimina praevaricatur, sed solum si fraudulenter abscondit ea de quibus accusationem proponit, colludens cum reo, proprias probationes dissimulando, et falsas excusationes admittendo. | Reply to Objection 2. Not everyone who hides the truth about a crime is guilty of collusion, but only he who deceitfully hides the matter about which he makes the accusation, by collusion with the defendant, dissembling his proofs, and admitting false excuses. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod tergiversari est ab accusatione desistere omnino animum accusandi deponendo, non qualitercumque, sed inordinate. Contingit autem aliquem ab accusatione desistere ordinate absque vitio, dupliciter. Uno modo, si in ipso accusationis processu cognoverit falsum esse id de quo accusabat, et si pari consensu se absolvunt accusator et reus. Alio modo, si princeps, ad quem pertinet cura boni communis, quod per accusationem intenditur, accusationem aboleverit. | Reply to Objection 3. Evasion consists in withdrawing altogether from the accusation, by renouncing the intention of accusing, not anyhow, but inordinately. There are two ways, however, in which a man may rightly desist from accusing without committing a sin --in one way, in the very process of accusation, if it come to his knowledge that the matter of his accusation is false, and then by mutual consent the accuser and the defendant acquit one another--in another way, if the accusation be quashed by the sovereign to whom belongs the care of the common good, which it is intended to procure by the accusation. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod accusator qui in probatione defecerit non teneatur ad poenam talionis. Contingit enim quandoque aliquem ex iusto errore ad accusationem procedere, in quo casu iudex accusatorem absolvit, ut dicitur II, qu. III. Non ergo accusator qui in probatione defecerit tenetur ad poenam talionis. | Objection 1. It would seem that the accuser who fails to prove his indictment is not bound to the punishment of retaliation. For sometimes a man is led by a just error to make an accusation, in which case the judge acquit the accuser, as stated in Decret. II, qu. iii. [Append. Grat., ad can. Si quem poenituerit.] Therefore the accuser who fails to prove his indictment is not bound to the punishment of retaliation. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, si poena talionis ei qui iniuste accusat sit iniungenda, hoc erit propter iniuriam in aliquem commissam. Sed non propter iniuriam commissam in personam accusati, quia sic princeps non posset hanc poenam remittere. Nec etiam propter iniuriam illatam in rempublicam, quia sic accusatus non posset eum absolvere. Ergo poena talionis non debetur ei qui in accusatione defecerit. | Objection 2. Further, if the punishment of retaliation ought to be inflicted on one who has accused unjustly, this will be on account of the injury he has done to someone--but not on account of any injury done to the person of the accused, for in that case the sovereign could not remit this punishment, nor on account of an injury to the commonwealth, because then the accused could not acquit him. Therefore the punishment of retaliation is not due to one who has failed to prove his accusation. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, eidem peccato non debetur duplex poena, secundum illud Nahum I, non iudicabit Deus bis in idipsum. Sed ille qui in probatione deficit incurrit poenam infamiae, quam etiam Papa non videtur posse remittere, secundum illud Gelasii Papae, quanquam animas per poenitentiam salvare possimus, infamiam tamen abolere non possumus. Non ergo tenetur ad poenam talionis. | Objection 3. Further, the one same sin does not deserve a twofold punishment, according to Nahum 1:9 [Septuagint version]: "God shall not judge the same thing a second time." But he who fails to prove his accusation, incurs the punishment due to defamation [Can. Onfames, caus. vi, qu. 1, which punishment even the Pope seemingly cannot remit, according to a statement of Pope Gelasius [Callist. I, Epist. ad omn. Gall. episc.]: "Although we are able to save souls by Penance, we are unable to remove the defamation." Therefore he is not bound to suffer the punishment of retaliation. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Hadrianus Papa dicit, qui non probaverit quod obiecit, poenam quam intulerit ipse patiatur. | On the contrary, Pope Hadrian I says (Cap. lii): "He that fails to prove his accusation, must himself suffer the punishment which his accusation inferred." |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, accusator in causa accusationis constituitur pars intendens ad poenam accusati. Ad iudicem autem pertinet ut inter eos iustitiae aequalitatem constituat. Iustitiae autem aequalitas hoc requirit, ut nocumentum quod quis alteri intentat, ipse patiatur, secundum illud Exod. XXI, oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente. Et ideo iustum est ut ille qui per accusationem aliquem in periculum gravis poenae inducit, ipse etiam similem poenam patiatur. | I answer that, As stated above (Article 2), in a case, where the procedure is by way of accusation, the accuser holds the position of a party aiming at the punishment of the accused. Now the duty of the judge is to establish the equality of justice between them: and the equality of justice requires that a man should himself suffer whatever harm he has intended to be inflicted on another, according to Exodus 21:24, "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth." Consequently it is just that he who by accusing a man has put him in danger of being punished severely, should himself suffer a like punishment. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., in iustitia non semper competit contrapassum simpliciter, quia multum differt an aliquis voluntarie an involuntarie alium laedat. Voluntarium autem meretur poenam, sed involuntario debetur venia. Et ideo quando iudex cognoverit aliquem de falso accusasse non voluntate nocendi, sed involuntarie propter ignorantiam ex iusto errore, non imponit poenam talionis. | Reply to Objection 1. As the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 5) justice does not always require counterpassion, because it matters considerably whether a man injures another voluntarily or not. Voluntary injury deserves punishment, involuntary deserves forgiveness. Hence when the judge becomes aware that a man has made a false accusation, not with a mind to do harm, but involuntarily through ignorance or a just error, he does not impose the punishment of retaliation. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ille qui male accusat peccat et contra personam accusati, et contra rempublicam. Unde propter utrumque punitur. Et hoc est quod dicitur Deut. XIX, cumque, diligentissime perscrutantes, invenerint falsum testem dixisse contra fratrem suum mendacium, reddent ei sicut fratri suo facere cogitavit, quod pertinet ad iniuriam personae, et postea, quantum ad iniuriam reipublicae, subditur, et auferes malum de medio tui, ut audientes ceteri timorem habeant, et nequaquam talia audeant facere. Specialiter tamen personae accusati facit iniuriam si de falso accuset, et ideo accusatus, si innocens fuerit, potest ei iniuriam suam remittere; maxime si non calumniose accusaverit, sed ex animi levitate. Si vero ab accusatione innocentis desistat propter aliquam collusionem cum adversario, facit iniuriam reipublicae, et hoc non potest ei remitti ab eo qui accusatur, sed potest ei remitti per principem, qui curam reipublicae gerit. | Reply to Objection 2. He who accuses wrongfully sins both against the person of the accused and against the commonwealth; wherefore he is punished on both counts. This is the meaning of what is written (Deuteronomy 19:18-20): "And when after most diligent inquisition, they shall find that the false witness hath told a lie against his brother: then shall render to him as he meant to do to his brother," and this refers to the injury done to the person: and afterwards, referring to the injury done to the commonwealth, the text continues: "And thou shalt take away the evil out of the midst of thee, that others hearing may fear, and may not dare to do such things." Specially, however, does he injure the person of the accused, if he accuse him falsely. Wherefore the accused, if innocent, may condone the injury done to himself, particularly if the accusation were made not calumniously but out of levity of mind. But if the accuser desist from accusing an innocent man, through collusion with the latter's adversary, he inflicts an injury on the commonwealth: and this cannot be condoned by the accused, although it can be remitted by the sovereign, who has charge of the commonwealth. |
| IIª-IIae q. 68 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod poenam talionis meretur accusator in recompensationem nocumenti quod proximo inferre intentat, sed poena infamiae ei debetur propter malitiam ex qua calumniose alium accusat. Et quandoque quidem princeps remittit poenam, et non abolet infamiam, quandoque autem etiam infamiam abolet. Unde et Papa potest huiusmodi infamiam abolere, et quod dicit Papa Gelasius, infamiam abolere non possumus, intelligendum est vel de infamia facti, vel quia eam abolere aliquando non expedit. Vel etiam loquitur de infamia irrogata per iudicem civilem, sicut dicit Gratianus. | Reply to Objection 3. The accuser deserves the punishment of retaliation in compensation for the harm he attempts to inflict on his neighbor: but the punishment of disgrace is due to him for his wickedness in accusing another man calumniously. Sometimes the sovereign remits the punishment, and not the disgrace, and sometimes he removes the disgrace also: wherefore the Pope also can remove this disgrace. When Pope Gelasius says: "We cannot remove the disgrace," he may mean either the disgrace attaching to the deed [infamia facti], or that sometimes it is not expedient to remove it, or again he may be referring to the disgrace inflicted by the civil judge, as Gratian states (Callist. I, Epist. ad omn. Gall. episc.). |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 pr. Deinde considerandum est de peccatis quae sunt contra iustitiam ex parte rei. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum peccet aliquis mortaliter veritatem negando per quam condemnaretur. Secundo, utrum liceat alicui se calumniose defendere. Tertio, utrum liceat alicui iudicium subterfugere appellando. Quarto, utrum liceat alicui condemnato per violentiam se defendere, si adsit facultas. | Question 69. Sins committed against justice: of the part of the defendant 1. Is it a mortal sin to deny the truth which would lead to one's condemnation? 2. Is it lawful to defend oneself with calumnies? 3. Is it lawful to escape condemnation by appealing? 4. Is it lawful for one who has been condemned to defend himself by violence if he be able to do so? |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod absque peccato mortali possit accusatus veritatem negare per quam condemnaretur. Dicit enim Chrysostomus, non tibi dico ut te prodas in publicum, neque apud alium accuses. Sed si veritatem confiteretur in iudicio accusatus, seipsum proderet et accusaret. Non ergo tenetur veritatem dicere. Et ita non peccat mortaliter si in iudicio mentiatur. | Objection 1. It would seem one can, without a mortal sin, deny the truth which would lead to one's condemnation. For Chrysostom says (Hom. xxxi super Ep. ad Heb.): "I do not say that you should lay bare your guilt publicly, nor accuse yourself before others." Now if the accused were to confess the truth in court, he would lay bare his guilt and be his own accuser. Therefore he is not bound to tell the truth: and so he does not sin mortally if he tell a lie in court. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, sicut mendacium officiosum est quando aliquis mentitur ut alium a morte liberet, ita mendacium officiosum esse videtur quando aliquis mentitur ut se liberet a morte, quia plus sibi tenetur quam alteri. Mendacium autem officiosum non ponitur esse peccatum mortale, sed veniale. Ergo si accusatus veritatem in iudicio neget ut se a morte liberet, non peccat mortaliter. | Objection 2. Further, just as it is an officious lie when one tells a lie in order to rescue another man from death, so is it an officious lie when one tells a lie in order to free oneself from death, since one is more bound towards oneself than towards another. Now an officious lie is considered not a mortal but a venial sin. Therefore if the accused denies the truth in court, in order to escape death, he does not sin mortally. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, omne peccatum mortale est contra caritatem, ut supra dictum est. Sed quod accusatus mentiatur excusando se a peccato sibi imposito, non contrariatur caritati, neque quantum ad dilectionem Dei neque quantum ad dilectionem proximi. Ergo huiusmodi mendacium non est peccatum mortale. | Objection 3. Further, every mortal sin is contrary to charity, as stated above (Question 24, Article 12). But that the accused lie by denying himself to be guilty of the crime laid to his charge is not contrary to charity, neither as regards the love we owe God, nor as to the love due to our neighbor. Therefore such a lie is not a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra, omne quod est contrarium divinae gloriae est peccatum mortale, quia ex praecepto tenemur omnia in gloriam Dei facere, ut patet I ad Cor. X. Sed quod reus id quod contra se est confiteatur, pertinet ad gloriam Dei, ut patet per id quod Iosue dixit ad Achar, fili mi, da gloriam domino Deo Israel, et confitere atque indica mihi quid feceris, ne abscondas, ut habetur Iosue VII. Ergo mentiri ad excusandum peccatum est peccatum mortale. | On the contrary, Whatever is opposed to the glory of God is a mortal sin, because we are bound by precept to "do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31). Now it is to the glory of God that the accused confess that which is alleged against him, as appears from the words of Josue to Achan, "My son, give glory to the Lord God of Israel, and confess and tell me what thou hast done, hide it not" (Joshua 7:19). Therefore it is a mortal sin to lie in order to cover one's guilt. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quicumque facit contra debitum iustitiae, mortaliter peccat, sicut supra dictum est. Pertinet autem ad debitum iustitiae quod aliquis obediat suo superiori in his ad quae ius praelationis se extendit. Iudex autem, ut supra dictum est, superior est respectu eius qui iudicatur. Et ideo ex debito tenetur accusatus iudici veritatem exponere quam ab eo secundum formam iuris exigit. Et ideo si confiteri noluerit veritatem quam dicere tenetur, vel si eam mendaciter negaverit, mortaliter peccat. Si vero iudex hoc exquirat quod non potest secundum ordinem iuris, non tenetur ei accusatus respondere, sed potest vel per appellationem vel aliter licite subterfugere, mendacium tamen dicere non licet. | I answer that, Whoever acts against the due order of justice, sins mortally, as stated above (Question 59, Article 4). Now it belongs to the order of justice that a man should obey his superior in those matters to which the rights of his authority extend. Again, the judge, as stated above (67, 1), is the superior in relation to the person whom he judges. Therefore the accused is in duty bound to tell the judge the truth which the latter exacts from him according to the form of law. Hence if he refuse to tell the truth which he is under obligation to tell, or if he mendaciously deny it, he sins mortally. If, on the other hand, the judge asks of him that which he cannot ask in accordance with the order of justice, the accused is not bound to satisfy him, and he may lawfully escape by appealing or otherwise: but it is not lawful for him to lie. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quando aliquis secundum ordinem iuris a iudice interrogatur, non ipse se prodit, sed ab alio proditur, dum ei necessitas respondendi imponitur per eum cui obedire tenetur. | Reply to Objection 1. When a man is examined by the judge according to the order of justice, he does not lay bare his own guilt, but his guilt is unmasked by another, since the obligation of answering is imposed on him by one whom he is bound to obey. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod mentiri ad liberandum aliquem a morte cum iniuria alterius, non est mendacium simpliciter officiosum, sed habet aliquid de pernicioso admixtum. Cum autem aliquis mentitur in iudicio ad excusationem sui, iniuriam facit ei cui obedire tenetur, dum sibi denegat quod ei debet, scilicet confessionem veritatis. | Reply to Objection 2. To lie, with injury to another person, in order to rescue a man from death is not a purely officious lie, for it has an admixture of the pernicious lie: and when a man lies in court in order to exculpate himself, he does an injury to one whom he is bound to obey, since he refuses him his due, namely an avowal of the truth. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui mentitur in iudicio se excusando, facit et contra dilectionem Dei, cuius est iudicium; et contra dilectionem proximi, tum ex parte iudicis, cui debitum negat; tum ex parte accusatoris, qui punitur si in probatione deficiat. Unde et in Psalm. dicitur, ne declines cor meum in verba malitiae, ad excusandas excusationes in peccatis, ubi dicit Glossa, haec est consuetudo impudentium, ut deprehensi per aliqua falsa se excusent. Et Gregorius, XXII Moral., exponens illud Iob XXXI, si abscondi quasi homo peccatum meum, dicit, usitatum humani generis vitium est et latendo peccatum committere, et commissum negando abscondere, et convictum defendendo multiplicare. | Reply to Objection 3. He who lies in court by denying his guilt, acts both against the love of God to whom judgment belongs, and against the love of his neighbor, and this not only as regards the judge, to whom he refuses his due, but also as regards his accuser, who is punished if he fail to prove his accusation. Hence it is written (Psalm 140:4): "Incline not my heart to evil words, to make excuses in sins": on which words a gloss says: "Shameless men are wont by lying to deny their guilt when they have been found out." And Gregory in expounding Job 31:33, "If as a man I have hid my sin," says (Moral. xxii, 15): "It is a common vice of mankind to sin in secret, by lying to hide the sin that has been committed, and when convicted to aggravate the sin by defending oneself." |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod accusato liceat calumniose se defendere. Quia secundum iura civilia, in causa sanguinis licitum est cuilibet adversarium corrumpere. Sed hoc maxime est calumniose se defendere. Ergo non peccat accusatus in causa sanguinis si calumniose se defendat. | Objection 1. It would seem lawful for the accused to defend himself with calumnies. Because, according to civil law (Cod. II, iv, De transact. 18), when a man is on trial for his life it is lawful for him to bribe his adversary. Now this is done chiefly by defending oneself with calumnies. Therefore the accused who is on trial for his life does not sin if he defend himself with calumnies. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, accusator cum accusato colludens poenam recipit legibus constitutam, ut habetur, II, qu. III, non autem imponitur poena accusato propter hoc quod cum accusatore colludit. Ergo videtur quod liceat accusato calumniose se defendere. | Objection 2. Further, an accuser who is guilty of collusion with the accused, is punishable by law (Decret. II, qu. iii, can. Si quem poenit.). Yet no punishment is imposed on the accused for collusion with the accuser. Therefore it would seem lawful for the accused to defend himself with calumnies. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, Prov. XIV dicitur, sapiens timet et declinat a malo, stultus transilit et confidit. Sed illud quod fit per sapientiam non est peccatum. Ergo si aliquis qualitercumque se liberet a malo, non peccat. | Objection 3. Further, it is written (Proverbs 14:16): "A wise man feareth and declineth from evil, the fool leapeth over and is confident." Now what is done wisely is no sin. Therefore no matter how a man declines from evil, he does not sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod etiam in causa criminali iuramentum de calumnia est praestandum, ut habetur extra, de iuramento Calum., inhaerentes. Quod non esset si calumniose defendere se liceret. Ergo non est licitum accusato calumniose se defendere. | On the contrary, In criminal cases an oath has to be taken against calumnious allegations (Extra, De juramento calumniae, cap. Onhaerentes): and this would not be the case if it were lawful to defend oneself with calumnies. Therefore it is not lawful for the accused to defend himself with calumnies. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod aliud est veritatem tacere, aliud est falsitatem proponere. Quorum primum in aliquo casu licet. Non enim aliquis tenetur omnem veritatem confiteri, sed illam solum quam ab eo potest et debet requirere iudex secundum ordinem iuris, puta cum praecessit infamia super aliquo crimine, vel aliqua expressa indicia apparuerunt, vel etiam cum praecessit probatio semiplena. Falsitatem tamen proponere in nullo casu licet alicui. Ad id autem quod licitum est potest aliquis procedere vel per vias licitas et fini intento accommodas, quod pertinet ad prudentiam, vel per aliquas vias illicitas et proposito fini incongruas, quod pertinet ad astutiam, quae exercetur per fraudem et dolum, ut ex supradictis patet. Quorum primum est laudabile; secundum vero vitiosum. Sic igitur reo qui accusatur licet se defendere veritatem occultando quam confiteri non tenetur, per aliquos convenientes modos, puta quod non respondeat ad quae respondere non tenetur. Hoc autem non est calumniose se defendere, sed magis prudenter evadere. Non autem licet ei vel falsitatem dicere, vel veritatem tacere quam confiteri tenetur; neque etiam aliquam fraudem vel dolum adhibere, quia fraus et dolus vim mendacii habent. Et hoc est calumniose se defendere. | I answer that, It is one thing to withhold the truth, and another to utter a falsehood. The former is lawful sometimes, for a man is not bound to divulge all truth, but only such as the judge can and must require of him according to the order of justice; as, for instance, when the accused is already disgraced through the commission of some crime, or certain indications of his guilt have already been discovered, or again when his guilt is already more or less proven. On the other hand it is never lawful to make a false declaration. As regards what he may do lawfully, a man can employ either lawful means, and such as are adapted to the end in view, which belongs to prudence; or he can use unlawful means, unsuitable to the proposed end, and this belongs to craftiness, which is exercised by fraud and guile, as shown above (55, 3, seqq.). His conduct in the former case is praiseworthy, in the latter sinful. Accordingly it is lawful for the accused to defend himself by withholding the truth that he is not bound to avow, by suitable means, for instance by not answering such questions as he is not bound to answer. This is not to defend himself with calumnies, but to escape prudently. But it is unlawful for him, either to utter a falsehood, or to withhold a truth that he is bound to avow, or to employ guile or fraud, because fraud and guile have the force of a lie, and so to use them would be to defend oneself with calumnies. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod multa secundum leges humanas impunita relinquuntur quae secundum divinum iudicium sunt peccata, sicut patet in simplici fornicatione, quia lex humana non exigit ab homine omnimodam virtutem, quae paucorum est, et non potest inveniri in tanta multitudine populi quantam lex humana sustinere habet necesse. Quod autem aliquis non velit aliquod peccatum committere ut mortem corporalem evadat, cuius periculum in causa sanguinis imminet reo, est perfectae virtutis, quia omnium temporalium maxime terribile est mors, ut dicitur in III Ethic. Et ideo si reus in causa sanguinis corrumpat adversarium suum, peccat quidem inducendo eum ad illicitum, non autem huic peccato lex civilis adhibet poenam. Et pro tanto licitum esse dicitur. | Reply to Objection 1. Human laws leave many things unpunished, which according to the Divine judgment are sins, as, for example, simple fornication; because human law does not exact perfect virtue from man, for such virtue belongs to few and cannot be found in so great a number of people as human law has to direct. That a man is sometimes unwilling to commit a sin in order to escape from the death of the body, the danger of which threatens the accused who is on trial for his life, is an act of perfect virtue, since "death is the most fearful of all temporal things" (Ethic. iii, 6). Wherefore if the accused, who is on trial for his life, bribes his adversary, he sins indeed by inducing him to do what is unlawful, yet the civil law does not punish this sin, and in this sense it is said to be lawful. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod accusator, si colludat cum reo qui noxius, est, poenam incurrit, ex quo patet quod peccat. Unde, cum inducere aliquem ad peccandum sit peccatum, vel qualitercumque peccati participem esse, cum apostolus dicat dignos morte eos qui peccantibus consentiunt, manifestum est quod etiam reus peccat cum adversario colludendo. Non tamen secundum leges humanas imponitur sibi poena, propter rationem iam dictam. | Reply to Objection 2. If the accuser is guilty of collusion with the accused and the latter is guilty, he incurs punishment, and so it is evident that he sins. Wherefore, since it is a sin to induce a man to sin, or to take part in a sin in any way--for the Apostle says (Romans 1:32), that "they . . . are worthy of death . . . that consent" to those who sin--it is evident that the accused also sins if he is guilty of collusion with his adversary. Nevertheless according to human laws no punishment is inflicted on him, for the reason given above. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod sapiens non abscondit se calumniose, sed prudenter. | Reply to Objection 3. The wise man hides himself not by slandering others but by exercising prudence. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod reo non liceat iudicium declinare per appellationem. Dicit enim apostolus, Rom. XIII, omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit. Sed reus appellando recusat subiici potestati superiori, scilicet iudici. Ergo peccat. | Objection 1. It would seem unlawful for the accused to escape judgment by appealing. The Apostle says (Romans 13:1): "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers." Now the accused by appealing refuses to be subject to a higher power, viz. the judge. Therefore he commits a sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, maius est vinculum ordinariae potestatis quam propriae electionis. Sed sicut legitur II, qu. VI, a iudicibus quos communis consensus elegerit non liceat provocari. Ergo multo minus licet appellare a iudicibus ordinariis. | Objection 2. Further, ordinary authority is more binding than that which we choose for ourselves. Now according to the Decretals (II, qu. vi, cap. A judicibus) it is unlawful to appeal from the judges chosen by common consent. Much less therefore is it lawful to appeal from ordinary judges. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, illud quod semel est licitum, semper est licitum. Sed non est licitum appellare post decimum diem, neque tertio super eodem. Ergo videtur quod appellatio non sit secundum se licita. | Objection 3. Further, whatever is lawful once is always lawful. But it is not lawful to appeal after the tenth day [Can. Anteriorum, caus. ii, qu. 6, nor a third time on the same point [Can. Si autem, caus. ii, qu. 6. Therefore it would seem that an appeal is unlawful in itself. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Paulus Caesarem appellavit, ut habetur Act. XXV. | On the contrary, Paul appealed to Caesar (Acts 25). |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod duplici de causa contingit aliquem appellare. Uno quidem modo, confidentia iustae causae, quia videlicet iniuste a iudice gravatur. Et sic licitum est appellare, hoc enim est prudenter evadere. Unde II, qu. VI, dicitur, omnis oppressus libere sacerdotum si voluerit appellet iudicium, et a nullo prohibeatur. Alio modo aliquis appellat causa afferendae morae, ne contra eum iusta sententia proferatur. Et hoc est calumniose se defendere, quod est illicitum, sicut dictum est, facit enim iniuriam et iudici, cuius officium impedit, et adversario suo, cuius iustitiam, quantum potest, perturbat. Et ideo sicut dicitur II, qu. VI, omni modo puniendus est cuius iniusta appellatio pronuntiatur. | I answer that, There are two motives for which a man appeals. First through confidence in the justice of his cause, seeing that he is unjustly oppressed by the judge, and then it is lawful for him to appeal, because this is a prudent means of escape. Hence it is laid down (Decret. II, qu. vi, can. Omnis oppressus): "All those who are oppressed are free, if they so wish, to appeal to the judgment of the priests, and no man may stand in their way." Secondly, a man appeals in order to cause a delay, lest a just sentence be pronounced against him. This is to defend oneself calumniously, and is unlawful as stated above (Article 2). For he inflicts an injury both on the judge, whom he hinders in the exercise of his office, and on his adversary, whose justice he disturbs as far as he is able. Hence it is laid down (II, qu. vi, can. Omnino puniendus): "Without doubt a man should be punished if his appeal be declared unjust." |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod potestati inferiori intantum aliquis subiici debet inquantum ordinem superioris servat, a quo si exorbitaverit, ei subiici non oportet, puta si aliud iusserit proconsul, et aliud imperator, ut patet per Glossam Rom. XIII. Cum autem iudex iniuste aliquem gravat, quantum ad hoc relinquit ordinem superioris potestatis, secundum quam necessitas sibi iuste iudicandi imponitur. Et ideo licitum est ei qui contra iustitiam gravatur, ad directionem superioris potestatis recurrere appellando, vel ante sententiam vel post. Et quia non praesumitur esse rectitudo ubi vera fides non est, ideo non licet Catholico ad infidelem iudicem appellare, secundum illud II, qu. VI, Catholicus qui causam suam, sive iustam sive iniustam, ad iudicium alterius fidei iudicis provocaverit, excommunicetur. Nam et apostolus arguit eos qui iudicio contendebant apud infideles. | Reply to Objection 1. A man should submit to the lower authority in so far as the latter observes the order of the higher authority. If the lower authority departs from the order of the higher, we ought not to submit to it, for instance "if the proconsul order one thing and the emperor another," according to a gloss on Romans 13:2. Now when a judge oppresses anyone unjustly, in this respect he departs from the order of the higher authority, whereby he is obliged to judge justly. Hence it is lawful for a man who is oppressed unjustly, to have recourse to the authority of the higher power, by appealing either before or after sentence has been pronounced. And since it is to be presumed that there is no rectitude where true faith is lacking, it is unlawful for a Catholic to appeal to an unbelieving judge, according to Decretals II, qu. vi, can. Catholicus: "The Catholic who appeals to the decision of a judge of another faith shall be excommunicated, whether his case be just or unjust." Hence the Apostle also rebuked those who went to law before unbelievers (1 Corinthians 6:6). |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ex proprio defectu vel negligentia procedit quod aliquis sua sponte se alterius iudicio subiiciat de cuius iustitia non confidit. Levis etiam animi esse videtur ut quis non permaneat in eo quod semel approbavit. Et ideo rationabiliter denegatur subsidium appellationis a iudicibus arbitrariis, qui non habent potestatem nisi ex consensu litigantium. Sed potestas iudicis ordinarii non dependet ex consensu illius qui eius iudicio subditur, sed ex auctoritate regis et principis, qui eum instituit. Et ideo contra eius iniustum gravamen lex tribuit appellationis subsidium, ita quod, etiam si sit simul ordinarius et arbitrarius iudex, potest ab eo appellari; quia videtur ordinaria potestas occasio fuisse quod arbiter eligeretur; nec debet ad defectum imputari eius qui consensit sicut in arbitrum in eum quem princeps iudicem ordinarium dedit. | Reply to Objection 2. It is due to a man's own fault or neglect that, of his own accord, he submits to the judgment of one in whose justice he has no confidence. Moreover it would seem to point to levity of mind for a man not to abide by what he has once approved of. Hence it is with reason that the law refuses us the faculty of appealing from the decision of judges of our own choice, who have no power save by virtue of the consent of the litigants. On the other hand the authority of an ordinary judge depends, not on the consent of those who are subject to his judgment, but on the authority of the king or prince who appointed him. Hence, as a remedy against his unjust oppression, the law allows one to have recourse to appeal, so that even if the judge be at the same time ordinary and chosen by the litigants, it is lawful to appeal from his decision, since seemingly his ordinary authority occasioned his being chosen as arbitrator. Nor is it to be imputed as a fault to the man who consented to his being arbitrator, without adverting to the fact that he was appointed ordinary judge by the prince. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod aequitas iuris ita subvenit uni parti quod altera non gravetur. Et ideo tempus decem dierum concessit ad appellandum, quod sufficiens aestimavit ad deliberandum an expediat appellare. Si vero non esset determinatum tempus in quo appellare liceret, semper certitudo iudicii remaneret in suspenso, et ita pars altera damnaretur. Ideo autem non est concessum ut tertio aliquis appellet super eodem, quia non est probabile toties iudices a recto iudicio declinare. | Reply to Objection 3. The equity of the law so guards the interests of the one party that the other is not oppressed. Thus it allows ten days for appeal to be made, this being considered sufficient time for deliberating on the expediency of an appeal. If on the other hand there were no fixed time limit for appealing, the certainty of judgment would ever be in suspense, so that the other party would suffer an injury. The reason why it is not allowed to appeal a third time on the same point, is that it is not probable that the judges would fail to judge justly so many times. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod liceat condemnato ad mortem se defendere, si possit. Illud enim ad quod natura inclinat semper est licitum, quasi de iure naturali existens. Sed naturae inclinatio est ad resistendum corrumpentibus, non solum in hominibus et animalibus, sed etiam in insensibilibus rebus. Ergo licet reo condemnato resistere, si potest, ne tradatur in mortem. | Objection 1. It would seem that a man who is condemned to death may lawfully defend himself if he can. For it is always lawful to do that to which nature inclines us, as being of natural right, so to speak. Now, to resist corruption is an inclination of nature not only in men and animals but also in things devoid of sense. Therefore if he can do so, the accused, after condemnation, may lawfully resist being put to death. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, sicut aliquis sententiam mortis contra se latam subterfugit resistendo, ita etiam fugiendo. Sed licitum esse videtur quod aliquis se a morte per fugam liberet, secundum illud Eccli. IX, longe esto ab homine potestatem habente occidendi et non vivificandi. Ergo etiam licitum est resistere. | Objection 2. Further, just as a man, by resistance, escapes the death to which he has been condemned, so does he by flight. Now it is lawful seemingly to escape death by flight, according to Sirach 9:18, "Keep thee far from the man that hath power to kill [and not to quicken]" [The words in the brackets are not in the Vulgate]. Therefore it is also lawful for the accused to resist. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, Prov. XXIV dicitur, erue eos qui ducuntur ad mortem, et eos qui trahuntur ad interitum liberare ne cesses. Sed plus tenetur aliquis sibi quam alteri. Ergo licitum est quod aliquis condemnatus seipsum defendat ne in mortem tradatur. | Objection 3. Further, it is written (Proverbs 24:11): "Deliver them that are led to death: and those that are drawn to death forbear not to deliver." Now a man is under greater obligation to himself than to another. Therefore it is lawful for a condemned man to defend himself from being put to death. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit apostolus, Rom. XIII, qui potestati resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit, et ipse sibi damnationem acquirit. Sed condemnatus se defendendo potestati resistit quantum ad hoc in quo est divinitus instituta ad vindictam malefactorum, laudem vero bonorum. Ergo peccat se defendendo. | On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 13:2): "He that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation." Now a condemned man, by defending himself, resists the power in the point of its being ordained by God "for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of the good" [1 Peter 2:14. Therefore he sins in defending himself. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod aliquis damnatur ad mortem dupliciter. Uno modo, iuste. Et sic non licet condemnato se defendere, licitum enim est iudici eum resistentem impugnare; unde relinquitur quod ex parte eius sit bellum iniustum. Unde indubitanter peccat. Alio modo condemnatur aliquis iniuste. Et tale iudicium simile est violentiae latronum, secundum illud Ezech. XXII, principes eius in medio eius quasi lupi rapientes praedam ad effundendum sanguinem. Et ideo sicut licet resistere latronibus, ita licet resistere in tali casu malis principibus, nisi forte propter scandalum vitandum, cum ex hoc aliqua gravis turbatio timeretur. | I answer that, A man may be condemned to death in two ways. First justly, and then it is not lawful for the condemned to defend himself, because it is lawful for the judge to combat his resistance by force, so that on his part the fight is unjust, and consequently without any doubt he sins. Secondly a man is condemned unjustly: and such a sentence is like the violence of robbers, according to Ezekiel 22:21, "Her princes in the midst of her are like wolves ravening the prey to shed blood." Wherefore even as it is lawful to resist robbers, so is it lawful, in a like case, to resist wicked princes; except perhaps in order to avoid scandal, whence some grave disturbance might be feared to arise. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ideo homini data est ratio, ut ea ad quae natura inclinat non passim, sed secundum rationis ordinem exequatur. Et ideo non quaelibet defensio sui est licita, sed quae fit cum debito moderamine. | Reply to Objection 1. Reason was given to man that he might ensue those things to which his nature inclines, not in all cases, but in accordance with the order of reason. Hence not all self-defense is lawful, but only such as is accomplished with due moderation. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod nullus ita condemnatur quod ipse sibi inferat mortem, sed quod ipse mortem patiatur. Et ideo non tenetur facere id unde mors sequatur, quod est manere in loco unde ducatur ad mortem. Tenetur tamen non resistere agenti, quin patiatur quod iustum est eum pati. Sicut etiam si aliquis sit condemnatus ut fame moriatur, non peccat si cibum sibi occulte ministratum sumat, quia non sumere esset seipsum occidere. | Reply to Objection 2. When a man is condemned to death, he has not to kill himself, but to suffer death: wherefore he is not bound to do anything from which death would result, such as to stay in the place whence he would be led to execution. But he may not resist those who lead him to death, in order that he may not suffer what is just for him to suffer. Even so, if a man were condemned to die of hunger, he does not sin if he partakes of food brought to him secretly, because to refrain from taking it would be to kill himself. |
| IIª-IIae q. 69 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod per illud dictum sapientis non inducitur aliquis ad liberandum alium a morte contra ordinem iustitiae. Unde nec seipsum contra iustitiam resistendo aliquis debet liberare a morte. | Reply to Objection 3. This saying of the wise man does not direct that one should deliver a man from death in opposition to the order of justice: wherefore neither should a man deliver himself from death by resisting against justice. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 pr. Deinde considerandum est de iniustitia pertinente ad personam testis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum homo teneatur ad testimonium ferendum. Secundo, utrum duorum vel trium testimonium sufficiat. Tertio, utrum alicuius testimonium repellatur absque eius culpa. Quarto, utrum perhibere falsum testimonium sit peccatum mortale. | Question 70. Injustice with regard to the person of the witness 1. Is a man bound to give evidence? 2. Does the evidence of two or three witnesses suffice? 3. May a man's evidence be rejected without any fault on his part? 4. Is it a mortal sin to bear false witness? |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo non teneatur ad testimonium ferendum. Dicit enim Augustinus, in quaest. Gen., quod Abraham dicens de uxore sua, soror mea est, veritatem celari voluit, non mendacium dici. Sed veritatem celando aliquis a testificando abstinet. Ergo non tenetur aliquis ad testificandum. | Objection 1. It would seem that a man is not bound to give evidence. Augustine say (QQ. Genesis 1:26) [Cf. Contra Faust. xxii, 33,34, that when Abraham said of his wife (Genesis 20:2), "She is my sister," he wished the truth to be concealed and not a lie be told. Now, by hiding the truth a man abstains from giving evidence. Therefore a man is not bound to give evidence. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, nullus tenetur fraudulenter agere. Sed Prov. XI dicitur, qui ambulat fraudulenter revelat arcana, qui autem fidelis est celat amici commissum. Ergo non tenetur homo semper ad testificandum, praesertim super his quae sunt sibi in secreto ab amico commissa. | Objection 2. Further, no man is bound to act deceitfully. Now it is written (Proverbs 11:13): "He that walketh deceitfully revealeth secrets, but he that is faithful concealeth the thing committed to him by his friend." Therefore a man is not always bound to give evidence, especially on matters committed to him as a secret by a friend. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, ad ea quae sunt de necessitate salutis maxime tenentur clerici et sacerdotes. Sed clericis et sacerdotibus prohibetur ferre testimonium in causa sanguinis. Ergo testificari non est de necessitate salutis. | Objection 3. Further, clerics and priests, more than others, are bound to those things that are necessary for salvation. Yet clerics and priests are forbidden to give evidence when a man is on trial for his life. Therefore it is not necessary for salvation to give evidence. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, qui veritatem occultat, et qui prodit mendacium, uterque reus est, ille quia prodesse non vult, iste quia nocere desiderat. | On the contrary, Augustine [Can. Quisquis, caus. xi, qu. 3, cap. Falsidicus; cf. Isidore, Sentent. iii, 55 says: "Both he who conceals the truth and he who tells a lie are guilty, the former because he is unwilling to do good, the latter because he desires to hurt." |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in testimonio ferendo distinguendum est. Quia aliquando requiritur testimonium alicuius, aliquando non requiritur. Si requiritur testimonium alicuius subditi auctoritate superioris cui in his quae ad iustitiam pertinent obedire tenetur, non est dubium quin teneatur testimonium ferre in his in quibus secundum ordinem iuris testimonium ab eo exigitur, puta in manifestis, et in his de quibus infamia praecessit. Si autem exigatur ab eo testimonium in aliis, puta in occultis et de quibus infamia non praecessit, non tenetur ad testificandum. Si vero requiratur eius testimonium non auctoritate superioris cui obedire tenetur, tunc distinguendum est. Quia si testimonium requiratur ad liberandum hominem vel ab iniusta morte seu poena quacumque, vel a falsa infamia, vel etiam ab iniquo damno, tunc tenetur homo ad testificandum. Et si eius testimonium non requiratur, tenetur facere quod in se est ut veritatem denuntiet alicui qui ad hoc possit prodesse. Dicitur enim in Psalm., eripite pauperem, et egenum de manu peccatoris liberate; et Prov. XXIV, erue eos qui dicuntur ad mortem. Et Rom. I dicitur, digni sunt morte non solum qui faciunt, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus, ubi dicit Glossa, consentire est tacere, cum possis redarguere. Super his vero quae pertinent ad condemnationem alicuius, non tenetur aliquis ferre testimonium nisi cum a superiori compellitur secundum ordinem iuris. Quia si circa hoc veritas occultetur, nulli ex hoc speciale damnum nascitur. Vel, si immineat periculum accusatori, non est curandum, quia ipse se in hoc periculum sponte ingessit. Alia autem ratio est de reo, cui periculum imminet eo nolente. | I answer that, We must make a distinction in the matter of giving evidence: because sometimes a certain man's evidence is necessary, and sometimes not. If the necessary evidence is that of a man subject to a superior whom, in matters pertaining to justice, he is bound to obey, without doubt he is bound to give evidence on those points which are required of him in accordance with the order of justice, for instance on manifest things or when ill-report has preceded. If however he is required to give evidence on other points, for instance secret matters, and those of which no ill-report has preceded, he is not bound to give evidence. On the other hand, if his evidence be required by authority of a superior whom he is bound to obey, we must make a distinction: because if his evidence is required in order to deliver a man from an unjust death or any other penalty, or from false defamation, or some loss, in such cases he is bound to give evidence. Even if his evidence is not demanded, he is bound to do what he can to declare the truth to someone who may profit thereby. For it is written (Psalm 81:4): "Rescue the poor, and deliver the needy from the hand of the sinner"; and (Proverbs 24:11): "Deliver them that are led to death"; and (Romans 1:32): "They are worthy of death, not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them," on which words a gloss says: "To be silent when one can disprove is to consent." On matters pertaining to a man's condemnation, one is not bound to give evidence, except when one is constrained by a superior in accordance with the order of justice; since if the truth of such a matter be concealed, no particular injury is inflicted on anyone. Or, if some danger threatens the accuser, it matters not since he risked the danger of his own accord: whereas it is different with the accused, who incurs the danger against his will. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus loquitur de occultatione veritatis in casu illo quando aliquis non compellitur superioris auctoritate veritatem propalare; et quando occultatio veritatis nulli specialiter est damnosa. | Reply to Objection 1. Augustine is speaking of concealment of the truth in a case when a man is not compelled by his superior's authority to declare the truth, and when such concealment is not specially injurious to any person. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod de illis quae homini sunt commissa in secreto per confessionem, nullo modo debet testimonium ferre, quia huiusmodi non scit ut homo, sed tanquam Dei minister, et maius est vinculum sacramenti quolibet hominis praecepto. Circa ea vero quae aliter homini sub secreto committuntur, distinguendum est. Quandoque enim sunt talia quae, statim cum ad notitiam hominis venerint, homo ea manifestare tenetur, puta si pertineret ad corruptionem multitudinis spiritualem vel corporalem, vel in grave damnum alicuius personae, vel si quid aliud est huiusmodi, quod quis propalare tenetur vel testificando vel denuntiando. Et contra hoc debitum obligari non potest per secreti commissum, quia in hoc frangeret fidem quam alteri debet. Quandoque vero sunt talia quae quis prodere non tenetur. Unde potest obligari ex hoc quod sibi sub secreto committuntur. Et tunc nullo modo tenetur ea prodere, etiam ex praecepto superioris, quia servare fidem est de iure naturali; nihil autem potest praecipi homini contra id quod est de iure naturali. | Reply to Objection 2. A man should by no means give evidence on matters secretly committed to him in confession, because he knows such things, not as man but as God's minister: and the sacrament is more binding than any human precept. But as regards matters committed to man in some other way under secrecy, we must make a distinction. Sometimes they are of such a nature that one is bound to make them known as soon as they come to our knowledge, for instance if they conduce to the spiritual or corporal corruption of the community, or to some grave personal injury, in short any like matter that a man is bound to make known either by giving evidence or by denouncing it. Against such a duty a man cannot be obliged to act on the plea that the matter is committed to him under secrecy, for he would break the faith he owes to another. On the other hand sometimes they are such as one is not bound to make known, so that one may be under obligation not to do so on account of their being committed to one under secrecy. On such a case one is by no means bound to make them known, even if the superior should command; because to keep faith is of natural right, and a man cannot be commanded to do what is contrary to natural right. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod operari vel cooperari ad occisionem hominis non competit ministris altaris, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo secundum iuris ordinem compelli non possunt ad ferendum testimonium in causa sanguinis. | Reply to Objection 3. It is unbecoming for ministers of the altar to slay a man or to cooperate in his slaying, as stated above (Question 64, Article 4); hence according to the order of justice they cannot be compelled to give evidence when a man is on trial for his life. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sufficiat duorum vel trium testimonium. Iudicium enim certitudinem requirit. Sed non habetur certitudo veritatis per dictum duorum testium, legitur enim III Reg. XXI quod Naboth ad dictum duorum testium falso condemnatus est. Ergo duorum vel trium testimonium non sufficit. | Objection 1. It would seem that the evidence of two or three persons is not sufficient. For judgment requires certitude. Now certitude of the truth is not obtained by the assertions of two or three witnesses, for we read that Naboth was unjustly condemned on the evidence of two witnesses (1 Kings 21). Therefore the evidence of two or three witnesses does not suffice. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, testimonium, ad hoc quod sit credibile, debet esse concors. Sed plerumque duorum vel trium testimonium in aliquo discordat. Ergo non est efficax ad veritatem in iudicio probandam. | Objection 2. Further, in order for evidence to be credible it must agree. But frequently the evidence of two or three disagrees in some point. Therefore it is of no use for proving the truth in court. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, II, qu. IV, dicitur, praesul non damnetur nisi in septuaginta duobus testibus. Presbyter autem cardinalis nisi quadraginta quatuor testibus non deponatur. Diaconus cardinalis urbis Romae nisi in viginti octo testibus non condemnabitur. Subdiaconus, acolythus, exorcista, lector, ostiarius, nisi in septem testibus non condemnabitur. Sed magis est periculosum peccatum eius qui in maiori dignitate constitutus est, et ita minus est tolerandum. Ergo nec in aliorum condemnatione sufficit duorum vel trium testimonium. | Objection 3. Further, it is laid down (Decret. II, qu. iv, can. Praesul.): "A bishop shall not be condemned save on the evidence of seventy-two witnesses; nor a cardinal priest of the Roman Church, unless there be sixty-four witnesses. Nor a cardinal deacon of the Roman Church, unless there be twenty-seven witnesses; nor a subdeacon, an acolyte, an exorcist, a reader or a doorkeeper without seven witnesses." Now the sin of one who is of higher dignity is more grievous, and consequently should be treated more severely. Therefore neither is the evidence of two or three witnesses sufficient for the condemnation of other persons. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Deut. XVII, in ore duorum vel trium testium peribit qui interficietur; et infra, XIX, in ore duorum vel trium testium stabit omne verbum. | On the contrary, It is written (Deuteronomy 17:6): "By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall he die that is to be slain," and further on (Deuteronomy 19:15): "In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand." |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in I Ethic., certitudo non est similiter quaerenda in omni materia. In actibus enim humanis, super quibus constituuntur iudicia et exiguntur testimonia, non potest haberi certitudo demonstrativa, eo quod sunt circa contingentia et variabilia. Et ideo sufficit probabilis certitudo, quae ut in pluribus veritatem attingat, etsi in paucioribus a veritate deficiat. Est autem probabile quod magis veritatem contineat dictum multorum quam dictum unius. Et ideo, cum reus sit unus qui negat, sed multi testes asserunt idem cum actore, rationabiliter institutum est, iure divino et humano, quod dicto testium stetur. Omnis autem multitudo in tribus comprehenditur, scilicet principio, medio et fine, unde secundum philosophum, in I de coelo, omne et totum in tribus ponimus. Ternarius quidem constituitur asserentium, cum duo testes conveniunt cum actore. Et ideo requiritur binarius testium, vel, ad maiorem certitudinem, ut sit ternarius, qui est multitudo perfecta, in ipsis testibus. Unde et Eccle. IV dicitur, funiculus triplex difficile rumpitur. Augustinus autem, super illud Ioan. VIII, duorum hominum testimonium verum est, dicit quod in hoc est Trinitas secundum mysterium commendata, in qua est perpetua firmitas veritatis. | I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 3), "we must not expect to find certitude equally in every matter." For in human acts, on which judgments are passed and evidence required, it is impossible to have demonstrative certitude, because they a about things contingent and variable. Hence the certitude of probability suffices, such as may reach the truth in the greater number, cases, although it fail in the minority. No it is probable that the assertion of sever witnesses contains the truth rather than the assertion of one: and since the accused is the only one who denies, while several witness affirm the same as the prosecutor, it is reasonably established both by Divine and by human law, that the assertion of several witnesses should be upheld. Now all multitude is comprised of three elements, the beginning, the middle and the end. Wherefore, according to the Philosopher (De Coelo i, 1), "we reckon 'all' and 'whole' to consist of three parts." Now we have a triple voucher when two agree with the prosecutor: hence two witnesses are required; or for the sake of greater certitude three, which is the perfect number. Wherefore it is written (Ecclesiastes 4:12): "A threefold cord is not easily broken": and Augustine, commenting on John 8:17, "The testimony of two men is true," says (Tract. xxxvi) that "there is here a mystery by which we are given to understand that Trinity wherein is perpetual stability of truth." |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quantacumque multitudo testium determinaretur, posset quandoque testimonium esse iniquum, cum scriptum sit Exod. XXIII, ne sequaris turbam ad faciendum malum. Nec tamen, quia non potest in talibus infallibilis certitudo haberi, debet negligi certitudo quae probabiliter haberi potest per duos vel tres testes, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1. No matter how great a number of witnesses may be determined, the evidence might sometimes be unjust, since is written (Exodus 23:2): "Thou shalt not follow the multitude to do evil." And yet the fact that in so many it is not possible to have certitude without fear of error, is no reason why we should reject the certitude which can probably be had through two or three witnesses, as stated above. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod discordia testium in aliquibus principalibus circumstantiis, quae variant substantiam facti, puta in tempore vel loco vel in personis de quibus principaliter agitur, aufert efficaciam testimonii, quia si discordant in talibus, videntur singulares esse in suis testimoniis, et de diversis factis loqui; puta si unus dicat hoc factum esse tali tempore vel loco, alius alio tempore vel loco, non videntur de eodem facto loqui. Non tamen praeiudicatur testimonio si unus dicat se non recordari, et alius asserat determinatum tempus vel locum. Et si in talibus omnino discordaverint testes actoris et rei, si sint aequales numero et pares dignitate, statur pro reo, quia facilior debet esse iudex ad absolvendum quam ad condemnandum; nisi forte in causis favorabilibus, sicut est causa libertatis et huiusmodi. Si vero testes eiusdem partis dissenserint, debet iudex ex motu sui animi percipere cui parti sit standum, vel ex numero testium, vel ex dignitate eorum, vel ex favorabilitate causae, vel ex conditione negotii et dictorum. Multo autem magis testimonium unius repellitur si sibi ipsi dissideat interrogatus de visu et scientia. Non autem si dissideat interrogatus de opinione et fama, quia potest secundum diversa visa et audita diversimode motus esse ad respondendum. Si vero sit discordia testimonii in aliquibus circumstantiis non pertinentibus ad substantiam facti, puta si tempus fuerit nubilosum vel serenum, vel si domus fuerit picta aut non, aut aliquid huiusmodi, talis discordia non praeiudicat testimonio, quia homines non consueverunt circa talia multum sollicitari, unde facile a memoria elabuntur. Quinimmo aliqua discordia in talibus facit testimonium credibilius, ut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., quia si in omnibus concordarent, etiam in minimis, viderentur ex condicto eundem sermonem proferre. Quod tamen prudentiae iudicis relinquitur discernendum. | Reply to Objection 2. If the witnesses disagree certain principal circumstances which change the substance of the fact, for instance in time, place, or persons, which are chiefly in question, their evidence is of no weight, because if they disagree in such things, each one would seem to be giving distinct evidence and to be speaking of different facts. For instance, one say that a certain thing happened at such and such a time or place, while another says it happened at another time or place, they seem not to be speaking of the same event. The evidence is not weakened if one witness says that he does not remember, while the other attests to a determinate time or place And if on such points as these the witness for prosecution and defense disagree altogether, and if they be equal in number on either side, and of equal standing, the accused should have the benefit of the doubt, because the judge ought to be more inclined to acquit than to condemn, except perhaps in favorable suits, such as a pleading for liberty and the like. If, however, the witnesses for the same side disagree, the judge ought to use his own discretion in discerning which side to favor, by considering either the number of witnesses, or their standing, or the favorableness of the suit, or the nature of the business and of the evidence Much more ought the evidence of one witness to be rejected if he contradict himself when questioned about what he has seen and about what he knows; not, however, if he contradict himself when questioned about matters of opinion and report, since he may be moved to answer differently according to the different things he has seen and heard. On the other hand if there be discrepancy of evidence in circumstances not touching the substance of the fact, for instance, whether the weather were cloudy or fine, whether the house were painted or not, or such like matters, such discrepancy does not weaken the evidence, because men are not wont to take much notice of such things, wherefore they easily forget them. Ondeed, a discrepancy of this kind renders the evidence more credible, as Chrysostom states (Hom. i in Matth.), because if the witnesses agreed in every point, even in the minutest of details, they would seem to have conspired together to say the same thing: but this must be left to the prudent discernment of the judge. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod illud locum habet specialiter in episcopis, presbyteris, diaconibus et clericis Ecclesiae Romanae, propter eius dignitatem. Et hoc triplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia in ea tales institui debent quorum sanctitati plus credatur quam multis testibus. Secundo, quia homines qui habent de aliis iudicare, saepe, propter iustitiam, multos adversarios habent. Unde non est passim credendum testibus contra eos, nisi magna multitudo conveniat. Tertio, quia ex condemnatione alicuius eorum derogaretur in opinione hominum dignitati illius Ecclesiae et auctoritati. Quod est periculosius quam in ea tolerare aliquem peccatorem, nisi valde publicum et manifestum, de quo grave scandalum oriretur. | Reply to Objection 3. This passage refers specially to the bishops, priests, deacons and clerics of the Roman Church, on account of its dignity: and this for three reasons. First because in that Church those men ought to be promoted whose sanctity makes their evidence of more weight than that of many witnesses. Secondly, because those who have to judge other men, often have many opponents on account of their justice, wherefore those who give evidence against them should not be believed indiscriminately, unless they be very numerous. Thirdly, because the condemnation of any one of them would detract in public opinion from the dignity and authority of that Church, a result which would be more fraught with danger than if one were to tolerate a sinner in that same Church, unless he were very notorious and manifest, so that a grave scandal would arise if he were tolerated. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod alicuius testimonium non sit repellendum nisi propter culpam. Quibusdam enim in poenam infligitur quod ad testimonium non admittantur, sicut patet in his qui infamia notantur. Sed poena non est inferenda nisi pro culpa. Ergo videtur quod nullius testimonium debeat repelli nisi propter culpam. | Objection 1. It would seem that a man's evidence ought not to be rejected except on account of some fault. For it a penalty on some that their evidence is inadmissible, as in the case of those who are branded with infamy. Now a penalty must not be inflicted save for a fault. Therefore it would seem that no man's evidence ought to be rejected save on account of a fault. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, de quolibet praesumendum est bonum, nisi appareat contrarium. Sed ad bonitatem hominis pertinet quod verum testimonium dicat. Cum ergo non possit constare de contrario nisi propter aliquam culpam, videtur quod nullius testimonium debeat repelli nisi propter culpam. | Objection 2. Further, "Good is to be presumed of every one, unless the contrary appear" [Cap. Dudum, de Praesumpt.]. Now it pertains to a man's goodness that he should give true evidence. Since therefore there can be no proof of the contrary, unless there be some fault of his, it would seem that no man's evidence should be rejected save for some fault. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, ad ea quae sunt de necessitate salutis nullus redditur non idoneus nisi propter peccatum. Sed testificari veritatem est de necessitate salutis, ut supra dictum est. Ergo nullus debet excludi a testificando nisi propter culpam. | Objection 3. Further, no man is rendered unfit for things necessary for salvation except by some sin. But it is necessary for salvation to give true evidence, as stated above (Article 1). Therefore no man should be excluded from giving evidence save for some fault. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, et habetur II, qu. I, quia a servis suis accusatus est episcopus, sciendum est quod minime audiri debuerunt. | On the contrary, Gregory says (Regist. xiii, 44): "As to the bishop who is said to have been accused by his servants, you are to know that they should by no means have been heard": which words are embodied in the Decretals II, qu. 1, can. Imprimis. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod testimonium, sicut dictum est, non habet infallibilem certitudinem, sed probabilem. Et ideo quidquid est quod probabilitatem afferat in contrarium, reddit testimonium inefficax. Redditur autem probabile quod aliquis in veritate testificanda non sit firmus, quandoque quidem propter culpam, sicut infideles, infames, item illi qui publico crimine rei sunt, qui nec accusare possunt, quandoque autem absque culpa. Et hoc vel ex defectu rationis, sicut patet in pueris, amentibus et mulieribus; vel ex affectu, sicut patet de inimicis et de personis coniunctis et domesticis; vel etiam ex exteriori conditione, sicut sunt pauperes, servi et illi quibus imperari potest, de quibus probabile est quod facile possint induci ad testimonium ferendum contra veritatem. Et sic patet quod testimonium alicuius repellitur et propter culpam, et absque culpa. | I answer that, As stated above (Article 2), the authority of evidence is not infallible but probable; and consequently the evidence for one side is weakened by whatever strengthens the probability of the other. Now the reliability of a person's evidence is weakened, sometimes indeed on account of some fault of his, as in the case of unbelievers and persons of evil repute, as well as those who are guilty of a public crime and who are not allowed even to accuse; sometimes, without any fault on his part, and this owing either to a defect in the reason, as in the case of children, imbeciles and women, or to personal feeling, as in the case of enemies, or persons united by family or household ties, or again owing to some external condition, as in the case of poor people, slaves, and those who are under authority, concerning whom it is to be presumed that they might easily be induced to give evidence against the truth. Thus it is manifest that a person's evidence may be rejected either with or without some fault of his. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod repellere aliquem a testimonio magis pertinet ad cautelam falsi testimonii vitandi quam ad poenam. Unde ratio non sequitur. | Reply to Objection 1. If a person is disqualified from giving evidence this is done as a precaution against false evidence rather than as a punishment. Hence the argument does not prove. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod de quolibet praesumendum est bonum nisi appareat contrarium, dummodo non vergat in periculum alterius. Quia tunc est adhibenda cautela, ut non de facili unicuique credatur, secundum illud I Ioan. IV, nolite credere omni spiritui. | Reply to Objection 2. Good is to be presumed of everyone unless the contrary appear, provided this does not threaten injury to another: because, in that case, one ought to be careful not to believe everyone readily, according to 1 John 4:1: "Believe not every spirit." |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod testificari est de necessitate salutis, supposita testis idoneitate et ordine iuris. Unde nihil prohibet aliquos excusari a testimonio ferendo, si non reputentur idonei secundum iura. | Reply to Objection 3. To give evidence is necessary for salvation, provided the witness be competent, and the order of justice observed. Hence nothing hinders certain persons being excused from giving evidence, if they be considered unfit according to law. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod falsum testimonium non semper sit peccatum mortale. Contingit enim aliquem falsum testimonium ferre ex ignorantia facti. Sed talis ignorantia excusat a peccato mortali. Ergo testimonium falsum non semper est peccatum mortale. | Objection 1. It would seem that it is not always a mortal sin to give false evidence. For a person may happen to give false evidence, through ignorance of fact. Now such ignorance excuses from mortal sin. Therefore the giving of false evidence is not always a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, mendacium quod alicui prodest et nulli nocet, est officiosum, quod non est peccatum mortale. Sed quandoque in falso testimonio est tale mendacium, puta cum aliquis falsum testimonium perhibet ut aliquem a morte liberet, vel ab iniusta sententia quae intentatur per alios falsos testes vel per iudicis perversitatem. Ergo tale falsum testimonium non est peccatum mortale. | Objection 2. Further, a lie that benefits someone and hurts no man is officious, and this is not a mortal sin. Now sometimes a lie of this kind occurs in false evidence, as when a person gives false evidence in order to save a man from death, or from an unjust sentence which threatens him through other false witnesses or a perverse judge. Therefore in such cases it is not a mortal sin to give false evidence. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, iuramentum a teste requiritur ut timeat peccare mortaliter deierando. Hoc autem non esset necessarium si ipsum falsum testimonium esset peccatum mortale. Ergo falsum testimonium non semper est peccatum mortale. | Objection 3. Further, a witness is required to take an oath in order that he may fear to commit a mortal sin of perjury. But this would not be necessary, if it were already a mortal sin to give false evidence. Therefore the giving of false evidence is not always mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Prov. XIX, falsus testis non erit impunitus. | On the contrary, It is written (Proverbs 19:5): "A false witness shall not be unpunished." |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod falsum testimonium habet triplicem deformitatem. Uno modo, ex periurio, quia testes non admittuntur nisi iurati. Et ex hoc semper est peccatum mortale. Alio modo, ex violatione iustitiae. Et hoc modo est peccatum mortale in suo genere, sicut et quaelibet iniustitia. Et ideo in praecepto Decalogi sub hac forma interdicitur falsum testimonium, cum dicitur Exod. XX, non loquaris contra proximum tuum falsum testimonium, non enim contra aliquem facit qui eum ab iniuria facienda impedit, sed solum qui ei suam iustitiam tollit. Tertio modo, ex ipsa falsitate, secundum quod omne mendacium est peccatum. Et ex hoc non habet falsum testimonium quod semper sit peccatum mortale. | I answer that, False evidence has a threefold deformity. The first is owing to perjury, since witnesses are admitted only on oath and on this count it is always a mortal sin. Secondly, owing to the violation of justice, and on this account it is a mortal sin generically, even as any kind of injustice. Hence the prohibition of false evidence by the precept of the decalogue is expressed in this form when it is said (Exodus 20:16), "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." For one does nothing against a man by preventing him from doing someone an injury, but only by taking away his justice. Thirdly, owing to the falsehood itself, by reason of which every lie is a sin: on this account, the giving of false evidence is not always a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in testimonio ferendo non debet homo pro certo asserere, quasi sciens, id de quo certus non est, sed dubium debet sub dubio proferre, et id de quo certus est pro certo asserere. Sed quia contingit ex labilitate humanae memoriae quod reputat se homo quandoque certum esse de eo quod falsum est, si aliquis, cum debita sollicitudine recogitans, existimet se certum esse de eo quod falsum est, non peccat mortaliter hoc asserens, quia non dicit falsum testimonium per se et ex intentione, sed per accidens, contra id quod intendit. | Reply to Objection 1. In giving evidence a man ought not to affirm as certain, as though he knew it, that about which he is not certain and he should confess his doubt in doubtful terms, and that which he is certain about, in terms of certainty. Owing however to the frailty of the human memory, a man sometimes thinks he is certain about something that is not true; and then if after thinking over the matter with due care he deems himself certain about that false thing, he does not sin mortally if he asserts it, because the evidence which he gives is not directly an intentionally, but accidentally contrary to what he intends. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod iniustum iudicium iudicium non est. Et ideo ex vi iudicii falsum testimonium in iniusto iudicio prolatum ad iniustitiam impediendam, non habet rationem peccati mortalis, sed solum ex iuramento violato. | Reply to Objection 2. An unjust judgment is not a judgment, wherefore the false evidence given in an unjust judgment, in order to prevent injustice is not a mortal sin by virtue of the judgment, but only by reason of the oath violated. |
| IIª-IIae q. 70 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod homines maxime abhorrent peccata quae sunt contra Deum, quasi gravissima, inter quae est periurium. Non autem ita abhorrent peccata quae sunt contra proximum. Et ideo ad maiorem certitudinem testimonii, requiritur testis iuramentum. | Reply to Objection 3. Men abhor chiefly those sins that are against God as being most grievous, and among them is perjury: whereas they do not abhor so much sins against their neighbor. Consequently, for the greater certitude of evidence, the witness is required to take a oath. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 pr. Deinde considerandum est de iniustitia quae fit in iudicio ex parte advocatorum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum advocatus teneatur praestare patrocinium causae pauperum. Secundo, utrum aliquis debeat arceri ab officio advocati. Tertio, utrum advocatus peccet iniustam causam defendendo. Quarto, utrum peccet pecuniam accipiendo pro suo patrocinio. | Question 71. Injustice in judgment: the part of counsel 1. Is an advocate bound to defend the suits of the poor? 2. Should certain persons be prohibited from exercising the office of advocate? 3. Does an advocate sin by defending an unjust cause? 4. Does he sin if he accept a fee for defending a suit? |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod advocatus teneatur patrocinium praestare causae pauperum. Dicitur enim Exod. XXIII, si videris asinum odientis te iacere sub onere, non pertransibis, sed sublevabis cum eo. Sed non minus periculum imminet pauperi si eius causa contra iustitiam opprimatur, quam si eius asinus iaceat sub onere. Ergo advocatus tenetur praestare patrocinium causae pauperum. | Objection 1. It would seem that an advocate is bound to defend the suits of the poor. For it is written (Exodus 23:5): "If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lie underneath his burden, thou shalt not pass by, but shall lift him up with him." Now no less a danger threatens the poor man whose suit is being unjustly prejudiced, than if his ass were to lie underneath its burden. Therefore an advocate is bound to defend the suits of the poor. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, in quadam homilia, habens intellectum curet omnino ne taceat; habens rerum affluentiam a misericordia non torpescat; habens artem qua regitur, usum illius cum proximo partiatur; habens loquendi locum apud divitem, pro pauperibus intercedat, talenti enim nomine cuilibet reputabitur quod vel minimum accepit. Sed talentum commissum non abscondere, sed fideliter dispensare quilibet tenetur, quod patet ex poena servi abscondentis talentum, Matth. XXV. Ergo advocatus tenetur pro pauperibus loqui. | Objection 2. Further, Gregory says in a homily (ix in Evang.): "Let him that hath understanding beware lest he withhold his knowledge; let him that hath abundance of wealth watch lest he slacken his merciful bounty; let him who is a servant to art share his skill with his neighbor; let him who has an opportunity of speaking with the wealthy plead the cause of the poor: for the slightest gift you have received will be reputed a talent." Now every man is bound, not to hide but faithfully to dispense the talent committed to him; as evidenced by the punishment inflicted on the servant who hid his talent (Matthew 25:30). Therefore an advocate is bound to plead for the poor. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, praeceptum de misericordiae operibus adimplendis, cum sit affirmativum, obligat pro loco et tempore, quod est maxime in necessitate. Sed tempus necessitatis videtur esse quando alicuius pauperis causa opprimitur. Ergo in tali casu videtur quod advocatus teneatur pauperibus patrocinium praestare. | Objection 3. Further, the precept about performing works of mercy, being affirmative, is binding according to time and place, and this is chiefly in cases of need. Now it seems to be a case of need when the suit of a poor man is being prejudiced. Therefore it seems that in such a case an advocate is bound to defend the poor man's suit. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra, non minor necessitas est indigentis cibo quam indigentis advocato. Sed ille qui habet potestatem cibandi non semper tenetur pauperem cibare. Ergo nec advocatus semper tenetur causae pauperum patrocinium praestare. | On the contrary, He that lacks food is no less in need than he that lacks an advocate. Yet he that is able to give food is not always bound to feed the needy. Therefore neither is an advocate always bound to defend the suits of the poor. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod cum praestare patrocinium causae pauperum ad opus misericordiae pertineat, idem est hic dicendum quod et supra de aliis misericordiae operibus dictum est. Nullus enim sufficit omnibus indigentibus misericordiae opus impendere. Et ideo sicut Augustinus dicit, in I de Doct. Christ., cum omnibus prodesse non possis, his potissime consulendum est qui pro locorum et temporum vel quarumlibet rerum opportunitatibus, constrictius tibi, quasi quadam sorte, iunguntur. Dicit, pro locorum opportunitatibus, quia non tenetur homo per mundum quaerere indigentes quibus subveniat, sed sufficit si eis qui sibi occurrunt misericordiae opus impendat. Unde dicitur Exod. XXIII, si occurreris bovi inimici tui aut asino erranti, reduc ad eum. Addit autem, et temporum, quia non tenetur homo futurae necessitati alterius providere, sed sufficit si praesenti necessitati succurrat. Unde dicitur I Ioan. III, qui viderit fratrem suum necessitatem patientem, et clauserit viscera sua ab eo, et cetera. Subdit autem, vel quarumlibet rerum, quia homo sibi coniunctis quacumque necessitudine maxime debet curam impendere; secundum illud I ad Tim. V, si quis suorum, et maxime domesticorum curam non habet, fidem negavit. Quibus tamen concurrentibus, considerandum restat utrum aliquis tantam necessitatem patiatur quod non in promptu appareat quomodo ei possit aliter subveniri. Et in tali casu tenetur ei opus misericordiae impendere. Si autem in promptu appareat quomodo ei aliter subveniri possit, vel per seipsum vel per aliam personam magis coniunctam aut maiorem facultatem habentem, non tenetur ex necessitate indigenti subvenire, ita quod non faciendo peccet, quamvis, si subvenerit absque tali necessitate, laudabiliter faciat. Unde advocatus non tenetur semper causae pauperum patrocinium praestare, sed solum concurrentibus conditionibus praedictis. Alioquin oporteret eum omnia alia negotia praetermittere, et solis causis pauperum iuvandis intendere. Et idem dicendum est de medico, quantum ad curationem pauperum. | I answer that, Since defense of the poor man's suit belongs to the works of mercy, the answer to this inquiry is the same as the one given above with regard to the other works of mercy (32, 5,9). Now no man is sufficient to bestow a work of mercy on all those who need it. Wherefore, as Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 28), "since one cannot do good to all, we ought to consider those chiefly who by reason of place, time, or any other circumstance, by a kind of chance are more closely united to us." He says "by reason of place," because one is not bound to search throughout the world for the needy that one may succor them; and it suffices to do works of mercy to those one meets with. Hence it is written (Exodus 23:4): "If thou meet thy enemy's ass going astray, bring it back to him." He says also "by reason of time," because one is not bound to provide for the future needs of others, and it suffices to succor present needs. Hence it is written (1 John 3:17): "He that . . . shall see his brother in need, and shall put up his bowels from him, how doth the charity of God abide in him?" Lastly he says, "or any other circumstance," because one ought to show kindness to those especially who are by any tie whatever united to us, according to 1 Timothy 5:8, "If any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel." It may happen however that these circumstances concur, and then we have to consider whether this particular man stands in such a need that it is not easy to see how he can be succored otherwise, and then one is bound to bestow the work of mercy on him. If, however, it is easy to see how he can be otherwise succored, either by himself, or by some other person still more closely united to him, or in a better position to help him, one is not bound so strictly to help the one in need that it would be a sin not to do so: although it would be praiseworthy to do so where one is not bound to. Therefore an advocate is not always bound to defend the suits of the poor, but only when the aforesaid circumstances concur, else he would have to put aside all other business, and occupy himself entirely in defending the suits of poor people. The same applies to a physician with regard to attendance on the sick. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quando asinus iacet sub onere, non potest ei aliter subveniri in casu isto nisi per advenientes subveniatur, et ideo tenentur iuvare. Non autem tenerentur si posset aliunde remedium afferri. | Reply to Objection 1. So long as the ass lies under the burden, there is no means of help in this case, unless those who are passing along come to the man's aid, and therefore they are bound to help. But they would not be so bound if help were possible from another quarter. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod homo talentum sibi creditum tenetur utiliter dispensare, servata opportunitate locorum et temporum et aliarum rerum, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 2. A man is bound to make good use of the talent bestowed on him, according to the opportunities afforded by time, place, and other circumstances, as stated above. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod non quaelibet necessitas causat debitum subveniendi, sed solum illa quae est dicta. | Reply to Objection 3. Not every need is such that it is one's duty to remedy it, but only such as we have stated above. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter aliqui secundum iura arceantur ab officio advocandi. Ab operibus enim misericordiae nullus debet arceri. Sed patrocinium praestare in causis ad opera misericordiae pertinet, ut dictum est. Ergo nullus debet ab hoc officio arceri. | Objection 1. It would seem unfitting for the law to debar certain persons from the office of advocate. For no man should be debarred from doing works of mercy. Now it belongs to the works of mercy to defend a man's suit, as stated above (Article 1). Therefore no man should be debarred from this office. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, contrariarum causarum non videtur esse idem effectus. Sed esse deditum rebus divinis, et esse deditum peccatis, est contrarium. Inconvenienter igitur excluduntur ab officio advocati quidam propter religionem, ut monachi et clerici; quidam autem propter culpam, ut infames et haeretici. | Objection 2. Further, contrary causes have not, seemingly, the same effect. Now to be busy with Divine things and to be busy about sin are contrary to one another. Therefore it is unfitting that some should be debarred from the office of advocate, on account of religion, as monks and clerics, while others are debarred on account of sin, as persons of ill-repute and heretics. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, homo debet diligere proximum sicut seipsum. Sed ad effectum dilectionis pertinet quod aliquis advocatus causae alicuius patrocinetur. Inconvenienter ergo aliqui quibus conceditur pro seipsis auctoritas advocationis, prohibentur patrocinari causis aliorum. | Objection 3. Further, a man should love his neighbor as himself. Now it is a duty of love for an advocate to plead a person's cause. Therefore it is unfitting that certain persons should be debarred from pleading the cause of others, while they are allowed to advocate their own cause. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod III, qu. VII, multae personae arcentur ab officio postulandi. | On the contrary, According to Decretals III, qu. vii, can. Onfames, many persons are debarred from the office of advocate. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod aliquis impeditur ab aliquo actu duplici ratione, uno modo, propter impotentiam; alio modo, propter indecentiam. Sed impotentia simpliciter excludit aliquem ab actu, indecentia autem non excludit omnino, quia necessitas indecentiam tollere potest. Sic igitur ab officio advocatorum prohibentur quidam propter impotentiam, eo quod deficiunt sensu, vel interiori, sicut furiosi et impuberes; vel exteriori, sicut surdi et muti. Est enim necessaria advocato et interior peritia, qua possit convenienter iustitiam assumptae causae ostendere, et iterum loquela cum auditu, ut possit et pronuntiare et audire quod ei dicitur. Unde qui in his defectum patiuntur omnino prohibentur ne sint advocati, nec pro se nec pro aliis. Decentia autem huius officii exercendi tollitur dupliciter. Uno modo, ex hoc quod aliquis est rebus maioribus obligatus. Unde monachos et presbyteros non decet in quacumque causa advocatos esse, neque clericos in iudicio saeculari, quia huiusmodi personae sunt rebus divinis adstrictae. Alio modo, propter personae defectum, vel corporalem, ut patet de caecis, qui convenienter iudici adstare non possent; vel spiritualem, non enim decet ut alterius iustitiae patronus existat qui in seipso iustitiam contempsit. Et ideo infames, infideles et damnati de gravibus criminibus non decenter sunt advocati. Tamen huiusmodi indecentiae necessitas praefertur. Et propter hoc huiusmodi personae possunt pro seipsis, vel pro personis sibi coniunctis, uti officio advocati. Unde et clerici pro Ecclesiis suis possunt esse advocati, et monachi pro causa monasterii sui, si abbas praeceperit. | I answer that, In two ways a person is debarred from performing a certain act: first because it is impossible to him, secondly because it is unbecoming to him: but, whereas the man to whom a certain act is impossible, is absolutely debarred from performing it, he to whom an act is unbecoming is not debarred altogether, since necessity may do away with its unbecomingness. Accordingly some are debarred from the office of advocate because it is impossible to them through lack of sense--either interior, as in the case of madmen and minors--or exterior, as in the case of the deaf and dumb. For an advocate needs to have both interior skill so that he may be able to prove the justice of the cause he defends, and also speech and hearing, that he may speak and hear what is said to him. Consequently those who are defective in these points, are altogether debarred from being advocates either in their own or in another's cause. The becomingness of exercising this office is removed in two ways. First, through a man being engaged in higher things. Wherefore it is unfitting that monks or priests should be advocates in any cause whatever, or that clerics should plead in a secular court, because such persons are engaged in Divine things. Secondly, on account of some personal defect, either of body (for instance a blind man whose attendance in a court of justice would be unbecoming) or of soul, for it ill becomes one who has disdained to be just himself, to plead for the justice of another. Wherefore it is unbecoming that persons of ill repute, unbelievers, and those who have been convicted of grievous crimes should be advocates. Nevertheless this unbecomingness is outweighed by necessity: and for this reason such persons can plead either their own cause or that of persons closely connected with them. Moreover, clerics can be advocates in the cause of their own church, and monks in the cause of their own monastery, if the abbot direct them to do so. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ab operibus misericordiae interdum aliqui propter impotentiam, interdum etiam propter indecentiam impediuntur. Non enim omnia opera misericordiae omnes decent, sicut stultos non decet consilium dare, neque ignorantes docere. | Reply to Objection 1. Certain persons are sometimes debarred by unbecomingness, and others by inability from performing works of mercy: for not all the works of mercy are becoming to all persons: thus it ill becomes a fool to give counsel, or the ignorant to teach. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod sicut virtus corrumpitur per superabundantiam et defectum, ita aliquis fit indecens et per maius et per minus. Et propter hoc quidam arcentur a patrocinio praestando in causis quia sunt maiores tali officio, sicut religiosi et clerici, quidam vero quia sunt minores quam ut eis hoc officium competat, sicut infames et infideles. | Reply to Objection 2. Just as virtue is destroyed by "too much" and "too little," so does a person become incompetent by "more" and "less." For this reason some, like religious and clerics, are debarred from pleading in causes, because they are above such an office; and others because they are less than competent to exercise it, such as persons of ill-repute and unbelievers. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod non ita imminet homini necessitas patrocinari causis aliorum sicut propriis, quia alii possunt sibi aliter subvenire. Unde non est similis ratio. | Reply to Objection 3. The necessity of pleading the causes of others is not so pressing as the necessity of pleading one's own cause, because others are able to help themselves otherwise: hence the comparison fails. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod advocatus non peccet si iniustam causam defendat. Sicut enim ostenditur peritia medici si infirmitatem desperatam sanet, ita etiam ostenditur peritia advocati si etiam iniustam causam defendere possit. Sed medicus laudatur si infirmitatem desperatam sanet. Ergo etiam advocatus non peccat, sed magis laudandus est, si iniustam causam defendat. | Objection 1. It would seem that an advocate does not sin by defending an unjust cause. For just as a physician proves his skill by healing a desperate disease, so does an advocate prove his skill, if he can defend an unjust cause. Now a physician is praised if he heals a desperate malady. Therefore an advocate also commits no sin, but ought to be praised, if he defends an unjust cause. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, a quolibet peccato licet desistere. Sed advocatus punitur si causam suam prodiderit, ut habetur II, qu. III. Ergo advocatus non peccat iniustam causam defendendo, si eam defendendam susceperit. | Objection 2. Further, it is always lawful to desist from committing a sin. Yet an advocate is punished if he throws up his brief (Decret. II, qu. iii, can. Si quem poenit.). Therefore an advocate does not sin by defending an unjust cause, when once he has undertaken its defense. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, maius videtur esse peccatum si iniustitia utatur ad iustam causam defendendam, puta producendo falsos testes vel allegando falsas leges, quam iniustam causam defendendo, quia hoc est peccatum in forma, illud in materia. Sed videtur advocato licere talibus astutiis uti, sicut militi licet ex insidiis pugnare. Ergo videtur quod advocatus non peccat si iniustam causam defendat. | Objection 3. Further, it would seem to be a greater sin for an advocate to use unjust means in defense of a just cause (e.g. by producing false witnesses, or alleging false laws), than to defend an unjust cause, since the former is a sin against the form, the latter against the matter of justice. Yet it is seemingly lawful for an advocate to make use of such underhand means, even as it is lawful for a soldier to lay ambushes in a battle. Therefore it would seem that an advocate does not sin by defending an unjust cause. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur II Paralip. XIX, impio praebes auxilium, et idcirco iram domini merebaris. Sed advocatus defendens causam iniustam impio praebet auxilium. Ergo, peccando, iram domini meretur. | On the contrary, It is said (2 Chronicles 19:2): "Thou helpest the ungodly . . . and therefore thou didst deserve . . . the wrath of the Lord." Now an advocate by defending an unjust cause, helps the ungodly. Therefore he sins and deserves the wrath of the Lord. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod illicitum est alicui cooperari ad malum faciendum sive consulendo, sive adiuvando, sive qualitercumque consentiendo, quia consilians et coadiuvans quodammodo est faciens; et apostolus dicit, ad Rom. I, quod digni sunt morte non solum qui faciunt peccatum, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus. Unde et supra dictum est quod omnes tales ad restitutionem tenentur. Manifestum est autem quod advocatus et auxilium et consilium praestat ei cuius causae patrocinatur. Unde si scienter iniustam causam defendit, absque dubio graviter peccat; et ad restitutionem tenetur eius damni quod contra iustitiam per eius auxilium altera pars incurrit. Si autem ignoranter iniustam causam defendit, putans esse iustam, excusatur, secundum modum quo ignorantia excusare potest. | I answer that, It is unlawful to cooperate in an evil deed, by counseling, helping, or in any way consenting, because to counsel or assist an action is, in a way, to do it, and the Apostle says (Romans 1:32) that "they . . . are worthy of death, not only they that do" a sin, "but they also that consent to them that do" it. Hence it was stated above (Question 62, Article 07), that all such are bound to restitution. Now it is evident that an advocate provides both assistance and counsel to the party for whom he pleads. Wherefore, if knowingly he defends an unjust cause, without doubt he sins grievously, and is bound to restitution of the loss unjustly incurred by the other party by reason of the assistance he has provided. If, however, he defends an unjust cause unknowingly, thinking it just, he is to be excused according to the measure in which ignorance is excusable. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod medicus accipiens in cura infirmitatem desperatam nulli facit iniuriam. Advocatus autem suscipiens causam iniustam iniuste laedit eum contra quem patrocinium praestat. Et ideo non est similis ratio. Quamvis enim laudabilis videatur quantum ad peritiam artis, tamen peccat quantum ad iniustitiam voluntatis, qua abutitur arte ad malum. | Reply to Objection 1. The physician injures no man by undertaking to heal a desperate malady, whereas the advocate who accepts service in an unjust cause, unjustly injures the party against whom he pleads unjustly. Hence the comparison fails. For though he may seem to deserve praise for showing skill in his art, nevertheless he sins by reason of injustice in his will, since he abuses his art for an evil end. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod advocatus, si in principio credidit causam iustam esse et postea in processu appareat eam esse iniustam, non debet eam prodere, ut scilicet aliam partem iuvet, vel secreta suae causae alteri parti revelet. Potest tamen et debet causam deserere; vel eum cuius causam agit ad cedendum inducere, sive ad componendum, sine adversarii damno. | Reply to Objection 2. If an advocate believes from the outset that the cause is just, and discovers afterwards while the case is proceeding that it is unjust, he ought not to throw up his brief in such a way as to help the other side, or so as to reveal the secrets of his client to the other party. But he can and must give up the case, or induce his client to give way, or make some compromise without prejudice to the opposing party. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, militi vel duci exercitus licet in bello iusto ex insidiis agere ea quae facere debet prudenter occultando, non autem falsitatem fraudulenter faciendo, quia etiam hosti fidem servare oportet, sicut Tullius dicit, in III de Offic. Unde et advocato defendenti causam iustam licet prudenter occultare ea quibus impediri posset processus eius, non autem licet ei aliqua falsitate uti. | Reply to Objection 3. As stated above (Question 40, Article 3), it is lawful for a soldier, or a general to lay ambushes in a just war, by prudently concealing what he has a mind to do, but not by means of fraudulent falsehoods, since we should keep faith even with a foe, as Tully says (De offic. iii, 29). Hence it is lawful for an advocate, in defending his case, prudently to conceal whatever might hinder its happy issue, but it is unlawful for him to employ any kind of falsehood. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod advocato non liceat pro suo patrocinio pecuniam accipere. Opera enim misericordiae non sunt intuitu humanae remunerationis facienda, secundum illud Luc. XIV, cum facis prandium aut cenam, noli vocare amicos tuos neque vicinos divites, ne forte et ipsi te reinvitent, et fiat tibi retributio. Sed praestare patrocinium causae alicuius pertinet ad opera misericordiae, ut dictum est. Ergo non licet advocato accipere retributionem pecuniae pro patrocinio praestito. | Objection 1. It would seem unlawful for an advocate to take a fee for pleading. Works of mercy should not be done with a view to human remuneration, according to Luke 14:12, "When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends . . . nor thy neighbors who are rich: lest perhaps they also invite thee again, and a recompense be made to thee." Now it is a work of mercy to plead another's cause, as stated above (Article 1). Therefore it is not lawful for an advocate to take payment in money for pleading. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, spirituale non est pro temporali commutandum. Sed patrocinium praestitum videtur esse quiddam spirituale, cum sit usus scientiae iuris. Ergo non licet advocato pro patrocinio praestito pecuniam accipere. | Objection 2. Further, spiritual things are not to be bartered with temporal things. But pleading a person's cause seems to be a spiritual good since it consists in using one's knowledge of law. Therefore it is not lawful for an advocate to take a fee for pleading. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut ad iudicium concurrit persona advocati, ita etiam persona iudicis et persona testis. Sed secundum Augustinum, ad Macedonium, non debet iudex vendere iustum iudicium, nec testis verum testimonium. Ergo nec advocatus poterit vendere iustum patrocinium. | Objection 3. Further, just as the person of the advocate concurs towards the pronouncement of the verdict, so do the persons of the judge and of the witness. Now, according to Augustine (Ep. cliii ad Macedon.), "the judge should not sell a just sentence, nor the witness true evidence." Therefore neither can an advocate sell a just pleading. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit ibidem, quod advocatus licite vendit iustum patrocinium, et iurisperitus verum consilium. | On the contrary, Augustine says (Ep. cliii ad Macedon.) that "an advocate may lawfully sell his pleading, and a lawyer his advice." |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ea quae quis non tenetur alteri exhibere, iuste potest pro eorum exhibitione recompensationem accipere. Manifestum est autem quod advocatus non semper tenetur patrocinium praestare aut consilium dare causis aliorum. Et ideo si vendat suum patrocinium sive consilium, non agit contra iustitiam. Et eadem ratio est de medico opem ferente ad sanandum, et de omnibus aliis huiusmodi personis, dum tamen moderate accipiant, considerata conditione personarum et negotiorum et laboris, et consuetudine patriae. Si autem per improbitatem aliquid immoderate extorqueat, peccat contra iustitiam. Unde Augustinus dicit, ad Macedonium, quod ab his extorta per immoderatam improbitatem repeti solent, data per tolerabilem consuetudinem non solent. | I answer that, A man may justly receive payment for granting what he is not bound to grant. Now it is evident that an advocate is not always bound to consent to plead, or to give advice in other people's causes. Wherefore, if he sell his pleading or advice, he does not act against justice. The same applies to the physician who attends on a sick person to heal him, and to all like persons; provided, however, they take a moderate fee, with due consideration for persons, for the matter in hand, for the labor entailed, and for the custom of the country. If, however, they wickedly extort an immoderate fee, they sin against justice. Hence Augustine says (Ep. cliii ad Macedon.) that "it is customary to demand from them restitution of what they have extorted by a wicked excess, but not what has been given to them in accordance with a commendable custom." |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non semper quae homo potest misericorditer facere, tenetur facere gratis, alioquin nulli liceret aliquam rem vendere, quia quamlibet rem potest homo misericorditer impendere. Sed quando eam misericorditer impendit, non humanam, sed divinam remunerationem quaerere debet. Et similiter advocatus, quando causae pauperum misericorditer patrocinatur, non debet intendere remunerationem humanam, sed divinam, non tamen semper tenetur gratis patrocinium impendere. | Reply to Objection 1. Man is not bound to do gratuitously whatever he can do from motives of mercy: else no man could lawfully sell anything, since anything may be given from motives of mercy. But when a man does give a thing out of mercy, he should seek, not a human, but a Divine reward. On like manner an advocate, when he mercifully pleads the cause of a poor man, should have in view not a human but a Divine meed; and yet he is not always bound to give his services gratuitously. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod etsi scientia iuris sit quiddam spirituale, tamen usus eius fit opere corporali. Et ideo pro eius recompensatione licet pecuniam accipere, alioquin nulli artifici liceret de arte sua lucrari. | Reply to Objection 2. Though knowledge of law is something spiritual, the use of that knowledge is accomplished by the work of the body: hence it is lawful to take money in payment of that use, else no craftsman would be allowed to make profit by his art. |
| IIª-IIae q. 71 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod iudex et testis communes sunt utrique parti, quia iudex tenetur iustam sententiam dare, et testis tenetur verum testimonium dicere; iustitia autem et veritas non declinant in unam partem magis quam in aliam. Et ideo iudicibus de publico sunt stipendia laboris statuta; et testes accipiunt, non quasi pretium testimonii, sed quasi stipendium laboris, expensas vel ab utraque parte, vel ab ea a qua inducuntur, quia nemo militat stipendiis suis unquam, ut dicitur I ad Cor. IX. Sed advocatus alteram partem tantum defendit. Et ideo licite potest pretium accipere a parte quam adiuvat. | Reply to Objection 3. The judge and witnesses are common to either party, since the judge is bound to pronounce a just verdict, and the witness to give true evidence. Now justice and truth do not incline to one side rather than to the other: and consequently judges receive out of the public funds a fixed pay for their labor; and witnesses receive their expenses (not as payment for giving evidence, but as a fee for their labor) either from both parties or from the party by whom they are adduced, because no man "serveth as a soldier at any time at his own charge [Vulgate: 'Who serveth as a soldier,']" (1 Corinthians 9:7). On the other hand an advocate defends one party only, and so he may lawfully accept fee from the party he assists. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 pr. Deinde considerandum est de iniuriis verborum quae inferuntur extra iudicium. Et primo, de contumelia; secundo, de detractione; tertio, de susurratione; quarto, de derisione; quinto, de maledictione. Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, quid sit contumelia. Secundo, utrum omnis contumelia sit peccatum mortale. Tertio, utrum oporteat contumeliosos reprimere. Quarto, de origine contumeliae. | Question 72. Reviling 1. What is reviling? 2. Is every reviling a mortal sin? 3. Should one check revilers? 4. The origin of reviling |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod contumelia non consistat in verbis. Contumelia enim importat quoddam nocumentum proximo illatum, cum pertineat ad iniustitiam. Sed verba nullum nocumentum videntur inferre proximo, nec in rebus nec in persona. Ergo contumelia non consistit in verbis. | Objection 1. It would seem that reviling does not consist in words. Reviling implies some injury inflicted on one's neighbor, since it is a kind of injustice. But words seem to inflict no injury on one's neighbor, either in his person, or in his belongings. Therefore reviling does not consist in words. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, contumelia videtur ad quandam dehonorationem pertinere. Sed magis aliquis potest inhonorari seu vituperari factis quam verbis. Ergo videtur quod contumelia non consistit in verbis, sed magis in factis. | Objection 2. Further, reviling seems to imply dishonor. But a man can be dishonored or slighted by deeds more than by words. Therefore it seems that reviling consists, not in words but in deeds. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, dehonoratio quae fit in verbis dicitur convicium vel improperium. Sed contumelia videtur differre a convicio et improperio. Ergo contumelia non consistit in verbis. | Objection 3. Further, a dishonor inflicted by words is called a railing or a taunt. But reviling seems to differ from railing or taunt. Therefore reviling does not consist in words. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra, nihil auditu percipitur nisi verbum. Sed contumelia auditu percipitur, secundum illud Ierem. XX, audivi contumelias in circuitu. Ergo contumelia est in verbis. | On the contrary, Nothing, save words, is perceived by the hearing. Now reviling is perceived by the hearing according to Jeremiah 20:10, "I heard reviling [Douay: 'contumelies'] on every side." Therefore reviling consists in words. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod contumelia importat dehonorationem alicuius. Quod quidem contingit dupliciter. Cum enim honor aliquam excellentiam consequatur, uno modo aliquis alium dehonorat cum privat eum excellentia propter quam habebat honorem. Quod quidem fit per peccata factorum, de quibus supra dictum est. Alio modo, cum aliquis id quod est contra honorem alicuius deducit in notitiam eius et aliorum. Et hoc proprie pertinet ad contumeliam. Quod quidem fit per aliqua signa. Sed sicut Augustinus dicit, in II de Doct. Christ., omnia signa, verbis comparata, paucissima sunt, verba enim inter homines obtinuerunt principatum significandi quaecumque animo concipiuntur. Et ideo contumelia, proprie loquendo, in verbis consistit. Unde Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., quod contumeliosus dicitur aliquis quia velox est et tumet verbis iniuriae. Quia tamen etiam per facta aliqua significatur aliquid, quae in hoc quod significant habent vim verborum significantium; inde est quod contumelia, extenso nomine, etiam in factis dicitur. Unde Rom. I, super illud, contumeliosos, superbos, dicit Glossa quod contumeliosi sunt qui dictis vel factis contumelias et turpia inferunt. | I answer that, Reviling denotes the dishonoring of a person, and this happens in two ways: for since honor results from excellence, one person dishonors another, first, by depriving him of the excellence for which he is honored. This is done by sins of deed, whereof we have spoken above (64, seqq.). Secondly, when a man publishes something against another's honor, thus bringing it to the knowledge of the latter and of other men. This reviling properly so called, and is done I some kind of signs. Now, according to Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 3), "compared with words all other signs are very few, for words have obtained the chief place among men for the purpose of expressing whatever the mind conceives." Hence reviling, properly speaking consists in words: wherefore, Isidore says (Etym. x) that a reviler [contumeliosus] "is hasty and bursts out [tumet] in injurious words." Since, however, things are also signified by deeds, which on this account have the same significance as words, it follows that reviling in a wider sense extends also to deeds. Wherefore a gloss on Romans 1:30, "contumelious, proud," says: "The contumelious are those who by word or deed revile and shame others." |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verba secundum suam essentiam, idest inquantum sunt quidam soni audibiles, nullum nocumentum alteri inferunt, nisi forte gravando auditum, puta cum aliquis nimis alte loquitur. Inquantum vero sunt signa repraesentantia aliquid in notitiam aliorum, sic possunt multa damna inferre. Inter quae unum est quod homo damnificatur quantum ad detrimentum honoris sui vel reverentiae sibi ab aliis exhibendae. Et ideo maior est contumelia si aliquis alicui defectum suum dicat coram multis. Et tamen si sibi soli dicat, potest esse contumelia, inquantum ipse qui loquitur contra audientis reverentiam agit. | Reply to Objection 1. Our words, if we consider them in their essence, i.e. as audible sound injure no man, except perhaps by jarring of the ear, as when a person speaks too loud. But, considered as signs conveying something to the knowledge of others, they may do many kinds of harm. Such is the harm done to a man to the detriment of his honor, or of the respect due to him from others. Hence the reviling is greater if one man reproach another in the presence of many: and yet there may still be reviling if he reproach him by himself. in so far as the speaker acts unjustly against the respect due to the hearer. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod intantum aliquis aliquem factis dehonorat inquantum illa facta vel faciunt vel significant illud quod est contra honorem alicuius. Quorum primum non pertinet ad contumeliam, sed ad alias iniustitiae species, de quibus supra dictum est. Secundum vero pertinet ad contumeliam inquantum facta habent vim verborum in significando. | Reply to Objection 2. One man slights another by deeds in so far as such deeds cause or signify that which is against that other man's honor. On the former case it is not a matter of reviling but of some other kind of injustice, of which we have spoken above (Q64,65,66): where as in the latter case there is reviling, in so far as deeds have the significant force of words. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod convicium et improperium consistunt in verbis, sicut et contumelia, quia per omnia haec repraesentatur aliquis defectus alicuius in detrimentum honoris ipsius. Huiusmodi autem defectus est triplex. Scilicet defectus culpae, qui repraesentatur per verba contumeliosa. Et defectus generaliter culpae et poenae, qui repraesentatur per convitium, quia vitium consuevit dici non solum animae, sed etiam corporis. Unde si quis alicui iniuriose dicat eum esse caecum, convicium quidem dicit, sed non contumeliam, si quis autem dicat alteri quod sit fur, non solum convicium, sed etiam contumeliam infert. Quandoque vero repraesentat aliquis alicui defectum minorationis sive indigentiae, qui etiam derogat honori consequenti quamcumque excellentiam. Et hoc fit per verbum improperii, quod proprie est quando aliquis iniuriose alteri ad memoriam reducit auxilium quod contulit ei necessitatem patienti. Unde dicitur Eccli. XX, exigua dabit, et multa improperabit. Quandoque tamen unum istorum pro alio ponitur. | Reply to Objection 3. Railing and taunts consist in words, even as reviling, because by all of them a man's faults are exposed to the detriment of his honor. Such faults are of three kinds. First, there is the fault of guilt, which is exposed by "reviling" words. Secondly, there is the fault of both guilt and punishment, which is exposed by "taunts" [convicium], because "vice" is commonly spoken of in connection with not only the soul but also the body. Hence if one man says spitefully to another that he is blind, he taunts but does not revile him: whereas if one man calls another a thief, he not only taunts but also reviles him. Thirdly, a man reproaches another for his inferiority or indigence, so as to lessen the honor due to him for any kind of excellence. This is done by "upbraiding" words, and properly speaking, occurs when one spitefully reminds a man that one has succored him when he was in need. Hence it is written (Sirach 20:15): "He will give a few things and upbraid much." Nevertheless these terms are sometimes employed one for the other. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod contumelia, vel convicium, non sit peccatum mortale. Nullum enim peccatum mortale est actus alicuius virtutis. Sed conviciari est actus alicuius virtutis, scilicet eutrapeliae, ad quam pertinet bene conviciari, secundum philosophum, in IV Ethic. Ergo convicium, sive contumelia, non est peccatum mortale. | Objection 1. It would seem that reviling or railing is not a mortal sin. For no mortal sin is an act of virtue. Now railing is the act of a virtue, viz. of wittiness eutrapelia [Cf. I-II, 60, 5] to which it pertains to rail well, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 8). Therefore railing or reviling is not a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, peccatum mortale non invenitur in viris perfectis. Qui tamen aliquando convicia vel contumelias dicunt, sicut patet de apostolo, qui, ad Gal. III, dixit, o insensati Galatae. Et dominus dicit, Luc. ult., o stulti, et tardi corde ad credendum. Ergo convicium, sive contumelia, non est peccatum mortale. | Objection 2. Further, mortal sin is not to be found in perfect men; and yet these sometimes give utterance to railing or reviling. Thus the Apostle says (Galatians 3:1): "O senseless Galatians!," and our Lord said (Luke 24:25): "O foolish and slow of heart to believe!" Therefore railing or reviling is not a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, quamvis id quod est peccatum veniale ex genere possit fieri mortale, non tamen peccatum quod ex genere est mortale potest esse veniale, ut supra habitum est. Si ergo dicere convicium vel contumeliam esset peccatum mortale ex genere suo, sequeretur quod semper esset peccatum mortale. Quod videtur esse falsum, ut patet in eo qui leviter et ex subreptione, vel ex levi ira dicit aliquod verbum contumeliosum. Non ergo contumelia vel convicium ex genere suo est peccatum mortale. | Objection 3. Further, although that which is a venial sin by reason of its genus may become mortal, that which is mortal by reason of its genus cannot become venial, as stated above (I-II, 88, 4,6). Hence if by reason of its genus it were a mortal sin to give utterance to railing or reviling, it would follow that it is always a mortal sin. But this is apparently untrue, as may be seen in the case of one who utters a reviling word indeliberately or through slight anger. Therefore reviling or railing is not a mortal sin, by reason of its genus. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra, nihil meretur poenam aeternam Inferni nisi peccatum mortale. Sed convicium vel contumelia meretur poenam Inferni, secundum illud Matth. V, qui dixerit fratri suo, fatue, reus erit Gehennae ignis. Ergo convicium vel contumelia est peccatum mortale. | On the contrary, Nothing but mortal sin deserves the eternal punishment of hell. Now railing or reviling deserves the punishment of hell, according to Matthew 5:22, "Whosoever shall say to his brother . . . Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Therefore railing or reviling is a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, verba inquantum sunt soni quidam, non sunt in nocumentum aliorum, sed inquantum significant aliquid. Quae quidem significatio ex interiori affectu procedit. Et ideo in peccatis verborum maxime considerandum videtur ex quo affectu aliquis verba proferat. Cum igitur convicium, seu contumelia, de sui ratione importet quandam dehonorationem, si intentio proferentis ad hoc feratur ut aliquis per verba quae profert honorem alterius auferat, hoc proprie et per se est dicere convicium vel contumeliam. Et hoc est peccatum mortale, non minus quam furtum vel rapina, non enim homo minus amat suum honorem quam rem possessam. Si vero aliquis verbum convicii vel contumeliae alteri dixerit, non tamen animo dehonorandi, sed forte propter correctionem vel propter aliquid huiusmodi, non dicit convicium vel contumeliam formaliter et per se, sed per accidens et materialiter, inquantum scilicet dicit id quod potest esse convicium, vel contumelia. Unde hoc potest esse quandoque peccatum veniale; quandoque autem absque omni peccato. In quo tamen necessaria est discretio, ut moderate homo talibus verbis utatur. Quia posset esse ita grave convicium quod, per incautelam prolatum, auferret honorem eius contra quem proferretur. Et tunc posset homo peccare mortaliter etiam si non intenderet dehonorationem alterius. Sicut etiam si aliquis, incaute alium ex ludo percutiens, graviter laedat, culpa non caret. | I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), words are injurious to other persons, not as sounds, but as signs, and this signification depends on the speaker's inward intention. Hence, in sins of word, it seems that we ought to consider with what intention the words are uttered. Since then railing or reviling essentially denotes a dishonoring, if the intention of the utterer is to dishonor the other man, this is properly and essentially to give utterance to railing or reviling: and this is a mortal sin no less than theft or robbery, since a man loves his honor no less than his possessions. If, on the other hand, a man says to another a railing or reviling word, yet with the intention, not of dishonoring him, but rather perhaps of correcting him or with some like purpose, he utters a railing or reviling not formally and essentially, but accidentally and materially, in so far to wit as he says that which might be a railing or reviling. Hence this may be sometimes a venial sin, and sometimes without any sin at all. Nevertheless there is need of discretion in such matters, and one should use such words with moderation, because the railing might be so grave that being uttered inconsiderately it might dishonor the person against whom it is uttered. On such a case a man might commit a mortal sin, even though he did not intend to dishonor the other man: just as were a man incautiously to injure grievously another by striking him in fun, he would not be without blame. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ad eutrapelum pertinet dicere aliquod leve convicium, non ad dehonorationem vel ad contristationem eius in quem dicitur, sed magis causa delectationis et ioci. Et hoc potest esse sine peccato, si debitae circumstantiae observantur. Si vero aliquis non reformidet contristare eum in quem profertur huiusmodi iocosum convicium, dummodo aliis risum excitet, hoc est vitiosum, ut ibidem dicitur. | Reply to Objection 1. It belongs to wittiness to utter some slight mockery, not with intent to dishonor or pain the person who is the object of the mockery, but rather with intent to please and amuse: and this may be without sin, if the due circumstances be observed. on the other hand if a man does not shrink from inflicting pain on the object of his witty mockery, so long as he makes others laugh, this is sinful, as stated in the passage quoted. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod sicut licitum est aliquem verberare vel in rebus damnificare causa disciplinae, ita etiam et causa disciplinae potest aliquis alteri, quem debet corrigere, verbum aliquod conviciosum dicere. Et hoc modo dominus discipulos vocavit stultos, et apostolus Galatas insensatos. Tamen, sicut dicit Augustinus, in libro de Serm. Dom. in monte, raro, et ex magna necessitate obiurgationes sunt adhibendae, in quibus non nobis, sed ut domino serviatur, instemus. | Reply to Objection 2. Just as it is lawful to strike a person, or damnify him in his belongings for the purpose of correction, so too, for the purpose of correction, may one say a mocking word to a person whom one has to correct. It is thus that our Lord called the disciples "foolish," and the Apostle called the Galatians "senseless." Yet, as Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 19), "seldom and only when it is very necessary should we have recourse to invectives, and then so as to urge God's service, not our own." |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, cum peccatum convicii vel contumeliae ex animo dicentis dependeat, potest contingere quod sit peccatum veniale, si sit leve convicium, non multum hominem dehonestans, et proferatur ex aliqua animi levitate, vel ex levi ira, absque firmo proposito aliquem dehonestandi, puta cum aliquis intendit aliquem per huiusmodi verbum leviter contristare. | Reply to Objection 3. Since the sin of railing or reviling depends on the intention of the utterer, it may happen to be a venial sin, if it be a slight railing that does not inflict much dishonor on a man, and be uttered through lightness of heart or some slight anger, without the fixed purpose of dishonoring him, for instance when one intends by such a word to give but little pain. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis non debeat contumelias sibi illatas sustinere. Qui enim sustinet contumeliam sibi illatam, audaciam nutrit conviciantis. Sed hoc non est faciendum. Ergo homo non debet sustinere contumeliam sibi illatam, sed magis convicianti respondere. | Objection 1. It would seem that one ought not to suffer oneself to be reviled. For he that suffers himself to be reviled, encourages the reviler. But one ought not to do this. Therefore one ought not to suffer oneself to be reviled, but rather reply to the reviler. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, homo debet plus se diligere quam alium. Sed aliquis non debet sustinere quod alteri convicium inferatur, unde dicitur Prov. XXVI, qui imponit stulto silentium, iras mitigat. Ergo etiam aliquis non debet sustinere contumelias illatas sibi. | Objection 2. Further, one ought to love oneself more than another. Now one ought not to suffer another to be reviled, wherefore it is written (Proverbs 26:10): "He that putteth a fool to silence appeaseth anger." Therefore neither should one suffer oneself to be reviled. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, non licet alicui vindicare seipsum, secundum illud, mihi vindictam, et ego retribuam. Sed aliquis non resistendo contumeliae se vindicat, secundum illud Chrysostomi, si vindicare vis, sile, et funestam ei dedisti plagam. Ergo aliquis non debet, silendo, sustinere verba contumeliosa, sed magis respondere. | Objection 3. Further, a man is not allowed to revenge himself, for it is said: "Vengeance belongeth to Me, I will repay" [Hebrews 10:30. Now by submitting to be reviled a man revenges himself, according to Chrysostom (Hom. xxii, in Ep. ad Rom.): "If thou wilt be revenged, be silent; thou hast dealt him a fatal blow." Therefore one ought not by silence to submit to reviling words, but rather answer back. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalm., qui inquirebant mala mihi, locuti sunt vanitates; et postea subdit, ego autem tanquam surdus non audiebam, et sicut mutus non aperiens os suum. | On the contrary, It is written (Psalm 37:13): "They that sought evils to me spoke vain things," and afterwards (Psalm 37:14) he says: "But I as a deaf man, heard not; and as a dumb man not opening his mouth." |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod sicut patientia necessaria est in his quae contra nos fiunt, ita etiam in his quae contra nos dicuntur. Praecepta autem patientiae in his quae contra nos fiunt, sunt in praeparatione animae habenda, sicut Augustinus, in libro de Serm. Dom. in monte, exponit illud praeceptum domini, si quis percusserit te in una maxilla, praebe ei et aliam, ut scilicet homo sit paratus hoc facere, si opus fuerit; non tamen hoc semper tenetur facere actu, quia nec ipse dominus hoc fecit, sed, cum suscepisset alapam, dixit, quid me caedis? Ut habetur Ioan. XVIII. Et ideo etiam circa verba contumeliosa quae contra nos dicuntur, est idem intelligendum. Tenemur enim habere animum paratum ad contumelias tolerandas si expediens fuerit. Quandoque tamen oportet ut contumeliam illatam repellamus, maxime propter duo. Primo quidem, propter bonum eius qui contumeliam infert, ut videlicet eius audacia reprimatur, et de cetero talia non attentet; secundum illud Prov. XXVI, responde stulto iuxta stultitiam suam, ne sibi sapiens videatur. Alio modo, propter bonum multorum, quorum profectus impeditur per contumelias nobis illatas. Unde Gregorius dicit, super Ezech., Homil. IX, hi quorum vita in exemplo imitationis est posita, debent, si possunt, detrahentium sibi verba compescere, ne eorum praedicationem non audiant qui audire poterant, et in pravis moribus remanentes, bene vivere contemnant. | I answer that, Just as we need patience in things done against us, so do we need it in those said against us. Now the precepts of patience in those things done against us refer to the preparedness of the mind, according to Augustine's (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19) exposition on our Lord's precept, "If one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other" The words as quoted by St. Thomas are a blending of Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29: that is to say, a man ought to be prepared to do so if necessary. But he is not always bound to do this actually: since not even did our Lord do so, for when He received a blow, He said: "Why strikest thou Me?" (John 18:23). Consequently the same applies to the reviling words that are said against us. For we are bound to hold our minds prepared to submit to be reviled, if it should be expedient. Nevertheless it sometimes behooves us to withstand against being reviled, and this chiefly for two reasons. First, for the good of the reviler; namely, that his daring may be checked, and that he may not repeat the attempt, according to Proverbs 26:5, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he imagine himself to be wise." Secondly, for the good of many who would be prevented from progressing in virtue on account of our being reviled. Hence Gregory says (Hom. ix, Super Ezech.): "Those who are so placed that their life should be an example to others, ought, if possible, to silence their detractors, lest their preaching be not heard by those who could have heard it, and they continue their evil conduct through contempt of a good life." |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod audaciam conviciantis contumeliosi debet aliquis moderate reprimere, scilicet propter officium caritatis, non propter cupiditatem privati honoris. Unde dicitur Prov. XXVI, ne respondeas stulto iuxta stultitiam suam, ne ei similis efficiaris. | Reply to Objection 1. The daring of the railing reviler should be checked with moderation, i.e. as a duty of charity, and not through lust for one's own honor. Hence it is written (Proverbs 26:4): "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like him." |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in hoc quod aliquis alienas contumelias reprimit, non ita timetur cupiditas privati honoris sicut cum aliquis repellit contumelias proprias, magis autem videtur hoc provenire ex caritatis affectu. | Reply to Objection 2. When one man prevents another from being reviled there is not the danger of lust for one's own honor as there is when a man defends himself from being reviled: indeed rather would it seem to proceed from a sense of charity. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod si aliquis hoc animo taceret ut tacendo contumeliantem ad iracundiam provocaret, pertineret hoc ad vindictam. Sed si aliquis taceat volens dare locum irae, hoc est laudabile. Unde dicitur Eccli. VIII, non litiges cum homine linguato, et non struas in ignem illius ligna. | Reply to Objection 3. It would be an act of revenge to keep silence with the intention of provoking the reviler to anger, but it would be praiseworthy to be silent, in order to give place to anger. Hence it is written (Sirach 8:4): "Strive not with a man that is full of tongue, and heap not wood upon his fire." |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod contumelia non oriatur ex ira. Quia dicitur Prov. XI, ubi superbia, ibi contumelia. Sed ira est vitium distinctum a superbia. Ergo contumelia non oritur ex ira. | Objection 1. It would seem that reviling does not arise from anger. For it is written (Proverbs 11:2): "Where pride is, there shall also be reviling [Douay: 'reproach']." But anger is a vice distinct from pride. Therefore reviling does not arise from anger. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, Prov. XX dicitur, omnes stulti miscentur contumeliis. Sed stultitia est vitium oppositum sapientiae, ut supra habitum est, ira autem opponitur mansuetudini. Ergo contumelia non oritur ex ira. | Objection 2. Further, it is written (Proverbs 20:3): "All fools are meddling with revilings [Douay: 'reproaches']." Now folly is a vice opposed to wisdom, as stated above (Question 46, Article 1); whereas anger is opposed to meekness. Therefore reviling does not arise from anger. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, nullum peccatum diminuitur ex sua causa. Sed peccatum contumeliae diminuitur si ex ira proferatur, gravius enim peccat qui ex odio contumeliam infert quam qui ex ira. Ergo contumelia non oritur ex ira. | Objection 3. Further, no sin is diminished by its cause. But the sin of reviling is diminished if one gives vent to it through anger: for it is a more grievous sin to revile out of hatred than out of anger. Therefore reviling does not arise from anger. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, XXXI Moral., quod ex ira oriuntur contumeliae. | On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45) that "anger gives rise to revilings." |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum unum peccatum possit ex diversis oriri, ex illo tamen dicitur principalius habere originem ex quo frequentius procedere consuevit, propter propinquitatem ad finem ipsius. Contumelia autem magnam habet propinquitatem ad finem irae, qui est vindicta, nulla enim vindicta est irato magis in promptu quam inferre contumeliam alteri. Et ideo contumelia maxime oritur ex ira. | I answer that, While one sin may arise from various causes, it is nevertheless said to have its source chiefly in that one from which it is wont to arise most frequently, through being closely connected with its end. Now reviling is closely connected with anger's end, which is revenge: since the easiest way for the angry man to take revenge on another is to revile him. Therefore reviling arises chiefly from anger. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod contumelia non ordinatur ad finem superbiae, qui est celsitudo, et ideo non directe contumelia oritur ex superbia. Disponit tamen superbia ad contumeliam, inquantum illi qui se superiores aestimant, facilius alios contemnunt et iniurias eis irrogant. Facilius etiam irascuntur, utpote reputantes indignum quidquid contra eorum voluntatem agitur. | Reply to Objection 1. Reviling is not directed to the end of pride which is excellency. Hence reviling does not arise directly from pride. Nevertheless pride disposes a man to revile, in so far as those who think themselves to excel, are more prone to despise others and inflict injuries on them, because they are more easily angered, through deeming it an affront to themselves whenever anything is done against their will. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in VII Ethic., ira non perfecte audit rationem, et sic iratus patitur rationis defectum, in quo convenit cum stultitia. Et propter hoc ex stultitia oritur contumelia, secundum affinitatem quam habet cum ira. | Reply to Objection 2. According to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 6) "anger listens imperfectly to reason": wherefore an angry man suffers a defect of reason, and in this he is like the foolish man. Hence reviling arises from folly on account of the latter's kinship with anger. |
| IIª-IIae q. 72 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in II Rhet., iratus intendit manifestam offensam, quod non curat odiens. Et ideo contumelia, quae importat manifestam iniuriam, magis pertinet ad iram quam ad odium. | Reply to Objection 3. According to the Philosopher (Rhet. ii, 4) "an angry man seeks an open offense, but he who hates does not worry about this." Hence reviling which denotes a manifest injury belongs to anger rather than to hatred. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 pr. Deinde considerandum est de detractione. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, quid sit detractio. Secundo, utrum sit peccatum mortale. Tertio, de comparatione eius ad alia peccata. Quarto, utrum peccet aliquis audiendo detractionem. | Question 73. Backbiting 1. What is backbiting? 2. Is it a mortal sin? 3. Its comparison with other sins 4. Is it a sin to listen to backbiting? |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod detractio non sit denigratio alienae famae per occulta verba, ut a quibusdam definitur. Occultum enim et manifestum sunt circumstantiae non constituentes speciem peccati, accidit enim peccato quod a multis sciatur vel a paucis. Sed illud quod non constituit speciem peccati non pertinet ad rationem ipsius, nec debet poni in eius definitione. Ergo ad rationem detractionis non pertinet quod fiat per occulta verba. | Objection 1. It would seem that backbiting is not as defined by some [Albert the Great, Sum. Theol. II, cxvii.], "the blackening of another's good name by words uttered in secret." For "secretly" and "openly" are circumstances that do not constitute the species of a sin, because it is accidental to a sin that it be known by many or by few. Now that which does not constitute the species of a sin, does not belong to its essence, and should not be included in its definition. Therefore it does not belong to the essence of backbiting that it should be done by secret words. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, ad rationem famae pertinet publica notitia. Si igitur per detractionem denigretur fama alicuius, non poterit hoc fieri per verba occulta, sed per verba in manifesto dicta. | Objection 2. Further, the notion of a good name implies something known to the public. If, therefore, a person's good name is blackened by backbiting, this cannot be done by secret words, but by words uttered openly. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, ille detrahit qui aliquid subtrahit vel diminuit de eo quod est. Sed quandoque denigratur fama alicuius etiam si nihil subtrahatur de veritate, puta cum aliquis vera crimina alicuius pandit. Ergo non omnis denigratio famae est detractio. | Objection 3. Further, to detract is to subtract, or to diminish something already existing. But sometimes a man's good name is blackened, even without subtracting from the truth: for instance, when one reveals the crimes which a man has in truth committed. Therefore not every blackening of a good name is backbiting. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Eccle. X, si mordeat serpens in silentio, nihil eo minus habet qui occulte detrahit. Ergo occulte mordere famam alicuius est detrahere. | On the contrary, It is written (Ecclesiastes 10:11): "If a serpent bite in silence, he is nothing better that backbiteth." |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod sicut facto aliquis alteri nocet dupliciter, manifeste quidem sicut in rapina vel quacumque violentia illata, occulte autem sicut in furto et dolosa percussione; ita etiam verbo aliquis dupliciter aliquem laedit, uno modo, in manifesto, et hoc fit per contumeliam, ut supra dictum est; alio modo, occulte, et hoc fit per detractionem. Ex hoc autem quod aliquis manifeste verba contra alium profert, videtur eum parvipendere, unde ex hoc ipso exhonoratur, et ideo contumelia detrimentum affert honori eius in quem profertur. Sed qui verba contra aliquem profert in occulto, videtur eum vereri magis quam parvipendere, unde non directe infert detrimentum honori, sed famae; inquantum, huiusmodi verba occulte proferens, quantum in ipso est, eos qui audiunt facit malam opinionem habere de eo contra quem loquitur. Hoc enim intendere videtur, et ad hoc conatur detrahens, ut eius verbis credatur. Unde patet quod detractio differt a contumelia dupliciter. Uno modo, quantum ad modum proponendi verba, quia scilicet contumeliosus manifeste contra aliquem loquitur, detractor autem occulte. Alio modo, quantum ad finem intentum, sive quantum ad nocumentum illatum, quia scilicet contumeliosus derogat honori, detractor famae. | I answer that, Just as one man injures another by deed in two ways--openly, as by robbery or by doing him any kind of violence--and secretly, as by theft, or by a crafty blow, so again one man injures another by words in two ways--in one way, openly, and this is done by reviling him, as stated above (Question 72, Article 1)--and in another way secretly, and this is done by backbiting. Now from the fact that one man openly utters words against another man, he would appear to think little of him, so that for this reason he dishonors him, so that reviling is detrimental to the honor of the person reviled. On the other hand, he that speaks against another secretly, seems to respect rather than slight him, so that he injures directly, not his honor but his good name, in so far as by uttering such words secretly, he, for his own part, causes his hearers to have a bad opinion of the person against whom he speaks. For the backbiter apparently intends and aims at being believed. It is therefore evident that backbiting differs from reviling in two points: first, in the way in which the words are uttered, the reviler speaking openly against someone, and the backbiter secretly; secondly, as to the end in view, i.e. as regards the injury inflicted, the reviler injuring a man's honor, the backbiter injuring his good name. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in involuntariis commutationibus, ad quas reducuntur omnia nocumenta proximo illata verbo vel facto, diversificat rationem peccati occultum et manifestum, quia alia est ratio involuntarii per violentiam, et per ignorantiam, ut supra dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1. In involuntary commutations, to which are reduced all injuries inflicted on our neighbor, whether by word or by deed, the kind of sin is differentiated by the circumstances "secretly" and "openly," because involuntariness itself is diversified by violence and by ignorance, as stated above (65, 4; I-II, 6, 5,8). |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod verba detractionis dicuntur occulta non simpliciter, sed per comparationem ad eum de quo dicuntur, quia eo absente et ignorante, dicuntur. Sed contumeliosus in faciem contra hominem loquitur. Unde si aliquis de alio male loquatur coram multis, eo absente, detractio est, si autem eo solo praesente, contumelia est. Quamvis etiam si uni soli aliquis de absente malum dicat, corrumpit famam eius, non in toto, sed in parte. | Reply to Objection 2. The words of a backbiter are said to be secret, not altogether, but in relation to the person of whom they are said, because they are uttered in his absence and without his knowledge. On the other hand, the reviler speaks against a man to his face. Wherefore if a man speaks ill of another in the presence of several, it is a case of backbiting if he be absent, but of reviling if he alone be present: although if a man speak ill of an absent person to one man alone, he destroys his good name not altogether but partly. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod aliquis dicitur detrahere non quia diminuat de veritate, sed quia diminuit famam eius. Quod quidem quandoque fit directe, quandoque indirecte. Directe quidem, quadrupliciter, uno modo, quando falsum imponit alteri; secundo, quando peccatum adauget suis verbis; tertio, quando occultum revelat; quarto, quando id quod est bonum dicit mala intentione factum. Indirecte autem, vel negando bonum alterius; vel malitiose reticendo. | Reply to Objection 3. A man is said to backbite [detrehere] another, not because he detracts from the truth, but because he lessens his good name. This is done sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. Directly, in four ways: first, by saying that which is false about him; secondly, by stating his sin to be greater than it is; thirdly, by revealing something unknown about him; fourthly, by ascribing his good deeds to a bad intention. Indirectly, this is done either by gainsaying his good, or by maliciously concealing it, or by diminishing it. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod detractio non sit peccatum mortale. Nullus enim actus virtutis est peccatum mortale. Sed revelare peccatum occultum, quod, sicut dictum est, ad detractionem pertinet, est actus virtutis, vel caritatis, dum aliquis fratris peccatum denuntiat eius emendationem intendens; vel etiam est actus iustitiae, dum aliquis fratrem accusat. Ergo detractio non est peccatum mortale. | Objection 1. It would seem that backbiting is not a mortal sin. For no act of virtue is a mortal sin. Now, to reveal an unknown sin, which pertains to backbiting, as stated above (1, ad 3), is an act of the virtue of charity, whereby a man denounces his brother's sin in order that he may amend: or else it is an act of justice, whereby a man accuses his brother. Therefore backbiting is not a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, super illud Prov. XXIV, cum detractoribus non commiscearis, dicit Glossa, hoc specialiter vitio periclitatur totum genus humanum. Sed nullum peccatum mortale in toto humano genere invenitur, quia multi abstinent a peccato mortali, peccata autem venialia sunt quae in omnibus inveniuntur. Ergo detractio est peccatum veniale. | Objection 2. Further, a gloss on Proverbs 24:21, "Have nothing to do with detractors," says: "The whole human race is in peril from this vice." But no mortal sin is to be found in the whole of mankind, since many refrain from mortal sin: whereas they are venial sins that are found in all. Therefore backbiting is a venial sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, Augustinus, in homilia de igne Purg., inter peccata minuta ponit, quando cum omni facilitate vel temeritate maledicimus, quod pertinet ad detractionem. Ergo detractio est peccatum veniale. | Objection 3. Further, Augustine in a homily On the Fire of Purgatory [Serm. civ in the appendix to St. Augustine's work] reckons it a slight sin "to speak ill without hesitation or forethought." But this pertains to backbiting. Therefore backbiting is a venial sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Rom. I dicitur, detractores, Deo odibiles, quod ideo additur, ut dicit Glossa, ne leve putetur propter hoc quod consistit in verbis. | On the contrary, It is written (Romans 1:30): "Backbiters, hateful to God," which epithet, according to a gloss, is inserted, "lest it be deemed a slight sin because it consists in words." |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, peccata verborum maxime sunt ex intentione dicentis diiudicanda. Detractio autem, secundum suam rationem, ordinatur ad denigrandam famam alicuius. Unde ille, per se loquendo, detrahit qui ad hoc de aliquo obloquitur, eo absente, ut eius famam denigret. Auferre autem alicui famam valde grave est, quia inter res temporales videtur fama esse pretiosior, per cuius defectum homo impeditur a multis bene agendis. Propter quod dicitur Eccli. XLI, curam habe de bono nomine, hoc enim magis permanebit tibi quam mille thesauri magni et pretiosi. Et ideo detractio, per se loquendo, est peccatum mortale. Contingit tamen quandoque quod aliquis dicit aliqua verba per quae diminuitur fama alicuius, non hoc intendens, sed aliquid aliud hoc autem non est detrahere per se et formaliter loquendo, sed solum materialiter et quasi per accidens. Et si quidem verba per quae fama alterius diminuitur proferat aliquis propter aliquod bonum vel necessarium, debitis circumstantiis observatis, non est peccatum, nec potest dici detractio. Si autem proferat ex animi levitate, vel propter aliquid non necessarium, non est peccatum mortale, nisi forte verbum quod dicitur sit adeo grave quod notabiliter famam alicuius laedat, et praecipue in his quae pertinent ad honestatem vitae; quia hoc ex ipso genere verborum habet rationem peccati mortalis. Et tenetur aliquis ad restitutionem famae, sicut ad restitutionem cuiuslibet rei subtractae, eo modo quo supra dictum est, cum de restitutione ageretur. | I answer that, As stated above (Question 72, Article 2), sins of word should be judged chiefly from the intention of the speaker. Now backbiting by its very nature aims at blackening a man's good name. Wherefore, properly speaking, to backbite is to speak ill of an absent person in order to blacken his good name. Now it is a very grave matter to blacken a man's good name, because of all temporal things a man's good name seems the most precious, since for lack of it he is hindered from doing many things well. For this reason it is written (Sirach 41:15): "Take care of a good name, for this shall continue with thee, more than a thousand treasures precious and great." Therefore backbiting, properly speaking, is a mortal sin. Nevertheless it happens sometimes that a man utters words, whereby someone's good name is tarnished, and yet he does not intend this, but something else. This is not backbiting strictly and formally speaking, but only materially and accidentally as it were. And if such defamatory words be uttered for the sake of some necessary good, and with attention to the due circumstances, it is not a sin and cannot be called backbiting. But if they be uttered out of lightness of heart or for some unnecessary motive, it is not a mortal sin, unless perchance the spoken word be of such a grave nature, as to cause a notable injury to a man's good name, especially in matters pertaining to his moral character, because from the very nature of the words this would be a mortal sin. And one is bound to restore a man his good name, no less than any other thing one has taken from him, in the manner stated above (Question 62, Article 2) when we were treating of restitution. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod revelare peccatum occultum alicuius propter eius emendationem denuntiando, vel propter bonum publicae iustitiae accusando, non est detrahere, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1. As stated above, it is not backbiting to reveal a man's hidden sin in order that he may mend, whether one denounce it, or accuse him for the good of public justice. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Glossa illa non dicit quod detractio in toto genere humano inveniatur, sed addit, paene. Tum quia stultorum infinitus est numerus, et pauci sunt qui ambulant per viam salutis. Tum etiam quia pauci vel nulli sunt qui non aliquando ex animi levitate aliquid dicunt unde in aliquo, vel leviter, alterius fama minoratur, quia, ut dicitur Iac. III, si quis in verbo non offendit, hic perfectus est vir. | Reply to Objection 2. This gloss does not assert that backbiting is to be found throughout the whole of mankind, but "almost," both because "the number of fools is infinite," [Ecclesiastes 1:15 and few are they that walk in the way of salvation, [Cf. Matthew 7:14] and because there are few or none at all who do not at times speak from lightness of heart, so as to injure someone's good name at least slightly, for it is written (James 3:2): "If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man." |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Augustinus loquitur in casu illo quo aliquis dicit aliquod leve malum de alio non ex intentione nocendi, sed ex animi levitate vel ex lapsu linguae. | Reply to Objection 3. Augustine is referring to the case when a man utters a slight evil about someone, not intending to injure him, but through lightness of heart or a slip of the tongue. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod detractio sit gravius omnibus peccatis quae in proximum committuntur. Quia super illud Psalm., pro eo ut me diligerent, detrahebant mihi, dicit Glossa, plus nocent in membris detrahentes Christo, quia animas crediturorum interficiunt, quam qui eius carnem, mox resurrecturam, peremerunt. Ex quo videtur quod detractio sit gravius peccatum quam homicidium, quanto gravius est occidere animam quam occidere corpus. Sed homicidium est gravius inter cetera peccata quae in proximum committuntur. Ergo detractio est simpliciter inter omnia gravior. | Objection 1. It would seem that backbiting is the gravest of all sins committed against one's neighbor. Because a gloss on Psalm 108:4, "Instead of making me a return of love they detracted me," a gloss says: "Those who detract Christ in His members and slay the souls of future believers are more guilty than those who killed the flesh that was soon to rise again." From this it seems to follow that backbiting is by so much a graver sin than murder, as it is a graver matter to kill the soul than to kill the body. Now murder is the gravest of the other sins that are committed against one's neighbor. Therefore backbiting is absolutely the gravest of all. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, detractio videtur esse gravius peccatum quam contumelia quia contumeliam potest homo repellere, non autem detractionem latentem. Sed contumelia videtur esse maius peccatum quam adulterium, per hoc quod adulterium unit duos in unam carnem, contumelia autem unitos in multa dividit. Ergo detractio est maius peccatum quam adulterium, quod tamen, inter alia peccata quae sunt in proximum, magnam gravitatem habet. | Objection 2. Further, backbiting is apparently a graver sin than reviling, because a man can withstand reviling, but not a secret backbiting. Now backbiting is seemingly a graver sin than adultery, because adultery unites two persons in one flesh, whereas reviling severs utterly those who were united. Therefore backbiting is more grievous than adultery: and yet of all other sins a man commits against his neighbor, adultery is most grave. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, contumelia oritur ex ira, detractio autem ex invidia, ut patet per Gregorium, XXXI Moral. Sed invidia est maius peccatum quam ira. Ergo et detractio est maius peccatum quam contumelia. Et sic idem quod prius. | Objection 3. Further, reviling arises from anger, while backbiting arises from envy, according to Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45). But envy is a graver sin than anger. Therefore backbiting is a graver sin than reviling; and so the same conclusion follows as before. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 3 arg. 4 Praeterea, tanto aliquod peccatum est gravius quanto graviorem defectum inducit. Sed detractio inducit gravissimum defectum, scilicet excaecationem mentis, dicit enim Gregorius, quid aliud detrahentes faciunt nisi quod in pulverem sufflant et in oculos suos terram excitant, ut unde plus detractionis perflant, inde minus veritatis videant? Ergo detractio est gravissimum peccatum inter ea quae committuntur in proximum. | Objection 4. Further, the gravity of a sin is measured by the gravity of the defect that it causes. Now backbiting causes a most grievous defect, viz. blindness of mind. For Gregory says (Regist. xi, Ep. 2): "What else do backbiters but blow on the dust and stir up the dirt into their eyes, so that the more they breathe of detraction, the less they see of the truth?" Therefore backbiting is the most grievous sin committed against one's neighbor. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra, gravius est peccare facto quam verbo. Sed detractio est peccatum verbi, adulterium autem et homicidium et furtum sunt peccata in factis. Ergo detractio non est gravius ceteris peccatis quae sunt in proximum. | On the contrary, It is more grievous to sin by deed than by word. But backbiting is a sin of word, while adultery, murder, and theft are sins of deed. Therefore backbiting is not graver than the other sins committed against one's neighbor. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod peccata quae committuntur in proximum sunt pensanda per se quidem secundum nocumenta quae proximo inferuntur, quia ex hoc habent rationem culpae. Tanto autem est maius nocumentum quanto maius bonum demitur. Cum autem sit triplex bonum hominis, scilicet bonum animae et bonum corporis et bonum exteriorum rerum, bonum animae, quod est maximum, non potest alicui ab alio tolli nisi occasionaliter, puta per malam persuasionem, quae necessitatem non infert, sed alia duo bona, scilicet corporis et exteriorum rerum, possunt ab alio violenter auferri. Sed quia bonum corporis praeeminet bono exteriorum rerum, graviora sunt peccata quibus infertur nocumentum corpori quam ea quibus infertur nocumentum exterioribus rebus. Unde inter cetera peccata quae sunt in proximum, homicidium gravius est, per quod tollitur vita proximi iam actu existens, consequenter autem adulterium, quod est contra debitum ordinem generationis humanae, per quam est introitus ad vitam. Consequenter autem sunt exteriora bona. Inter quae, fama praeeminet divitiis, eo quod propinquior est spiritualibus bonis, unde dicitur Prov. XXII, melius est nomen bonum quam divitiae multae. Et ideo detractio, secundum suum genus, est maius peccatum quam furtum, minus tamen quam homicidium vel adulterium. Potest tamen esse alius ordo propter circumstantias aggravantes vel diminuentes. Per accidens autem gravitas peccati attenditur ex parte peccantis, qui gravius peccat si ex deliberatione peccet quam si peccet ex infirmitate vel incautela. Et secundum hoc peccata locutionis habent aliquam levitatem, inquantum de facili ex lapsu linguae proveniunt, absque magna praemeditatione. | I answer that, The essential gravity of sins committed against one's neighbor must be weighed by the injury they inflict on him, since it is thence that they derive their sinful nature. Now the greater the good taken away, the greater the injury. And while man's good is threefold, namely the good of his soul, the good of his body, and the good of external things; the good of the soul, which is the greatest of all, cannot be taken from him by another save as an occasional cause, for instance by an evil persuasion, which does not induce necessity. On the other hand the two latter goods, viz. of the body and of external things, can be taken away by violence. Since, however, the goods of the body excel the goods of external things, those sins which injure a man's body are more grievous than those which injure his external things. Consequently, among other sins committed against one's neighbor, murder is the most grievous, since it deprives man of the life which he already possesses: after this comes adultery, which is contrary to the right order of human generation, whereby man enters upon life. On the last place come external goods, among which a man's good name takes precedence of wealth because it is more akin to spiritual goods, wherefore it is written (Proverbs 22:1): "A good name is better than great riches." Therefore backbiting according to its genus is a more grievous sin than theft, but is less grievous than murder or adultery. Nevertheless the order may differ by reason of aggravating or extenuating circumstances. The accidental gravity of a sin is to be considered in relation to the sinner, who sins more grievously, if he sins deliberately than if he sins through weakness or carelessness. On this respect sins of word have a certain levity, in so far as they are apt to occur through a slip of the tongue, and without much forethought. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illi qui detrahunt Christo impedientes fidem membrorum ipsius, derogant divinitati eius, cui fides innititur. Unde non est simplex detractio, sed blasphemia. | Reply to Objection 1. Those who detract Christ by hindering the faith of His members, disparage His Godhead, which is the foundation of our faith. Wherefore this is not simple backbiting but blasphemy. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod gravius peccatum est contumelia quam detractio, inquantum habet maiorem contemptum proximi, sicut et rapina est gravius peccatum quam furtum, ut supra dictum est. Contumelia tamen non est gravius peccatum quam adulterium, non enim gravitas adulterii pensatur ex coniunctione corporum, sed ex deordinatione generationis humanae. Contumeliosus autem non sufficienter causat inimicitiam in alio, sed occasionaliter tantum dividit unitos, inquantum scilicet per hoc quod mala alterius promit, alios, quantum in se est, ab eius amicitia separat, licet ad hoc per eius verba non cogantur. Sic etiam et detractor occasionaliter est homicida, inquantum scilicet per sua verba dat alteri occasionem ut proximum odiat vel contemnat. Propter quod in epistola Clementis dicitur detractores esse homicidas, scilicet occasionaliter, quia qui odit fratrem suum, homicida est, ut dicitur I Ioan. III. | Reply to Objection 2. Reviling is a more grievous sin than backbiting, in as much as it implies greater contempt of one's neighbor: even as robbery is a graver sin than theft, as stated above (Question 66, Article 09). Yet reviling is not a more grievous sin than adultery. For the gravity of adultery is measured, not from its being a union of bodies, but from being a disorder in human generation. Moreover the reviler is not the sufficient cause of unfriendliness in another man, but is only the occasional cause of division among those who were united, in so far, to wit, as by declaring the evils of another, he for his own part severs that man from the friendship of other men, though they are not forced by his words to do so. Accordingly a backbiter is a murderer "occasionally," since by his words he gives another man an occasion for hating or despising his neighbor. For this reason it is stated in the Epistle of Clement [Ad Jacob. Ep. i], that "backbiters are murderers," i.e. occasionally; because "he that hateth his brother is a murderer" (1 John 3:15). |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod quia ira quaerit in manifesto vindictam inferre, ut philosophus dicit, in II Rhet., ideo detractio, quae est in occulto, non est filia irae, sicut contumelia; sed magis invidiae, quae nititur qualitercumque minuere gloriam proximi. Nec tamen sequitur propter hoc quod detractio sit gravior quam contumelia, quia ex minori vitio potest oriri maius peccatum, sicut ex ira nascitur homicidium et blasphemia. Origo enim peccatorum attenditur secundum inclinationem ad finem, quod est ex parte conversionis, gravitas autem peccati magis attenditur ex parte aversionis. | Reply to Objection 3. Anger seeks openly to be avenged, as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii, 2): wherefore backbiting which takes place in secret, is not the daughter of anger, as reviling is, but rather of envy, which strives by any means to lessen one's neighbor's glory. Nor does it follow from this that backbiting is more grievous than reviling: since a lesser vice can give rise to a greater sin, just as anger gives birth to murder and blasphemy. For the origin of a sin depends on its inclination to an end, i.e. on the thing to which the sin turns, whereas the gravity of a sin depends on what it turns away from. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 3 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod quia homo laetatur in sententia oris sui, ut dicitur Prov. XV, inde est quod ille qui detrahit incipit magis amare et credere quod dicit; et per consequens proximum magis odire; et sic magis recedere a cognitione veritatis. Iste tamen effectus potest sequi etiam ex aliis peccatis quae pertinent ad odium proximi. | Reply to Objection 4. Since "a man rejoiceth in the sentence of his mouth" (Proverbs 15:23), it follows that a backbiter more and more loves and believes what he says, and consequently more and more hates his neighbor, and thus his knowledge of the truth becomes less and less. This effect however may also result from other sins pertaining to hate of one's neighbor. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod audiens qui tolerat detrahentem non graviter peccet. Non enim aliquis magis tenetur alteri quam sibi ipsi. Sed laudabile est si patienter homo suos detractores toleret, dicit enim Gregorius, super Ezech. Homil. IX, linguas detrahentium, sicut nostro studio non debemus excitare, ne ipsi pereant; ita per suam malitiam excitatas debemus aequanimiter tolerare, ut nobis meritum crescat. Ergo non peccat aliquis si detractionibus aliorum non resistat. | Objection 1. It would seem that the listener who suffers a backbiter does not sin grievously. For a man is not under greater obligations to others than to himself. But it is praiseworthy for a man to suffer his own backbiters: for Gregory says (Hom. ix, super Ezech): "Just as we ought not to incite the tongue of backbiters, lest they perish, so ought we to suffer them with equanimity when they have been incited by their own wickedness, in order that our merit may be the greater." Therefore a man does not sin if he does not withstand those who backbite others. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, Eccli. IV dicitur, non contradicas verbo veritatis ullo modo. Sed quandoque aliquis detrahit verba veritatis dicendo, ut supra dictum est. Ergo videtur quod non semper teneatur homo detractionibus resistere. | Objection 2. Further, it is written (Sirach 4:30): "In no wise speak against the truth." Now sometimes a person tells the truth while backbiting, as stated above (1, ad 3). Therefore it seems that one is not always bound to withstand a backbiter. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, nullus debet impedire id quod est in utilitatem aliorum. Sed detractio frequenter est in utilitatem eorum contra quos detrahitur, dicit enim pius Papa, nonnunquam detractio adversus bonos excitatur, ut quos vel domestica adulatio vel aliorum favor in altum extulerat, detractio humiliet. Ergo aliquis non debet detractiones impedire. | Objection 3. Further, no man should hinder what is profitable to others. Now backbiting is often profitable to those who are backbitten: for Pope Pius [St. Pius I] says [Append. Grat. ad can. Oves, caus. vi, qu. 1: "Not unfrequently backbiting is directed against good persons, with the result that those who have been unduly exalted through the flattery of their kindred, or the favor of others, are humbled by backbiting." Therefore one ought not to withstand backbiters. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Hieronymus dicit, cave ne linguam aut aures habeas prurientes, aut aliis detrahas, aut alios audias detrahentes. | On the contrary, Jerome says (Ep. ad Nepot. lii): "Take care not to have an itching tongue, nor tingling ears, that is, neither detract others nor listen to backbiters." |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum apostolum, ad Rom. I, digni sunt morte non solum qui peccata faciunt, sed etiam qui facientibus peccata consentiunt. Quod quidem contingit dupliciter. Uno modo, directe, quando scilicet quis inducit alium ad peccatum, vel ei placet peccatum. Alio modo, indirecte, quando scilicet non resistit, cum resistere possit, et hoc contingit quandoque non quia peccatum placeat, sed propter aliquem humanum timorem. Dicendum est ergo quod si aliquis detractiones audiat absque resistentia, videtur detractori consentire, unde fit particeps peccati eius. Et si quidem inducat eum ad detrahendum, vel saltem placeat ei detractio, propter odium eius cui detrahitur, non minus peccat quam detrahens, et quandoque magis. Unde Bernardus dicit, detrahere, aut detrahentem audire, quid horum damnabilius sit, non facile dixerim. Si vero non placeat ei peccatum, sed ex timore vel negligentia vel etiam verecundia quadam omittat repellere detrahentem, peccat quidem, sed multo minus quam detrahens, et plerumque venialiter. Quandoque etiam hoc potest esse peccatum mortale, vel propter hoc quod alicui ex officio incumbit detrahentem corrigere; vel propter aliquod periculum consequens; vel propter radicem, qua timor humanus quandoque potest esse peccatum mortale, ut supra habitum est. | I answer that, According to the Apostle (Romans 1:32), they "are worthy of death . . . not only they that" commit sins, "but they also that consent to them that do them." Now this happens in two ways. First, directly, when, to wit, one man induces another to sin, or when the sin is pleasing to him: secondly, indirectly, that is, if he does not withstand him when he might do so, and this happens sometimes, not because the sin is pleasing to him, but on account of some human fear. Accordingly we must say that if a man list ens to backbiting without resisting it, he seems to consent to the backbiter, so that he becomes a participator in his sin. And if he induces him to backbite, or at least if the detraction be pleasing to him on account of his hatred of the person detracted, he sins no less than the detractor, and sometimes more. Wherefore Bernard says (De Consid. ii, 13): "It is difficult to say which is the more to be condemned the backbiter or he that listens to backbiting." If however the sin is not pleasing to him, and he fails to withstand the backbiter, through fear negligence, or even shame, he sins indeed, but much less than the backbiter, and, as a rule venially. Sometimes too this may be a mortal sin, either because it is his official duty to cor. rect the backbiter, or by reason of some consequent danger; or on account of the radical reason for which human fear may sometimes be a mortal sin, as stated above (Question 19, Article 3). |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod detractiones suas nullus audit, quia scilicet mala quae dicuntur de aliquo eo audiente, non sunt detractiones, proprie loquendo, sed contumeliae, ut dictum est. Possunt tamen ad notitiam alicuius detractiones contra ipsum factae aliorum relationibus pervenire. Et tunc sui arbitrii est detrimentum suae famae pati, nisi hoc vergat in periculum aliorum, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo in hoc potest commendari eius patientia quod patienter proprias detractiones sustinet. Non autem est sui arbitrii quod patiatur detrimentum famae alterius. Et ideo in culpam ei vertitur si non resistit, cum possit resistere, eadem ratione qua tenetur aliquis sublevare asinum alterius iacentem sub onere, ut praecipitur Deut. XXII. | Reply to Objection 1. No man hears himself backbitten, because when a man is spoken evil of in his hearing, it is not backbiting, properly speaking, but reviling, as stated above (1, ad 2). Yet it is possible for the detractions uttered against a person to come to his knowledge through others telling him, and then it is left to his discretion whether he will suffer their detriment to his good name, unless this endanger the good of others, as stated above (Question 72, Article 3). Wherefore his patience may deserve commendation for as much as he suffers patiently being detracted himself. But it is not left to his discretion to permit an injury to be done to another's good name, hence he is accounted guilty if he fails to resist when he can, for the same reason whereby a man is bound to raise another man's ass lying "underneath his burden," as commanded in Deuteronomy 21:4 [Exodus 23:5]. |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod non semper debet aliquis resistere detractori arguendo eum de falsitate, maxime si quis sciat verum esse quod dicitur. Sed debet eum verbis redarguere de hoc quod peccat fratri detrahendo, vel saltem ostendere quod ei detractio displiceat per tristitiam faciei; quia, ut dicitur Prov. XXV, ventus Aquilo dissipat pluvias, et facies tristis linguam detrahentem. | Reply to Objection 2. One ought not always to withstand a backbiter by endeavoring to convince him of falsehood, especially if one knows that he is speaking the truth: rather ought one to reprove him with words, for that he sins in backbiting his brother, or at least by our pained demeanor show him that we are displeased with his backbiting, because according to Proverbs 25:23, "the north wind driveth away rain, as doth a sad countenance a backbiting tongue." |
| IIª-IIae q. 73 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod utilitas quae ex detractione provenit non est ex intentione detrahentis, sed ex Dei ordinatione, qui ex quolibet malo elicit bonum. Et ideo nihilo minus est detractoribus resistendum, sicut et raptoribus vel oppressoribus aliorum, quamvis ex hoc oppressis vel spoliatis per patientiam meritum crescat. | Reply to Objection 3. The profit one derives from being backbitten is due, not to the intention of the backbiter, but to the ordinance of God Who produces good out of every evil. Hence we should none the less withstand backbiters, just as those who rob or oppress others, even though the oppressed and the robbed may gain merit by patience. |
| IIª-IIae q. 74 pr. Deinde considerandum est de susurratione. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo, utrum susurratio sit peccatum distinctum a detractione. Secundo, quod horum sit gravius. | Question 74. Tale-bearing 1. Is tale-bearing a sin distinct from backbiting? 2. Which of the two is the more grievous? |
| IIª-IIae q. 74 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod susurratio non sit peccatum distinctum a detractione. Dicit enim Isidorus, in libro Etymol., susurro de sono locutionis appellatur, quia non in facie alicuius, sed in aure loquitur, detrahendo. Sed loqui de altero detrahendo ad detractionem pertinet. Ergo susurratio non est peccatum distinctum a detractione. | Objection 1. It would seem that tale-bearing is not a distinct sin from backbiting. Isidore says (Etym. x): "The susurro [tale-bearer] takes his name from the sound of his speech, for he speaks disparagingly not to the face but into the ear." But to speak of another disparagingly belongs to backbiting. Therefore tale-bearing is not a distinct sin from backbiting. |
| IIª-IIae q. 74 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, Levit. XIX dicitur, non eris criminator nec susurro in populis. Sed criminator idem videtur esse quod detractor. Ergo etiam susurratio a detractione non differt. | Objection 2. Further, it is written (Leviticus 19:16): "Thou shalt not be an informer [Douay: 'a detractor'] nor a tale-bearer [Douay: 'whisperer'] among the people." But an informer is apparently the same as a backbiter. Therefore neither does tale-bearing differ from backbiting. |
| IIª-IIae q. 74 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, Eccli. XXVIII dicitur, susurro et bilinguis maledictus erit. Sed bilinguis videtur idem esse quod detractor, quia detractorum est duplici lingua loqui, aliter scilicet in absentia et aliter in praesentia. Ergo susurro est idem quod detractor. | Objection 3. Further, it is written (Sirach 28:15): "The tale-bearer [Douay: 'whisperer'] and the double-tongued is accursed." But a double-tongued man is apparently the same as a backbiter, because a backbiter speaks with a double tongue, with one in your absence, with another in your presence. Therefore a tale-bearer is the same as a backbiter. |
| IIª-IIae q. 74 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod, Rom. I, super illud, susurrones, detractores, dicit Glossa, susurrones, inter amicos discordiam seminantes; detractores, qui aliorum bona negant vel minuunt. | On the contrary, A gloss on Romans 1:29-30, "Tale-bearers, backbiters [Douay: 'whisperers, detractors']" says: "Tale-bearers sow discord among friends; backbiters deny or disparage others' good points." |
| IIª-IIae q. 74 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod susurratio et detractio in materia conveniunt, et etiam in forma, sive in modo loquendi, quia uterque malum occulte de proximo dicit. Propter quam similitudinem interdum unum pro alio ponitur, unde Eccli. V, super illud, non appelleris susurro, dicit Glossa, idest detractor. Differunt autem in fine. Quia detractor intendit denigrare famam proximi, unde illa mala de proximo praecipue profert ex quibus proximus infamari possit, vel saltem diminui eius fama. Susurro autem intendit amicitiam separare, ut patet per Glossam inductam, et per id quod dicitur Prov. XXVI, susurrone subtracto, iurgia conquiescunt. Et ideo susurro talia mala profert de proximo quae possunt contra ipsum commovere animum audientis, secundum illud Eccli. XXVIII, vir peccator conturbabit amicos, et in medio pacem habentium immittit inimicitiam. | I answer that, The tale-bearer and the backbiter agree in matter, and also in form or mode of speaking, since they both speak evil secretly of their neighbor: and for this reason these terms are sometimes used one for the other. Hence a gloss on Sirach 5:16, "Be not called a tale-bearer [Douay: 'whisperer']" says: "i.e. a backbiter." They differ however in end, because the backbiter intends to blacken his neighbor's good name, wherefore he brings forward those evils especially about his neighbor which are likely to defame him, or at least to depreciate his good name: whereas a tale-bearer intends to sever friendship, as appears from the gloss quoted above and from the saying of Proverbs 26:20, "Where the tale-bearer is taken away, contentions shall cease." Hence it is that a tale-bearer speaks such ill about his neighbors as may stir his hearer's mind against them, according to Sirach 28:11, "A sinful man will trouble his friends, and bring in debate in the midst of them that are at peace." |
| IIª-IIae q. 74 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod susurro, inquantum dicit malum de alio, dicitur detrahere. In hoc tamen differt a detractore, quia non intendit simpliciter malum dicere; sed quidquid sit illud quod possit animum unius turbare contra alium, etiam si sit simpliciter bonum, et tamen apparens malum, inquantum displicet ei cui dicitur. | Reply to Objection 1. A tale-bearer is called a backbiter in so far as he speaks ill of another; yet he differs from a backbiter since he intends not to speak ill as such, but to say anything that may stir one man against another, though it be good simply, and yet has a semblance of evil through being unpleasant to the hearer. |
| IIª-IIae q. 74 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod criminator differt et a susurrone et a detractore. Quia criminator est qui publice aliis crimina imponit, vel accusando vel conviciando, quod non pertinet ad detractorem et susurronem. | Reply to Objection 2. An informer differs from a tale-bearer and a backbiter, for an informer is one who charges others publicly with crimes, either by accusing or by railing them, which does not apply to a backbiter or tale-bearer. |
| IIª-IIae q. 74 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod bilinguis proprie dicitur susurro. Cum enim amicitia sit inter duos, nititur susurro ex utraque parte amicitiam rumpere, et ideo duabus linguis utitur ad duos, uni dicens malum de alio. Propter quod dicitur Eccli. XXVIII, susurro et bilinguis maledictus, et subditur, multos enim turbant pacem habentes. | Reply to Objection 3. A double-tongued person is properly speaking a tale-bearer. For since friendship is between two, the tale-bearer strives to sever friendship on both sides. Hence he employs a double tongue towards two persons, by speaking ill of one to the other: wherefore it is written (Sirach 28:15): "The tale-bearer [Douay: 'whisperer'] and the double-tongued is accursed," and then it is added, "for he hath troubled many that were peace." |
| IIª-IIae q. 74 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod detractio sit gravius peccatum quam susurratio. Peccata enim oris consistunt in hoc quod aliquis mala dicit. Sed detractor dicit de proximo ea quae sunt mala simpliciter, quia ex talibus oritur infamia vel diminuitur fama, susurro autem non curat dicere nisi mala apparentia, quae scilicet displiceant audienti. Ergo gravius peccatum est detractio quam susurratio. | Objection 1. It would seem that backbiting is a graver sin than tale-bearing. For sins of word consist in speaking evil. Now a backbiter speaks of his neighbor things that are evil simply, for such things lead to the loss or depreciation of his good name: whereas a tale-bearer is only intent on saying what is apparently evil, because to wit they are unpleasant to the hearer. Therefore backbiting is a graver sin than tale-bearing. |
| IIª-IIae q. 74 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, quicumque aufert alicui famam, aufert ei non solum unum amicum, sed multos, quia unusquisque refugit amicitiam infamium personarum; unde contra quendam dicitur, II Paralip. XIX, his qui oderunt dominum amicitia iungeris. Susurratio autem aufert unum solum amicum. Gravius ergo peccatum est detractio quam susurratio. | Objection 2. Further, he that deprives. a man of his good name, deprives him not merely of one friend, but of many, because everyone is minded to scorn the friendship of a person with a bad name. Hence it is reproached against a certain individual [King Josaphat] (2 Chronicles 19:2): "Thou art joined in friendship with them that hate the Lord." But tale-bearing deprives one of only one friend. Therefore backbiting is a graver sin than tale-bearing. |
| IIª-IIae q. 74 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, Iac. IV dicitur, qui detrahit fratri suo, detrahit legi; et per consequens Deo, qui est legislator, et sic peccatum detractionis videtur esse peccatum in Deum, quod est gravissimum, ut supra habitum est. Peccatum autem susurrationis est in proximum. Ergo peccatum detractionis est gravius quam peccatum susurrationis. | Objection 3. Further, it is written (James 4:11): "He that backbiteth [Douay:,'detracteth'] his brother . . . detracteth the law," and consequently God the giver of the law. Wherefore the sin of backbiting seems to be a sin against God, which is most grievous, as stated above (20, 3; I-II, 73, 3). On the other hand the sin of tale-bearing is against one's neighbor. Therefore the sin of backbiting is graver than the sin of tale-bearing. |
| IIª-IIae q. 74 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Eccli. V, denotatio pessima super bilinguem, susurratori autem odium et inimicitia et contumelia. | On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 5:17): "An evil mark of disgrace is upon the double-tongued; but to the tale-bearer [Douay: 'whisperer'] hatred, and enmity, and reproach." |
| IIª-IIae q. 74 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, peccatum in proximum tanto est gravius quanto per ipsum maius nocumentum proximo infertur, nocumentum autem tanto maius est quanto maius est bonum quod tollitur. Inter cetera vero exteriora bona praeeminet amicus, quia sine amicis nullus vivere posset, ut patet per philosophum, in VIII Ethic. Unde dicitur Eccli. VI, amico fideli nulla est comparatio, quia et optima fama, quae per detractionem tollitur, ad hoc maxime necessaria est ut homo idoneus ad amicitiam habeatur. Et ideo susurratio est maius peccatum quam detractio, et etiam quam contumelia, quia amicus est melior quam honor, et amari quam honorari, ut in VIII Ethic. philosophus dicit. | I answer that, As stated above (73, 3; I-II, 73, 8), sins against one's neighbor are the more grievous, according as they inflict a greater injury on him: and an injury is so much the greater, according to the greatness of the good which it takes away. Now of all one's external goods a friend takes the first place, since "no man can live without friends," as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. viii, 1). Hence it is written (Sirach 6:15): "Nothing can be compared to a faithful friend." Again, a man's good name whereof backbiting deprives him, is most necessary to him that he may be fitted for friendship. Therefore tale-bearing is a greater sin than backbiting or even reviling, because a friend is better than honor, and to be loved is better than to be honored, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii). |
| IIª-IIae q. 74 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod species et gravitas peccati magis attenditur ex fine quam ex materiali obiecto. Et ideo ratione finis susurratio est gravior, quamvis detractor quandoque peiora dicat. | Reply to Objection 1. The species and gravity of a sin depend on the end rather than on the material object, wherefore, by reason of its end, tale-bearing is worse than backbiting, although sometimes the backbiter says worse things. |
| IIª-IIae q. 74 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod fama est dispositio ad amicitiam, et infamia ad inimicitiam. Dispositio autem deficit ab eo ad quod disponit. Et ideo ille qui operatur ad aliquid quod est dispositio ad inimicitiam, minus peccat quam ille qui directe operatur ad inimicitiam inducendam. | Reply to Objection 2. A good name is a disposition for friendship, and a bad name is a disposition for enmity. But a disposition falls short of the thing for which it disposes. Hence to do anything that leads to a disposition for enmity is a less grievous sin than to do what conduces directly to enmity. |
| IIª-IIae q. 74 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui detrahit fratri intantum videtur detrahere legi inquantum contemnit praeceptum de dilectione proximi. Contra quod directius agit qui amicitiam disrumpere nititur. Unde hoc peccatum maxime contra Deum est, quia Deus dilectio est, ut dicitur I Ioan. IV. Et propter hoc dicitur Prov. VI, sex sunt quae odit dominus, et septimum detestatur anima eius, et hoc septimum ponit eum qui seminat inter fratres discordiam. | Reply to Objection 3. He that backbites his brother, seems to detract the law, in so far as he despises the precept of love for one's neighbor: while he that strives to sever friendship seems to act more directly against this precept. Hence the latter sin is more specially against God, because "God is charity" (1 John 4:16), and for this reason it is written (Proverbs 6:16): "Six things there are, which the Lord hateth, and the seventh His soul detesteth," and the seventh is "he (Proverbs 6:19) that soweth discord among brethren." |
| IIª-IIae q. 75 pr. Deinde considerandum est de derisione. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo, utrum derisio sit peccatum speciale distinctum ab aliis peccatis quibus per verba nocumentum proximo infertur. Secundo, utrum derisio sit peccatum mortale. | Question 75. Derision 1. Is derision a special sin distinct from the other sins whereby one's neighbor is injured by words? 2. Is derision a mortal sin? |
| IIª-IIae q. 75 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod derisio non sit speciale peccatum ab aliis praemissis distinctum. Subsannatio enim videtur idem esse quod derisio. Sed subsannatio ad contumeliam videtur pertinere. Ergo derisio non videtur distingui a contumelia. | Objection 1. It would seem that derision is not a special sin distinct from those mentioned above. For laughing to scorn is apparently the same as derision. But laughing to scorn pertains to reviling. Therefore derision would seem not to differ from reviling. |
| IIª-IIae q. 75 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, nullus irridetur nisi de aliquo turpi, ex quo homo erubescit. Huiusmodi autem sunt peccata, quae si manifeste de aliquo dicuntur, pertinent ad contumeliam; si autem occulte, pertinent ad detractionem sive susurrationem. Ergo derisio non est vitium a praemissis distinctum. | Objection 2. Further, no man is derided except for something reprehensible which puts him to shame. Now such are sins; and if they be imputed to a person publicly, it is a case of reviling, if privately, it amounts to backbiting or tale-bearing. Therefore derision is not distinct from the foregoing vices. |
| IIª-IIae q. 75 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, huiusmodi peccata distinguuntur secundum nocumenta quae proximo inferuntur. Sed per derisionem non infertur aliud nocumentum proximo quam in honore vel fama vel detrimento amicitiae. Ergo derisio non est peccatum distinctum a praemissis. | Objection 3. Further, sins of this kind are distinguished by the injury they inflict on one's neighbor. Now the injury inflicted on a man by derision affects either his honor, or his good name, or is detrimental to his friendship. Therefore derision is not a sin distinct from the foregoing. |
| IIª-IIae q. 75 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod irrisio fit ludo, unde et illusio nominatur. Nullum autem praemissorum ludo agitur, sed serio. Ergo derisio ab omnibus praedictis differt. | On the contrary, Derision is done in jest, wherefore it is described as "making fun." Now all the foregoing are done seriously and not in jest. Therefore derision differs from all of them. |
| IIª-IIae q. 75 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, peccata verborum praecipue pensanda sunt secundum intentionem proferentis. Et ideo secundum diversa quae quis intendit contra alium loquens, huiusmodi peccata distinguuntur. Sicut autem aliquis conviciando intendit conviciati honorem deprimere, et detrahendo diminuere famam, et susurrando tollere amicitiam; ita etiam irridendo aliquis intendit quod ille qui irridetur erubescat. Et quia hic finis est distinctus ab aliis, ideo etiam peccatum derisionis distinguitur a praemissis peccatis. | I answer that, As stated above (Question 72, Article 2), sins of word should be weighed chiefly by the intention of the speaker, wherefore these sins are differentiated according to the various intentions of those who speak against another. Now just as the railer intends to injure the honor of the person he rails, the backbiter to depreciate a good name, and the tale-bearer to destroy friendship, so too the derider intends to shame the person he derides. And since this end is distinct from the others, it follows that the sin of derision is distinct from the foregoing sins. |
| IIª-IIae q. 75 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod subsannatio et irrisio conveniunt in fine, sed differunt in modo, quia irrisio fit ore, idest verbo et cachinnis; subsannatio autem naso rugato, ut dicit Glossa super illud Psalm., qui habitat in caelis irridebit eos. Talis tamen differentia non diversificat speciem. Utrumque tamen differt a contumelia, sicut erubescentia a dehonoratione, est enim erubescentia timor dehonorationis, sicut Damascenus dicit. | Reply to Objection 1. Laughing to scorn and derision agree as to the end but differ in mode, because derision is done with the "mouth," i.e. by words and laughter, while laughing to scorn is done by wrinkling the nose, as a gloss says on Psalm 2:4, "He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them": and such a distinction does not differentiate the species. Yet they both differ from reviling, as being shamed differs from being dishonored: for to be ashamed is "to fear dishonor," as Damascene states (De Fide Orth. ii, 15). |
| IIª-IIae q. 75 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod de opere virtuoso aliquis apud alios et reverentiam meretur et famam; apud seipsum bonae conscientiae gloriam, secundum illud II ad Cor. I, gloria nostra haec est, testimonium conscientiae nostrae. Unde e contrario de actu turpi, idest vitioso, apud alios quidem tollitur hominis honor et fama, et ad hoc contumeliosus et detractor turpia de alio dicunt. Apud seipsum autem per turpia quae dicuntur aliquis perdit conscientiae gloriam per quandam confusionem et erubescentiam, et ad hoc turpia dicit derisor. Et sic patet quod derisor communicat cum praedictis vitiis in materia, differt autem in fine. | Reply to Objection 2. For doing a virtuous deed a man deserves both respect and a good name in the eyes of others, and in his own eyes the glory of a good conscience, according to 2 Corinthians 1:12, "Our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience." Hence, on the other hand, for doing a reprehensible, i.e. a vicious action, a man forfeits his honor and good name in the eyes of others--and for this purpose the reviler and the backbiter speak of another person--while in his own eyes, he loses the glory of his conscience through being confused and ashamed at reprehensible deeds being imputed to him--and for this purpose the derider speaks ill of him. It is accordingly evident that derision agrees with the foregoing vices as to the matter but differs as to the end. |
| IIª-IIae q. 75 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod securitas conscientiae et quies illius magnum bonum est, secundum illud Prov. XV, secura mens quasi iuge convivium. Et ideo qui conscientiam alicuius inquietat confundendo ipsum, aliquod speciale nocumentum ei infert. Unde derisio est peccatum speciale. | Reply to Objection 3. A secure and calm conscience is a great good, according to Proverbs 15:15, "A secure mind is like a continual feast." Wherefore he that disturbs another's conscience by confounding him inflicts a special injury on him: hence derision is a special kind of sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 75 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod derisio non possit esse peccatum mortale. Omne enim peccatum mortale contrariatur caritati. Sed derisio non videtur contrariari caritati, agitur enim ludo quandoque inter amicos; unde et delusio nominatur. Ergo derisio non potest esse peccatum mortale. | Objection 1. It would seem that derision cannot be a mortal sin. Every mortal sin is contrary to charity. But derision does not seem contrary to charity, for sometimes it takes place in jest among friends, wherefore it is known as "making fun." Therefore derision cannot be a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 75 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, derisio illa videtur esse maxima quae fit in iniuriam Dei. Sed non omnis derisio quae vergit in iniuriam Dei est peccatum mortale. Alioquin quicumque recidivat in aliquod peccatum veniale de quo poenituit, peccaret mortaliter, dicit enim Isidorus quod irrisor est, et non poenitens, qui adhuc agit quod poenitet. Similiter etiam sequeretur quod omnis simulatio esset peccatum mortale, quia sicut Gregorius dicit, in Moral., per struthionem significatur simulator, qui deridet equum, idest hominem iustum, et ascensorem, idest Deum. Ergo derisio non est peccatum mortale. | Objection 2. Further, the greatest derision would appear to be that which is done as an injury to God. But derision is not always a mortal sin when it tends to the injury of God: else it would be a mortal sin to relapse into a venial sin of which one has repented. For Isidore says (De Sum. Bon. ii, 16) that "he who continues to do what he has repented of, is a derider and not a penitent." It would likewise follow that all hypocrisy is a mortal sin, because, according to Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 15) "the ostrich signifies the hypocrite, who derides the horse, i.e. the just man, and his rider, i.e. God." Therefore derision is not a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 75 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, contumelia et detractio videntur esse graviora peccata quam derisio, quia maius est facere aliquid serio quam ioco. Sed non omnis detractio vel contumelia est peccatum mortale. Ergo multo minus derisio. | Objection 3. Further, reviling and backbiting seem to be graver sins than derision, because it is more to do a thing seriously than in jest. But not all backbiting or reviling is a mortal sin. Much less therefore is derision a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 75 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Prov. III, ipse deridet illusores. Sed deridere Dei est aeternaliter punire pro peccato mortali, ut patet per id quod dicitur in Psalm., qui habitat in caelis irridebit eos. Ergo derisio est peccatum mortale. | On the contrary, It is written (Proverbs 3:34): "He derideth [Vulgate: 'shall scorn'] the scorners." But God's derision is eternal punishment for mortal sin, as appears from the words of Psalm 2:4, "He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them." Therefore derision is a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 75 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod irrisio non fit nisi de aliquo malo vel defectu. Malum autem si sit magnum, non pro ludo accipitur, sed seriose. Unde si in lusum vel risum vertatur (ex quo irrisionis vel illusionis nomen sumitur), hoc est quia accipitur ut parvum. Potest autem aliquod malum accipi ut parvum, dupliciter, uno modo, secundum se; alio modo, ratione personae. Cum autem aliquis alterius personae malum vel defectum in ludum vel risum ponit quia secundum se parvum malum est, est veniale et leve peccatum secundum suum genus. Cum autem accipitur quasi parvum ratione personae, sicut defectus puerorum et stultorum parum ponderare solemus, sic aliquem illudere vel irridere est eum omnino parvipendere, et eum tam vilem aestimare ut de eius malo non sit curandum, sed sit quasi pro ludo habendum. Et sic derisio est peccatum mortale. Et gravius quam contumelia, quae similiter est in manifesto, quia contumeliosus videtur accipere malum alterius seriose, illusor autem in ludum; et ita videtur esse maior contemptus et dehonoratio. Et secundum hoc, illusio est grave peccatum, et tanto gravius quanto maior reverentia debetur personae quae illuditur. Unde gravissimum est irridere Deum et ea quae Dei sunt, secundum illud Isaiae XXXVII, cui exprobrasti? Et quem blasphemasti? Et super quem exaltasti vocem tuam? Et postea subditur, ad sanctum Israel. Deinde secundum locum tenet irrisio parentum. Unde dicitur Prov. XXX, oculum qui subsannat patrem et despicit partum matris suae, effodiant eum corvi de torrentibus, et comedant eum filii aquilae. Deinde iustorum derisio gravis est, quia honor est virtutis praemium. Et contra hoc dicitur Iob XII, deridetur iusti simplicitas. Quae quidem derisio valde nociva est, quia per hoc homines a bene agendo impediuntur; secundum illud Gregorii, qui in aliorum actibus exoriri bona conspiciunt, mox ea manu pestiferae exprobrationis evellunt. | I answer that, The object of derision is always some evil or defect. Now when an evil is great, it is taken, not in jest, but seriously: consequently if it is taken in jest or turned to ridicule (whence the terms 'derision' and 'jesting'), this is because it is considered to be slight. Now an evil may be considered to be slight in two ways: first, in itself, secondly, in relation to the person. When anyone makes game or fun of another's evil or defect, because it is a slight evil in itself, this is a venial sin by reason of its genus. on the other hand this defect may be considered as a slight evil in relation to the person, just as we are wont to think little of the defects of children and imbeciles: and then to make game or fun of a person, is to scorn him altogether, and to think him so despicable that his misfortune troubles us not one whit, but is held as an object of derision. On this way derision is a mortal sin, and more grievous than reviling, which is also done openly: because the reviler would seem to take another's evil seriously; whereas the derider does so in fun, and so would seem the more to despise and dishonor the other man. Wherefore, in this sense, derision is a grievous sin, and all the more grievous according as a greater respect is due to the person derided. Consequently it is an exceedingly grievous sin to deride God and the things of God, according to Isaiah 37:23, "Whom hast thou reproached, and whom hast thou blasphemed, and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice?" and he replies: "Against the Holy One of Israel." On the second place comes derision of one's parents, wherefore it is written (Proverbs 30:17): "The eye that mocketh at his father, and that despiseth the labor of his mother in bearing him, let the ravens of the brooks pick it out, and the young eagles eat it." Further, the derision of good persons is grievous, because honor is the reward of virtue, and against this it is written (Job 12:4): "The simplicity of the just man is laughed to scorn." Such like derision does very much harm: because it turns men away from good deeds, according to Gregory (Moral. xx, 14), "Who when they perceive any good points appearing in the acts of others, directly pluck them up with the hand of a mischievous reviling." |
| IIª-IIae q. 75 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ludus non importat aliquid contrarium caritati respectu eius cum quo luditur, potest tamen importare aliquid contrarium caritati respectu eius de quo luditur, propter contemptum, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1. Jesting implies nothing contrary to charity in relation to the person with whom one jests, but it may imply something against charity in relation to the person who is the object of the jest, on account of contempt, as stated above. |
| IIª-IIae q. 75 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ille qui recidivat in peccatum de quo poenituit, et ille qui simulat, non expresse Deum irridet, sed quasi interpretative, inquantum scilicet ad modum deridentis se habet. Nec tamen venialiter peccando aliquis simpliciter recidivat vel simulat, sed dispositive et imperfecte. | Reply to Objection 2. Neither he that relapses into a sin of which he has repented, nor a hypocrite, derides God explicitly, but implicitly, in so far as either's behavior is like a derider's. Nor is it true that to commit a venial sin is to relapse or dissimulate altogether, but only dispositively and imperfectly. |
| IIª-IIae q. 75 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod derisio, secundum suam rationem, levius aliquid est quam detractio vel contumelia, quia non importat contemptum, sed ludum. Quandoque tamen habet maiorem contemptum quam etiam contumelia, ut supra dictum est. Et tunc est grave peccatum. | Reply to Objection 3. Derision considered in itself is less grievous than backbiting or reviling, because it does not imply contempt, but jest. Sometimes however it includes greater contempt than reviling does, as stated above, and then it is a grave sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 pr. Deinde considerandum est de maledictione. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum licite possit aliquis maledicere homini. Secundo, utrum licite possit aliquis maledicere irrationali creaturae. Tertio, utrum maledictio sit peccatum mortale. Quarto, de comparatione eius ad alia peccata. | Question 76. Cursing 1. May one lawfully curse another? 2. May one lawfully curse an irrational creature? 3. Is cursing a mortal sin? 4. Its comparison with other sins |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non liceat maledicere aliquem. Non est enim licitum praeterire mandatum apostoli, in quo Christus loquebatur, ut dicitur II ad Cor. XIII. Sed ipse praecipit, Rom. XII, benedicite, et nolite maledicere. Ergo non licet aliquem maledicere. | Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to curse anyone. For it is unlawful to disregard the command of the Apostle in whom Christ spoke, according to 2 Corinthians 13:3. Now he commanded (Romans 12:14), "Bless and curse not." Therefore it is not lawful to curse anyone. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, omnes tenentur Deum benedicere, secundum illud Dan. III, benedicite, filii hominum, domino. Sed non potest ex ore eodem procedere benedictio Dei et maledictio hominis, ut probatur Iac. III. Ergo nulli licet aliquem maledicere. | Objection 2. Further, all are bound to bless God, according to Daniel 3:82, "O ye sons of men, bless the Lord." Now the same mouth cannot both bless God and curse man, as proved in the third chapter of James. Therefore no man may lawfully curse another man. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, ille qui aliquem maledicit, videtur optare eius malum culpae vel poenae, quia maledictio videtur esse imprecatio quaedam. Sed non licet desiderare malum alterius, quinimmo orare oportet pro omnibus ut liberentur a malo. Ergo nulli licet maledicere. | Objection 3. Further, he that curses another would seem to wish him some evil either of fault or of punishment, since a curse appears to be a kind of imprecation. But it is not lawful to wish ill to anyone, indeed we are bound to pray that all may be delivered from evil. Therefore it is unlawful for any man to curse. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 1 arg. 4 Praeterea, Diabolus per obstinationem maxime subiectus est malitiae. Sed non licet alicui maledicere Diabolum, sicut nec seipsum, dicitur enim Eccli. XXI, cum maledicit impius Diabolum, maledicit ipse animam suam. Ergo multo minus licet maledicere hominem. | Objection 4. Further, the devil exceeds all in malice on account of his obstinacy. But it is not lawful to curse the devil, as neither is it lawful to curse oneself; for it is written (Sirach 21:30): "While the ungodly curseth the devil, he curseth his own soul." Much less therefore is it lawful to curse a man. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 1 arg. 5 Praeterea, Num. XXIII, super illud, quomodo maledicam cui non maledixit dominus? Dicit Glossa, non potest esse iusta maledicendi causa ubi peccantis ignoratur affectus. Sed homo non potest scire affectum alterius hominis, nec etiam utrum sit maledictus a Deo. Ergo nulli licet aliquem hominem maledicere. | Objection 5. Further, a gloss on Numbers 23:8, "How shall I curse whom God hath not cursed?" says: "There cannot be a just cause for cursing a sinner if one be ignorant of his sentiments." Now one man cannot know another man's sentiments, nor whether he is cursed by God. Therefore no man may lawfully curse another. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Deut. XXVII dicitur, maledictus qui non permanet in sermonibus legis huius. Elisaeus etiam pueris sibi illudentibus maledixit, ut habetur IV Reg. II. | On the contrary, It is written (Deuteronomy 27:26): "Cursed be he that abideth not in the words of this law." Moreover Eliseus cursed the little boys who mocked him (2 Kings 2:24). |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod maledicere idem est quod malum dicere. Dicere autem tripliciter se habet ad id quod dicitur. Uno modo, per modum enuntiationis, sicut aliquis exprimitur modo indicativo. Et sic maledicere nihil est aliud quam malum alterius referre, quod pertinet ad detractionem. Unde quandoque maledici detractores dicuntur. Alio modo dicere se habet ad id quod dicitur per modum causae. Et hoc quidem primo et principaliter competit Deo, qui omnia suo verbo fecit, secundum illud Psalm., dixit, et facta sunt. Consequenter autem competit hominibus, qui verbo suo alios movent per imperium ad aliquid faciendum. Et ad hoc instituta sunt verba imperativi modi. Tertio modo ipsum dicere se habet ad id quod dicitur quasi expressio quaedam affectus desiderantis id quod verbo exprimitur. Et ad hoc instituta sunt verba optativi modi. Praetermisso igitur primo modo maledictionis, qui est per simplicem enuntiationem mali, considerandum est de aliis duobus. Ubi scire oportet quod facere aliquid et velle illud se consequuntur in bonitate et malitia, ut ex supradictis patet. Unde in istis duobus modis, quibus malum dicitur per modum imperantis vel per modum optantis, eadem ratione est aliquid licitum et illicitum. Si enim aliquis imperet vel optet malum alterius inquantum est malum, quasi ipsum malum intendens, sic maledicere utroque modo erit illicitum. Et hoc est maledicere per se loquendo. Si autem aliquis imperet vel optet malum alterius sub ratione boni, sic est licitum. Nec erit maledictio per se loquendo, sed per accidens, quia principalis intentio dicentis non fertur ad malum, sed ad bonum. Contingit autem malum aliquod dici imperando vel optando sub ratione duplicis boni. Quandoque quidem sub ratione iusti. Et sic iudex licite maledicit illum cui praecipit iustam poenam inferri. Et sic etiam Ecclesia maledicit anathematizando. Sic etiam prophetae quandoque imprecantur mala peccatoribus, quasi conformantes voluntatem suam divinae iustitiae (licet huiusmodi imprecationes possint etiam per modum praenuntiationis intelligi). Quandoque vero dicitur aliquod malum sub ratione utilis, puta cum aliquis optat aliquem peccatorem pati aliquam aegritudinem, aut aliquod impedimentum, vel ut ipse melior efficiatur, vel ut saltem ab aliorum nocumento cesset. | I answer that, To curse [maledicere] is the same as to speak ill [malum dicere]. Now "speaking" has a threefold relation to the thing spoken. First, by way of assertion, as when a thing is expressed in the indicative mood: in this way "maledicere" signifies simply to tell someone of another's evil, and this pertains to backbiting, wherefore tellers of evil [maledici] are sometimes called backbiters. Secondly, speaking is related to the thing spoken, by way of cause, and this belongs to God first and foremost, since He made all things by His word, according to Psalm 32:9, "He spoke and they were made"; while secondarily it belongs to man, who, by his word, commands others and thus moves them to do something: it is for this purpose that we employ verbs in the imperative mood. Thirdly, "speaking" is related to the thing spoken by expressing the sentiments of one who desires that which is expressed in words; and for this purpose we employ the verb in the optative mood. Accordingly we may omit the first kind of evil speaking which is by way of simple assertion of evil, and consider the other two kinds. And here we must observe that to do something and to will it are consequent on one another in the matter of goodness and wickedness, as shown above (I-II, 20, 3). Hence in these two ways of evil speaking, by way of command and by way of desire, there is the same aspect of lawfulness and unlawfulness, for if a man commands or desires another's evil, as evil, being intent on the evil itself, then evil speaking will be unlawful in both ways, and this is what is meant by cursing. On the other hand if a man commands or desires another's evil under the aspect of good, it is lawful; and it may be called cursing, not strictly speaking, but accidentally, because the chief intention of the speaker is directed not to evil but to good. Now evil may be spoken, by commanding or desiring it, under the aspect of a twofold good. Sometimes under the aspect of just, and thus a judge lawfully curses a man whom he condemns to a just penalty: thus too the Church curses by pronouncing anathema. On the same way the prophets in the Scriptures sometimes call down evils on sinners, as though conforming their will to Divine justice, although such like imprecation may be taken by way of foretelling. Sometimes evil is spoken under the aspect of useful, as when one wishes a sinner to suffer sickness or hindrance of some kind, either that he may himself reform, or at least that he may cease from harming others. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod apostolus prohibet maledicere per se loquendo, cum intentione mali. | Reply to Objection 1. The Apostle forbids cursing strictly so called with an evil intent: |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 1 ad 2 Et similiter dicendum ad secundum. | and the same answer applies to the Second Objection. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod optare alicui malum sub ratione boni non contrariatur affectui quo quis simpliciter alicui optat bonum, sed magis habet conformitatem ad ipsum. | Reply to Objection 3. To wish another man evil under the aspect of good, is not opposed to the sentiment whereby one wishes him good simply, in fact rather is it in conformity therewith. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 1 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod in Diabolo est considerare naturam, et culpam. Natura quidem eius bona est, et a Deo, nec eam maledicere licet. Culpa autem eius est maledicenda, secundum illud Iob III, maledicant ei qui maledicunt diei. Cum autem peccator maledicit Diabolum propter culpam, seipsum simili ratione iudicat maledictione dignum. Et secundum hoc dicitur maledicere animam suam. | Reply to Objection 4. In the devil both nature and guilt must be considered. His nature indeed is good and is from God nor is it lawful to curse it. On the other hand his guilt is deserving of being cursed, according to Job 3:8, "Let them curse it who curse the day." Yet when a sinner curses the devil on account of his guilt, for the same reason he judges himself worthy of being cursed; and in this sense he is said to curse his own soul. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 1 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod affectus peccantis, etsi in se non videatur, potest tamen percipi ex aliquo manifesto peccato, pro quo poena est infligenda. Similiter etiam, quamvis sciri non possit quem Deus maledicit secundum finalem reprobationem, potest tamen sciri quis sit maledictus a Deo secundum reatum praesentis culpae. | Reply to Objection 5. Although the sinner's sentiments cannot be perceived in themselves, they can be perceived through some manifest sin, which has to be punished. Likewise although it is not possible to know whom God curses in respect of final reprobation, it is possible to know who is accursed of God in respect of being guilty of present sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non liceat creaturam irrationalem maledicere. Maledictio enim praecipue videtur esse licita inquantum respicit poenam. Sed creatura irrationalis non est susceptiva nec culpae nec poenae. Ergo eam maledicere non licet. | Objection 1. It would seem that it is unlawful to curse an irrational creature. Cursing would seem to be lawful chiefly in its relation to punishment. Now irrational creatures are not competent subjects either of guilt or of punishment. Therefore it is unlawful to curse them. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, in creatura irrationali nihil invenitur nisi natura, quam Deus fecit. Hanc autem maledicere non licet, etiam in Diabolo, ut dictum est. Ergo creaturam irrationalem nullo modo licet maledicere. | Objection 2. Further, in an irrational creature there is nothing but the nature which God made. But it is unlawful to curse this even in the devil, as stated above (Article 1). Therefore it is nowise lawful to curse an irrational creature. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, creatura irrationalis aut est permanens, sicut corpora; aut est transiens, sicut tempora. Sed sicut Gregorius dicit, in IV Moral., otiosum est maledicere non existenti; vitiosum vero si existeret. Ergo nullo modo licet maledicere creaturae irrationali. | Objection 3. Further, irrational creatures are either stable, as bodies, or transient, as the seasons. Now, according to Gregory (Moral. iv, 2), "it is useless to curse what does not exist, and wicked to curse what exists." Therefore it is nowise lawful to curse an irrational creature. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dominus maledixit ficulneae, ut habetur Matth. XXI; et Iob maledixit diei suo, ut habetur Iob III. | On the contrary, our Lord cursed the fig tree, as related in Matthew 21:19; and Job cursed his day, according to Job 3:1. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod benedictio vel maledictio ad illam rem proprie pertinet cui potest aliquid bene vel male contingere, scilicet rationali creaturae. Creaturis autem irrationalibus bonum vel malum dicitur contingere in ordine ad creaturam rationalem, propter quam sunt. Ordinantur autem ad eam multipliciter. Uno quidem modo, per modum subventionis, inquantum scilicet ex creaturis irrationalibus subvenitur humanae necessitati. Et hoc modo dominus homini dixit, Gen. III, maledicta terra in opere tuo, ut scilicet per eius sterilitatem homo puniretur. Et ita etiam intelligitur quod habetur Deut. XXVIII, benedicta horrea tua, et infra, maledictum horreum tuum. Sic etiam David maledixit montes Gelboe, secundum Gregorii expositionem. Alio modo creatura irrationalis ordinatur ad rationalem per modum significationis. Et sic dominus maledixit ficulneam, in significationem Iudaeae. Tertio modo ordinatur creatura irrationalis ad rationalem per modum continentis, scilicet temporis vel loci. Et sic maledixit Iob diei nativitatis suae, propter culpam originalem, quam nascendo contraxit, et propter sequentes poenalitates. Et propter hoc etiam potest intelligi David maledixisse montibus Gelboe, ut legitur II Reg. I, scilicet propter caedem populi quae in eis contigerat. Maledicere autem rebus irrationalibus inquantum sunt creaturae Dei, est peccatum blasphemiae. Maledicere autem eis secundum se consideratis, est otiosum et vanum, et per consequens illicitum. | I answer that, Benediction and malediction, properly speaking, regard things to which good or evil may happen, viz. rational creatures: while good and evil are said to happen to irrational creatures in relation to the rational creature for whose sake they are. Now they are related to the rational creature in several ways. First by way of ministration, in so far as irrational creatures minister to the needs of man. On this sense the Lord said to man (Genesis 3:17): "Cursed is the earth in thy work," so that its barrenness would be a punishment to man. Thus also David cursed the mountains of Gelboe, according to Gregory's expounding (Moral. iv, 3). Again the irrational creature is related to the rational creature by way of signification: and thus our Lord cursed the fig tree in signification of Judea. Thirdly, the irrational creature is related to rational creatures as something containing them, namely by way of time or place: and thus Job cursed the day of his birth, on account of the original sin which he contracted in birth, and on account of the consequent penalties. On this sense also we may understand David to have cursed the mountains of Gelboe, as we read in 2 Samuel 1:21, namely on account of the people slaughtered there. But to curse irrational beings, considered as creatures of God, is a sin of blasphemy; while to curse them considered in themselves is idle and vain and consequently unlawful. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 2 ad arg. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. | From this the Replies to the objections may easily be gathered. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod maledicere non sit peccatum mortale. Augustinus enim, in homilia de igne Purgatorio, numerat maledictionem inter levia peccata. Haec autem sunt venialia. Ergo maledictio non est peccatum mortale, sed veniale. | Objection 1. It would seem that cursing is not a mortal sin. For Augustine in a homily On the Fire of Purgatory [Serm. civ in the appendix of St. Augustine's works] reckons cursing among slight sins. But such sins are venial. Therefore cursing is not a mortal but a venial Sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, ea quae ex levi motu mentis procedunt non videntur esse peccata mortalia. Sed interdum maledictio ex levi motu procedit. Ergo maledictio non est peccatum mortale. | Objection 2. Further, that which proceeds from a slight movement of the mind does not seem to be generically a mortal sin. But cursing sometimes arises from a slight movement. Therefore cursing is not a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, gravius est male facere quam maledicere. Sed male facere non semper est peccatum mortale. Ergo multo minus maledicere. | Objection 3. Further, evil deeds are worse than evil words. But evil deeds are not always mortal sins. Much less therefore is cursing a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra, nihil excludit a regno Dei nisi peccatum mortale. Sed maledictio excludit a regno Dei, secundum illud I ad Cor. VI, neque maledici neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt. Ergo maledictio est peccatum mortale. | On the contrary, Nothing save mortal sin excludes one from the kingdom of God. But cursing excludes from the kingdom of God, according to 1 Corinthians 6:10, "Nor cursers [Douay: 'railers'], nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God." Therefore cursing is a mortal sin. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod maledictio de qua nunc loquimur, est per quam pronuntiatur malum contra aliquem vel imperando vel optando. Velle autem, vel imperio movere ad malum alterius, secundum se repugnat caritati, qua diligimus proximum volentes bonum ipsius. Et ita secundum suum genus est peccatum mortale. Et tanto gravius quanto personam cui maledicimus magis amare et revereri tenemur, unde dicitur Levit. XX, qui maledixerit patri suo et matri, morte moriatur. Contingit tamen verbum maledictionis prolatum esse peccatum veniale, vel propter parvitatem mali quod quis alteri, maledicendo, imprecatur, vel etiam propter affectum eius qui profert maledictionis verba, dum ex levi motu, vel ex ludo, aut ex subreptione aliqua talia verba profert; quia peccata verborum maxime ex affectu pensantur, ut supra dictum est. | I answer that, The evil words of which we are speaking now are those whereby evil is uttered against someone by way of command or desire. Now to wish evil to another man, or to conduce to that evil by commanding it, is, of its very nature, contrary to charity whereby we love our neighbor by desiring his good. Consequently it is a mortal sin, according to its genus, and so much the graver, as the person whom we curse has a greater claim on our love and respect. Hence it is written (Leviticus 20:9): "He that curseth his father, or mother, dying let him die." It may happen however that the word uttered in cursing is a venial sin either through the slightness of the evil invoked on another in cursing him, or on account of the sentiments of the person who utters the curse; because he may say such words through some slight movement, or in jest, or without deliberation, and sins of word should be weighed chiefly with regard to the speaker's intention, as stated above (Question 72, Article 2). |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 3 ad arg. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. | From this the Replies to the Objections may be easily gathered. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod maledictio sit gravius peccatum quam detractio. Maledictio enim videtur esse blasphemia quaedam, ut patet per id quod dicitur in canonica Iudae, quod cum Michael Archangelus, cum Diabolo disputans, altercaretur de Moysi corpore, non est ausus iudicium inferre blasphemiae; et accipitur ibi blasphemia pro maledictione, secundum Glossam. Blasphemia autem est gravius peccatum quam detractio. Ergo maledictio est gravior detractione. | Objection 1. It would seem that cursing is a graver sin than backbiting. Cursing would seem to be a kind of blasphemy, as implied in the canonical epistle of Jude (verse 9) where it is said that "when Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of blasphemy [Douay: 'railing speech']," where blasphemy stands for cursing, according to a gloss. Now blasphemy is a graver sin than backbiting. Therefore cursing is a graver sin than backbiting. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, homicidium est detractione gravius, ut supra dictum est. Sed maledictio est par peccato homicidii, dicit enim Chrysostomus, super Matth., cum dixeris, maledic ei, et domum everte, et omnia perire fac, nihil ab homicida differs. Ergo maledictio est gravior quam detractio. | Objection 2. Further, murder is more grievous than backbiting, as stated above (Question 73, Article 3). But cursing is on a par with the sin of murder; for Chrysostom says (Hom. xix, super Matth.): "When thou sayest: 'Curse him down with his house, away with everything,' you are no better than a murderer." Therefore cursing is graver than backbiting. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, causa praeeminet signo. Sed ille qui maledicit causat malum suo imperio, ille autem qui detrahit solum significat malum iam existens. Gravius ergo peccat maledicus quam detractor. | Objection 3. Further, to cause a thing is more than to signify it. But the curser causes evil by commanding it, whereas the backbiter merely signifies an evil already existing. Therefore the curser sins more grievously than the backbiter. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod detractio non potest bene fieri. Maledictio autem fit bene et male, ut ex dictis patet. Ergo gravior est detractio quam maledictio. | On the contrary, It is impossible to do well in backbiting, whereas cursing may be either a good or an evil deed, as appears from what has been said (1). Therefore backbiting is graver than cursing. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in primo habitum est, duplex est malum, scilicet culpae, et poenae. Malum autem culpae peius est, ut ibidem ostensum est. Unde dicere malum culpae peius est quam dicere malum poenae, dummodo sit idem modus dicendi. Ad contumeliosum igitur, susurronem et detractorem, et etiam derisorem, pertinet dicere malum culpae, sed ad maledicentem, prout nunc loquimur, pertinet dicere malum poenae, non autem malum culpae nisi forte sub ratione poenae. Non tamen est idem modus dicendi. Nam ad praedicta quatuor vitia pertinet dicere malum culpae solum enuntiando, per maledictionem vero dicitur malum poenae vel causando per modum imperii, vel optando. Ipsa autem enuntiatio culpae peccatum est inquantum aliquod nocumentum ex hoc proximo infertur. Gravius autem est nocumentum inferre quam nocumentum desiderare, ceteris paribus. Unde detractio, secundum communem rationem, gravius peccatum est quam maledictio simplex desiderium exprimens. Maledictio vero quae fit per modum imperii, cum habeat rationem causae, potest esse detractione gravior, si maius nocumentum inferat quam sit denigratio famae; vel levior, si minus. Et haec quidem accipienda sunt secundum ea quae per se pertinent ad rationem horum vitiorum. Possunt autem et alia per accidens considerari quae praedicta vitia vel augent vel minuunt. | I answer that, As stated in I, 48, 5, evil is twofold, evil of fault, and evil of punishment; and of the two, evil of fault is the worse (I, 48, 6). Hence to speak evil of fault is worse than to speak evil of punishment, provided the mode of speaking be the same. Accordingly it belongs to the reviler, the tale-bearer, the backbiter and the derider to speak evil of fault, whereas it belongs to the evil-speaker, as we understand it here, to speak evil of punishment, and not evil of fault except under the aspect of punishment. But the mode of speaking is not the same, for in the case of the four vices mentioned above, evil of fault is spoken by way of assertion, whereas in the case of cursing evil of punishment is spoken, either by causing it in the form of a command, or by wishing it. Now the utterance itself of a person's fault is a sin, in as much as it inflicts an injury on one's neighbor, and it is more grievous to inflict an injury, than to wish to inflict it, other things being equal. Hence backbiting considered in its generic aspect is a graver sin than the cursing which expresses a mere desire; while the cursing which is expressed by way of command, since it has the aspect of a cause, will be more or less grievous than backbiting, according as it inflicts an injury more or less grave than the blackening of a man's good name. Moreover this must be taken as applying to these vices considered in their essential aspects: for other accidental points might be taken into consideration, which would aggravate or extenuate the aforesaid vices. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod maledictio creaturae inquantum creatura est, redundat in Deum, et sic per accidens habet rationem blasphemiae, non autem si maledicatur creatura propter culpam. Et eadem ratio est de detractione. | Reply to Objection 1. To curse a creature, as such, reflects on God, and thus accidentally it has the character of blasphemy; not so if one curse a creature on account of its fault: and the same applies to backbiting. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, maledictio uno modo includit desiderium mali. Unde si ille qui maledicit velit malum occisionis alterius, desiderio non differt ab homicida. Differt tamen inquantum actus exterior aliquid adiicit voluntati. | Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Article 3), cursing, in one way, includes the desire for evil, where if the curser desire the evil of another's violent death, he does not differ, in desire, from a murderer, but he differs from him in so far as the external act adds something to the act of the will. |
| IIª-IIae q. 76 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de maledictione secundum quod importat imperium. | Reply to Objection 3. This argument considers cursing by way of command. |