There is,
however, another which is not a true, but an apparent evil, which,
namely, is a true and connatural good, and yet is reckoned evil on
account of the corruption of nature: and the hatred of such an evil
must needs come last.
however, another which is not a true, but an apparent evil, which,
namely, is a true and connatural good, and yet is reckoned evil on
account of the corruption of nature: and the hatred of such an evil
must needs come last.
Summa Theologica
.
.
it should be put before the
superior. " Now to bring a matter before a superior or a prelate is to
tell the Church. Therefore witnesses should not be brought forward
before the public denunciation.
On the contrary, Our Lord said (Mat. 18:16): "Take with thee one or two
more, that in the mouth of two," etc.
I answer that, The right way to go from one extreme to another is to
pass through the middle space. Now Our Lord wished the beginning of
fraternal correction to be hidden, when one brother corrects another
between this one and himself alone, while He wished the end to be
public, when such a one would be denounced to the Church. Consequently
it is befitting that a citation of witnesses should be placed between
the two extremes, so that at first the brother's sin be indicated to a
few, who will be of use without being a hindrance, and thus his sin be
amended without dishonoring him before the public.
Reply to Objection 1: Some have understood the order of fraternal
correction to demand that we should first of all rebuke our brother
secretly, and that if he listens, it is well; but if he listen not, and
his sin be altogether hidden, they say that we should go no further in
the matter, whereas if it has already begun to reach the ears of
several by various signs, we ought to prosecute the matter, according
to Our Lord's command. But this is contrary to what Augustine says in
his Rule that "we are bound to reveal" a brother's sin, if it "will
cause a worse corruption in the heart. " Wherefore we must say otherwise
that when the secret admonition has been given once or several times,
as long as there is probable hope of his amendment, we must continue to
admonish him in private, but as soon as we are able to judge with any
probability that the secret admonition is of no avail, we must take
further steps, however secret the sin may be, and call witnesses,
unless perhaps it were thought probable that this would not conduce to
our brother's amendment, and that he would become worse: because on
that account one ought to abstain altogether from correcting him, as
stated above [2618](A[6]).
Reply to Objection 2: A man needs no witnesses that he may amend his
own sin: yet they may be necessary that we may amend a brother's sin.
Hence the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 3: There may be three reasons for citing witnesses.
First, to show that the deed in question is a sin, as Jerome says:
secondly, to prove that the deed was done, if repeated, as Augustine
says (in his Rule): thirdly, "to prove that the man who rebuked his
brother, has done what he could," as Chrysostom says (Hom. in Matth.
lx).
Reply to Objection 4: Augustine means that the matter ought to be made
known to the prelate before it is stated to the witnesses, in so far as
the prelate is a private individual who is able to be of more use than
others, but not that it is to be told him as to the Church, i. e. as
holding the position of judge.
__________________________________________________________________
OF HATRED (SIX ARTICLES)
We must how consider the vices opposed to charity: (1) hatred, which is
opposed to love; (2) sloth and envy, which are opposed to the joy of
charity; (3) discord and schism, which are contrary to peace; (4)
offense and scandal, which are contrary to beneficence and fraternal
correction.
Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is possible to hate God?
(2) Whether hatred of God is the greatest of sins?
(3) Whether hatred of one's neighbor is always a sin?
(4) Whether it is the greatest of all sins against our neighbor?
(5) Whether it is a capital sin?
(6) From what capital sin does it arise?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is possible for anyone to hate God?
Objection 1: It would seem that no man can hate God. For Dionysius says
(Div. Nom. iv) that "the first good and beautiful is an object of love
and dilection to all. " But God is goodness and beauty itself. Therefore
He is hated by none.
Objection 2: Further, in the Apocryphal books of 3 Esdras 4:36, 39 it
is written that "all things call upon truth . . . and (all men) do well
like of her works. " Now God is the very truth according to Jn. 14:6.
Therefore all love God, and none can hate Him.
Objection 3: Further, hatred is a kind of aversion. But according to
Dionysius (Div. Nom. i) God draws all things to Himself. Therefore none
can hate Him.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 73:23): "The pride of them that
hate Thee ascendeth continually," and (Jn. 15:24): "But now they have
both seen and hated both Me and My Father. "
I answer that, As shown above ([2619]FS, Q[29], A[1]), hatred is a
movement of the appetitive power, which power is not set in motion save
by something apprehended. Now God can be apprehended by man in two
ways; first, in Himself, as when He is seen in His Essence; secondly,
in His effects, when, to wit, "the invisible things" of God . . . "are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Rom.
1:20). Now God in His Essence is goodness itself, which no man can
hate---for it is natural to good to be loved. Hence it is impossible
for one who sees God in His Essence, to hate Him.
Moreover some of His effects are such that they can nowise be contrary
to the human will, since "to be, to live, to understand," which are
effects of God, are desirable and lovable to all. Wherefore again God
cannot be an object of hatred if we consider Him as the Author of such
like effects. Some of God's effects, however, are contrary to an
inordinate will, such as the infliction of punishment, and the
prohibition of sin by the Divine Law. Such like effects are repugnant
to a will debased by sin, and as regards the consideration of them, God
may be an object of hatred to some, in so far as they look upon Him as
forbidding sin, and inflicting punishment.
Reply to Objection 1: This argument is true of those who see God's
Essence, which is the very essence of goodness.
Reply to Objection 2: This argument is true in so far as God is
apprehended as the cause of such effects as are naturally beloved of
all, among which are the works of Truth who reveals herself to men.
Reply to Objection 3: God draws all things to Himself, in so far as He
is the source of being, since all things, in as much as they are, tend
to be like God, Who is Being itself.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether hatred of God is the greatest of sins?
Objection 1: It would seem that hatred of God is not the greatest of
sins. For the most grievous sin is the sin against the Holy Ghost,
since it cannot be forgiven, according to Mat. 12:32. Now hatred of God
is not reckoned among the various kinds of sin against the Holy Ghost,
as may be seen from what has been said above ([2620]Q[14], A[2]).
Therefore hatred of God is not the most grievous sin.
Objection 2: Further, sin consists in withdrawing oneself from God. Now
an unbeliever who has not even knowledge of God seems to be further
away from Him than a believer, who though he hate God, nevertheless
knows Him. Therefore it seems that the sin of unbelief is graver than
the sin of hatred against God.
Objection 3: Further, God is an object of hatred, only by reason of
those of His effects that are contrary to the will: the chief of which
is punishment. But hatred of punishment is not the most grievous sin.
Therefore hatred of God is not the most grievous sin.
On the contrary, The best is opposite to the worst, according to the
Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 10). But hatred of God is contrary to the
love of God, wherein man's best consists. Therefore hatred of God is
man's worst sin.
I answer that, The defect in sin consists in its aversion from God, as
stated above ([2621]Q[10], A[3]): and this aversion would not have the
character of guilt, were it not voluntary. Hence the nature of guilt
consists in a voluntary aversion from God.
Now this voluntary aversion from God is directly implied in the hatred
of God, but in other sins, by participation and indirectly. For just as
the will cleaves directly to what it loves, so does it directly shun
what it hates. Hence when a man hates God, his will is directly averted
from God, whereas in other sins, fornication for instance, a man turns
away from God, not directly, but indirectly, in so far, namely, as he
desires an inordinate pleasure, to which aversion from God is
connected. Now that which is so by itself, always takes precedence of
that which is so by another. Wherefore hatred of God is more grievous
than other sins.
Reply to Objection 1: According to Gregory (Moral. xxv, 11), "it is one
thing not to do good things, end another to hate the giver of good
things, even as it is one thing to sin indeliberately, and another to
sin deliberately. " This implies that to hate God, the giver of all good
things, is to sin deliberately, and this is a sin against the Holy
Ghost. Hence it is evident that hatred of God is chiefly a sin against
the Holy Ghost, in so far as the sin against the Holy Ghost denotes a
special kind of sin: and yet it is not reckoned among the kinds of sin
against the Holy Ghost, because it is universally found in every kind
of that sin.
Reply to Objection 2: Even unbelief is not sinful unless it be
voluntary: wherefore the more voluntary it is, the more it is sinful.
Now it becomes voluntary by the fact that a man hates the truth that is
proposed to him. Wherefore it is evident that unbelief derives its
sinfulness from hatred of God, Whose truth is the object of faith; and
hence just as a cause is greater than its effect, so hatred of God is a
greater sin than unbelief.
Reply to Objection 3: Not everyone who hates his punishment, hates God
the author of punishments. For many hate the punishments inflicted on
them, and yet they bear them patiently out of reverence for the Divine
justice. Wherefore Augustine says (Confess. x) that God commands us to
bear with penal evils, not to love them. On the other hand, to break
out into hatred of God when He inflicts those punishments, is to hate
God's very justice, and that is a most grievous sin. Hence Gregory says
(Moral. xxv, 11): "Even as sometimes it is more grievous to love sin
than to do it, so is it more wicked to hate justice than, not to have
done it. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether hatred of one's neighbor is always a sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that hatred of one's neighbor is not always
a sin. For no sin is commanded or counselled by God, according to Prov.
8:8: "All My words are just, there is nothing wicked nor perverse in
them. " Now, it is written (Lk. 14:26): "If any man come to Me, and hate
not his father and mother . . . he cannot be My disciple. " Therefore
hatred of one's neighbor is not always a sin.
Objection 2: Further, nothing wherein we imitate God can be a sin. But
it is in imitation of God that we hate certain people: for it is
written (Rom. 1:30): "Detractors, hateful to God. " Therefore it is
possible to hate certain people without committing a sin.
Objection 3: Further, nothing that is natural is a sin, for sin is a
"wandering away from what is according to nature," according to
Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 4,30; iv, 20). Now it is natural to a
thing to hate whatever is contrary to it, and to aim at its undoing.
Therefore it seems that it is not a sin to hate one's I enemy.
On the contrary, It is written (1 Jn. 2:9): "He that . . . hateth his
brother, is in darkness. " Now spiritual darkness is sin. Therefore
there cannot be hatred of one's neighbor without sin.
I answer that, Hatred is opposed to love, as stated above ([2622]FS,
Q[29], A[2]); so that hatred of a thing is evil according as the love
of that thing is good. Now love is due to our neighbor in respect of
what he holds from God, i. e. in respect of nature and grace, but not in
respect of what he has of himself and from the devil, i. e. in respect
of sin and lack of justice.
Consequently it is lawful to hate the sin in one's brother, and
whatever pertains to the defect of Divine justice, but we cannot hate
our brother's nature and grace without sin. Now it is part of our love
for our brother that we hate the fault and the lack of good in him,
since desire for another's good is equivalent to hatred of his evil.
Consequently the hatred of one's brother, if we consider it simply, is
always sinful.
Reply to Objection 1: By the commandment of God (Ex. 20:12) we must
honor our parents---as united to us in nature and kinship. But we must
hate them in so far as they prove an obstacle to our attaining the
perfection of Divine justice.
Reply to Objection 2: God hates the sin which is in the detractor, not
his nature: so that we can hate detractors without committing a sin.
Reply to Objection 3: Men are not opposed to us in respect of the goods
which they have received from God: wherefore, in this respect, we
should love them. But they are opposed to us, in so far as they show
hostility towards us, and this is sinful in them. In this respect we
should hate them, for we should hate in them the fact that they are
hostile to us.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether hatred of our neighbor is the most grievous sin against our
neighbor?
Objection 1: It would seem that hatred of our neighbor is the most
grievous sin against our neighbor. For it is written (1 Jn. 3:15):
"Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. " Now murder is the most
grievous of sins against our neighbor. Therefore hatred is also.
Objection 2: Further, worst is opposed to best. Now the best thing we
give our neighbor is love, since all other things are referable to
love. Therefore hatred is the worst.
On the contrary, A thing is said to be evil, because it hurts, as
Augustine observes (Enchiridion xii). Now there are sins by which a man
hurts his neighbor more than by hatred, e. g. theft, murder and
adultery. Therefore hatred is not the most grievous sin.
Moreover, Chrysostom [*Hom. x in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed
to St. John Chrysostom] commenting on Mat. 5:19, "He that shall break
one of these least commandments," says: "The commandments of Moses,
Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, count for little
in their reward, but they count for much if they be disobeyed. On the
other hand the commandments of Christ such as, Thou shalt not be angry,
Thou shalt not desire, are reckoned great in their reward, but little
in the transgression. " Now hatred is an internal movement like anger
and desire. Therefore hatred of one's brother is a less grievous sin
than murder.
I answer that, Sins committed against our neighbor are evil on two
counts; first by reason of the disorder in the person who sins,
secondly by reason of the hurt inflicted on the person sinned against.
On the first count, hatred is a more grievous sin than external actions
that hurt our neighbor, because hatred is a disorder of man's will,
which is the chief part of man, and wherein is the root of sin, so that
if a man's outward actions were to be inordinate, without any disorder
in his will, they would not be sinful, for instance, if he were to kill
a man, through ignorance or out of zeal for justice: and if there be
anything sinful in a man's outward sins against his neighbor, it is all
to be traced to his inward hatred.
On the other hand, as regards the hurt inflicted on his neighbor, a
man's outward sins are worse than his inward hatred. This suffices for
the Replies to the Objections.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether hatred is a capital sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that hatred is a capital sin. For hatred is
directly opposed to charity. Now charity is the foremost among the
virtues, and the mother of all others. Therefore hatred is the chief of
the capital sins, and the origin of all others.
Objection 2: Further, sins arise in us on account of the inclinations
of our passions, according to Rom. 7:5: "The passions of sins . . . did
work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. " Now all other
passions of the soul seem to arise from love and hatred, as was shown
above ([2623]FS, Q[25], AA[1],2). Therefore hatred should be reckoned
one of the capital sins.
Objection 3: Further, vice is a moral evil. Now hatred regards evil
more than any other passion does. Therefore it seems that hatred should
be reckoned a capital sin.
On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi) does not reckon hatred among the
seven capital sins.
I answer that, As stated above ([2624]FS, Q[84], AA[3],4), a capital
vice is one from which other vices arise most frequently. Now vice is
contrary to man's nature, in as much as he is a rational animal: and
when a thing acts contrary to its nature, that which is natural to it
is corrupted little by little. Consequently it must first of all fail
in that which is less in accordance with its nature, and last of all in
that which is most in accordance with its nature, since what is first
in construction is last in destruction. Now that which, first and
foremost, is most natural to man, is the love of what is good, and
especially love of the Divine good, and of his neighbor's good.
Wherefore hatred, which is opposed to this love, is not the first but
the last thing in the downfall of virtue resulting from vice: and
therefore it is not a capital vice.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated in Phys. vii, text. 18, "the virtue of
a thing consists in its being well disposed in accordance with its
nature. " Hence what is first and foremost in the virtues must be first
and foremost in the natural order. Hence charity is reckoned the
foremost of the virtues, and for the same reason hatred cannot be first
among the vices, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2: Hatred of the evil that is contrary to one's
natural good, is the first of the soul's passions, even as love of
one's natural good is. But hatred of one's connatural good cannot be
first, but is something last, because such like hatred is a proof of an
already corrupted nature, even as love of an extraneous good.
Reply to Objection 3: Evil is twofold. One is a true evil, for the
reason that it is incompatible with one's natural good, and the hatred
of such an evil may have priority over the other passions.
There is,
however, another which is not a true, but an apparent evil, which,
namely, is a true and connatural good, and yet is reckoned evil on
account of the corruption of nature: and the hatred of such an evil
must needs come last. This hatred is vicious, but the former is not.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether hatred arises from envy?
Objection 1: It seems that hatred does not arise from envy. For envy is
sorrow for another's good. Now hatred does not arise from sorrow, for,
on the contrary, we grieve for the presence of the evil we hate.
Therefore hatred does not arise from envy.
Objection 2: Further, hatred is opposed to love. Now love of our
neighbor is referred to our love of God, as stated above ([2625]Q[25],
A[1];[2626] Q[26], A[2]). Therefore hatred of our neighbor is referred
to our hatred of God. But hatred of God does not arise from envy, for
we do not envy those who are very far removed from us, but rather those
who seem to be near us, as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii). Therefore
hatred does not arise from envy.
Objection 3: Further, to one effect there is one cause. Now hatred is
caused by anger, for Augustine says in his Rule that "anger grows into
hatred. " Therefore hatred does not arise from envy.
On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45) that "out of envy
cometh hatred. "
I answer that, As stated above [2627](A[5]), hatred of his neighbor is
a man's last step in the path of sin, because it is opposed to the love
which he naturally has for his neighbor. Now if a man declines from
that which is natural, it is because he intends to avoid that which is
naturally an object to be shunned. Now every animal naturally avoids
sorrow, just as it desires pleasure, as the Philosopher states (Ethic.
vii, x). Accordingly just as love arises from pleasure, so does hatred
arise from sorrow. For just as we are moved to love whatever gives us
pleasure, in as much as for that very reason it assumes the aspect of
good; so we are moved to hate whatever displeases us, in so far as for
this very reason it assumes the aspect of evil. Wherefore, since envy
is sorrow for our neighbor's good, it follows that our neighbor's good
becomes hateful to us, so that "out of envy cometh hatred. "
Reply to Objection 1: Since the appetitive power, like the apprehensive
power, reflects on its own acts, it follows that there is a kind of
circular movement in the actions of the appetitive power. And so
according to the first forward course of the appetitive movement, love
gives rise to desire, whence follows pleasure when one has obtained
what one desired. And since the very fact of taking pleasure in the
good one loves is a kind of good, it follows that pleasure causes love.
And in the same way sorrow causes hatred.
Reply to Objection 2: Love and hatred are essentially different, for
the object of love is good, which flows from God to creatures,
wherefore love is due to God in the first place, and to our neighbor
afterwards. On the other hand, hatred is of evil, which has no place in
God Himself, but only in His effects, for which reason it has been
stated above [2628](A[1]), that God is not an object of hatred, except
in so far as He is considered in relation to His effects, and
consequently hatred is directed to our neighbor before being directed
to God. Therefore, since envy of our neighbor is the mother of hatred
of our neighbor, it becomes, in consequence, the cause of hatred
towards God.
Reply to Objection 3: Nothing prevents a thing arising from various
causes in various respects, and accordingly hatred may arise both from
anger and from envy. However it arises more directly from envy, which
looks upon the very good of our neighbor as displeasing and therefore
hateful, whereas hatred arises from anger by way of increase. For at
first, through anger, we desire our neighbor's evil according to a
certain measure, that is in so far as that evil has the aspect of
vengeance: but afterwards, through the continuance of anger, man goes
so far as absolutely to desire his neighbor's evil, which desire is
part of hatred. Wherefore it is evident that hatred is caused by envy
formally as regards the aspect of the object, but dispositively by
anger.
__________________________________________________________________
OF SLOTH (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the vices opposed to the joy of charity. This joy
is either about the Divine good, and then its contrary is sloth, or
about our neighbor's good, and then its contrary is envy. Wherefore we
must consider (1) Sloth and (2) Envy.
Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether sloth is a sin?
(2) Whether it is a special vice?
(3) Whether it is a mortal sin?
(4) Whether it is a capital sin?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether sloth is a sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that sloth is not a sin. For we are neither
praised nor blamed for our passions, according to the Philosopher
(Ethic. ii, 5). Now sloth is a passion, since it is a kind of sorrow,
according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 14), and as we stated above
([2629]FS, Q[35], A[8] ). Therefore sloth is not a sin.
Objection 2: Further, no bodily failing that occurs at fixed times is a
sin. But sloth is like this, for Cassian says (De Instit. Monast. x,
[*De Institutione Caeobiorum]): "The monk is troubled with sloth
chiefly about the sixth hour: it is like an intermittent fever, and
inflicts the soul of the one it lays low with burning fires at regular
and fixed intervals. " Therefore sloth is not a sin.
Objection 3: Further, that which proceeds from a good root is,
seemingly, no sin. Now sloth proceeds from a good root, for Cassian
says (De Instit. Monast. x) that "sloth arises from the fact that we
sigh at being deprived of spiritual fruit, and think that other
monasteries and those which are a long way off are much better than the
one we dwell in": all of which seems to point to humility. Therefore
sloth is not a sin.
Objection 4: Further, all sin is to be avoided, according to Ecclus.
21:2: "Flee from sins as from the face of a serpent. " Now Cassian says
(De Instit. Monast. x): "Experience shows that the onslaught of sloth
is not to be evaded by flight but to be conquered by resistance. "
Therefore sloth is not a sin.
On the contrary, Whatever is forbidden in Holy Writ is a sin. Now such
is sloth [acedia]: for it is written (Ecclus. 6:26): "Bow down thy
shoulder, and bear her," namely spiritual wisdom, "and be not grieved
[acedieris] with her bands. " Therefore sloth is a sin.
I answer that, Sloth, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 14) is
an oppressive sorrow, which, to wit, so weighs upon man's mind, that he
wants to do nothing; thus acid things are also cold. Hence sloth
implies a certain weariness of work, as appears from a gloss on Ps.
106:18, "Their soul abhorred all manner of meat," and from the
definition of some who say that sloth is a "sluggishness of the mind
which neglects to begin good. "
Now this sorrow is always evil, sometimes in itself, sometimes in its
effect. For sorrow is evil in itself when it is about that which is
apparently evil but good in reality, even as, on the other hand,
pleasure is evil if it is about that which seems to be good but is, in
truth, evil. Since, then, spiritual good is a good in very truth,
sorrow about spiritual good is evil in itself. And yet that sorrow also
which is about a real evil, is evil in its effect, if it so oppresses
man as to draw him away entirely from good deeds. Hence the Apostle (2
Cor. 2:7) did not wish those who repented to be "swallowed up with
overmuch sorrow. "
Accordingly, since sloth, as we understand it here, denotes sorrow for
spiritual good, it is evil on two counts, both in itself and in point
of its effect. Consequently it is a sin, for by sin we mean an evil
movement of the appetite, as appears from what has been said above
(Q[10], A[2]; [2630]FS, Q[74], A[4]).
Reply to Objection 1: Passions are not sinful in themselves; but they
are blameworthy in so far as they are applied to something evil, just
as they deserve praise in so far as they are applied to something good.
Wherefore sorrow, in itself, calls neither for praise nor for blame:
whereas moderate sorrow for evil calls for praise, while sorrow for
good, and again immoderate sorrow for evil, call for blame. It is in
this sense that sloth is said to be a sin.
Reply to Objection 2: The passions of the sensitive appetite may either
be venial sins in themselves, or incline the soul to mortal sin. And
since the sensitive appetite has a bodily organ, it follows that on
account of some bodily transmutation a man becomes apt to commit some
particular sin. Hence it may happen that certain sins may become more
insistent, through certain bodily transmutations occurring at certain
fixed times. Now all bodily effects, of themselves, dispose one to
sorrow; and thus it is that those who fast are harassed by sloth
towards mid-day, when they begin to feel the want of food, and to be
parched by the sun's heat.
Reply to Objection 3: It is a sign of humility if a man does not think
too much of himself, through observing his own faults; but if a man
contemns the good things he has received from God, this, far from being
a proof of humility, shows him to be ungrateful: and from such like
contempt results sloth, because we sorrow for things that we reckon
evil and worthless. Accordingly we ought to think much of the goods of
others, in such a way as not to disparage those we have received
ourselves, because if we did they would give us sorrow.
Reply to Objection 4: Sin is ever to be shunned, but the assaults of
sin should be overcome, sometimes by flight, sometimes by resistance;
by flight when a continued thought increases the incentive to sin, as
in lust; for which reason it is written (1 Cor. 6:18): "Fly
fornication"; by resistance, when perseverance in the thought
diminishes the incentive to sin, which incentive arises from some
trivial consideration. This is the case with sloth, because the more we
think about spiritual goods, the more pleasing they become to us, and
forthwith sloth dies away.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether sloth is a special vice?
Objection 1: It would seem that sloth is not a special vice. For that
which is common to all vices does not constitute a special kind of
vice. But every vice makes a man sorrowful about the opposite spiritual
good: for the lustful man is sorrowful about the good of continence,
and the glutton about the good of abstinence. Since then sloth is
sorrow for spiritual good, as stated above [2631](A[1]), it seems that
sloth is not a special sin.
Objection 2: Further, sloth, through being a kind of sorrow, is opposed
to joy. Now joy is not accounted one special virtue. Therefore sloth
should not be reckoned a special vice.
Objection 3: Further, since spiritual good is a general kind of object,
which virtue seeks, and vice shuns, it does not constitute a special
virtue or vice, unless it be determined by some addition. Now nothing,
seemingly, except toil, can determine it to sloth, if this be a special
vice; because the reason why a man shuns spiritual goods, is that they
are toilsome, wherefore sloth is a kind of weariness: while dislike of
toil, and love of bodily repose seem to be due to the same cause, viz.
idleness. Hence sloth would be nothing but laziness, which seems
untrue, for idleness is opposed to carefulness, whereas sloth is
opposed to joy. Therefore sloth is not a special vice.
On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) distinguishes sloth from the
other vices. Therefore it is a special vice.
I answer that, Since sloth is sorrow for spiritual good, if we take
spiritual good in a general way, sloth will not be a special vice,
because, as stated above ([2632]FS, Q[71], A[1]), every vice shuns the
spiritual good of its opposite virtue. Again it cannot be said that
sloth is a special vice, in so far as it shuns spiritual good, as
toilsome, or troublesome to the body, or as a hindrance to the body's
pleasure, for this again would not sever sloth from carnal vices,
whereby a man seeks bodily comfort and pleasure.
Wherefore we must say that a certain order exists among spiritual
goods, since all the spiritual goods that are in the acts of each
virtue are directed to one spiritual good, which is the Divine good,
about which there is a special virtue, viz. charity. Hence it is proper
to each virtue to rejoice in its own spiritual good, which consists in
its own act, while it belongs specially to charity to have that
spiritual joy whereby one rejoices in the Divine good. In like manner
the sorrow whereby one is displeased at the spiritual good which is in
each act of virtue, belongs, not to any special vice, but to every
vice, but sorrow in the Divine good about which charity rejoices,
belongs to a special vice, which is called sloth. This suffices for the
Replies to the Objections.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether sloth is a mortal sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that sloth is not a mortal sin. For every
mortal sin is contrary to a precept of the Divine Law. But sloth seems
contrary to no precept, as one may see by going through the precepts of
the Decalogue. Therefore sloth is not a mortal sin.
Objection 2: Further, in the same genus, a sin of deed is no less
grievous than a sin of thought. Now it is not a mortal sin to refrain
in deed from some spiritual good which leads to God, else it would be a
mortal sin not to observe the counsels. Therefore it is not a mortal
sin to refrain in thought from such like spiritual works. Therefore
sloth is not a mortal sin.
Objection 3: Further, no mortal sin is to be found in a perfect man.
But sloth is to be found in a perfect man: for Cassian says (De Instit.
Caenob. x, l) that "sloth is well known to the solitary, and is a most
vexatious and persistent foe to the hermit. " Therefore sloth is not
always a mortal sin.
On the contrary, It is written (2 Cor. 7:20): "The sorrow of the world
worketh death. " But such is sloth; for it is not sorrow "according to
God," which is contrasted with sorrow of the world. Therefore it is a
mortal sin.
I answer that, As stated above ([2633]FS, Q[88], AA[1],2), mortal sin
is so called because it destroys the spiritual life which is the effect
of charity, whereby God dwells in us. Wherefore any sin which by its
very nature is contrary to charity is a mortal sin by reason of its
genus. And such is sloth, because the proper effect of charity is joy
in God, as stated above (Q[28], A[1]), while sloth is sorrow about
spiritual good in as much as it is a Divine good. Therefore sloth is a
mortal sin in respect of its genus. But it must be observed with regard
to all sins that are mortal in respect of their genus, that they are
not mortal, save when they attain to their perfection. Because the
consummation of sin is in the consent of reason: for we are speaking
now of human sins consisting in human acts, the principle of which is
the reason. Wherefore if the sin be a mere beginning of sin in the
sensuality alone, without attaining to the consent of reason, it is a
venial sin on account of the imperfection of the act. Thus in the genus
of adultery, the concupiscence that goes no further than the sensuality
is a venial sin, whereas if it reach to the consent of reason, it is a
mortal sin. So too, the movement of sloth is sometimes in the
sensuality alone, by reason of the opposition of the flesh to the
spirit, and then it is a venial sin; whereas sometimes it reaches to
the reason, which consents in the dislike, horror and detestation of
the Divine good, on account of the flesh utterly prevailing over the
spirit. In this case it is evident that sloth is a mortal sin.
Reply to Objection 1: Sloth is opposed to the precept about hallowing
the Sabbath day. For this precept, in so far as it is a moral precept,
implicitly commands the mind to rest in God: and sorrow of the mind
about the Divine good is contrary thereto.
Reply to Objection 2: Sloth is not an aversion of the mind from any
spiritual good, but from the Divine good, to which the mind is obliged
to adhere. Wherefore if a man is sorry because someone forces him to do
acts of virtue that he is not bound to do, this is not a sin of sloth;
but when he is sorry to have to do something for God's sake.
Reply to Objection 3: Imperfect movements of sloth are to be found in
holy men, but they do not reach to the consent of reason.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether sloth should be accounted a capital vice?
Objection 1: It would seem that sloth ought not to be accounted a
capital vice. For a capital vice is one that moves a man to sinful
acts, as stated above ([2634]Q[34], A[5]). Now sloth does not move one
to action, but on the contrary withdraws one from it. Therefore it
should not be accounted a capital sin.
Objection 2: Further, a capital sin is one to which daughters are
assigned. Now Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) assigns six daughters to sloth,
viz. "malice, spite, faint-heartedness, despair, sluggishness in regard
to the commandments, wandering of the mind after unlawful things. " Now
these do not seem in reality to arise from sloth. For "spite" is,
seemingly the same as hatred, which arises from envy, as stated above
([2635]Q[34], A[6]); "malice" is a genus which contains all vices, and,
in like manner, a "wandering" of the mind after unlawful things is to
be found in every vice; "sluggishness" about the commandments seems to
be the same as sloth, while "faint-heartedness" and "despair" may arise
from any sin. Therefore sloth is not rightly accounted a capital sin.
Objection 3: Further, Isidore distinguishes the vice of sloth from the
vice of sorrow, saying (De Summo Bono ii, 37) that in so far as a man
shirks his duty because it is distasteful and burdensome, it is sorrow,
and in so far as he is inclined to undue repose, it is sloth: and of
sorrow he says that it gives rise to "spite, faint-heartedness,
bitterness, despair," whereas he states that from sloth seven things
arise, viz. "idleness, drowsiness, uneasiness of the mind, restlessness
of the body, instability, loquacity, curiosity. " Therefore it seems
that either Gregory or Isidore has wrongly assigned sloth as a capital
sin together with its daughters.
On the contrary, The same Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) states that sloth
is a capital sin, and has the daughters aforesaid.
I answer that, As stated above ([2636]FS, Q[84], AA[3],4), a capital
vice is one which easily gives rise to others as being their final
cause. Now just as we do many things on account of pleasure, both in
order to obtain it, and through being moved to do something under the
impulse of pleasure, so again we do many things on account of sorrow,
either that we may avoid it, or through being exasperated into doing
something under pressure thereof. Wherefore, since sloth is a kind of
sorrow, as stated above [2637](A[2]; FS, Q[85], A[8]), it is fittingly
reckoned a capital sin.
Reply to Objection 1: Sloth by weighing on the mind, hinders us from
doing things that cause sorrow: nevertheless it induces the mind to do
certain things, either because they are in harmony with sorrow, such as
weeping, or because they are a means of avoiding sorrow.
Reply to Objection 2: Gregory fittingly assigns the daughters of sloth.
For since, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 5,6) "no man can
be a long time in company with what is painful and unpleasant," it
follows that something arises from sorrow in two ways: first, that man
shuns whatever causes sorrow; secondly, that he passes to other things
that give him pleasure: thus those who find no joy in spiritual
pleasures, have recourse to pleasures of the body, according to the
Philosopher (Ethic. x, 6). Now in the avoidance of sorrow the order
observed is that man at first flies from unpleasant objects, and
secondly he even struggles against such things as cause sorrow. Now
spiritual goods which are the object of the sorrow of sloth, are both
end and means. Avoidance of the end is the result of "despair," while
avoidance of those goods which are the means to the end, in matters of
difficulty which come under the counsels, is the effect of
"faint-heartedness," and in matters of common righteousness, is the
effect of "sluggishness about the commandments. " The struggle against
spiritual goods that cause sorrow is sometimes with men who lead others
to spiritual goods, and this is called "spite"; and sometimes it
extends to the spiritual goods themselves, when a man goes so far as to
detest them, and this is properly called "malice. " In so far as a man
has recourse to eternal objects of pleasure, the daughter of sloth is
called "wandering after unlawful things. " From this it is clear how to
reply to the objections against each of the daughters: for "malice"
does not denote here that which is generic to all vices, but must be
understood as explained. Nor is "spite" taken as synonymous with
hatred, but for a kind of indignation, as stated above: and the same
applies to the others.
Reply to Objection 3: This distinction between sorrow and sloth is also
given by Cassian (De Instit. Caenob. x, 1). But Gregory more fittingly
(Moral. xxxi, 45) calls sloth a kind of sorrow, because, as stated
above [2638](A[2]), sorrow is not a distinct vice, in so far as a man
shirks a distasteful and burdensome work, or sorrows on account of any
other cause whatever, but only in so far as he is sorry on account of
the Divine good, which sorrow belongs essentially to sloth; since sloth
seeks undue rest in so far as it spurns the Divine good. Moreover the
things which Isidore reckons to arise from sloth and sorrow, are
reduced to those mentioned by Gregory: for "bitterness" which Isidore
states to be the result of sorrow, is an effect of "spite. " "Idleness"
and "drowsiness" are reduced to "sluggishness about the precepts": for
some are idle and omit them altogether, while others are drowsy and
fulfil them with negligence. All the other five which he reckons as
effects of sloth, belong to the "wandering of the mind after unlawful
things. " This tendency to wander, if it reside in the mind itself that
is desirous of rushing after various things without rhyme or reason, is
called "uneasiness of the mind," but if it pertains to the imaginative
power, it is called "curiosity"; if it affect the speech it is called
"loquacity"; and in so far as it affects a body that changes place, it
is called "restlessness of the body," when, to wit, a man shows the
unsteadiness of his mind, by the inordinate movements of members of his
body; while if it causes the body to move from one place to another, it
is called "instability"; or "instability" may denote changeableness of
purpose.
__________________________________________________________________
OF ENVY (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider envy, and under this head there are four points of
inquiry:
(1) What is envy?
(2) Whether it is a sin?
(3) Whether it is a mortal sin?
(4) Whether it is a capital sin, and which are its daughters?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether envy is a kind of sorrow?
Objection 1: It would seem that envy is not a kind of sorrow. For the
object of envy is a good, for Gregory says (Moral. v, 46) of the
envious man that "self-inflicted pain wounds the pining spirit, which
is racked by the prosperity of another. " Therefore envy is not a kind
of sorrow.
Objection 2: Further, likeness is a cause, not of sorrow but rather of
pleasure.
superior. " Now to bring a matter before a superior or a prelate is to
tell the Church. Therefore witnesses should not be brought forward
before the public denunciation.
On the contrary, Our Lord said (Mat. 18:16): "Take with thee one or two
more, that in the mouth of two," etc.
I answer that, The right way to go from one extreme to another is to
pass through the middle space. Now Our Lord wished the beginning of
fraternal correction to be hidden, when one brother corrects another
between this one and himself alone, while He wished the end to be
public, when such a one would be denounced to the Church. Consequently
it is befitting that a citation of witnesses should be placed between
the two extremes, so that at first the brother's sin be indicated to a
few, who will be of use without being a hindrance, and thus his sin be
amended without dishonoring him before the public.
Reply to Objection 1: Some have understood the order of fraternal
correction to demand that we should first of all rebuke our brother
secretly, and that if he listens, it is well; but if he listen not, and
his sin be altogether hidden, they say that we should go no further in
the matter, whereas if it has already begun to reach the ears of
several by various signs, we ought to prosecute the matter, according
to Our Lord's command. But this is contrary to what Augustine says in
his Rule that "we are bound to reveal" a brother's sin, if it "will
cause a worse corruption in the heart. " Wherefore we must say otherwise
that when the secret admonition has been given once or several times,
as long as there is probable hope of his amendment, we must continue to
admonish him in private, but as soon as we are able to judge with any
probability that the secret admonition is of no avail, we must take
further steps, however secret the sin may be, and call witnesses,
unless perhaps it were thought probable that this would not conduce to
our brother's amendment, and that he would become worse: because on
that account one ought to abstain altogether from correcting him, as
stated above [2618](A[6]).
Reply to Objection 2: A man needs no witnesses that he may amend his
own sin: yet they may be necessary that we may amend a brother's sin.
Hence the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 3: There may be three reasons for citing witnesses.
First, to show that the deed in question is a sin, as Jerome says:
secondly, to prove that the deed was done, if repeated, as Augustine
says (in his Rule): thirdly, "to prove that the man who rebuked his
brother, has done what he could," as Chrysostom says (Hom. in Matth.
lx).
Reply to Objection 4: Augustine means that the matter ought to be made
known to the prelate before it is stated to the witnesses, in so far as
the prelate is a private individual who is able to be of more use than
others, but not that it is to be told him as to the Church, i. e. as
holding the position of judge.
__________________________________________________________________
OF HATRED (SIX ARTICLES)
We must how consider the vices opposed to charity: (1) hatred, which is
opposed to love; (2) sloth and envy, which are opposed to the joy of
charity; (3) discord and schism, which are contrary to peace; (4)
offense and scandal, which are contrary to beneficence and fraternal
correction.
Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is possible to hate God?
(2) Whether hatred of God is the greatest of sins?
(3) Whether hatred of one's neighbor is always a sin?
(4) Whether it is the greatest of all sins against our neighbor?
(5) Whether it is a capital sin?
(6) From what capital sin does it arise?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is possible for anyone to hate God?
Objection 1: It would seem that no man can hate God. For Dionysius says
(Div. Nom. iv) that "the first good and beautiful is an object of love
and dilection to all. " But God is goodness and beauty itself. Therefore
He is hated by none.
Objection 2: Further, in the Apocryphal books of 3 Esdras 4:36, 39 it
is written that "all things call upon truth . . . and (all men) do well
like of her works. " Now God is the very truth according to Jn. 14:6.
Therefore all love God, and none can hate Him.
Objection 3: Further, hatred is a kind of aversion. But according to
Dionysius (Div. Nom. i) God draws all things to Himself. Therefore none
can hate Him.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 73:23): "The pride of them that
hate Thee ascendeth continually," and (Jn. 15:24): "But now they have
both seen and hated both Me and My Father. "
I answer that, As shown above ([2619]FS, Q[29], A[1]), hatred is a
movement of the appetitive power, which power is not set in motion save
by something apprehended. Now God can be apprehended by man in two
ways; first, in Himself, as when He is seen in His Essence; secondly,
in His effects, when, to wit, "the invisible things" of God . . . "are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Rom.
1:20). Now God in His Essence is goodness itself, which no man can
hate---for it is natural to good to be loved. Hence it is impossible
for one who sees God in His Essence, to hate Him.
Moreover some of His effects are such that they can nowise be contrary
to the human will, since "to be, to live, to understand," which are
effects of God, are desirable and lovable to all. Wherefore again God
cannot be an object of hatred if we consider Him as the Author of such
like effects. Some of God's effects, however, are contrary to an
inordinate will, such as the infliction of punishment, and the
prohibition of sin by the Divine Law. Such like effects are repugnant
to a will debased by sin, and as regards the consideration of them, God
may be an object of hatred to some, in so far as they look upon Him as
forbidding sin, and inflicting punishment.
Reply to Objection 1: This argument is true of those who see God's
Essence, which is the very essence of goodness.
Reply to Objection 2: This argument is true in so far as God is
apprehended as the cause of such effects as are naturally beloved of
all, among which are the works of Truth who reveals herself to men.
Reply to Objection 3: God draws all things to Himself, in so far as He
is the source of being, since all things, in as much as they are, tend
to be like God, Who is Being itself.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether hatred of God is the greatest of sins?
Objection 1: It would seem that hatred of God is not the greatest of
sins. For the most grievous sin is the sin against the Holy Ghost,
since it cannot be forgiven, according to Mat. 12:32. Now hatred of God
is not reckoned among the various kinds of sin against the Holy Ghost,
as may be seen from what has been said above ([2620]Q[14], A[2]).
Therefore hatred of God is not the most grievous sin.
Objection 2: Further, sin consists in withdrawing oneself from God. Now
an unbeliever who has not even knowledge of God seems to be further
away from Him than a believer, who though he hate God, nevertheless
knows Him. Therefore it seems that the sin of unbelief is graver than
the sin of hatred against God.
Objection 3: Further, God is an object of hatred, only by reason of
those of His effects that are contrary to the will: the chief of which
is punishment. But hatred of punishment is not the most grievous sin.
Therefore hatred of God is not the most grievous sin.
On the contrary, The best is opposite to the worst, according to the
Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 10). But hatred of God is contrary to the
love of God, wherein man's best consists. Therefore hatred of God is
man's worst sin.
I answer that, The defect in sin consists in its aversion from God, as
stated above ([2621]Q[10], A[3]): and this aversion would not have the
character of guilt, were it not voluntary. Hence the nature of guilt
consists in a voluntary aversion from God.
Now this voluntary aversion from God is directly implied in the hatred
of God, but in other sins, by participation and indirectly. For just as
the will cleaves directly to what it loves, so does it directly shun
what it hates. Hence when a man hates God, his will is directly averted
from God, whereas in other sins, fornication for instance, a man turns
away from God, not directly, but indirectly, in so far, namely, as he
desires an inordinate pleasure, to which aversion from God is
connected. Now that which is so by itself, always takes precedence of
that which is so by another. Wherefore hatred of God is more grievous
than other sins.
Reply to Objection 1: According to Gregory (Moral. xxv, 11), "it is one
thing not to do good things, end another to hate the giver of good
things, even as it is one thing to sin indeliberately, and another to
sin deliberately. " This implies that to hate God, the giver of all good
things, is to sin deliberately, and this is a sin against the Holy
Ghost. Hence it is evident that hatred of God is chiefly a sin against
the Holy Ghost, in so far as the sin against the Holy Ghost denotes a
special kind of sin: and yet it is not reckoned among the kinds of sin
against the Holy Ghost, because it is universally found in every kind
of that sin.
Reply to Objection 2: Even unbelief is not sinful unless it be
voluntary: wherefore the more voluntary it is, the more it is sinful.
Now it becomes voluntary by the fact that a man hates the truth that is
proposed to him. Wherefore it is evident that unbelief derives its
sinfulness from hatred of God, Whose truth is the object of faith; and
hence just as a cause is greater than its effect, so hatred of God is a
greater sin than unbelief.
Reply to Objection 3: Not everyone who hates his punishment, hates God
the author of punishments. For many hate the punishments inflicted on
them, and yet they bear them patiently out of reverence for the Divine
justice. Wherefore Augustine says (Confess. x) that God commands us to
bear with penal evils, not to love them. On the other hand, to break
out into hatred of God when He inflicts those punishments, is to hate
God's very justice, and that is a most grievous sin. Hence Gregory says
(Moral. xxv, 11): "Even as sometimes it is more grievous to love sin
than to do it, so is it more wicked to hate justice than, not to have
done it. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether hatred of one's neighbor is always a sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that hatred of one's neighbor is not always
a sin. For no sin is commanded or counselled by God, according to Prov.
8:8: "All My words are just, there is nothing wicked nor perverse in
them. " Now, it is written (Lk. 14:26): "If any man come to Me, and hate
not his father and mother . . . he cannot be My disciple. " Therefore
hatred of one's neighbor is not always a sin.
Objection 2: Further, nothing wherein we imitate God can be a sin. But
it is in imitation of God that we hate certain people: for it is
written (Rom. 1:30): "Detractors, hateful to God. " Therefore it is
possible to hate certain people without committing a sin.
Objection 3: Further, nothing that is natural is a sin, for sin is a
"wandering away from what is according to nature," according to
Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 4,30; iv, 20). Now it is natural to a
thing to hate whatever is contrary to it, and to aim at its undoing.
Therefore it seems that it is not a sin to hate one's I enemy.
On the contrary, It is written (1 Jn. 2:9): "He that . . . hateth his
brother, is in darkness. " Now spiritual darkness is sin. Therefore
there cannot be hatred of one's neighbor without sin.
I answer that, Hatred is opposed to love, as stated above ([2622]FS,
Q[29], A[2]); so that hatred of a thing is evil according as the love
of that thing is good. Now love is due to our neighbor in respect of
what he holds from God, i. e. in respect of nature and grace, but not in
respect of what he has of himself and from the devil, i. e. in respect
of sin and lack of justice.
Consequently it is lawful to hate the sin in one's brother, and
whatever pertains to the defect of Divine justice, but we cannot hate
our brother's nature and grace without sin. Now it is part of our love
for our brother that we hate the fault and the lack of good in him,
since desire for another's good is equivalent to hatred of his evil.
Consequently the hatred of one's brother, if we consider it simply, is
always sinful.
Reply to Objection 1: By the commandment of God (Ex. 20:12) we must
honor our parents---as united to us in nature and kinship. But we must
hate them in so far as they prove an obstacle to our attaining the
perfection of Divine justice.
Reply to Objection 2: God hates the sin which is in the detractor, not
his nature: so that we can hate detractors without committing a sin.
Reply to Objection 3: Men are not opposed to us in respect of the goods
which they have received from God: wherefore, in this respect, we
should love them. But they are opposed to us, in so far as they show
hostility towards us, and this is sinful in them. In this respect we
should hate them, for we should hate in them the fact that they are
hostile to us.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether hatred of our neighbor is the most grievous sin against our
neighbor?
Objection 1: It would seem that hatred of our neighbor is the most
grievous sin against our neighbor. For it is written (1 Jn. 3:15):
"Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. " Now murder is the most
grievous of sins against our neighbor. Therefore hatred is also.
Objection 2: Further, worst is opposed to best. Now the best thing we
give our neighbor is love, since all other things are referable to
love. Therefore hatred is the worst.
On the contrary, A thing is said to be evil, because it hurts, as
Augustine observes (Enchiridion xii). Now there are sins by which a man
hurts his neighbor more than by hatred, e. g. theft, murder and
adultery. Therefore hatred is not the most grievous sin.
Moreover, Chrysostom [*Hom. x in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed
to St. John Chrysostom] commenting on Mat. 5:19, "He that shall break
one of these least commandments," says: "The commandments of Moses,
Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, count for little
in their reward, but they count for much if they be disobeyed. On the
other hand the commandments of Christ such as, Thou shalt not be angry,
Thou shalt not desire, are reckoned great in their reward, but little
in the transgression. " Now hatred is an internal movement like anger
and desire. Therefore hatred of one's brother is a less grievous sin
than murder.
I answer that, Sins committed against our neighbor are evil on two
counts; first by reason of the disorder in the person who sins,
secondly by reason of the hurt inflicted on the person sinned against.
On the first count, hatred is a more grievous sin than external actions
that hurt our neighbor, because hatred is a disorder of man's will,
which is the chief part of man, and wherein is the root of sin, so that
if a man's outward actions were to be inordinate, without any disorder
in his will, they would not be sinful, for instance, if he were to kill
a man, through ignorance or out of zeal for justice: and if there be
anything sinful in a man's outward sins against his neighbor, it is all
to be traced to his inward hatred.
On the other hand, as regards the hurt inflicted on his neighbor, a
man's outward sins are worse than his inward hatred. This suffices for
the Replies to the Objections.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether hatred is a capital sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that hatred is a capital sin. For hatred is
directly opposed to charity. Now charity is the foremost among the
virtues, and the mother of all others. Therefore hatred is the chief of
the capital sins, and the origin of all others.
Objection 2: Further, sins arise in us on account of the inclinations
of our passions, according to Rom. 7:5: "The passions of sins . . . did
work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. " Now all other
passions of the soul seem to arise from love and hatred, as was shown
above ([2623]FS, Q[25], AA[1],2). Therefore hatred should be reckoned
one of the capital sins.
Objection 3: Further, vice is a moral evil. Now hatred regards evil
more than any other passion does. Therefore it seems that hatred should
be reckoned a capital sin.
On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi) does not reckon hatred among the
seven capital sins.
I answer that, As stated above ([2624]FS, Q[84], AA[3],4), a capital
vice is one from which other vices arise most frequently. Now vice is
contrary to man's nature, in as much as he is a rational animal: and
when a thing acts contrary to its nature, that which is natural to it
is corrupted little by little. Consequently it must first of all fail
in that which is less in accordance with its nature, and last of all in
that which is most in accordance with its nature, since what is first
in construction is last in destruction. Now that which, first and
foremost, is most natural to man, is the love of what is good, and
especially love of the Divine good, and of his neighbor's good.
Wherefore hatred, which is opposed to this love, is not the first but
the last thing in the downfall of virtue resulting from vice: and
therefore it is not a capital vice.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated in Phys. vii, text. 18, "the virtue of
a thing consists in its being well disposed in accordance with its
nature. " Hence what is first and foremost in the virtues must be first
and foremost in the natural order. Hence charity is reckoned the
foremost of the virtues, and for the same reason hatred cannot be first
among the vices, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2: Hatred of the evil that is contrary to one's
natural good, is the first of the soul's passions, even as love of
one's natural good is. But hatred of one's connatural good cannot be
first, but is something last, because such like hatred is a proof of an
already corrupted nature, even as love of an extraneous good.
Reply to Objection 3: Evil is twofold. One is a true evil, for the
reason that it is incompatible with one's natural good, and the hatred
of such an evil may have priority over the other passions.
There is,
however, another which is not a true, but an apparent evil, which,
namely, is a true and connatural good, and yet is reckoned evil on
account of the corruption of nature: and the hatred of such an evil
must needs come last. This hatred is vicious, but the former is not.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether hatred arises from envy?
Objection 1: It seems that hatred does not arise from envy. For envy is
sorrow for another's good. Now hatred does not arise from sorrow, for,
on the contrary, we grieve for the presence of the evil we hate.
Therefore hatred does not arise from envy.
Objection 2: Further, hatred is opposed to love. Now love of our
neighbor is referred to our love of God, as stated above ([2625]Q[25],
A[1];[2626] Q[26], A[2]). Therefore hatred of our neighbor is referred
to our hatred of God. But hatred of God does not arise from envy, for
we do not envy those who are very far removed from us, but rather those
who seem to be near us, as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii). Therefore
hatred does not arise from envy.
Objection 3: Further, to one effect there is one cause. Now hatred is
caused by anger, for Augustine says in his Rule that "anger grows into
hatred. " Therefore hatred does not arise from envy.
On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45) that "out of envy
cometh hatred. "
I answer that, As stated above [2627](A[5]), hatred of his neighbor is
a man's last step in the path of sin, because it is opposed to the love
which he naturally has for his neighbor. Now if a man declines from
that which is natural, it is because he intends to avoid that which is
naturally an object to be shunned. Now every animal naturally avoids
sorrow, just as it desires pleasure, as the Philosopher states (Ethic.
vii, x). Accordingly just as love arises from pleasure, so does hatred
arise from sorrow. For just as we are moved to love whatever gives us
pleasure, in as much as for that very reason it assumes the aspect of
good; so we are moved to hate whatever displeases us, in so far as for
this very reason it assumes the aspect of evil. Wherefore, since envy
is sorrow for our neighbor's good, it follows that our neighbor's good
becomes hateful to us, so that "out of envy cometh hatred. "
Reply to Objection 1: Since the appetitive power, like the apprehensive
power, reflects on its own acts, it follows that there is a kind of
circular movement in the actions of the appetitive power. And so
according to the first forward course of the appetitive movement, love
gives rise to desire, whence follows pleasure when one has obtained
what one desired. And since the very fact of taking pleasure in the
good one loves is a kind of good, it follows that pleasure causes love.
And in the same way sorrow causes hatred.
Reply to Objection 2: Love and hatred are essentially different, for
the object of love is good, which flows from God to creatures,
wherefore love is due to God in the first place, and to our neighbor
afterwards. On the other hand, hatred is of evil, which has no place in
God Himself, but only in His effects, for which reason it has been
stated above [2628](A[1]), that God is not an object of hatred, except
in so far as He is considered in relation to His effects, and
consequently hatred is directed to our neighbor before being directed
to God. Therefore, since envy of our neighbor is the mother of hatred
of our neighbor, it becomes, in consequence, the cause of hatred
towards God.
Reply to Objection 3: Nothing prevents a thing arising from various
causes in various respects, and accordingly hatred may arise both from
anger and from envy. However it arises more directly from envy, which
looks upon the very good of our neighbor as displeasing and therefore
hateful, whereas hatred arises from anger by way of increase. For at
first, through anger, we desire our neighbor's evil according to a
certain measure, that is in so far as that evil has the aspect of
vengeance: but afterwards, through the continuance of anger, man goes
so far as absolutely to desire his neighbor's evil, which desire is
part of hatred. Wherefore it is evident that hatred is caused by envy
formally as regards the aspect of the object, but dispositively by
anger.
__________________________________________________________________
OF SLOTH (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the vices opposed to the joy of charity. This joy
is either about the Divine good, and then its contrary is sloth, or
about our neighbor's good, and then its contrary is envy. Wherefore we
must consider (1) Sloth and (2) Envy.
Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether sloth is a sin?
(2) Whether it is a special vice?
(3) Whether it is a mortal sin?
(4) Whether it is a capital sin?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether sloth is a sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that sloth is not a sin. For we are neither
praised nor blamed for our passions, according to the Philosopher
(Ethic. ii, 5). Now sloth is a passion, since it is a kind of sorrow,
according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 14), and as we stated above
([2629]FS, Q[35], A[8] ). Therefore sloth is not a sin.
Objection 2: Further, no bodily failing that occurs at fixed times is a
sin. But sloth is like this, for Cassian says (De Instit. Monast. x,
[*De Institutione Caeobiorum]): "The monk is troubled with sloth
chiefly about the sixth hour: it is like an intermittent fever, and
inflicts the soul of the one it lays low with burning fires at regular
and fixed intervals. " Therefore sloth is not a sin.
Objection 3: Further, that which proceeds from a good root is,
seemingly, no sin. Now sloth proceeds from a good root, for Cassian
says (De Instit. Monast. x) that "sloth arises from the fact that we
sigh at being deprived of spiritual fruit, and think that other
monasteries and those which are a long way off are much better than the
one we dwell in": all of which seems to point to humility. Therefore
sloth is not a sin.
Objection 4: Further, all sin is to be avoided, according to Ecclus.
21:2: "Flee from sins as from the face of a serpent. " Now Cassian says
(De Instit. Monast. x): "Experience shows that the onslaught of sloth
is not to be evaded by flight but to be conquered by resistance. "
Therefore sloth is not a sin.
On the contrary, Whatever is forbidden in Holy Writ is a sin. Now such
is sloth [acedia]: for it is written (Ecclus. 6:26): "Bow down thy
shoulder, and bear her," namely spiritual wisdom, "and be not grieved
[acedieris] with her bands. " Therefore sloth is a sin.
I answer that, Sloth, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 14) is
an oppressive sorrow, which, to wit, so weighs upon man's mind, that he
wants to do nothing; thus acid things are also cold. Hence sloth
implies a certain weariness of work, as appears from a gloss on Ps.
106:18, "Their soul abhorred all manner of meat," and from the
definition of some who say that sloth is a "sluggishness of the mind
which neglects to begin good. "
Now this sorrow is always evil, sometimes in itself, sometimes in its
effect. For sorrow is evil in itself when it is about that which is
apparently evil but good in reality, even as, on the other hand,
pleasure is evil if it is about that which seems to be good but is, in
truth, evil. Since, then, spiritual good is a good in very truth,
sorrow about spiritual good is evil in itself. And yet that sorrow also
which is about a real evil, is evil in its effect, if it so oppresses
man as to draw him away entirely from good deeds. Hence the Apostle (2
Cor. 2:7) did not wish those who repented to be "swallowed up with
overmuch sorrow. "
Accordingly, since sloth, as we understand it here, denotes sorrow for
spiritual good, it is evil on two counts, both in itself and in point
of its effect. Consequently it is a sin, for by sin we mean an evil
movement of the appetite, as appears from what has been said above
(Q[10], A[2]; [2630]FS, Q[74], A[4]).
Reply to Objection 1: Passions are not sinful in themselves; but they
are blameworthy in so far as they are applied to something evil, just
as they deserve praise in so far as they are applied to something good.
Wherefore sorrow, in itself, calls neither for praise nor for blame:
whereas moderate sorrow for evil calls for praise, while sorrow for
good, and again immoderate sorrow for evil, call for blame. It is in
this sense that sloth is said to be a sin.
Reply to Objection 2: The passions of the sensitive appetite may either
be venial sins in themselves, or incline the soul to mortal sin. And
since the sensitive appetite has a bodily organ, it follows that on
account of some bodily transmutation a man becomes apt to commit some
particular sin. Hence it may happen that certain sins may become more
insistent, through certain bodily transmutations occurring at certain
fixed times. Now all bodily effects, of themselves, dispose one to
sorrow; and thus it is that those who fast are harassed by sloth
towards mid-day, when they begin to feel the want of food, and to be
parched by the sun's heat.
Reply to Objection 3: It is a sign of humility if a man does not think
too much of himself, through observing his own faults; but if a man
contemns the good things he has received from God, this, far from being
a proof of humility, shows him to be ungrateful: and from such like
contempt results sloth, because we sorrow for things that we reckon
evil and worthless. Accordingly we ought to think much of the goods of
others, in such a way as not to disparage those we have received
ourselves, because if we did they would give us sorrow.
Reply to Objection 4: Sin is ever to be shunned, but the assaults of
sin should be overcome, sometimes by flight, sometimes by resistance;
by flight when a continued thought increases the incentive to sin, as
in lust; for which reason it is written (1 Cor. 6:18): "Fly
fornication"; by resistance, when perseverance in the thought
diminishes the incentive to sin, which incentive arises from some
trivial consideration. This is the case with sloth, because the more we
think about spiritual goods, the more pleasing they become to us, and
forthwith sloth dies away.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether sloth is a special vice?
Objection 1: It would seem that sloth is not a special vice. For that
which is common to all vices does not constitute a special kind of
vice. But every vice makes a man sorrowful about the opposite spiritual
good: for the lustful man is sorrowful about the good of continence,
and the glutton about the good of abstinence. Since then sloth is
sorrow for spiritual good, as stated above [2631](A[1]), it seems that
sloth is not a special sin.
Objection 2: Further, sloth, through being a kind of sorrow, is opposed
to joy. Now joy is not accounted one special virtue. Therefore sloth
should not be reckoned a special vice.
Objection 3: Further, since spiritual good is a general kind of object,
which virtue seeks, and vice shuns, it does not constitute a special
virtue or vice, unless it be determined by some addition. Now nothing,
seemingly, except toil, can determine it to sloth, if this be a special
vice; because the reason why a man shuns spiritual goods, is that they
are toilsome, wherefore sloth is a kind of weariness: while dislike of
toil, and love of bodily repose seem to be due to the same cause, viz.
idleness. Hence sloth would be nothing but laziness, which seems
untrue, for idleness is opposed to carefulness, whereas sloth is
opposed to joy. Therefore sloth is not a special vice.
On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) distinguishes sloth from the
other vices. Therefore it is a special vice.
I answer that, Since sloth is sorrow for spiritual good, if we take
spiritual good in a general way, sloth will not be a special vice,
because, as stated above ([2632]FS, Q[71], A[1]), every vice shuns the
spiritual good of its opposite virtue. Again it cannot be said that
sloth is a special vice, in so far as it shuns spiritual good, as
toilsome, or troublesome to the body, or as a hindrance to the body's
pleasure, for this again would not sever sloth from carnal vices,
whereby a man seeks bodily comfort and pleasure.
Wherefore we must say that a certain order exists among spiritual
goods, since all the spiritual goods that are in the acts of each
virtue are directed to one spiritual good, which is the Divine good,
about which there is a special virtue, viz. charity. Hence it is proper
to each virtue to rejoice in its own spiritual good, which consists in
its own act, while it belongs specially to charity to have that
spiritual joy whereby one rejoices in the Divine good. In like manner
the sorrow whereby one is displeased at the spiritual good which is in
each act of virtue, belongs, not to any special vice, but to every
vice, but sorrow in the Divine good about which charity rejoices,
belongs to a special vice, which is called sloth. This suffices for the
Replies to the Objections.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether sloth is a mortal sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that sloth is not a mortal sin. For every
mortal sin is contrary to a precept of the Divine Law. But sloth seems
contrary to no precept, as one may see by going through the precepts of
the Decalogue. Therefore sloth is not a mortal sin.
Objection 2: Further, in the same genus, a sin of deed is no less
grievous than a sin of thought. Now it is not a mortal sin to refrain
in deed from some spiritual good which leads to God, else it would be a
mortal sin not to observe the counsels. Therefore it is not a mortal
sin to refrain in thought from such like spiritual works. Therefore
sloth is not a mortal sin.
Objection 3: Further, no mortal sin is to be found in a perfect man.
But sloth is to be found in a perfect man: for Cassian says (De Instit.
Caenob. x, l) that "sloth is well known to the solitary, and is a most
vexatious and persistent foe to the hermit. " Therefore sloth is not
always a mortal sin.
On the contrary, It is written (2 Cor. 7:20): "The sorrow of the world
worketh death. " But such is sloth; for it is not sorrow "according to
God," which is contrasted with sorrow of the world. Therefore it is a
mortal sin.
I answer that, As stated above ([2633]FS, Q[88], AA[1],2), mortal sin
is so called because it destroys the spiritual life which is the effect
of charity, whereby God dwells in us. Wherefore any sin which by its
very nature is contrary to charity is a mortal sin by reason of its
genus. And such is sloth, because the proper effect of charity is joy
in God, as stated above (Q[28], A[1]), while sloth is sorrow about
spiritual good in as much as it is a Divine good. Therefore sloth is a
mortal sin in respect of its genus. But it must be observed with regard
to all sins that are mortal in respect of their genus, that they are
not mortal, save when they attain to their perfection. Because the
consummation of sin is in the consent of reason: for we are speaking
now of human sins consisting in human acts, the principle of which is
the reason. Wherefore if the sin be a mere beginning of sin in the
sensuality alone, without attaining to the consent of reason, it is a
venial sin on account of the imperfection of the act. Thus in the genus
of adultery, the concupiscence that goes no further than the sensuality
is a venial sin, whereas if it reach to the consent of reason, it is a
mortal sin. So too, the movement of sloth is sometimes in the
sensuality alone, by reason of the opposition of the flesh to the
spirit, and then it is a venial sin; whereas sometimes it reaches to
the reason, which consents in the dislike, horror and detestation of
the Divine good, on account of the flesh utterly prevailing over the
spirit. In this case it is evident that sloth is a mortal sin.
Reply to Objection 1: Sloth is opposed to the precept about hallowing
the Sabbath day. For this precept, in so far as it is a moral precept,
implicitly commands the mind to rest in God: and sorrow of the mind
about the Divine good is contrary thereto.
Reply to Objection 2: Sloth is not an aversion of the mind from any
spiritual good, but from the Divine good, to which the mind is obliged
to adhere. Wherefore if a man is sorry because someone forces him to do
acts of virtue that he is not bound to do, this is not a sin of sloth;
but when he is sorry to have to do something for God's sake.
Reply to Objection 3: Imperfect movements of sloth are to be found in
holy men, but they do not reach to the consent of reason.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether sloth should be accounted a capital vice?
Objection 1: It would seem that sloth ought not to be accounted a
capital vice. For a capital vice is one that moves a man to sinful
acts, as stated above ([2634]Q[34], A[5]). Now sloth does not move one
to action, but on the contrary withdraws one from it. Therefore it
should not be accounted a capital sin.
Objection 2: Further, a capital sin is one to which daughters are
assigned. Now Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) assigns six daughters to sloth,
viz. "malice, spite, faint-heartedness, despair, sluggishness in regard
to the commandments, wandering of the mind after unlawful things. " Now
these do not seem in reality to arise from sloth. For "spite" is,
seemingly the same as hatred, which arises from envy, as stated above
([2635]Q[34], A[6]); "malice" is a genus which contains all vices, and,
in like manner, a "wandering" of the mind after unlawful things is to
be found in every vice; "sluggishness" about the commandments seems to
be the same as sloth, while "faint-heartedness" and "despair" may arise
from any sin. Therefore sloth is not rightly accounted a capital sin.
Objection 3: Further, Isidore distinguishes the vice of sloth from the
vice of sorrow, saying (De Summo Bono ii, 37) that in so far as a man
shirks his duty because it is distasteful and burdensome, it is sorrow,
and in so far as he is inclined to undue repose, it is sloth: and of
sorrow he says that it gives rise to "spite, faint-heartedness,
bitterness, despair," whereas he states that from sloth seven things
arise, viz. "idleness, drowsiness, uneasiness of the mind, restlessness
of the body, instability, loquacity, curiosity. " Therefore it seems
that either Gregory or Isidore has wrongly assigned sloth as a capital
sin together with its daughters.
On the contrary, The same Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) states that sloth
is a capital sin, and has the daughters aforesaid.
I answer that, As stated above ([2636]FS, Q[84], AA[3],4), a capital
vice is one which easily gives rise to others as being their final
cause. Now just as we do many things on account of pleasure, both in
order to obtain it, and through being moved to do something under the
impulse of pleasure, so again we do many things on account of sorrow,
either that we may avoid it, or through being exasperated into doing
something under pressure thereof. Wherefore, since sloth is a kind of
sorrow, as stated above [2637](A[2]; FS, Q[85], A[8]), it is fittingly
reckoned a capital sin.
Reply to Objection 1: Sloth by weighing on the mind, hinders us from
doing things that cause sorrow: nevertheless it induces the mind to do
certain things, either because they are in harmony with sorrow, such as
weeping, or because they are a means of avoiding sorrow.
Reply to Objection 2: Gregory fittingly assigns the daughters of sloth.
For since, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 5,6) "no man can
be a long time in company with what is painful and unpleasant," it
follows that something arises from sorrow in two ways: first, that man
shuns whatever causes sorrow; secondly, that he passes to other things
that give him pleasure: thus those who find no joy in spiritual
pleasures, have recourse to pleasures of the body, according to the
Philosopher (Ethic. x, 6). Now in the avoidance of sorrow the order
observed is that man at first flies from unpleasant objects, and
secondly he even struggles against such things as cause sorrow. Now
spiritual goods which are the object of the sorrow of sloth, are both
end and means. Avoidance of the end is the result of "despair," while
avoidance of those goods which are the means to the end, in matters of
difficulty which come under the counsels, is the effect of
"faint-heartedness," and in matters of common righteousness, is the
effect of "sluggishness about the commandments. " The struggle against
spiritual goods that cause sorrow is sometimes with men who lead others
to spiritual goods, and this is called "spite"; and sometimes it
extends to the spiritual goods themselves, when a man goes so far as to
detest them, and this is properly called "malice. " In so far as a man
has recourse to eternal objects of pleasure, the daughter of sloth is
called "wandering after unlawful things. " From this it is clear how to
reply to the objections against each of the daughters: for "malice"
does not denote here that which is generic to all vices, but must be
understood as explained. Nor is "spite" taken as synonymous with
hatred, but for a kind of indignation, as stated above: and the same
applies to the others.
Reply to Objection 3: This distinction between sorrow and sloth is also
given by Cassian (De Instit. Caenob. x, 1). But Gregory more fittingly
(Moral. xxxi, 45) calls sloth a kind of sorrow, because, as stated
above [2638](A[2]), sorrow is not a distinct vice, in so far as a man
shirks a distasteful and burdensome work, or sorrows on account of any
other cause whatever, but only in so far as he is sorry on account of
the Divine good, which sorrow belongs essentially to sloth; since sloth
seeks undue rest in so far as it spurns the Divine good. Moreover the
things which Isidore reckons to arise from sloth and sorrow, are
reduced to those mentioned by Gregory: for "bitterness" which Isidore
states to be the result of sorrow, is an effect of "spite. " "Idleness"
and "drowsiness" are reduced to "sluggishness about the precepts": for
some are idle and omit them altogether, while others are drowsy and
fulfil them with negligence. All the other five which he reckons as
effects of sloth, belong to the "wandering of the mind after unlawful
things. " This tendency to wander, if it reside in the mind itself that
is desirous of rushing after various things without rhyme or reason, is
called "uneasiness of the mind," but if it pertains to the imaginative
power, it is called "curiosity"; if it affect the speech it is called
"loquacity"; and in so far as it affects a body that changes place, it
is called "restlessness of the body," when, to wit, a man shows the
unsteadiness of his mind, by the inordinate movements of members of his
body; while if it causes the body to move from one place to another, it
is called "instability"; or "instability" may denote changeableness of
purpose.
__________________________________________________________________
OF ENVY (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider envy, and under this head there are four points of
inquiry:
(1) What is envy?
(2) Whether it is a sin?
(3) Whether it is a mortal sin?
(4) Whether it is a capital sin, and which are its daughters?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether envy is a kind of sorrow?
Objection 1: It would seem that envy is not a kind of sorrow. For the
object of envy is a good, for Gregory says (Moral. v, 46) of the
envious man that "self-inflicted pain wounds the pining spirit, which
is racked by the prosperity of another. " Therefore envy is not a kind
of sorrow.
Objection 2: Further, likeness is a cause, not of sorrow but rather of
pleasure.
