Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part IIa/Q85

From The Logic Museum
Jump to navigationJump to search
←Q84 Q86→



Latin English
Iª-IIae q. 85 pr. Deinde considerandum est de effectibus peccati. Et primo quidem, de corruptione boni naturae; secundo, de macula animae; tertio, de reatu poenae. Circa primum quaeruntur sex. Primo, utrum bonum naturae diminuatur per peccatum. Secundo, utrum totaliter tolli possit. Tertio, de quatuor vulneribus quae Beda ponit, quibus natura humana vulnerata est propter peccatum. Quarto, utrum privatio modi, speciei et ordinis, sit effectus peccati. Quinto, utrum mors et alii defectus corporales sint effectus peccati. Sexto, utrum sint aliquo modo homini naturales. Question 85. The effects of sin, and, first, of the corruption of the good of nature Is the good of nature diminished by sin? Can it be taken away altogether? The four wounds, mentioned by Bede, with which human nature is stricken in consequence of sin Is privation of mode, species and order an effect of sin? Are death and other bodily defects the result of sin? Are they, in any way, natural to man?
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatum non diminuat bonum naturae. Peccatum enim hominis non est gravius quam peccatum Daemonis. Sed bona naturalia in Daemonibus manent integra post peccatum, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Ergo peccatum etiam bonum naturae humanae non diminuit. Objection 1. It would seem that sin does not diminish the good of nature. For man's sin is no worse than the devil's. But natural good remains unimpaired in devils after sin, as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore neither does sin diminish the good of human nature.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, transmutato posteriori, non transmutatur prius, manet enim substantia eadem, transmutatis accidentibus. Sed natura praeexistit actioni voluntariae. Ergo, facta deordinatione circa actionem voluntariam per peccatum, non transmutatur propter hoc natura, ita quod bonum naturae diminuatur. Objection 2. Further, when that which follows is changed, that which precedes remains unchanged, since substance remains the same when its accidents are changed. But nature exists before the voluntary action. Therefore, when sin has caused a disorder in a voluntary act, nature is not changed on that account, so that the good of nature be diminished.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, peccatum est actus quidam, diminutio autem passio. Nullum autem agens, ex hoc ipso quod agit, patitur, potest autem contingere quod in unum agat, et ab alio patiatur. Ergo ille qui peccat, per peccatum non diminuit bonum suae naturae. Objection 3. Further, sin is an action, while diminution is a passion. Now no agent is passive by the very reason of its acting, although it is possible for it to act on one thing, and to be passive as regards another. Therefore he who sins, does not, by his sin, diminish the good of his nature.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 1 arg. 4 Praeterea, nullum accidens agit in suum subiectum, quia quod patitur, est potentia ens; quod autem subiicitur accidenti, iam est actu ens secundum accidens illud. Sed peccatum est in bono naturae sicut accidens in subiecto. Ergo peccatum non diminuit bonum naturae, diminuere enim quoddam agere est. Objection 4. Further, no accident acts on its subject: because that which is patient is a potential being, while that which is subjected to an accident, is already an actual being as regards that accident. But sin is in the good of nature as an accident in a subject. Therefore sin does not diminish the good of nature, since to diminish is to act.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod, sicut dicitur Luc. X, homo descendens a Ierusalem in Iericho, idest in defectum peccati, expoliatur gratuitis et vulneratur in naturalibus, ut Beda exponit. Ergo peccatum diminuit bonum naturae. On the contrary, "A certain man going down from Jerusalem to Jericho (Luke 10:30), i.e. to the corruption of sin, was stripped of his gifts, and wounded in his nature," as Bede [The quotation is from the Glossa Ordinaria of Strabo] expounds the passage. Therefore sin diminishes the good of nature.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod bonum naturae humanae potest tripliciter dici. Primo, ipsa principia naturae, ex quibus natura constituitur, et proprietates ex his causatae, sicut potentiae animae et alia huiusmodi. Secundo, quia homo a natura habet inclinationem ad virtutem, ut supra habitum est, ipsa inclinatio ad virtutem est quoddam bonum naturae. Tertio modo potest dici bonum naturae donum originalis iustitiae, quod fuit in primo homine collatum toti humanae naturae. Primum igitur bonum naturae nec tollitur nec diminuitur per peccatum. Tertium vero bonum naturae totaliter est ablatum per peccatum primi parentis. Sed medium bonum naturae, scilicet ipsa naturalis inclinatio ad virtutem, diminuitur per peccatum. Per actus enim humanos fit quaedam inclinatio ad similes actus, ut supra habitum est. Oportet autem quod ex hoc quod aliquid inclinatur ad unum contrariorum, diminuatur inclinatio eius ad aliud. Unde cum peccatum sit contrarium virtuti, ex hoc ipso quod homo peccat, diminuitur bonum naturae quod est inclinatio ad virtutem. I answer that, The good of human nature is threefold. First, there are the principles of which nature is constituted, and the properties that flow from them, such as the powers of the soul, and so forth. Secondly, since man has from nature an inclination to virtue, as stated above (60, 1; 63, 1), this inclination to virtue is a good of nature. Thirdly, the gift of original justice, conferred on the whole of human nature in the person of the first man, may be called a good of nature. Accordingly, the first-mentioned good of nature is neither destroyed nor diminished by sin. The third good of nature was entirely destroyed through the sin of our first parent. But the second good of nature, viz. the natural inclination to virtue, is diminished by sin. Because human acts produce an inclination to like acts, as stated above (Question 50, Article 1). Now from the very fact that thing becomes inclined to one of two contraries, its inclination to the other contrary must needs be diminished. Wherefore as sin is opposed to virtue, from the very fact that a man sins, there results a diminution of that good of nature, which is the inclination to virtue.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Dionysius loquitur de bono primo naturae, quod est esse, vivere et intelligere; ut patet eius verba intuenti. Reply to Objection 1. Dionysius is speaking of the first-mentioned good of nature, which consists in "being, living and understanding," as anyone may see who reads the context.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod natura, etsi sit prior quam voluntaria actio, tamen habet inclinationem ad quandam voluntariam actionem. Unde ipsa natura secundum se non variatur propter variationem voluntariae actionis, sed ipsa inclinatio variatur ex illa parte qua ordinatur ad terminum. Reply to Objection 2. Although nature precedes the voluntary action, it has an inclination to a certain voluntary action. Wherefore nature is not changed in itself, through a change in the voluntary action: it is the inclination that is changed in so far as it is directed to its term.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod actio voluntaria procedit ex diversis potentiis, quarum una est activa et alia passiva. Et ex hoc contingit quod per actiones voluntarias causatur aliquid, vel aufertur ab homine sic agente, ut supra dictum est, cum de generatione habituum ageretur. Reply to Objection 3. A voluntary action proceeds from various powers, active and passive. The result is that through voluntary actions something is caused or taken away in the man who acts, as we have stated when treating of the production of habits (51, 2).
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 1 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod accidens non agit effective in subiectum; agit tamen formaliter in ipsum, eo modo loquendi quo dicitur quod albedo facit album. Et sic nihil prohibet quod peccatum diminuat bonum naturae, eo tamen modo quo est ipsa diminutio boni naturae, inquantum pertinet ad inordinationem actus. Sed quantum ad inordinationem agentis, oportet dicere quod talis inordinatio causatur per hoc quod in actibus animae aliquid est activum et aliquid passivum, sicut sensibile movet appetitum sensitivum, et appetitus sensitivus inclinat rationem et voluntatem, ut supra dictum est. Et ex hoc causatur inordinatio, non quidem ita quod accidens agat in proprium subiectum; sed secundum quod obiectum agit in potentiam, et una potentia agit in aliam, et deordinat ipsam. Reply to Objection 4. An accident does not act effectively on its subject, but it acts on it formally, in the same sense as when we say that whiteness makes a thing white. In this way there is nothing to hinder sin from diminishing the good of nature; but only in so far as sin is itself a diminution of the good of nature, through being an inordinateness of action. But as regards the inordinateness of the agent, we must say that such like inordinateness is caused by the fact that in the acts of the soul, there is an active, and a passive element: thus the sensible object moves the sensitive appetite, and the sensitive appetite inclines the reason and will, as stated above (77, A1, 2). The result of this is the inordinateness, not as though an accident acted on its own subject, but in so far as the object acts on the power, and one power acts on another and puts it out of order.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod totum bonum humanae naturae possit per peccatum auferri. Bonum enim naturae humanae finitum est, cum et ipsa natura humana sit finita. Sed quodlibet finitum totaliter consumitur, facta continua ablatione. Cum ergo bonum naturae continue per peccatum diminui possit, videtur quod possit quandoque totaliter consumi. Objection 1. It would seem that the entire good of human nature can be destroyed by sin. For the good of human nature is finite, since human nature itself is finite. Now any finite thing is entirely taken away, if the subtraction be continuous. Since therefore the good of nature can be continually diminished by sin, it seems that in the end it can be entirely taken away.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, eorum quae sunt unius naturae, similis est ratio de toto et de partibus, sicut patet in aere et in aqua et carne, et omnibus corporibus similium partium. Sed bonum naturae est totaliter uniforme. Cum igitur pars eius possit auferri per peccatum, totum etiam per peccatum auferri posse videtur. Objection 2. Further, in a thing of one nature, the whole and the parts are uniform, as is evidently the case with air, water, flesh and all bodies with similar parts. But the good of nature is wholly uniform. Since therefore a part thereof can be taken away by sin, it seems that the whole can also be taken away by sin.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, bonum naturae quod per peccatum minuitur, est habilitas ad virtutem. Sed in quibusdam propter peccatum habilitas praedicta totaliter tollitur, ut patet in damnatis, qui reparari ad virtutem non possunt, sicut nec caecus ad visum. Ergo peccatum potest totaliter tollere bonum naturae. Objection 3. Further, the good of nature, that is weakened by sin, is aptitude for virtue. Now this aptitude is destroyed entirely in some on account of sin: thus the lost cannot be restored to virtue any more than the blind can to sight. Therefore sin can take away the good of nature entirely.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in Enchirid., quod malum non est nisi in bono. Sed malum culpae non potest esse in bono virtutis vel gratiae, quia est ei contrarium. Ergo oportet quod sit in bono naturae. Non ergo totaliter tollit ipsum. On the contrary, Augustine says (Enchiridion xiv) that "evil does not exist except in some good." But the evil of sin cannot be in the good of virtue or of grace, because they are contrary to it. Therefore it must be in the good of nature, and consequently it does not destroy it entirely.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, bonum naturae quod per peccatum diminuitur, est naturalis inclinatio ad virtutem. Quae quidem convenit homini ex hoc ipso quod rationalis est, ex hoc enim habet quod secundum rationem operetur, quod est agere secundum virtutem. Per peccatum autem non potest totaliter ab homine tolli quod sit rationalis, quia iam non esset capax peccati. Unde non est possibile quod praedictum naturae bonum totaliter tollatur. Cum autem inveniatur huiusmodi bonum continue diminui per peccatum, quidam ad huius manifestationem usi sunt quodam exemplo, in quo invenitur aliquod finitum in infinitum diminui, nunquam tamen totaliter consumi. Dicit enim philosophus, in III Physic., quod si ab aliqua magnitudine finita continue auferatur aliquid secundum eandem quantitatem, totaliter tandem consumetur, puta si a quacumque quantitate finita semper subtraxero mensuram palmi. Si vero fiat subtractio semper secundum eandem proportionem, et non secundum eandem quantitatem, poterit in infinitum subtrahi, puta, si quantitas dividatur in duas partes, et a dimidio subtrahatur dimidium, ita in infinitum poterit procedi; ita tamen quod semper quod posterius subtrahitur, erit minus eo quod prius subtrahebatur. Sed hoc in proposito non habet locum, non enim sequens peccatum minus diminuit bonum naturae quam praecedens, sed forte magis, si sit gravius. Et ideo aliter est dicendum quod praedicta inclinatio intelligitur ut media inter duo, fundatur enim sicut in radice in natura rationali, et tendit in bonum virtutis sicut in terminum et finem. Dupliciter igitur potest intelligi eius diminutio, uno modo, ex parte radicis; alio modo, ex parte termini. Primo quidem modo non diminuitur per peccatum, eo quod peccatum non diminuit ipsam naturam, ut supra dictum est. Sed diminuitur secundo modo, inquantum scilicet ponitur impedimentum pertingendi ad terminum. Si autem primo modo diminueretur, oporteret quod quandoque totaliter consumeretur, natura rationali totaliter consumpta. Sed quia diminuitur ex parte impedimenti quod apponitur ne pertingat ad terminum, manifestum est quod diminui quidem potest in infinitum, quia in infinitum possunt impedimenta apponi, secundum quod homo potest in infinitum addere peccatum peccato, non tamen potest totaliter consumi, quia semper manet radix talis inclinationis. Sicut patet in diaphano corpore, quod quidem habet inclinationem ad susceptionem lucis ex hoc ipso quod est diaphanum, diminuitur autem haec inclinatio vel habilitas ex parte nebularum supervenientium, cum tamen semper maneat in radice naturae. I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), the good of nature, that is diminished by sin, is the natural inclination to virtue, which is befitting to man from the very fact that he is a rational being; for it is due to this that he performs actions in accord with reason, which is to act virtuously. Now sin cannot entirely take away from man the fact that he is a rational being, for then he would no longer be capable of sin. Wherefore it is not possible for this good of nature to be destroyed entirely. Since, however, this same good of nature may be continually diminished by sin, some, in order to illustrate this, have made use of the example of a finite thing being diminished indefinitely, without being entirely destroyed. For the Philosopher says (Phys. i, text. 37) that if from a finite magnitude a continual subtraction be made in the same quantity, it will at last be entirely destroyed, for instance if from any finite length I continue to subtract the length of a span. If, however, the subtraction be made each time in the same proportion, and not in the same quantity, it may go on indefinitely, as, for instance, if a quantity be halved, and one half be diminished by half, it will be possible to go on thus indefinitely, provided that what is subtracted in each case be less than what was subtracted before. But this does not apply to the question at issue, since a subsequent sin does not diminish the good of nature less than a previous sin, but perhaps more, if it be a more grievous sin. We must, therefore, explain the matter otherwise by saying that the aforesaid inclination is to be considered as a middle term between two others: for it is based on the rational nature as on its root, and tends to the good of virtue, as to its term and end. Consequently its diminution may be understood in two ways: first, on the part of its rood, secondly, on the part of its term. In the first way, it is not diminished by sin, because sin does not diminish nature, as stated above (Article 1). But it is diminished in the second way, in so far as an obstacle is placed against its attaining its term. Now if it were diminished in the first way, it would needs be entirely destroyed at last by the rational nature being entirely destroyed. Since, however, it is diminished on the part of the obstacle which is place against its attaining its term, it is evident that it can be diminished indefinitely, because obstacles can be placed indefinitely, inasmuch as man can go on indefinitely adding sin to sin: and yet it cannot be destroyed entirely, because the root of this inclination always remains. An example of this may be seen in a transparent body, which has an inclination to receive light, from the very fact that it is transparent; yet this inclination or aptitude is diminished on the part of supervening clouds, although it always remains rooted in the nature of the body.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit quando fit diminutio per subtractionem. Hic autem fit diminutio per appositionem impedimenti, quod neque tollit neque diminuit radicem inclinationis, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. This objection avails when diminution is made by subtraction. But here the diminution is made by raising obstacles, and this neither diminishes nor destroys the root of the inclination, as stated above.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod inclinatio naturalis est quidem tota uniformis, sed tamen habet respectum et ad principium et ad terminum, secundum quam diversitatem quodammodo diminuitur et quodammodo non diminuitur. Reply to Objection 2. The natural inclination is indeed wholly uniform: nevertheless it stands in relation both to its principle and to its term, in respect of which diversity of relation, it is diminished on the one hand, and not on the other.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam in damnatis manet naturalis inclinatio ad virtutem, alioquin non esset in eis remorsus conscientiae. Sed quod non reducatur in actum, contingit quia deest gratia, secundum divinam iustitiam. Sicut etiam in caeco remanet aptitudo ad videndum in ipsa radice naturae, inquantum est animal naturaliter habens visum, sed non reducitur in actum, quia deest causa quae reducere possit formando organum quod requiritur ad videndum. Reply to Objection 3. Even in the lost the natural inclination to virtue remains, else they would have no remorse of conscience. That it is not reduced to act is owing to their being deprived of grace by Divine justice. Thus even in a blind man the aptitude to see remains in the very root of his nature, inasmuch as he is an animal naturally endowed with sight: yet this aptitude is not reduced to act, for the lack of a cause capable of reducing it, by forming the organ requisite for sight.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter ponantur vulnera naturae esse, ex peccato consequentia, infirmitas, ignorantia, malitia et concupiscentia. Non enim idem est effectus et causa eiusdem. Sed ista ponuntur causae peccatorum, ut ex supradictis patet. Ergo non debent poni effectus peccati. Objection 1. It would seem that weakness, ignorance, malice and concupiscence are not suitably reckoned as the wounds of nature consequent upon sin. For one same thing is not both effect and cause of the same thing. But these are reckoned to be causes of sin, as appears from what has been said above (76, 1; 77, A3,5; 78, 1). Therefore they should not be reckoned as effects of sin.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, malitia nominat quoddam peccatum. Non ergo debet poni inter effectus peccati. Objection 2. Further, malice is the name of a sin. Therefore it should have no place among the effects of sin.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, concupiscentia est quiddam naturale, cum sit actus virtutis concupiscibilis. Sed illud quod est naturale, non debet poni vulnus naturae. Ergo concupiscentia non debet poni vulnus naturae. Objection 3. Further, concupiscence is something natural, since it is an act of the concupiscible power. But that which is natural should not be reckoned a wound of nature. Therefore concupiscence should not be reckoned a wound of nature.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 3 arg. 4 Praeterea, dictum est quod idem est peccare ex infirmitate, et ex passione. Sed concupiscentia passio quaedam est. Ergo non debet contra infirmitatem dividi. Objection 4. Further, it has been stated (77, 3) that to sin from weakness is the same as to sin from passion. But concupiscence is a passion. Therefore it should not be condivided with weakness.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 3 arg. 5 Praeterea, Augustinus, in libro de natura et gratia, ponit duo poenalia animae peccanti, scilicet ignorantiam et difficultatem, ex quibus oritur error et cruciatus, quae quidem quatuor non concordant istis quatuor. Ergo videtur quod alterum eorum insufficienter ponatur. Objection 5. Further, Augustine (De Nat. et Grat. lxvii, 67) reckons "two things to be punishments inflicted on the soul of the sinner, viz. ignorance and difficulty," from which arise "error and vexation," which four do not coincide with the four in question. Therefore it seems that one or the other reckoning is incomplete.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 3 s. c. In contrarium est auctoritas Bedae. On the contrary, The authority of Bede suffices [Reference not known].
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod per iustitiam originalem perfecte ratio continebat inferiores animae vires, et ipsa ratio a Deo perficiebatur ei subiecta. Haec autem originalis iustitia subtracta est per peccatum primi parentis, sicut iam dictum est. Et ideo omnes vires animae remanent quodammodo destitutae proprio ordine, quo naturaliter ordinantur ad virtutem, et ipsa destitutio vulneratio naturae dicitur. Sunt autem quatuor potentiae animae quae possunt esse subiecta virtutum, ut supra dictum est, scilicet ratio, in qua est prudentia; voluntas, in qua est iustitia; irascibilis, in qua est fortitudo; concupiscibilis, in qua est temperantia. Inquantum ergo ratio destituitur suo ordine ad verum, est vulnus ignorantiae; inquantum vero voluntas destituitur ordine ad bonum, est vulnus malitiae; inquantum vero irascibilis destituitur suo ordine ad arduum, est vulnus infirmitatis; inquantum vero concupiscentia destituitur ordine ad delectabile moderatum ratione, est vulnus concupiscentiae. Sic igitur ita quatuor sunt vulnera inflicta toti humanae naturae ex peccato primi parentis. Sed quia inclinatio ad bonum virtutis in unoquoque diminuitur per peccatum actuale, ut ex dictis patet, et ista sunt quatuor vulnera ex aliis peccatis consequentia, inquantum scilicet per peccatum et ratio hebetatur, praecipue in agendis; et voluntas induratur ad bonum; et maior difficultas bene agendi accrescit; et concupiscentia magis exardescit. I answer that, As a result of original justice, the reason had perfect hold over the lower parts of the soul, while reason itself was perfected by God, and was subject to Him. Now this same original justice was forfeited through the sin of our first parent, as already stated (81, 2); so that all the powers of the soul are left, as it were, destitute of their proper order, whereby they are naturally directed to virtue; which destitution is called a wounding of nature. Again, there are four of the soul's powers that can be subject of virtue, as stated above (Question 61, Article 2), viz. the reason, where prudence resides, the will, where justice is, the irascible, the subject of fortitude, and the concupiscible, the subject of temperance. Therefore in so far as the reason is deprived of its order to the true, there is the wound of ignorance; in so far as the will is deprived of its order of good, there is the wound of malice; in so far as the irascible is deprived of its order to the arduous, there is the wound of weakness; and in so far as the concupiscible is deprived of its order to the delectable, moderated by reason, there is the wound of concupiscence. Accordingly these are the four wounds inflicted on the whole of human nature as a result of our first parent's sin. But since the inclination to the good of virtue is diminished in each individual on account of actual sin, as was explained above (Question 1, Article 2), these four wounds are also the result of other sins, in so far as, through sin, the reason is obscured, especially in practical matters, the will hardened to evil, good actions become more difficult and concupiscence more impetuous.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nihil prohibet id quod est effectus unius peccati, esse causam peccati alterius. Ex hoc enim quod anima deordinatur per peccatum praecedens, facilius inclinatur ad peccandum. Reply to Objection 1. There is no reason why the effect of one sin should not be the cause of another: because the soul, through sinning once, is more easily inclined to sin again.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod malitia non sumitur hic pro peccato, sed pro quadam pronitate voluntatis ad malum; secundum quod dicitur Gen. VIII, proni sunt sensus hominis ad malum ab adolescentia sua. Reply to Objection 2. Malice is not to be taken here as a sin, but as a certain proneness of the will to evil, according to the words of Genesis 8:21: "Man's senses are prone to evil from his youth" [Vulgate: 'The imagination and thought of man's heart are prone to evil from his youth.'].
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, concupiscentia intantum est naturalis homini, inquantum subditur rationi. Quod autem excedat limites rationis, hoc est homini contra naturam. Reply to Objection 3. As stated above (82, 3, ad 1), concupiscence is natural to man, in so far as it is subject to reason: whereas, in so far as it is goes beyond the bounds of reason, it is unnatural to man.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 3 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod infirmitas communiter potest dici omnis passio, inquantum debilitat robur animae et impedit rationem. Sed Beda accepit infirmitatem stricte, secundum quod opponitur fortitudini, quae pertinet ad irascibilem. Reply to Objection 4. Speaking in a general way, every passion can be called a weakness, in so far as it weakens the soul's strength and clogs the reason. Bede, however, took weakness in the strict sense, as contrary to fortitude which pertains to the irascible.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 3 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod difficultas quae ponitur in libro Augustini, includit ista tria quae pertinent ad appetitivas potentias, scilicet malitiam, infirmitatem et concupiscentiam, ex his enim tribus contingit quod aliquis non facile tendit in bonum. Error autem et dolor sunt vulnera consequentia, ex hoc enim aliquis dolet, quod infirmatur circa ea quae concupiscit. Reply to Objection 5. The "difficulty" which is mentioned in this book of Augustine, includes the three wounds affecting the appetitive powers, viz. "malice," "weakness" and "concupiscence," for it is owing to these three that a man finds it difficult to tend to the good. "Error" and "vexation" are consequent wounds, since a man is vexed through being weakened in respect of the objects of his concupiscence.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod privatio modi, speciei et ordinis, non sit effectus peccati. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de natura boni, quod ubi haec tria magna sunt, magnum bonum est; ubi parva, parvum; ubi nulla, nullum. Sed peccatum non annullat bonum naturae. Ergo non privat modum, speciem et ordinem. Objection 1. It would seem that privation of mode, species and order is not the effect of sin. For Augustine says (De Natura Boni iii) that "where these three abound, the good is great; where they are less, there is less good; where they are not, there is no good at all." But sin does not destroy the good of nature. Therefore it does not destroy mode, species and order.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, nihil est causa sui ipsius. Sed ipsum peccatum est privatio modi, speciei et ordinis, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de natura boni. Ergo privatio modi, speciei et ordinis, non est effectus peccati. Objection 2. Further, nothing is its own cause. But sin itself is the "privation of mode, species and order," as Augustine states (De Natura Boni iv). Therefore privation of mode, species and order is not the effect of sin.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, diversa peccata diversos habent effectus. Sed modus, species et ordo, cum sint quaedam diversa, diversas privationes habere videntur. Ergo per diversa peccata privantur. Non ergo est effectus cuiuslibet peccati privatio modi, speciei et ordinis. Objection 3. Further, different effects result from different sins. Now since mode, species and order are diverse, their corresponding privations must be diverse also, and, consequently, must be the result of different sins. Therefore privation of mode, species and order is not the effect of each sin.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod peccatum est in anima sicut infirmitas in corpore; secundum illud Psalmi VI, miserere mei, domine, quoniam infirmus sum. Sed infirmitas privat modum, speciem et ordinem ipsius corporis. Ergo peccatum privat modum, speciem et ordinem animae. On the contrary, Sin is to the soul what weakness is to the body, according to Psalm 6:3, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak." Now weakness deprives the body of mode, species and order.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in primo dictum est, modus, species et ordo consequuntur unumquodque bonum creatum inquantum huiusmodi, et etiam unumquodque ens. Omne enim esse et bonum consideratur per aliquam formam, secundum quam sumitur species. Forma autem uniuscuiusque rei, qualiscumque sit, sive substantialis sive accidentalis, est secundum aliquam mensuram, unde et in VIII Metaphys. dicitur quod formae rerum sunt sicut numeri. Et ex hoc habet modum quendam, qui mensuram respicit. Ex forma vero sua unumquodque ordinatur ad aliud. Sic igitur secundum diversos gradus bonorum, sunt diversi gradus modi, speciei et ordinis. Est ergo quoddam bonum pertinens ad ipsam substantiam naturae, quod habet suum modum, speciem et ordinem, et illud nec privatur nec diminuitur per peccatum. Est etiam quoddam bonum naturalis inclinationis, et hoc etiam habet suum modum, speciem et ordinem, et hoc diminuitur per peccatum, ut dictum est, sed non totaliter tollitur. Est etiam quoddam bonum virtutis et gratiae, quod etiam habet suum modum, speciem et ordinem, et hoc totaliter tollitur per peccatum mortale. Est etiam quoddam bonum quod est ipse actus ordinatus, quod etiam habet suum modum, speciem et ordinem, et huius privatio est essentialiter ipsum peccatum. Et sic patet qualiter peccatum et est privatio modi, speciei et ordinis; et privat vel diminuit modum, speciem et ordinem. I answer that, As stated in the I, 5, 5, mode, species and order are consequent upon every created good, as such, and also upon every being. Because every being and every good as such depends on its form from which it derives its "species." Again, any kind of form, whether substantial or accidental, of anything whatever, is according to some measure, wherefore it is stated in Metaph. viii, that "the forms of things are like numbers," so that a form has a certain "mode" corresponding to its measure. Lastly owing to its form, each thing has a relation of "order" to something else. Accordingly there are different grades of mode, species and order, corresponding to the different degrees of good. For there is a good belonging to the very substance of nature, which good has its mode, species and order, and is neither destroyed nor diminished by sin. There is again the good of the natural inclination, which also has its mode, species and order; and this is diminished by sin, as stated above (1,2), but is not entirely destroyed. Again, there is the good of virtue and grace: this too has its mode, species and order, and is entirely taken away by sin. Lastly, there is a good consisting in the ordinate act itself, which also has its mode, species and order, the privation of which is essentially sin. Hence it is clear both how sin is privation of mode, species and order, and how it destroys or diminishes mode, species and order.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 4 ad 1 Unde patet responsio ad duo prima. This suffices for the Replies to the first two Objections.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod modus, species et ordo se consequuntur, sicut ex dictis patet. Unde simul privantur et diminuuntur. Reply to Objection 3. Mode, species and order follow one from the other, as explained above: and so they are destroyed or diminished together.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod mors et alii corporales defectus non sint effectus peccati. Si enim causa fuerit aequalis, et effectus erit aequalis. Sed huiusmodi defectus non sunt aequales in omnibus, sed in quibusdam huiusmodi defectus magis abundant, cum tamen peccatum originale sit in omnibus aequale, sicut dictum est, cuius videntur huiusmodi defectus maxime esse effectus. Ergo mors et huiusmodi defectus non sunt effectus peccati. Objection 1. It would seem that death and other bodily defects are not the result of sin. Because equal causes have equal effects. Now these defects are not equal in all, but abound in some more than in others, whereas original sin, from which especially these defects seem to result, is equal in all, as stated above (Question 82, Article 4). Therefore death and suchlike defects are not the result of sin.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, remota causa, removetur effectus. Sed remoto omni peccato per Baptismum vel poenitentiam, non removentur huiusmodi defectus. Ergo non sunt effectus peccati. Objection 2. Further, if the cause is removed, the effect is removed. But these defects are not removed, when all sin is removed by Baptism or Penance. Therefore they are not the effect of sin.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, peccatum actuale habet plus de ratione culpae quam originale. Sed peccatum actuale non transmutat naturam corporis ad aliquem defectum. Ergo multo minus peccatum originale. Non ergo mors et alii defectus corporales sunt effectus peccati. Objection 3. Further, actual sin has more of the character of guilt than original sin has. But actual sin does not change the nature of the body by subjecting it to some defect. Much less, therefore, does original sin. Therefore death and other bodily defects are not the result of sin.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. V, per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit, et per peccatum mors. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 5:12), "By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death."
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod aliquid est causa alterius dupliciter, uno quidem modo, per se; alio modo, per accidens. Per se quidem est causa alterius quod secundum virtutem suae naturae vel formae producit effectum, unde sequitur quod effectus sit per se intentus a causa. Unde cum mors et huiusmodi defectus sint praeter intentionem peccantis, manifestum est quod peccatum non est per se causa istorum defectuum. Per accidens autem aliquid est causa alterius, si sit causa removendo prohibens, sicut dicitur in VIII Physic. quod divellens columnam, per accidens movet lapidem columnae superpositum. Et hoc modo peccatum primi parentis est causa mortis et omnium huiusmodi defectuum in natura humana, inquantum per peccatum primi parentis sublata est originalis iustitia, per quam non solum inferiores animae vires continebantur sub ratione absque omni deordinatione, sed totum corpus continebatur sub anima absque omni defectu, ut in primo habitum est. Et ideo, subtracta hac originali iustitia per peccatum primi parentis, sicut vulnerata est humana natura quantum ad animam per deordinationem potentiarum, ut supra dictum est; ita etiam est corruptibilis effecta per deordinationem ipsius corporis. Subtractio autem originalis iustitiae habet rationem poenae, sicut etiam subtractio gratiae. Unde etiam mors, et omnes defectus corporales consequentes, sunt quaedam poenae originalis peccati. Et quamvis huiusmodi defectus non sint intenti a peccante, sunt tamen ordinati secundum iustitiam Dei punientis. I answer that, One thing causes another in two ways: first, by reason of itself; secondly, accidentally. By reason of itself, one thing is the cause of another, if it produces its effect by reason of the power of its nature or form, the result being that the effect is directly intended by the cause. Consequently, as death and such like defects are beside the intention of the sinner, it is evident that sin is not, of itself, the cause of these defects. Accidentally, one thing is the cause of another if it causes it by removing an obstacle: thus it is stated in Phys. viii, text. 32, that "by displacing a pillar a man moves accidentally the stone resting thereon." In this way the sin of our first parent is the cause of death and all such like defects in human nature, in so far as by the sin of our first parent original justice was taken away, whereby not only were the lower powers of the soul held together under the control of reason, without any disorder whatever, but also the whole body was held together in subjection to the soul, without any defect, as stated in the I, 97, 1. Wherefore, original justice being forfeited through the sin of our first parent; just as human nature was stricken in the soul by the disorder among the powers, as stated above (3; 82, 3), so also it became subject to corruption, by reason of disorder in the body. Now the withdrawal of original justice has the character of punishment, even as the withdrawal of grace has. Consequently, death and all consequent bodily defects are punishments of original sin. And although the defects are not intended by the sinner, nevertheless they are ordered according to the justice of God Who inflicts them as punishments.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod aequalitas causae per se, causat aequalem effectum, augmentata enim vel diminuta causa per se, augetur vel diminuitur effectus. Sed aequalitas causae removentis prohibens, non ostendit aequalitatem effectuum. Si quis enim aequali impulsu divellat duas columnas, non sequitur quod lapides superpositi aequaliter moveantur, sed ille velocius movebitur qui gravior erit secundum proprietatem suae naturae, cui relinquitur remoto prohibente. Sic igitur, remota originali iustitia, natura corporis humani relicta est sibi, et secundum hoc, secundum diversitatem naturalis complexionis, quorundam corpora pluribus defectibus subiacent, quorundam vero paucioribus, quamvis existente originali peccato aequali. Reply to Objection 1. Causes that produce their effects of themselves, if equal, produce equal effects: for if such causes be increased or diminished, the effect is increased or diminished. But equal causes of an obstacle being removed, do not point to equal effects. For supposing a man employs equal force in displacing two columns, it does not follow that the movements of the stones resting on them will be equal; but that one will move with greater velocity, which has the greater weight according to the property of its nature, to which it is left when the obstacle to its falling is removed. Accordingly, when original justice is removed, the nature of the human body is left to itself, so that according to diverse natural temperaments, some men's bodies are subject to more defects, some to fewer, although original sin is equal in all.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod culpa originalis et actualis removetur ab eodem a quo etiam removentur et huiusmodi defectus, secundum illud apostoli, Rom. VIII, vivificabit mortalia corpora vestra per inhabitantem spiritum eius in vobis, sed utrumque fit secundum ordinem divinae sapientiae, congruo tempore. Oportet enim quod ad immortalitatem et impassibilitatem gloriae, quae in Christo inchoata est, et per Christum nobis acquisita, perveniamus conformati prius passionibus eius. Unde oportet quod ad tempus passibilitas in nostris corporibus remaneat, ad impassibilitatem gloriae promerendam conformiter Christo. Reply to Objection 2. Both original and actual sin are removed by the same cause that removes these defects, according to the Apostle (Romans 8:11): "He . . . shall quicken . . . your mortal bodies, because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you": but each is done according to the order of Divine wisdom, at a fitting time. Because it is right that we should first of all be conformed to Christ's sufferings, before attaining to the immortality and impassibility of glory, which was begun in Him, and by Him acquired for us. Hence it behooves that our bodies should remain, for a time, subject to suffering, in order that we may merit the impassibility of glory, in conformity with Christ.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in peccato actuali duo possumus considerare, scilicet ipsam substantiam actus, et rationem culpae. Ex parte quidem substantiae actus, potest peccatum actuale aliquem defectum corporalem causare, sicut ex superfluo cibo aliqui infirmantur et moriuntur. Sed ex parte culpae, privat gratiam quae datur homini ad rectificandum animae actus, non autem ad cohibendum defectus corporales, sicut originalis iustitia cohibebat. Et ideo peccatum actuale non causat huiusmodi defectus, sicut originale. Reply to Objection 3. Two things may be considered in actual sin, the substance of the act, and the aspect of fault. As regards the substance of the act, actual sin can cause a bodily defect: thus some sicken and die through eating too much. But as regards the fault, it deprives us of grace which is given to us that we may regulate the acts of the soul, but not that we may ward off defects of the body, as original justice did. Wherefore actual sin does not cause those defects, as original sin does.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod mors et huiusmodi defectus sint homini naturales. Corruptibile enim et incorruptibile differunt genere, ut dicitur in X Metaphys. Sed homo est eiusdem generis cum aliis animalibus, quae sunt naturaliter corruptibilia. Ergo homo est naturaliter corruptibilis. Objection 1. It would seem that death and such like defects are natural to man. For "the corruptible and the incorruptible differ generically" (Metaph. x, text. 26). But man is of the same genus as other animals which are naturally corruptible. Therefore man is naturally corruptible.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, omne quod est compositum ex contrariis, est naturaliter corruptibile, quasi habens in se causam corruptionis suae. Sed corpus humanum est huiusmodi. Ergo est naturaliter corruptibile. Objection 2. Further, whatever is composed of contraries is naturally corruptible, as having within itself the cause of corruption. But such is the human body. Therefore it is naturally corruptible.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, calidum naturaliter consumit humidum. Vita autem hominis conservatur per calidum et humidum. Cum igitur operationes vitae expleantur per actum caloris naturalis, ut dicitur in II de anima, videtur quod mors et huiusmodi defectus sint homini naturales. Objection 3. Further, a hot thing naturally consumes moisture. Now human life is preserved by hot and moist elements. Since therefore the vital functions are fulfilled by the action of natural heat, as stated in De Anima ii, text. 50, it seems that death and such like defects are natural to man.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 6 s. c. 1 Sed contra, quidquid est homini naturale, Deus in homine fecit. Sed Deus mortem non fecit, ut dicitur Sap. I. Ergo mors non est homini naturalis. On the contrary, (1) God made in man whatever is natural to him. Now "God made not death" (Wisdom 1:13). Therefore death is not natural to man.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 6 s. c. 2 Praeterea, id quod est secundum naturam, non potest dici poena nec malum, quia unicuique rei est conveniens id quod est ei naturale. Sed mors et huiusmodi defectus sunt poena peccati originalis, ut supra dictum est. Ergo non sunt homini naturales. (2) Further, that which is natural cannot be called either a punishment or an evil: since what is natural to a thing is suitable to it. But death and such like defects are the punishment of original sin, as stated above (Article 5). Therefore they are not natural to man.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 6 s. c. 3 Praeterea, materia proportionatur formae, et quaelibet res suo fini. Finis autem hominis est beatitudo perpetua, ut supra dictum est. Forma etiam humani corporis est anima rationalis, quae est incorruptibilis, ut in primo habitum est. Ergo corpus humanum est naturaliter incorruptibile. (3) Further, matter is proportionate to form, and everything to its end. Now man's end is everlasting happiness, as stated above (2, 7; 5, A3,4): and the form of the human body is the rational soul, as was proved in the I, 75, 6. Therefore the human body is naturally incorruptible.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod de unaquaque re corruptibili dupliciter loqui possumus, uno modo, secundum naturam universalem; alio modo, secundum naturam particularem. Natura quidem particularis est propria virtus activa et conservativa uniuscuiusque rei. Et secundum hanc, omnis corruptio et defectus est contra naturam, ut dicitur in II de caelo, quia huiusmodi virtus intendit esse et conservationem eius cuius est. Natura vero universalis est virtus activa in aliquo universali principio naturae, puta in aliquo caelestium corporum; vel alicuius superioris substantiae, secundum quod etiam Deus a quibusdam dicitur natura naturans. Quae quidem virtus intendit bonum et conservationem universi, ad quod exigitur alternatio generationis et corruptionis in rebus. Et secundum hoc, corruptiones et defectus rerum sunt naturales, non quidem secundum inclinationem formae, quae est principium essendi et perfectionis; sed secundum inclinationem materiae, quae proportionaliter attribuitur tali formae secundum distributionem universalis agentis. Et quamvis omnis forma intendat perpetuum esse quantum potest, nulla tamen forma rei corruptibilis potest assequi perpetuitatem sui, praeter animam rationalem, eo quod ipsa non est subiecta omnino materiae corporali, sicut aliae formae; quinimmo habet propriam operationem immaterialem, ut in primo habitum est. Unde ex parte suae formae, naturalior est homini incorruptio quam aliis rebus corruptibilibus. Sed quia et ipsa habet materiam ex contrariis compositam, ex inclinatione materiae sequitur corruptibilitas in toto. Et secundum hoc, homo est naturaliter corruptibilis secundum naturam materiae sibi relictae, sed non secundum naturam formae. Primae autem tres rationes procedunt ex parte materiae, aliae vero tres procedunt ex parte formae. Unde ad earum solutionem, considerandum est quod forma hominis, quae est anima rationalis, secundum suam incorruptibilitatem proportionata est suo fini, qui est beatitudo perpetua. Sed corpus humanum, quod est corruptibile secundum suam naturam consideratum, quodammodo proportionatum est suae formae, et quodammodo non. Duplex enim conditio potest attendi in aliqua materia, una scilicet quam agens eligit; alia quae non est ab agente electa, sed est secundum conditionem naturalem materiae. Sicut faber ad faciendum cultellum eligit materiam duram et ductilem, quae subtiliari possit ut sit apta incisioni, et secundum hanc conditionem ferrum est materia proportionata cultello, sed hoc quod ferrum sit frangibile et rubiginem contrahens, consequitur ex naturali dispositione ferri, nec hoc eligit artifex in ferro, sed magis repudiaret si posset. Unde haec dispositio materiae non est proportionata intentioni artificis, nec intentioni artis. Similiter corpus humanum est materia electa a natura quantum ad hoc, quod est temperatae complexionis, ut possit esse convenientissimum organum tactus et aliarum virtutum sensitivarum et motivarum. Sed quod sit corruptibile, hoc est ex conditione materiae, nec est electum a natura, quin potius natura eligeret materiam incorruptibilem, si posset. Sed Deus, cui subiacet omnis natura, in ipsa institutione hominis supplevit defectum naturae, et dono iustitiae originalis dedit corpori incorruptibilitatem quandam, ut in primo dictum est. Et secundum hoc dicitur quod Deus mortem non fecit, et quod mors est poena peccati. I answer that, We may speak of any corruptible thing in two ways; first, in respect of its universal nature, secondly, as regards its particular nature. A thing's particular nature is its own power of action and self-preservation. And in respect of this nature, every corruption and defect is contrary to nature, as stated in De Coelo ii, text. 37, since this power tends to the being and preservation of the thing to which it belongs. On the other hand, the universal nature is an active force in some universal principle of nature, for instance in some heavenly body; or again belonging to some superior substance, in which sense God is said by some to be "the Nature Who makes nature." This force intends the good and the preservation of the universe, for which alternate generation and corruption in things are requisite: and in this respect corruption and defect in things are natural, not indeed as regards the inclination of the form which is the principle of being and perfection, but as regards the inclination of matter which is allotted proportionately to its particular form according to the discretion of the universal agent. And although every form intends perpetual being as far as it can, yet no form of a corruptible being can achieve its own perpetuity, except the rational soul; for the reason that the latter is not entirely subject to matter, as other forms are; indeed it has an immaterial operation of its own, as stated in the I, 75, 2. Consequently as regards his form, incorruption is more natural to man than to other corruptible things. But since that very form has a matter composed of contraries, from the inclination of that matter there results corruptibility in the whole. In this respect man is naturally corruptible as regards the nature of his matter left to itself, but not as regards the nature of his form. The first three objections argue on the side of the matter; while the other three argue on the side of the form. Wherefore in order to solve them, we must observe that the form of man which is the rational soul, in respect of its incorruptibility is adapted to its end, which is everlasting happiness: whereas the human body, which is corruptible, considered in respect of its nature, is, in a way, adapted to its form, and, in another way, it is not. For we may note a twofold condition in any matter, one which the agent chooses, and another which is not chosen by the agent, and is a natural condition of matter. Thus, a smith in order to make a knife, chooses a matter both hard and flexible, which can be sharpened so as to be useful for cutting, and in respect of this condition iron is a matter adapted for a knife: but that iron be breakable and inclined to rust, results from the natural disposition of iron, nor does the workman choose this in the iron, indeed he would do without it if he could: wherefore this disposition of matter is not adapted to the workman's intention, nor to the purpose of his art. In like manner the human body is the matter chosen by nature in respect of its being of a mixed temperament, in order that it may be most suitable as an organ of touch and of the other sensitive and motive powers. Whereas the fact that it is corruptible is due to a condition of matter, and is not chosen by nature: indeed nature would choose an incorruptible matter if it could. But God, to Whom every nature is subject, in forming man supplied the defect of nature, and by the gift of original justice, gave the body a certain incorruptibility, as was stated in the I, 97, 1. It is in this sense that it is said that "God made not death," and that death is the punishment of sin.
Iª-IIae q. 85 a. 6 ad arg. Unde patet responsio ad obiecta. This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

Notes

Retrieved from ‘http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/index.php?title=Authors/Thomas_Aquinas/Summa_Theologiae/Part_IIa/Q85&oldid=11070’