Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part IIa/Q71

From The Logic Museum

Jump to: navigation, search
Q70 Q72



Latin English
Iª-IIae q. 71 pr. Consequenter considerandum est de vitiis et peccatis. Circa quae sex consideranda occurrunt, primo quidem, de ipsis vitiis et peccatis secundum se; secundo, de distinctione eorum; tertio, de comparatione eorum ad invicem; quarto, de subiecto peccati; quinto, de causa eius; sexto, de effectu ipsius. Circa primum quaeruntur sex. Primo, utrum vitium contrarietur virtuti. Secundo, utrum vitium sit contra naturam. Tertio, quid sit peius, utrum vitium vel actus vitiosus. Quarto, utrum actus vitiosus possit esse simul cum virtute. Quinto, utrum in omni peccato sit aliquis actus. Sexto, de definitione peccati quam Augustinus ponit, XXII contra Faustum, peccatum est dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem aeternam. Question 71. Vice and sin considered in themselves Is vice contrary to virtue? Is vice contrary to nature? Which is worse, a vice or a vicious act? Is a vicious act compatible with virtue? Does every sin include action? The definition of sin proposed by Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii): "Sin is a word, deed, or desire against the eternal law"
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod vitium non contrarietur virtuti. Uni enim unum est contrarium, ut probatur in X Metaphys. Sed virtuti contrariantur peccatum et malitia. Non ergo contrariatur ei vitium, quia vitium dicitur etiam si sit indebita dispositio membrorum corporalium, vel quarumcumque rerum. Objection 1. It would seem that vice is not contrary to virtue. For one thing has one contrary, as proved in Metaph. x, text. 17. Now sin and malice are contrary to virtue. Therefore vice is not contrary to it: since vice applies also to undue disposition of bodily members or of any things whatever.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, virtus nominat quandam perfectionem potentiae. Sed vitium nihil nominat ad potentiam pertinens. Ergo vitium non contrariatur virtuti. Objection 2. Further, virtue denotes a certain perfection of power. But vice does not denote anything relative to power. Therefore vice is not contrary to virtue.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, Tullius dicit, in IV de Tusculanis quaest., quod virtus est quaedam sanitas animae. Sanitati autem opponitur aegritudo vel morbus, magis quam vitium. Ergo virtuti non contrariatur vitium. Objection 3. Further, Cicero (De Quaest. Tusc. iv) says that "virtue is the soul's health." Now sickness or disease, rather than vice, is opposed to health. Therefore vice is not contrary to virtue.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, in libro de perfectione iustitiae, quod vitium est qualitas secundum quam malus est animus. Virtus autem est qualitas quae facit bonum habentem, ut ex supradictis patet. Ergo vitium contrariatur virtuti. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Perfect. Justit. ii) that "vice is a quality in respect of which the soul is evil." But "virtue is a quality which makes its subject good," as was shown above (55, A3,4). Therefore vice is contrary to virtue.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod circa virtutem duo possumus considerare, scilicet ipsam essentiam virtutis; et id ad quod est virtus. In essentia quidem virtutis aliquid considerari potest directe; et aliquid ex consequenti. Directe quidem virtus importat dispositionem quandam alicuius convenienter se habentis secundum modum suae naturae, unde philosophus dicit, in VII Physic. quod virtus est dispositio perfecti ad optimum; dico autem perfecti, quod est dispositum secundum naturam. Ex consequenti autem sequitur quod virtus sit bonitas quaedam, in hoc enim consistit uniuscuiusque rei bonitas, quod convenienter se habeat secundum modum suae naturae. Id autem ad quod virtus ordinatur, est actus bonus, ut ex supradictis patet. Secundum hoc igitur tria inveniuntur opponi virtuti. Quorum unum est peccatum, quod opponitur sibi ex parte eius ad quod virtus ordinatur, nam peccatum proprie nominat actum inordinatum, sicut actus virtutis est actus ordinatus et debitus. Secundum autem quod ad rationem virtutis consequitur quod sit bonitas quaedam, opponitur virtuti malitia. Sed secundum id quod directe est de ratione virtutis, opponitur virtuti vitium, vitium enim uniuscuiusque rei esse videtur quod non sit disposita secundum quod convenit suae naturae. Unde Augustinus dicit, in III de Lib. Arb., quod perfectioni naturae deesse perspexeris, id voca vitium. I answer that, Two things may be considered in virtue--the essence of virtue, and that to which virtue is ordained. In the essence of virtue we may consider something directly, and we may consider something consequently. Virtue implies "directly" a disposition whereby the subject is well disposed according to the mode of its nature: wherefore the Philosopher says (Phys. vii, text. 17) that "virtue is a disposition of a perfect thing to that which is best; and by perfect I mean that which is disposed according to its nature." That which virtue implies "consequently" is that it is a kind of goodness: because the goodness of a thing consists in its being well disposed according to the mode of its nature. That to which virtue is directed is a good act, as was shown above (Question 56, Article 3). Accordingly three things are found to be contrary to virtue. One of these is "sin," which is opposed to virtue in respect of that to which virtue is ordained: since, properly speaking, sin denotes an inordinate act; even as an act of virtue is an ordinate and due act: in respect of that which virtue implies consequently, viz. that it is a kind of goodness, the contrary of virtue is "malice": while in respect of that which belongs to the essence of virtue directly, its contrary is "vice": because the vice of a thing seems to consist in its not being disposed in a way befitting its nature: hence Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii): "Whatever is lacking for a thing's natural perfection may be called a vice."
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa tria non contrariantur virtuti secundum idem, sed peccatum quidem contrariatur secundum quod virtus est operativa boni; malitia autem secundum quod est bonitas quaedam; vitium autem proprie secundum quod est virtus. Reply to Objection 1. These three things are contrary to virtue, but not in the same respect: for sin is opposed to virtue, according as the latter is productive of a good work; malice, according as virtue is a kind of goodness; while vice is opposed to virtue properly as such.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod virtus non solum importat perfectionem potentiae quae est principium agendi, sed etiam importat debitam dispositionem eius cuius est virtus, et hoc ideo quia unumquodque operatur secundum quod actu est. Requiritur ergo quod aliquid sit in se bene dispositum, quod debet esse boni operativum. Et secundum hoc virtuti vitium opponitur. Reply to Objection 2. Virtue implies not only perfection of power, the principle of action; but also the due disposition of its subject. The reason for this is because a thing operates according as it is in act: so that a thing needs to be well disposed if it has to produce a good work. It is in this respect that vice is contrary to virtue.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Tullius dicit, in IV de Tusculanis quaest., morbi et aegrotationes partes sunt vitiositatis, in corporibus enim morbum appellant totius corporis corruptionem, puta febrem vel aliquid huiusmodi; aegrotationem vero, morbum cum imbecillitate; vitium autem, cum partes corporis inter se dissident. Et quamvis in corpore quandoque sit morbus sine aegrotatione, puta cum aliquis est interius male dispositus, non tamen exterius praepeditur a solitis operationibus; in animo tamen, ut ipse dicit, haec duo non possunt nisi cogitatione secerni. Necesse est enim quod quandocumque aliquis interius est male dispositus, habens inordinatum affectum, quod ex hoc imbecillis reddatur ad debitas operationes exercendas, quia unaquaeque arbor ex suo fructu cognoscitur, idest homo ex opere, ut dicitur Matth. XII. Sed vitium animi, ut Tullius ibidem dicit, est habitus aut affectio animi in tota vita inconstans, et a seipsa dissentiens. Quod quidem invenitur etiam absque morbo vel aegrotatione, ut puta cum aliquis ex infirmitate vel ex passione peccat. Unde in plus se habet vitium quam aegrotatio vel morbus, sicut etiam virtus in plus se habet quam sanitas, nam sanitas etiam quaedam virtus ponitur in VII Physic. Et ideo virtuti convenientius opponitur vitium quam aegrotatio vel morbus. Reply to Objection 3. As Cicero says (De Quaest. Tusc. iv), "disease and sickness are vicious qualities," for in speaking of the body "he calls it" disease "when the whole body is infected," for instance, with fever or the like; he calls it sickness "when the disease is attended with weakness"; and vice "when the parts of the body are not well compacted together." And although at times there may be disease in the body without sickness, for instance, when a man has a hidden complaint without being hindered outwardly from his wonted occupations; "yet, in the soul," as he says, "these two things are indistinguishable, except in thought." For whenever a man is ill-disposed inwardly, through some inordinate affection, he is rendered thereby unfit for fulfilling his duties: since "a tree is known by its fruit," i.e. man by his works, according to Matthew 12:33. But "vice of the soul," as Cicero says (De Quaest. Tusc. iv), "is a habit or affection of the soul discordant and inconsistent with itself through life": and this is to be found even without disease and sickness, e.g. when a man sins from weakness or passion. Consequently vice is of wider extent than sickness or disease; even as virtue extends to more things than health; for health itself is reckoned a kind of virtue (Phys. vii, text. 17). Consequently vice is reckoned as contrary to virtue, more fittingly than sickness or disease.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod vitium non sit contra naturam. Vitium enim contrariatur virtuti, ut dictum est. Sed virtutes non sunt in nobis a natura, sed causantur in nobis per infusionem aut ab assuetudine, ut dictum est. Ergo vitia non sunt contra naturam. Objection 1. It would seem that vice is not contrary to nature. Because vice is contrary to virtue, as stated above (Article 1). Now virtue is in us, not by nature but by infusion or habituation, as stated above (63, A1,2,3). Therefore vice is not contrary to nature.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, ea quae sunt contra naturam, non possunt assuefieri, sicut lapis nunquam assuescit ferri sursum, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed aliqui assuefiunt ad vitia. Ergo vitia non sunt contra naturam. Objection 2. Further, it is impossible to become habituated to that which is contrary to nature: thus "a stone never becomes habituated to upward movement" (Ethic. ii, 1). But some men become habituated to vice. Therefore vice is not contrary to nature.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, nihil quod est contra naturam, invenitur in habentibus illam naturam ut in pluribus. Sed vitia inveniuntur in hominibus ut in pluribus, quia, sicut dicitur Matth. VII, lata est via quae ducit ad perditionem, et multi vadunt per eam. Ergo vitium non est contra naturam. Objection 3. Further, anything contrary to a nature, is not found in the greater number of individuals possessed of that nature. Now vice is found in the greater number of men; for it is written (Matthew 7:13): "Broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat." Therefore vice is not contrary to nature.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, peccatum comparatur ad vitium sicut actus ad habitum, ut ex supradictis patet. Sed peccatum definitur esse dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem Dei; ut patet per Augustinum, XXII contra Faustum. Lex autem Dei est supra naturam. Magis ergo dicendum est quod vitium sit contra legem, quam sit contra naturam. Objection 4. Further, sin is compared to vice, as act to habit, as stated above (Article 1). Now sin is defined as "a word, deed, or desire, contrary to the Law of God," as Augustine shows (Contra Faust. xxii, 27). But the Law of God is above nature. Therefore we should say that vice is contrary to the Law, rather than to nature.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in III de Lib. Arb., omne vitium, eo ipso quod vitium est, contra naturam est. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 13): "Every vice, simply because it is a vice, is contrary to nature."
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, vitium virtuti contrariatur. Virtus autem uniuscuiusque rei consistit in hoc quod sit bene disposita secundum convenientiam suae naturae, ut supra dictum est. Unde oportet quod in qualibet re vitium dicatur ex hoc quod est disposita contra id quod convenit naturae. Unde et de hoc unaquaeque res vituperatur, a vitio autem nomen vituperationis tractum creditur, ut Augustinus dicit, in III de Lib. Arb. Sed considerandum est quod natura uniuscuiusque rei potissime est forma secundum quam res speciem sortitur. Homo autem in specie constituitur per animam rationalem. Et ideo id quod est contra ordinem rationis, proprie est contra naturam hominis inquantum est homo; quod autem est secundum rationem, est secundum naturam hominis inquantum est homo. Bonum autem hominis est secundum rationem esse, et malum hominis est praeter rationem esse, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Unde virtus humana, quae hominem facit bonum, et opus ipsius bonum reddit, intantum est secundum naturam hominis, inquantum convenit rationi, vitium autem intantum est contra naturam hominis, inquantum est contra ordinem rationis. I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), vice is contrary to virtue. Now the virtue of a thing consists in its being well disposed in a manner befitting its nature, as stated above (Article 1). Hence the vice of any thing consists in its being disposed in a manner not befitting its nature, and for this reason is that thing "vituperated," which word is derived from "vice" according to Augustine (De Lib. Arb. iii, 14). But it must be observed that the nature of a thing is chiefly the form from which that thing derives its species. Now man derives his species from his rational soul: and consequently whatever is contrary to the order of reason is, properly speaking, contrary to the nature of man, as man; while whatever is in accord with reason, is in accord with the nature of man, as man. Now "man's good is to be in accord with reason, and his evil is to be against reason," as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore human virtue, which makes a man good, and his work good, is in accord with man's nature, for as much as it accords with his reason: while vice is contrary to man's nature, in so far as it is contrary to the order of reason.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod virtutes, etsi non causentur a natura secundum suum esse perfectum, tamen inclinant ad id quod est secundum naturam, idest secundum ordinem rationis, dicit enim Tullius, in sua rhetorica, quod virtus est habitus in modum naturae rationi consentaneus. Et hoc modo virtus dicitur esse secundum naturam, et per contrarium intelligitur quod vitium sit contra naturam. Reply to Objection 1. Although the virtues are not caused by nature as regards their perfection of being, yet they incline us to that which accords with reason, i.e. with the order of reason. For Cicero says (De Inv. Rhet. ii) that "virtue is a habit in accord with reason, like a second nature": and it is in this sense that virtue is said to be in accord with nature, and on the other hand that vice is contrary to nature.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod philosophus ibi loquitur de his quae sunt contra naturam, secundum quod esse contra naturam opponitur ei quod est esse a natura, non autem secundum quod esse contra naturam opponitur ei quod est esse secundum naturam, eo modo quo virtutes dicuntur esse secundum naturam, inquantum inclinant ad id quod naturae convenit. Reply to Objection 2. The Philosopher is speaking there of a thing being against nature, in so far as "being against nature" is contrary to "being from nature": and not in so far as "being against nature" is contrary to "being in accord with nature," in which latter sense virtues are said to be in accord with nature, in as much as they incline us to that which is suitable to nature.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in homine est duplex natura, scilicet rationalis et sensitiva. Et quia per operationem sensus homo pervenit ad actus rationis, ideo plures sequuntur inclinationes naturae sensitivae quam ordinem rationis, plures enim sunt qui assequuntur principium rei, quam qui ad consummationem perveniunt. Ex hoc autem vitia et peccata in hominibus proveniunt, quod sequuntur inclinationem naturae sensitivae contra ordinem rationis. Reply to Objection 3. There is a twofold nature in man, rational nature, and the sensitive nature. And since it is through the operation of his senses that man accomplishes acts of reason, hence there are more who follow the inclinations of the sensitive nature, than who follow the order of reason: because more reach the beginning of a business than achieve its completion. Now the presence of vices and sins in man is owing to the fact that he follows the inclination of his sensitive nature against the order of his reason.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod quidquid est contra rationem artificiati, est etiam contra naturam artis, qua artificiatum producitur. Lex autem aeterna comparatur ad ordinem rationis humanae sicut ars ad artificiatum. Unde eiusdem rationis est quod vitium et peccatum sit contra ordinem rationis humanae, et quod sit contra legem aeternam. Unde Augustinus dicit, in III de Lib. Arb., quod a Deo habent omnes naturae quod naturae sunt, et intantum sunt vitiosae, inquantum ab eius, qua factae sunt, arte discedunt. Reply to Objection 4. Whatever is irregular in a work of art, is unnatural to the art which produced that work. Now the eternal law is compared to the order of human reason, as art to a work of art. Therefore it amounts to the same that vice and sin are against the order of human reason, and that they are contrary to the eternal law. Hence Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 6) that "every nature, as such, is from God; and is a vicious nature, in so far as it fails from the Divine art whereby it was made."
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod vitium, idest habitus malus sit peius quam peccatum, idest actus malus. Sicut enim bonum quod est diuturnius, est melius; ita malum quod est diuturnius, est peius. Sed habitus vitiosus est diuturnior quam actus vitiosi, qui statim transeunt. Ergo habitus vitiosus est peior quam actus vitiosus. Objection 1. It would seem that vice, i.e. a bad habit, is worse than a sin, i.e. a bad act. For, as the more lasting a good is, the better it is, so the longer an evil lasts, the worse it is. Now a vicious habit is more lasting than vicious acts, that pass forthwith. Therefore a vicious habit is worse than a vicious act.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, plura mala sunt magis fugienda quam unum malum. Sed habitus malus virtualiter est causa multorum malorum actuum. Ergo habitus vitiosus est peior quam actus vitiosus. Objection 2. Further, several evils are more to be shunned than one. But a bad habit is virtually the cause of many bad acts. Therefore a vicious habit is worse than a vicious act.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, causa est potior quam effectus. Sed habitus perficit actum tam in bonitate quam in malitia. Ergo habitus est potior actu et in bonitate et in malitia. Objection 3. Further, a cause is more potent than its effect. But a habit produces its actions both as to their goodness and as to their badness. Therefore a habit is more potent than its act, both in goodness and in badness.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra, pro actu vitioso aliquis iuste punitur, non autem pro habitu vitioso, si non procedat ad actum. Ergo actus vitiosus est peior quam habitus vitiosus. On the contrary, A man is justly punished for a vicious act; but not for a vicious habit, so long as no act ensues. Therefore a vicious action is worse than a vicious habit.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod habitus medio modo se habet inter potentiam et actum. Manifestum est autem quod actus in bono et in malo praeeminet potentiae, ut dicitur in IX Metaphys., melius est enim bene agere quam posse bene agere; et similiter vituperabilius est male agere quam posse male agere. Unde etiam sequitur quod habitus in bonitate et in malitia medium gradum obtineat inter potentiam et actum, ut scilicet, sicut habitus bonus vel malus praeeminet in bonitate vel malitia potentiae, ita etiam subdatur actui. Quod etiam ex hoc apparet, quod habitus non dicitur bonus vel malus nisi ex hoc quod inclinat ad actum bonum vel malum. Unde propter bonitatem vel malitiam actus, dicitur habitus bonus vel malus. Et sic potior est actus in bonitate vel malitia quam habitus, quia propter quod unumquodque tale, et illud magis est. I answer that, A habit stands midway between power and act. Now it is evident that both in good and in evil, act precedes power, as stated in Metaph. ix, 19. For it is better to do well than to be able to do well, and in like manner, it is more blameworthy to do evil, than to be able to do evil: whence it also follows that both in goodness and in badness, habit stands midway between power and act, so that, to wit, even as a good or evil habit stands above the corresponding power in goodness or in badness, so does it stand below the corresponding act. This is also made clear from the fact that a habit is not called good or bad, save in so far as it induces to a good or bad act: wherefore a habit is called good or bad by reason of the goodness or badness of its act: so that an act surpasses its habit in goodness or badness, since "the cause of a thing being such, is yet more so."
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nihil prohibet aliquid esse simpliciter altero potius, quod tamen secundum quid ab eo deficit. Simpliciter enim potius iudicatur quod praeeminet quantum ad id quod per se consideratur in utroque, secundum quid autem quod praeeminet secundum id quod per accidens se habet ad utrumque. Ostensum est autem ex ipsa ratione actus et habitus, quod actus est potior in bonitate et malitia quam habitus. Quod autem habitus sit diuturnior quam actus, accidit ex eo quod utrumque invenitur in tali natura quae non potest semper agere, et cuius actio est in motu transeunte. Unde simpliciter actus est potior tam in bonitate quam in malitia, sed habitus est potior secundum quid. Reply to Objection 1. Nothing hinders one thing from standing above another simply, and below it in some respect. Now a thing is deemed above another simply if it surpasses it in a point which is proper to both; while it is deemed above it in a certain respect, if it surpasses it in something which is accidental to both. Now it has been shown from the very nature of act and habit, that act surpasses habit both in goodness and in badness. Whereas the fact that habit is more lasting than act, is accidental to them, and is due to the fact that they are both found in a nature such that it cannot always be in action, and whose action consists in a transient movement. Consequently act simply excels in goodness and badness, but habit excels in a certain respect.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod habitus non est simpliciter plures actus, sed secundum quid, idest virtute. Unde ex hoc non potest concludi quod habitus sit simpliciter potior in bonitate vel malitia quam actus. Reply to Objection 2. A habit is several acts, not simply, but in a certain respect, i.e. virtually. Wherefore this does not prove that habit precedes act simply, both in goodness and in badness.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod habitus est causa actus in genere causae efficientis, sed actus est causa habitus in genere causae finalis, secundum quam consideratur ratio boni et mali. Et ideo in bonitate et malitia actus praeeminet habitui. Reply to Objection 3. Habit causes act by way of efficient causality: but act causes habit, by way of final causality, in respect of which we consider the nature of good and evil. Consequently act surpasses habit both in goodness and in badness.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod actus vitiosus, sive peccatum, non possit simul esse cum virtute. Contraria enim non possunt esse simul in eodem. Sed peccatum quodammodo contrariatur virtuti, ut dictum est. Ergo peccatum non potest simul esse cum virtute. Objection 1. It would seem that a vicious act, i.e. sin, is incompatible with virtue. For contraries cannot be together in the same subject. Now sin is, in some way, contrary to virtue, as stated above (Article 1). Therefore sin is incompatible with virtue.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, peccatum est peius quam vitium, idest actus malus quam habitus malus. Sed vitium non potest simul esse in eodem cum virtute. Ergo neque peccatum. Objection 2. Further, sin is worse than vice, i.e. evil act than evil habit. But vice cannot be in the same subject with virtue: neither, therefore, can sin.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut peccatum accidit in rebus voluntariis, ita et in rebus naturalibus, ut dicitur in II Physic. Sed nunquam in rebus naturalibus accidit peccatum nisi per aliquam corruptionem virtutis naturalis, sicut monstra accidunt corrupto aliquo principio in semine, ut dicitur in II Physic. Ergo etiam in rebus voluntariis non accidit peccatum nisi corrupta aliqua virtute animae. Et sic peccatum et virtus non possunt esse in eodem. Objection 3. Further, sin occurs in natural things, even as in voluntary matters (Phys. ii, text. 82). Now sin never happens in natural things, except through some corruption of the natural power; thus monsters are due to corruption of some elemental force in the seed, as stated in Phys. ii. Therefore no sin occurs in voluntary matters, except through the corruption of some virtue in the soul: so that sin and virtue cannot be together in the same subject.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in II Ethic., quod per contraria virtus generatur et corrumpitur. Sed unus actus virtuosus non causat virtutem, ut supra habitum est. Ergo neque unus actus peccati tollit virtutem. Possunt ergo simul in eodem esse. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 2,3) that "virtue is engendered and corrupted by contrary causes." Now one virtuous act does not cause a virtue, as stated above (Question 51, Article 3): and, consequently, one sinful act does not corrupt virtue. Therefore they can be together in the same subject.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod peccatum comparatur ad virtutem sicut actus malus ad habitum bonum. Aliter autem se habet habitus in anima, et forma in re naturali. Forma enim naturalis ex necessitate producit operationem sibi convenientem, unde non potest esse simul cum forma naturali actus formae contrariae; sicut non potest esse cum calore actus infrigidationis, neque simul cum levitate motus descensionis, nisi forte ex violentia exterioris moventis. Sed habitus in anima non ex necessitate producit suam operationem, sed homo utitur eo cum voluerit. Unde simul habitu in homine existente, potest non uti habitu, aut agere contrarium actum. Et sic potest habens virtutem procedere ad actum peccati. Actus autem peccati, si comparetur ad ipsam virtutem prout est habitus quidam, non potest ipsam corrumpere, si sit unus tantum, sicut enim non generatur habitus per unum actum, ita nec per unum actum corrumpitur, ut supra dictum est. Sed si comparetur actus peccati ad causam virtutum, sic possibile est quod per unum actum peccati aliquae virtutes corrumpantur. Quodlibet enim peccatum mortale contrariatur caritati, quae est radix omnium virtutum infusarum, inquantum sunt virtutes, et ideo per unum actum peccati mortalis, exclusa caritate, excluduntur per consequens omnes virtutes infusae, quantum ad hoc quod sunt virtutes. Et hoc dico propter fidem et spem, quarum habitus remanent informes post peccatum mortale, et sic non sunt virtutes. Sed peccatum veniale, quod non contrariatur caritati nec excludit ipsam, per consequens etiam non excludit alias virtutes. Virtutes vero acquisitae non tolluntur per unum actum cuiuscumque peccati. Sic igitur peccatum mortale non potest simul esse cum virtutibus infusis, potest tamen simul esse cum virtutibus acquisitis. Peccatum vero veniale potest simul esse et cum virtutibus infusis, et cum acquisitis. I answer that, Sin is compared to virtue, as evil act to good habit. Now the position of a habit in the soul is not the same as that of a form in a natural thing. For the form of a natural thing produces, of necessity, an operation befitting itself; wherefore a natural form is incompatible with the act of a contrary form: thus heat is incompatible with the act of cooling, and lightness with downward movement (except perhaps violence be used by some extrinsic mover): whereas the habit that resides in the soul, does not, of necessity, produce its operation, but is used by man when he wills. Consequently man, while possessing a habit, may either fail to use the habit, or produce a contrary act; and so a man having a virtue may produce an act of sin. And this sinful act, so long as there is but one, cannot corrupt virtue, if we compare the act to the virtue itself as a habit: since, just as habit is not engendered by one act, so neither is it destroyed by one act as stated above (63, 2, ad 2). But if we compare the sinful act to the cause of the virtues, then it is possible for some virtues to be destroyed by one sinful act. For every mortal sin is contrary to charity, which is the root of all the infused virtues, as virtues; and consequently, charity being banished by one act of mortal sin, it follows that all the infused virtues are expelled "as virtues." And I say on account of faith and hope, whose habits remain unquickened after mortal sin, so that they are no longer virtues. On the other hand, since venial sin is neither contrary to charity, nor banishes it, as a consequence, neither does it expel the other virtues. As to the acquired virtues, they are not destroyed by one act of any kind of sin. Accordingly, mortal sin is incompatible with the infused virtues, but is consistent with acquired virtue: while venial sin is compatible with virtues, whether infused or acquired.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod peccatum non contrariatur virtuti secundum se, sed secundum suum actum. Et ideo peccatum non potest simul esse cum actu virtutis, potest tamen simul esse cum habitu. Reply to Objection 1. Sin is contrary to virtue, not by reason of itself, but by reason of its act. Hence sin is incompatible with the act, but not with the habit, of virtue.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod vitium directe contrariatur virtuti, sicut et peccatum actui virtuoso. Et ideo vitium excludit virtutem, sicut peccatum excludit actum virtutis. Reply to Objection 2. Vice is directly contrary to virtue, even as sin to virtuous act: and so vice excludes virtue, just as sin excludes acts of virtue.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod virtutes naturales agunt ex necessitate, et ideo, integra existente virtute, nunquam peccatum potest in actu inveniri. Sed virtutes animae non producunt actus ex necessitate, unde non est similis ratio. Reply to Objection 3. The natural powers act of necessity, and hence so long as the power is unimpaired, no sin can be found in the act. On the other hand, the virtues of the soul do not produce their acts of necessity; hence the comparison fails.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in quolibet peccato sit aliquis actus. Sicut enim meritum comparatur ad virtutem, ita peccatum ad vitium comparatur. Sed meritum non potest esse absque aliquo actu. Ergo nec peccatum potest esse absque aliquo actu. Objection 1. It would seem that every sin includes an action. For as merit is compared with virtue, even so is sin compared with vice. Now there can be no merit without an action. Neither, therefore, can there be sin without action.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de Lib. Arb., quod omne peccatum adeo est voluntarium, quod si non sit voluntarium, non est peccatum. Sed non potest esse aliquid voluntarium nisi per actum voluntatis. Ergo omne peccatum habet aliquem actum. Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 18) [Cf. De Vera Relig. xiv.]: So "true is it that every sin is voluntary, that, unless it be voluntary, it is no sin at all." Now nothing can be voluntary, save through an act of the will. Therefore every sin implies an act.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, si peccatum esset absque aliquo actu, sequeretur quod ex hoc ipso quod aliquis cessat ab actu debito, peccaret. Sed continue aliquis cessat ab actu debito, ille scilicet qui nunquam actum debitum operatur. Ergo sequeretur quod continue peccaret, quod est falsum. Non ergo est aliquod peccatum absque actu. Objection 3. Further, if sin could be without act, it would follow that a man sins as soon as he ceases doing what he ought. Now he who never does something that he ought to do, ceases continually doing what he ought. Therefore it would follow that he sins continually; and this is untrue. Therefore there is no sin without an act.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Iac. IV, scienti bonum facere et non facienti, peccatum est illi. Sed non facere non importat aliquem actum. Ergo peccatum potest esse absque actu. On the contrary, It is written (James 4:17): "To him . . . who knoweth to do good, and doth it not, to him it is a sin." Now "not to do" does not imply an act. Therefore sin can be without act.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quaestio ista principaliter movetur propter peccatum omissionis, de quo aliqui diversimode opinantur. Quidam enim dicunt quod in omni peccato omissionis est aliquis actus vel interior vel exterior. Interior quidem, sicut cum aliquis vult non ire ad Ecclesiam quando ire tenetur. Exterior autem, sicut cum aliquis illa hora qua ad Ecclesiam ire tenetur, vel etiam ante, occupat se talibus quibus ab eundo ad Ecclesiam impeditur. Et hoc quodammodo videtur in primum redire, qui enim vult aliquid cum quo aliud simul esse non potest, ex consequenti vult illo carere; nisi forte non perpendat quod per hoc quod vult facere, impeditur ab eo quod facere tenetur; in quo casu posset per negligentiam culpabilis iudicari. Alii vero dicunt quod in peccato omissionis non requiritur aliquis actus, ipsum enim non facere quod quis facere tenetur, peccatum est. Utraque autem opinio secundum aliquid veritatem habet. Si enim intelligatur in peccato omissionis illud solum quod per se pertinet ad rationem peccati, sic quandoque omissionis peccatum est cum actu interiori, ut cum aliquis vult non ire ad Ecclesiam, quandoque vero absque omni actu vel interiori vel exteriori, sicut cum aliquis hora qua tenetur ire ad Ecclesiam, nihil cogitat de eundo vel non eundo ad Ecclesiam. Si vero in peccato omissionis intelligantur etiam causae vel occasiones omittendi, sic necesse est in peccato omissionis aliquem actum esse. Non enim est peccatum omissionis nisi cum aliquis praetermittit quod potest facere et non facere. Quod autem aliquis declinet ad non faciendum illud quod potest facere et non facere, non est nisi ex aliqua causa vel occasione coniuncta vel praecedente. Et si quidem causa illa non sit in potestate hominis, omissio non habet rationem peccati, sicut cum aliquis propter infirmitatem praetermittit ad Ecclesiam ire. Si vero causa vel occasio omittendi subiaceat voluntati, omissio habet rationem peccati, et tunc semper oportet quod ista causa, inquantum est voluntaria, habeat aliquem actum, ad minus interiorem voluntatis. Qui quidem actus quandoque directe fertur in ipsam omissionem, puta cum aliquis vult non ire ad Ecclesiam, vitans laborem. Et tunc talis actus per se pertinet ad omissionem, voluntas enim cuiuscumque peccati per se pertinet ad peccatum illud, eo quod voluntarium est de ratione peccati. Quandoque autem actus voluntatis directe fertur in aliud, per quod homo impeditur ab actu debito, sive illud in quod fertur voluntas, sit coniunctum omissioni, puta cum aliquis vult ludere quando ad Ecclesiam debet ire; sive etiam sit praecedens, puta cum aliquis vult diu vigilare de sero, ex quo sequitur quod non vadat hora matutinali ad Ecclesiam. Et tunc actus iste interior vel exterior per accidens se habet ad omissionem, quia omissio sequitur praeter intentionem; hoc autem dicimus per accidens esse, quod est praeter intentionem, ut patet in II Physic. Unde manifestum est quod tunc peccatum omissionis habet quidem aliquem actum coniunctum vel praecedentem, qui tamen per accidens se habet ad peccatum omissionis. Iudicium autem de rebus dandum est secundum illud quod est per se, et non secundum illud quod est per accidens. Unde verius dici potest quod aliquod peccatum possit esse absque omni actu. Alioquin etiam ad essentiam aliorum peccatorum actualium pertinerent actus et occasiones circumstantes. I answer that, The reason for urging this question has reference to the sin of omission, about which there have been various opinions. For some say that in every sin of omission there is some act, either interior or exterior--interior, as when a man wills "not to go to church," when he is bound to go--exterior, as when a man, at the very hour that he is bound to go to church (or even before), occupies himself in such a way that he is hindered from going. This seems, in a way, to amount to the same as the first, for whoever wills one thing that is incompatible with this other, wills, consequently, to go without this other: unless, perchance, it does not occur to him, that what he wishes to do, will hinder him from that which he is bound to do, in which case he might be deemed guilty of negligence. On the other hand, others say, that a sin of omission does not necessarily suppose an act: for the mere fact of not doing what one is bound to do is a sin. Now each of these opinions has some truth in it. For if in the sin of omission we look merely at that in which the essence of the sin consists, the sin of omission will be sometimes with an interior act, as when a man wills "not to go to church": while sometimes it will be without any act at all, whether interior or exterior, as when a man, at the time that he is bound to go to church, does not think of going or not going to church. If, however, in the sin of omission, we consider also the causes, or occasions of the omission, then the sin of omission must of necessity include some act. For there is no sin of omission, unless we omit what we can do or not do: and that we turn aside so as not to do what we can do or not do, must needs be due to some cause or occasion, either united with the omission or preceding it. Now if this cause be not in man's power, the omission will not be sinful, as when anyone omits going to church on account of sickness: but if the cause or occasion be subject to the will, the omission is sinful; and such cause, in so far as it is voluntary, must needs always include some act, at least the interior act of the will: which act sometimes bears directly on the omission, as when a man wills "not to go to church," because it is too much trouble; and in this case this act, of its very nature, belongs to the omission, because the volition of any sin whatever, pertains, of itself, to that sin, since voluntariness is essential to sin. Sometimes, however, the act of the will bears directly on something else which hinders man from doing what he ought, whether this something else be united with the omission, as when a man wills to play at the time he ought to go to church--or, precede the omission, as when a man wills to sit up late at night, the result being that he does not go to church in the morning. In this case the act, interior or exterior, is accidental to the omission, since the omission follows outside the intention, and that which is outside the intention is said to be accidental (Phys. ii, text. 49,50). Wherefore it is evident that then the sin of omission has indeed an act united with, or preceding the omission, but that this act is accidental to the sin of omission. Now in judging about things, we must be guided by that which is proper to them, and not by that which is accidental: and consequently it is truer to say that a sin can be without any act; else the circumstantial acts and occasions would be essential to other actual sins.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod plura requiruntur ad bonum quam ad malum, eo quod bonum contingit ex tota integra causa, malum autem ex singularibus defectibus, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Et ideo peccatum potest contingere sive aliquis faciat quod non debet, sive non faciendo quod debet, sed meritum non potest esse nisi aliquis faciat voluntarie quod debet. Et ideo meritum non potest esse sine actu, sed peccatum potest esse sine actu. Reply to Objection 1. More things are required for good than for evil, since "good results from a whole and entire cause, whereas evil results from each single defect," as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv): so that sin may arise from a man doing what he ought not, or by his not doing what he ought; while there can be no merit, unless a man do willingly what he ought to do: wherefore there can be no merit without act, whereas there can be sin without act.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod aliquid dicitur voluntarium non solum quia cadit super ipsum actus voluntatis, sed quia in potestate nostra est ut fiat vel non fiat, ut dicitur in III Ethic. Unde etiam ipsum non velle potest dici voluntarium, inquantum in potestate hominis est velle et non velle. Reply to Objection 2. The term "voluntary" is applied not only to that on which the act of the will is brought to bear, but also to that which we have the power to do or not to do, as stated in Ethic. iii, 5. Hence even not to will may be called voluntary, in so far as man has it in his power to will, and not to will.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod peccatum omissionis contrariatur praecepto affirmativo, quod obligat semper, sed non ad semper. Et ideo solum pro tempore illo aliquis cessando ab actu peccat, pro quo praeceptum affirmativum obligat. Reply to Objection 3. The sin of omission is contrary to an affirmative precept which binds always, but not for always. Hence, by omitting to act, a man sins only for the time at which the affirmative precept binds him to act.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter definiatur peccatum, cum dicitur, peccatum est dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem aeternam. Dictum enim, vel factum, vel concupitum, importat aliquem actum. Sed non omne peccatum importat aliquem actum, ut dictum est. Ergo haec definitio non includit omne peccatum. Objection 1. It would seem that sin is unfittingly defined by saying: "Sin is a word, deed, or desire, contrary to the eternal law." Because "Word," "deed," and "desire" imply an act; whereas not every sin implies an act, as stated above (Article 5). Therefore this definition does not include every sin.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de duabus animabus, peccatum est voluntas retinendi vel consequendi quod iustitia vetat. Sed voluntas sub concupiscentia comprehenditur, secundum quod concupiscentia largo modo sumitur, pro omni appetitu. Ergo suffecisset dicere, peccatum est concupitum contra legem aeternam; nec oportuit addere, dictum vel factum. Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Duab. Anim. xii): "Sin is the will to retain or obtain what justice forbids." Now will is comprised under desire, in so far as desire denotes any act of the appetite. Therefore it was enough to say: "Sin is a desire contrary to the eternal law," nor was there need to add "word" or "deed."
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, peccatum proprie consistere videtur in aversione a fine, nam bonum et malum principaliter considerantur secundum finem, ut ex supradictis patet. Unde et Augustinus, in I de Lib. Arb., per comparationem ad finem definit peccatum, dicens quod peccare nihil est aliud quam, neglectis rebus aeternis, temporalia sectari, et in libro octoginta trium quaest., dicit quod omnis humana perversitas est uti fruendis et frui utendis. Sed in praemissa definitione nulla fit mentio de aversione a debito fine. Ergo insufficienter definitur peccatum. Objection 3. Further, sin apparently consists properly in aversion from the end: because good and evil are measured chiefly with regard to the end as explained above (1, 3; k1 18, A4,6; 20, A2,3): wherefore Augustine (De Lib. Arb. i) defines sin in reference to the end, by saying that "sin is nothing else than to neglect eternal things, and seek after temporal things": and again he says (Qq. lxxxii, qu. 30) that "all human wickedness consists in using what we should enjoy, and in enjoying what we should use." Now the definition is question contains no mention of aversion from our due end: therefore it is an insufficient definition of sin.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 6 arg. 4 Praeterea, ex hoc dicitur aliquid esse prohibitum, quia legi contrariatur. Sed non omnia peccata sunt mala quia prohibita, sed quaedam sunt prohibita quia mala. Non ergo in communi definitione peccati debuit poni quod sit contra legem Dei. Objection 4. Further, a thing is said to be forbidden, because it is contrary to the law. Now not all sins are evil through being forbidden, but some are forbidden because they are evil. Therefore sin in general should not be defined as being against the law of God.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 6 arg. 5 Praeterea, peccatum significat malum hominis actum, ut ex dictis patet. Sed malum hominis est contra rationem esse, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Ergo potius debuit dici quod peccatum sit contra rationem, quam quod peccatum sit contra legem aeternam. Objection 5. Further, a sin denotes a bad human act, as was explained above (Article 1). Now man's evil is to be against reason, as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore it would have been better to say that sin is against reason than to say that it is contrary to the eternal law.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 6 s. c. In contrarium sufficit auctoritas Augustini. On the contrary, the authority of Augustine suffices (Contra Faust. xxii, 27).
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex dictis patet, peccatum nihil aliud est quam actus humanus malus. Quod autem aliquis actus sit humanus, habet ex hoc quod est voluntarius, sicut ex supradictis patet, sive sit voluntarius quasi a voluntate elicitus, ut ipsum velle et eligere; sive quasi a voluntate imperatus, ut exteriores actus vel locutionis vel operationis. Habet autem actus humanus quod sit malus, ex eo quod caret debita commensuratione. Omnis autem commensuratio cuiuscumque rei attenditur per comparationem ad aliquam regulam, a qua si divertat, incommensurata erit. Regula autem voluntatis humanae est duplex, una propinqua et homogenea, scilicet ipsa humana ratio; alia vero est prima regula, scilicet lex aeterna, quae est quasi ratio Dei. Et ideo Augustinus in definitione peccati posuit duo, unum quod pertinet ad substantiam actus humani, quod est quasi materiale in peccato, cum dixit, dictum vel factum vel concupitum; aliud autem quod pertinet ad rationem mali, quod est quasi formale in peccato, cum dixit, contra legem aeternam. I answer that, As was shown above (Article 1), sin is nothing else than a bad human act. Now that an act is a human act is due to its being voluntary, as stated above (Question 1, Article 1), whether it be voluntary, as being elicited by the will, e.g. to will or to choose, or as being commanded by the will, e.g. the exterior actions of speech or operation. Again, a human act is evil through lacking conformity with its due measure: and conformity of measure in a thing depends on a rule, from which if that thing depart, it is incommensurate. Now there are two rules of the human will: one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz. the eternal law, which is God's reason, so to speak. Accordingly Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii, 27) includes two things in the definition of sin; one, pertaining to the substance of a human act, and which is the matter, so to speak, of sin, when he says "word," "deed," or "desire"; the other, pertaining to the nature of evil, and which is the form, as it were, of sin, when he says, "contrary to the eternal law."
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod affirmatio et negatio reducuntur ad idem genus, sicut in divinis genitum et ingenitum ad relationem, ut Augustinus dicit, in V de Trin. Et ideo pro eodem est accipiendum dictum et non dictum, factum et non factum. Reply to Objection 1. Affirmation and negation are reduced to one same genus: e.g. in Divine things, begotten and unbegotten are reduced to the genus "relation," as Augustine states (De Trin. v, 6,7): and so "word" and "deed" denote equally what is said and what is not said, what is done and what is not done.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod prima causa peccati est in voluntate, quae imperat omnes actus voluntarios, in quibus solum invenitur peccatum, et ideo Augustinus quandoque per solam voluntatem definit peccatum. Sed quia etiam ipsi exteriores actus pertinent ad substantiam peccati, cum sint secundum se mali, ut dictum est, necesse fuit quod in definitione peccati poneretur etiam aliquid pertinens ad exteriores actus. Reply to Objection 2. The first cause of sin is in the will, which commands all voluntary acts, in which alone is sin to be found: and hence it is that Augustine sometimes defines sin in reference to the will alone. But since external acts also pertain to the substance of sin, through being evil of themselves, as stated, it was necessary in defining sin to include something referring to external action.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod lex aeterna primo et principaliter ordinat hominem ad finem, consequenter autem facit hominem bene se habere circa ea quae sunt ad finem. Et ideo in hoc quod dicit contra legem aeternam, tangit aversionem a fine, et omnes alias inordinationes. Reply to Objection 3. The eternal law first and foremost directs man to his end, and in consequence, makes man to be well disposed in regard to things which are directed to the end: hence when he says, "contrary to the eternal law," he includes aversion from the end and all other forms of inordinateness.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 6 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod, cum dicitur quod non omne peccatum ideo est malum quia est prohibitum, intelligitur de prohibitione facta per ius positivum. Si autem referatur ad ius naturale, quod continetur primo quidem in lege aeterna, secundario vero in naturali iudicatorio rationis humanae, tunc omne peccatum est malum quia prohibitum, ex hoc enim ipso quod est inordinatum, iuri naturali repugnat. Reply to Objection 4. When it is said that not every sin is evil through being forbidden, this must be understood of prohibition by positive law. If, however, the prohibition be referred to the natural law, which is contained primarily in the eternal law, but secondarily in the natural code of the human reason, then every sin is evil through being prohibited: since it is contrary to natural law, precisely because it is inordinate.
Iª-IIae q. 71 a. 6 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod a theologis consideratur peccatum praecipue secundum quod est offensa contra Deum, a philosopho autem morali, secundum quod contrariatur rationi. Et ideo Augustinus convenientius definit peccatum ex hoc quod est contra legem aeternam, quam ex hoc quod est contra rationem, praecipue cum per legem aeternam regulemur in multis quae excedunt rationem humanam, sicut in his quae sunt fidei. Reply to Objection 5. The theologian considers sin chiefly as an offense against God; and the moral philosopher, as something contrary to reason. Hence Augustine defines sin with reference to its being "contrary to the eternal law," more fittingly than with reference to its being contrary to reason; the more so, as the eternal law directs us in many things that surpass human reason, e.g. in matters of faith.

Notes


  • [[]]
Personal tools