Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part IIa/Q21

From The Logic Museum
Jump to navigationJump to search
←Q20 Q22→



Latin English
Iª-IIae q. 21 pr. Deinde considerandum est de his quae consequuntur actus humanos ratione bonitatis vel malitiae. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum actus humanus, inquantum est bonus vel malus, habeat rationem rectitudinis vel peccati. Secundo, utrum habeat rationem laudabilis vel culpabilis. Tertio, utrum habeat rationem meriti vel demeriti. Quarto, utrum habeat rationem meriti vel demeriti apud Deum. Question 21. The consequences of human actions by reason of their goodness and malice Is a human action right or sinful by reason of its being good or evil? Does it thereby deserve praise or blame? Is it accordingly meritorious or demeritorious? Is it accordingly meritorious or demeritorious before God?
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod actus humanus, inquantum est bonus vel malus, non habeat rationem rectitudinis vel peccati. Peccata enim sunt monstra in natura, ut dicitur in II Physic. Monstra autem non sunt actus, sed sunt quaedam res generatae praeter ordinem naturae. Ea autem quae sunt secundum artem et rationem, imitantur ea quae sunt secundum naturam, ut ibidem dicitur. Ergo actus ex hoc quod est inordinatus et malus, non habet rationem peccati. Objection 1. It seems that a human action is not right or sinful, in so far as it is good or evil. For "monsters are the sins of nature" (Phys. ii, 8). But monsters are not actions, but things engendered outside the order of nature. Now things that are produced according to art and reason imitate those that are produced according to nature (Phys. ii, 8). Therefore an action is not sinful by reason of its being inordinate and evil.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, peccatum, ut dicitur in II Physic., accidit in natura et arte, cum non pervenitur ad finem intentum a natura vel arte. Sed bonitas vel malitia actus humani maxime consistit in intentione finis, et eius prosecutione. Ergo videtur quod malitia actus non inducat rationem peccati. Objection 2. Further, sin, as stated in Phys. ii, 8 occurs in nature and art, when the end intended by nature or art is not attained. But the goodness or malice of a human action depends, before all, on the intention of the end, and on its achievement. Therefore it seems that the malice of an action does not make it sinful.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, si malitia actus induceret rationem peccati, sequeretur quod ubicumque esset malum, ibi esset peccatum. Hoc autem est falsum, nam poena, licet habeat rationem mali, non tamen habet rationem peccati. Non ergo ex hoc quod aliquis actus est malus, habet rationem peccati. Objection 3. Further, if the malice of an action makes it sinful, it follows that wherever there is evil, there is sin. But this is false: since punishment is not a sin, although it is an evil. Therefore an action is not sinful by reason of its being evil.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra, bonitas actus humani, ut supra ostensum est, principaliter dependet a lege aeterna, et per consequens malitia eius in hoc consistit, quod discordat a lege aeterna. Sed hoc facit rationem peccati, dicit enim Augustinus, XXII contra Faustum, quod peccatum est dictum, vel factum, vel concupitum aliquid contra legem aeternam. Ergo actus humanus ex hoc quod est malus, habet rationem peccati. On the contrary, As shown above (Question 19, Article 4), the goodness of a human action depends principally on the Eternal Law: and consequently its malice consists in its being in disaccord with the Eternal Law. But this is the very nature of sin; for Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 27) that "sin is a word, deed, or desire, in opposition to the Eternal Law." Therefore a human action is sinful by reason of its being evil.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod malum in plus est quam peccatum, sicut et bonum in plus est quam rectum. Quaelibet enim privatio boni in quocumque constituit rationem mali, sed peccatum proprie consistit in actu qui agitur propter finem aliquem, cum non habet debitum ordinem ad finem illum. Debitus autem ordo ad finem secundum aliquam regulam mensuratur. Quae quidem regula in his quae secundum naturam agunt, est ipsa virtus naturae, quae inclinat in talem finem. Quando ergo actus procedit a virtute naturali secundum naturalem inclinationem in finem, tunc servatur rectitudo in actu, quia medium non exit ab extremis, scilicet actus ab ordine activi principii ad finem. Quando autem a rectitudine tali actus aliquis recedit, tunc incidit ratio peccati. In his vero quae aguntur per voluntatem, regula proxima est ratio humana; regula autem suprema est lex aeterna. Quando ergo actus hominis procedit in finem secundum ordinem rationis et legis aeternae, tunc actus est rectus, quando autem ab hac rectitudine obliquatur, tunc dicitur esse peccatum. Manifestum est autem ex praemissis quod omnis actus voluntarius est malus per hoc quod recedit ab ordine rationis et legis aeternae, et omnis actus bonus concordat rationi et legi aeternae. Unde sequitur quod actus humanus ex hoc quod est bonus vel malus, habeat rationem rectitudinis vel peccati. I answer that, Evil is more comprehensive than sin, as also is good than right. For every privation of good, in whatever subject, is an evil: whereas sin consists properly in an action done for a certain end, and lacking due order to that end. Now the due order to an end is measured by some rule. In things that act according to nature, this rule is the natural force that inclines them to that end. When therefore an action proceeds from a natural force, in accord with the natural inclination to an end, then the action is said to be right: since the mean does not exceed its limits, viz. the action does not swerve from the order of its active principle to the end. But when an action strays from this rectitude, it comes under the notion of sin. Now in those things that are done by the will, the proximate rule is the human reason, while the supreme rule is the Eternal Law. When, therefore, a human action tends to the end, according to the order of reason and of the Eternal Law, then that action is right: but when it turns aside from that rectitude, then it is said to be a sin. Now it is evident from what has been said (19, 3,4) that every voluntary action that turns aside from the order of reason and of the Eternal Law, is evil, and that every good action is in accord with reason and the Eternal Law. Hence it follows that a human action is right or sinful by reason of its being good or evil.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod monstra dicuntur esse peccata, inquantum producta sunt ex peccato in actu naturae existente. Reply to Objection 1. Monsters are called sins, inasmuch as they result from a sin in nature's action.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod duplex est finis, scilicet ultimus, et propinquus. In peccato autem naturae, deficit quidem actus a fine ultimo, qui est perfectio generati; non tamen deficit a quocumque fine proximo; operatur enim natura aliquid formando. Similiter in peccato voluntatis, semper est defectus ab ultimo fine intento, quia nullus actus voluntarius malus est ordinabilis ad beatitudinem, quae est ultimus finis, licet non deficiat ab aliquo fine proximo, quem voluntas intendit et consequitur. Unde etiam cum ipsa intentio huius finis ordinetur ad finem ultimum, in ipsa intentione huiusmodi finis potest inveniri ratio rectitudinis et peccati. Reply to Objection 2. The end is twofold; the last end, and the proximate end. In the sin of nature, the action does indeed fail in respect of the last end, which is the perfection of the thing generated; but it does not fail in respect of any proximate end whatever; since when nature works it forms something. In like manner, the sin of the will always fails as regards the last end intended, because no voluntary evil action can be ordained to happiness, which is the last end: and yet it does not fail in respect of some proximate end: intended and achieved by the will. Wherefore also, since the very intention of this end is ordained to the last end, this same intention may be right or sinful.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod unumquodque ordinatur ad finem per actum suum, et ideo ratio peccati, quae consistit in deviatione ab ordine ad finem, proprie consistit in actu. Sed poena respicit personam peccantem, ut in primo dictum est. Reply to Objection 3. Each thing is ordained to its end by its action: and therefore sin, which consists in straying from the order to the end, consists properly in an action. On the other hand, punishment regards the person of the sinner, as was stated in the I, 48, 5, ad 4; 6, ad 3.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod actus humanus, ex hoc quod est bonus vel malus, non habeat rationem laudabilis vel culpabilis. Peccatum enim contingit etiam in his quae aguntur a natura, ut dicitur in II Physic. Sed tamen ea quae sunt naturalia, non sunt laudabilia nec culpabilia, ut dicitur in III Ethic. Ergo actus humanus, ex hoc quod est malus vel peccatum, non habet rationem culpae, et per consequens nec ex hoc quod est bonus, habet rationem laudabilis. Objection 1. It would seem that a human action does not deserve praise or blame by reason of its being good or evil. For "sin happens even in things done by nature" (Phys. ii, 8). And yet natural things are not deserving of praise or blame (Ethic. iii, 5). Therefore a human action does not deserve blame, by reason of its being evil or sinful; and, consequently, neither does it deserve praise, by reason of its being good.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, sicut contingit peccatum in actibus moralibus, ita et in actibus artis, quia, ut dicitur in II Physic., peccat grammaticus non recte scribens, et medicus non recte dans potionem. Sed non culpatur artifex ex hoc quod aliquod malum facit, quia ad industriam artificis pertinet quod possit et bonum opus facere et malum, cum voluerit. Ergo videtur quod etiam actus moralis, ex hoc quod est malus, non habeat rationem culpabilis. Objection 2. Further, just as sin occurs in moral actions, so does it happen in the productions of art: because as stated in Phys. ii, 8 "it is a sin in a grammarian to write badly, and in a doctor to give the wrong medicine." But the artist is not blamed for making something bad: because the artist's work is such, that he can produce a good or a bad thing, just as he lists. Therefore it seems that neither is there any reason for blaming a moral action, in the fact that it is evil.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, Dionysius dicit, in IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod malum est infirmum et impotens. Sed infirmitas vel impotentia vel tollit vel diminuit rationem culpae. Non ergo actus humanus est culpabilis ex hoc quod est malus. Objection 3. Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that evil is "weak and incapable." But weakness or inability either takes away or diminishes guilt. Therefore a human action does not incur guilt from being evil.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, quod laudabilia sunt virtutum opera; vituperabilia autem, vel culpabilia, opera contraria. Sed actus boni sunt actus virtutis, quia virtus est quae bonum facit habentem, et opus eius bonum reddit, ut dicitur in II Ethic., unde actus oppositi sunt actus mali. Ergo actus humanus ex hoc quod est bonus vel malus, habet rationem laudabilis vel culpabilis. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (De Virt. et Vit. i) that "virtuous deeds deserve praise, while deeds that are opposed to virtue deserve censure and blame." But good actions are virtuous; because "virtue makes that which has it, good, and makes its action good" (Ethic. ii, 6): wherefore actions opposed to virtue are evil. Therefore a human action deserves praise or blame, through being good or evil.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut malum est in plus quam peccatum, ita peccatum est in plus quam culpa. Ex hoc enim dicitur aliquis actus culpabilis vel laudabilis, quod imputatur agenti, nihil enim est aliud laudari vel culpari, quam imputari alicui malitiam vel bonitatem sui actus. Tunc autem actus imputatur agenti, quando est in potestate ipsius, ita quod habeat dominium sui actus. Hoc autem est in omnibus actibus voluntariis, quia per voluntatem homo dominium sui actus habet, ut ex supradictis patet. Unde relinquitur quod bonum vel malum in solis actibus voluntariis constituit rationem laudis vel culpae; in quibus idem est malum, peccatum et culpa. I answer that, Just as evil is more comprehensive than sin, so is sin more comprehensive than blame. For an action is said to deserve praise or blame, from its being imputed to the agent: since to praise or to blame means nothing else than to impute to someone the malice or goodness of his action. Now an action is imputed to an agent, when it is in his power, so that he has dominion over it: because it is through his will that man has dominion over his actions, as was made clear above (1, 1,2). Hence it follows that good or evil, in voluntary actions alone, renders them worthy of praise or blame: and in such like actions, evil, sin and guilt are one and the same thing.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod actus naturales non sunt in potestate naturalis agentis, cum natura sit determinata ad unum. Et ideo, licet in actibus naturalibus sit peccatum, non tamen est ibi culpa. Reply to Objection 1. Natural actions are not in the power of the natural agent: since the action of nature is determinate. And, therefore, although there be sin in natural actions, there is no blame.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio aliter se habet in artificialibus et aliter in moralibus. In artificialibus enim ratio ordinatur ad finem particularem, quod est aliquid per rationem excogitatum. In moralibus autem ordinatur ad finem communem totius humanae vitae. Finis autem particularis ordinatur ad finem communem. Cum ergo peccatum sit per deviationem ab ordine ad finem, ut dictum est, in actu artis contingit dupliciter esse peccatum. Uno modo, per deviationem a fine particulari intento ab artifice, et hoc peccatum erit proprium arti; puta si artifex, intendens facere bonum opus, faciat malum, vel intendens facere malum, faciat bonum. Alio modo, per deviationem a fine communi humanae vitae, et hoc modo dicetur peccare, si intendat facere malum opus, et faciat, per quod alius decipiatur. Sed hoc peccatum non est proprium artificis inquantum artifex, sed inquantum homo est. Unde ex primo peccato culpatur artifex inquantum artifex, sed ex secundo culpatur homo inquantum homo. Sed in moralibus, ubi attenditur ordo rationis ad finem communem humanae vitae, semper peccatum et malum attenditur per deviationem ab ordine rationis ad finem communem humanae vitae. Et ideo culpatur ex tali peccato homo et inquantum est homo, et inquantum est moralis. Unde philosophus dicit, in VI Ethic., quod in arte volens peccans est eligibilior; circa prudentiam autem minus, sicut et in virtutibus moralibus, quarum prudentia est directiva. Reply to Objection 2. Reason stands in different relations to the productions of art, and to moral actions. In matters of art, reason is directed to a particular end, which is something devised by reason: whereas in moral matters, it is directed to the general end of all human life. Now a particular end is subordinate to the general end. Since therefore sin is a departure from the order to the end, as stated above (Article 1), sin may occur in two ways, in a production of art. First, by a departure from the particular end intended by the artist: and this sin will be proper to the art; for instance, if an artist produce a bad thing, while intending to produce something good; or produce something good, while intending to produce something bad. Secondly, by a departure from the general end of human life: and then he will be said to sin, if he intend to produce a bad work, and does so in effect, so that another is taken in thereby. But this sin is not proper to the artist as such, but as man. Consequently for the former sin the artist is blamed as an artist; while for the latter he is blamed as a man. On the other hand, in moral matters, where we take into consideration the order of reason to the general end of human life, sin and evil are always due to a departure from the order of reason to the general end of human life. Wherefore man is blamed for such a sin, both as man and as a moral being. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 5) that "in art, he who sins voluntarily is preferable; but in prudence, as in the moral virtues," which prudence directs, "he is the reverse."
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod illa infirmitas quae est in malis voluntariis, subiacet potestati hominis. Et ideo nec tollit nec diminuit rationem culpae. Reply to Objection 3. Weakness that occurs in voluntary evils, is subject to man's power: wherefore it neither takes away nor diminishes guilt.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod actus humanus non habeat rationem meriti et demeriti, propter suam bonitatem vel malitiam. Meritum enim et demeritum dicitur per ordinem ad retributionem, quae locum solum habet in his quae ad alterum sunt. Sed non omnes actus humani boni vel mali sunt ad alterum, sed quidam sunt ad seipsum. Ergo non omnis actus humanus bonus vel malus habet rationem meriti vel demeriti. Objection 1. It would seem that a human action is not meritorious or demeritorious on account of its goodness or malice. For we speak of merit or demerit in relation to retribution, which has no place save in matters relating to another person. But good or evil actions are not all related to another person, for some are related to the person of the agent. Therefore not every good or evil human action is meritorious or demeritorious.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, nullus meretur poenam vel praemium ex hoc quod disponit ut vult de eo cuius est dominus, sicut si homo destruat rem suam, non punitur, sicut si destrueret rem alterius. Sed homo est dominus suorum actuum. Ergo ex hoc quod bene vel male disponit de suo actu, non meretur poenam vel praemium. Objection 2. Further, no one deserves punishment or reward for doing as he chooses with that of which he is master: thus if a man destroys what belongs to him, he is not punished, as if he had destroyed what belongs to another. But man is master of his own actions. Therefore a man does not merit punishment or reward, through putting his action to a good or evil purpose.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, ex hoc quod aliquis sibi ipsi acquirit bonum, non meretur ut ei bene fiat ab alio, et eadem ratio est de malis. Sed ipse actus bonus est quoddam bonum et perfectio agentis, actus autem inordinatus est quoddam malum ipsius. Non ergo ex hoc quod homo facit malum actum vel bonum, meretur vel demeretur. Objection 3. Further, if a man acquire some good for himself, he does not on that account deserve to be benefited by another man: and the same applies to evil. Now a good action is itself a kind of good and perfection of the agent: while an inordinate action is his evil. Therefore a man does not merit or demerit, from the fact that he does a good or an evil deed.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Isaiae III, dicite iusto quoniam bene, quoniam fructum adinventionum suarum comedet. Vae impio in malum, retributio enim manuum eius fiet ei. On the contrary, It is written (Isaiah 3:10-11): "Say to the just man that it is well; for he shall eat the fruit of his doings. Woe to the wicked unto evil; for the reward of his hands shall be given him."
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod meritum et demeritum dicuntur in ordine ad retributionem quae fit secundum iustitiam. Retributio autem secundum iustitiam fit alicui ex eo quod agit in profectum vel nocumentum alterius. Est autem considerandum quod unusquisque in aliqua societate vivens, est aliquo modo pars et membrum totius societatis. Quicumque ergo agit aliquid in bonum vel malum alicuius in societate existentis, hoc redundat in totam societatem sicut qui laedit manum, per consequens laedit hominem. Cum ergo aliquis agit in bonum vel malum alterius singularis personae, cadit ibi dupliciter ratio meriti vel demeriti. Uno modo, secundum quod debetur ei retributio a singulari persona quam iuvat vel offendit. Alio modo, secundum quod debetur ei retributio a toto collegio. Quando vero aliquis ordinat actum suum directe in bonum vel malum totius collegii, debetur ei retributio primo quidem et principaliter a toto collegio, secundario vero, ab omnibus collegii partibus. Cum vero aliquis agit quod in bonum proprium vel malum vergit, etiam debetur ei retributio, inquantum etiam hoc vergit in commune secundum quod ipse est pars collegii, licet non debeatur ei retributio inquantum est bonum vel malum singularis personae, quae est eadem agenti, nisi forte a seipso secundum quandam similitudinem, prout est iustitia hominis ad seipsum. Sic igitur patet quod actus bonus vel malus habet rationem laudabilis vel culpabilis, secundum quod est in potestate voluntatis; rationem vero rectitudinis et peccati, secundum ordinem ad finem; rationem vero meriti et demeriti, secundum retributionem iustitiae ad alterum. I answer that, We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another's advantage or hurt. It must, moreover, be observed that every individual member of a society is, in a fashion, a part and member of the whole society. Wherefore, any good or evil, done to the member of a society, redounds on the whole society: thus, who hurts the hand, hurts the man. When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. Now when a man ordains his action directly for the good or evil of the whole society, retribution is owed to him, before and above all, by the whole society; secondarily, by all the parts of society. Whereas when a man does that which conduces to his own benefit or disadvantage, then again is retribution owed to him, in so far as this too affects the community, forasmuch as he is a part of society: although retribution is not due to him, in so far as it conduces to the good or harm of an individual, who is identical with the agent: unless, perchance, he owe retribution to himself, by a sort of resemblance, in so far as man is said to be just to himself. It is therefore evident that a good or evil action deserves praise or blame, in so far as it is in the power of the will: that it is right or sinful, according as it is ordained to the end; and that its merit or demerit depends on the recompense for justice or injustice towards another.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quandoque actus hominis boni vel mali, etsi non ordinantur ad bonum vel malum alterius singularis personae, tamen ordinantur ad bonum vel ad malum alterius quod est ipsa communitas. Reply to Objection 1. A man's good or evil actions, although not ordained to the good or evil of another individual, are nevertheless ordained to the good or evil of another, i.e. the community.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod homo, qui habet dominium sui actus, ipse etiam, inquantum est alterius, scilicet communitatis, cuius est pars meretur aliquid vel demeretur, inquantum actus suos bene vel male disponit, sicut etiam si alia sua, de quibus communitati servire debet, bene vel male dispenset. Reply to Objection 2. Man is master of his actions; and yet, in so far as he belongs to another, i.e. the community, of which he forms part, he merits or demerits, inasmuch as he disposes his actions well or ill: just as if he were to dispense well or ill other belongings of his, in respect of which he is bound to serve the community.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod hoc ipsum bonum vel malum quod aliquis sibi facit per suum actum, redundat in communitatem, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 3. This very good or evil, which a man does to himself by his action, redounds to the community, as stated above.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod actus hominis bonus vel malus non habeat rationem meriti vel demeriti per comparationem ad Deum. Quia, ut dictum est, meritum et demeritum importat ordinem ad recompensationem profectus vel damni ad alterum illati. Sed actus hominis bonus vel malus non cedit in aliquem profectum vel damnum ipsius Dei, dicitur enim Iob XXXV, si peccaveris quid ei nocebis? Porro si iuste egeris, quid donabis ei? Ergo actus hominis bonus vel malus non habet rationem meriti vel demeriti apud Deum. Objection 1. It would seem that man's actions, good or evil, are not meritorious or demeritorious in the sight of God. Because, as stated above (Article 3), merit and demerit imply relation to retribution for good or harm done to another. But a man's action, good or evil, does no good or harm to God; for it is written (Job 35:6-7): "If thou sin, what shalt thou hurt Him? . . . And if thou do justly, what shalt thou give Him?" Therefore a human action, good or evil, is not meritorious or demeritorious in the sight of God.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, instrumentum nihil meretur vel demeretur apud eum qui utitur instrumento, quia tota actio instrumenti est utentis ipso. Sed homo in agendo est instrumentum divinae virtutis principaliter ipsum moventis, unde dicitur Isaiae X, numquid gloriabitur securis contra eum qui secat in ea? Aut exaltabitur serra contra eum a quo trahitur? Ubi manifeste hominem agentem comparat instrumento. Ergo homo, bene agendo vel male, nihil meretur vel demeretur apud Deum. Objection 2. Further, an instrument acquires no merit or demerit in the sight of him that uses it; because the entire action of the instrument belongs to the user. Now when man acts he is the instrument of the Divine power which is the principal cause of his action; hence it is written (Isaiah 10:15): "Shall the axe boast itself against him that cutteth with it? Or shall the saw exalt itself against him by whom it is drawn?" where man while acting is evidently compared to an instrument. Therefore man merits or demerits nothing in God's sight, by good or evil deeds.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, actus humanus habet rationem meriti vel demeriti, inquantum ordinatur ad alterum. Sed non omnes actus humani ordinantur ad Deum. Ergo non omnes actus boni vel mali habent rationem meriti vel demeriti apud Deum. Objection 3. Further, a human action acquires merit or demerit through being ordained to someone else. But not all human actions are ordained to God. Therefore not every good or evil action acquires merit or demerit in God's sight.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Eccle. ult., cuncta quae fiunt adducet Deus in iudicium, sive bonum sit sive malum. Sed iudicium importat retributionem, respectu cuius meritum et demeritum dicitur. Ergo omnis actus hominis bonus vel malus habet rationem meriti vel demeriti apud Deum. On the contrary, It is written (Ecclesiastes 12:14): "All things that are done, God will bring into judgment . . . whether it be good or evil." Now judgment implies retribution, in respect of which we speak of merit and demerit. Therefore every human action, both good and evil, acquires merit or demerit in God's sight.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, actus alicuius hominis habet rationem meriti vel demeriti, secundum quod ordinatur ad alterum, vel ratione eius, vel ratione communitatis. Utroque autem modo actus nostri boni vel mali habent rationem meriti vel demeriti apud Deum. Ratione quidem ipsius, inquantum est ultimus hominis finis, est autem debitum ut ad finem ultimum omnes actus referantur, ut supra habitum est. Unde qui facit actum malum non referibilem in Deum, non servat honorem Dei, qui ultimo fini debetur. Ex parte vero totius communitatis universi, quia in qualibet communitate ille qui regit communitatem, praecipue habet curam boni communis, unde ad eum pertinet retribuere pro his quae bene vel male fiunt in communitate. Est autem Deus gubernator et rector totius universi, sicut in primo habitum est, et specialiter rationalium creaturarum. Unde manifestum est quod actus humani habent rationem meriti vel demeriti per comparationem ad ipsum, alioquin sequeretur quod Deus non haberet curam de actibus humanis. I answer that, A human action, as stated above (Article 3), acquires merit or demerit, through being ordained to someone else, either by reason of himself, or by reason of the community: and in each way, our actions, good and evil, acquire merit or demerit, in the sight of God. On the part of God Himself, inasmuch as He is man's last end; and it is our duty to refer all our actions to the last end, as stated above (Question 19, Article 10). Consequently, whoever does an evil deed, not referable to God, does not give God the honor due to Him as our last end. On the part of the whole community of the universe, because in every community, he who governs the community, cares, first of all, for the common good; wherefore it is his business to award retribution for such things as are done well or ill in the community. Now God is the governor and ruler of the whole universe, as stated in the I, 103, 5: and especially of rational creatures. Consequently it is evident that human actions acquire merit or demerit in reference to Him: else it would follow that human actions are no business of God's.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod per actum hominis Deo secundum se nihil potest accrescere vel deperire, sed tamen homo, quantum in se est, aliquid subtrahit Deo, vel ei exhibet, cum servat vel non servat ordinem quem Deus instituit. Reply to Objection 1. God in Himself neither gains nor losses anything by the action of man: but man, for his part, takes something from God, or offers something to Him, when he observes or does not observe the order instituted by God.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod homo sic movetur a Deo ut instrumentum, quod tamen non excluditur quin moveat seipsum per liberum arbitrium, ut ex supradictis patet. Et ideo per suum actum meretur vel demeretur apud Deum. Reply to Objection 2. Man is so moved, as an instrument, by God, that, at the same time, he moves himself by his free-will, as was explained above (9, 6, ad 3). Consequently, by his action, he acquires merit or demerit in God's sight.
Iª-IIae q. 21 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod homo non ordinatur ad communitatem politicam secundum se totum, et secundum omnia sua, et ideo non oportet quod quilibet actus eius sit meritorius vel demeritorius per ordinem ad communitatem politicam. Sed totum quod homo est, et quod potest et habet, ordinandum est ad Deum, et ideo omnis actus hominis bonus vel malus habet rationem meriti vel demeriti apud Deum, quantum est ex ipsa ratione actus. Reply to Objection 3. Man is not ordained to the body politic, according to all that he is and has; and so it does not follow that every action of his acquires merit or demerit in relation to the body politic. But all that man is, and can, and has, must be referred to God: and therefore every action of man, whether good or bad, acquires merit or demerit in the sight of God, as far as the action itself is concerned.
Latin English
Iª-IIae q. 22 pr. Post hoc considerandum est de passionibus animae, et primo, in generali; secundo, in speciali. In generali autem, quatuor occurrunt circa eas consideranda, primo quidem, de subiecto earum; secundo, de differentia earum; tertio, de comparatione earum ad invicem; quarto, de malitia et bonitate ipsarum. Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Primo, utrum aliqua passio sit in anima. Secundo, utrum magis in parte appetitiva quam in apprehensiva. Tertio, utrum magis sit in appetitu sensitivo quam intellectivo, qui dicitur voluntas. Question 22. The subject of the soul's passions Is there any passion in the soul? Is passion in the appetitive rather than in the apprehensive part? Is passion in the sensitive appetite rather than in the intellectual appetite, which is called the will?
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod nulla passio sit in anima. Pati enim est proprium materiae. Sed anima non est composita ex materia et forma, ut in primo habitum est. Ergo nulla passio est in anima. Objection 1. It would seem that there is no passion in the soul. Because passivity belongs to matter. But the soul is not composed of matter and form, as stated in the I, 75, 5. Therefore there is no passion in the soul.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, passio est motus, ut dicitur in III Physic. Sed anima non movetur, ut probatur in I de anima. Ergo passio non est in anima. Objection 2. Further, passion is movement, as is stated in Phys. iii, 3. But the soul is not moved, as is proved in De Anima i, 3. Therefore passion is not in the soul.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, passio est via in corruptionem, nam omnis passio, magis facta, abiicit a substantia, ut dicitur in libro topicorum. Sed anima est incorruptibilis. Ergo nulla passio est in anima. Objection 3. Further, passion is the road to corruption; since "every passion, when increased, alters the substance," as is stated in Topic. vi, 6. But the soul is incorruptible. Therefore no passion is in the soul.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Rom. VII, cum essemus in carne, passiones peccatorum, quae per legem erant, operabantur in membris nostris. Peccata autem sunt proprie in anima. Ergo et passiones, quae dicuntur peccatorum, sunt in anima. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 7:5): "When we were in the flesh, the passions of sins which were by the law, did the work in our members." Now sins are, properly speaking, in the soul. Therefore passions also, which are described as being "of sins," are in the soul.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod pati dicitur tripliciter. Uno modo, communiter, secundum quod omne recipere est pati, etiam si nihil abiiciatur a re, sicut si dicatur aerem pati, quando illuminatur. Hoc autem magis proprie est perfici, quam pati. Alio modo dicitur pati proprie, quando aliquid recipitur cum alterius abiectione. Sed hoc contingit dupliciter. Quandoque enim abiicitur id quod non est conveniens rei, sicut cum corpus animalis sanatur, dicitur pati, quia recipit sanitatem, aegritudine abiecta. Alio modo, quando e converso contingit, sicut aegrotare dicitur pati, quia recipitur infirmitas, sanitate abiecta. Et hic est propriissimus modus passionis. Nam pati dicitur ex eo quod aliquid trahitur ad agentem, quod autem recedit ab eo quod est sibi conveniens, maxime videtur ad aliud trahi. Et similiter in I de Generat. dicitur quod, quando ex ignobiliori generatur nobilius, est generatio simpliciter, et corruptio secundum quid, e converso autem quando ex nobiliori ignobilius generatur. Et his tribus modis contingit esse in anima passionem. Nam secundum receptionem tantum dicitur quod sentire et intelligere est quoddam pati. Passio autem cum abiectione non est nisi secundum transmutationem corporalem, unde passio proprie dicta non potest competere animae nisi per accidens, inquantum scilicet compositum patitur. Sed et in hoc est diversitas, nam quando huiusmodi transmutatio fit in deterius, magis proprie habet rationem passionis, quam quando fit in melius. Unde tristitia magis proprie est passio quam laetitia. I answer that, The word "passive" is used in three ways. First, in a general way, according as whatever receives something is passive, although nothing is taken from it: thus we may say that the air is passive when it is lit up. But this is to be perfected rather than to be passive. Secondly, the word "passive" is employed in its proper sense, when something is received, while something else is taken away: and this happens in two ways. For sometimes that which is lost is unsuitable to the thing: thus when an animal's body is healed, and loses sickness. At other times the contrary occurs: thus to ail is to be passive; because the ailment is received and health is lost. And here we have passion in its most proper acceptation. For a thing is said to be passive from its being drawn to the agent: and when a thing recedes from what is suitable to it, then especially does it appear to be drawn to something else. Moreover in De Generat. i, 3 it is stated that when a more excellent thing is generated from a less excellent, we have generation simply, and corruption in a particular respect: whereas the reverse is the case, when from a more excellent thing, a less excellent is generated. In these three ways it happens that passions are in the soul. For in the sense of mere reception, we speak of "feeling and understanding as being a kind of passion" (De Anima i, 5). But passion, accompanied by the loss of something, is only in respect of a bodily transmutation; wherefore passion properly so called cannot be in the soul, save accidentally, in so far, to wit, as the "composite" is passive. But here again we find a difference; because when this transmutation is for the worse, it has more of the nature of a passion, than when it is for the better: hence sorrow is more properly a passion than joy.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum igitur dicendum quod pati, secundum quod est cum abiectione et transmutatione, proprium est materiae, unde non invenitur nisi in compositis ex materia et forma. Sed pati prout importat receptionem solam, non est necessarium quod sit materiae, sed potest esse cuiuscumque existentis in potentia. Anima autem, etsi non sit composita ex materia et forma, habet tamen aliquid potentialitatis, secundum quam convenit sibi recipere et pati, secundum quod intelligere pati est, ut dicitur in III de anima. Reply to Objection 1. It belongs to matter to be passive in such a way as to lose something and to be transmuted: hence this happens only in those things that are composed of matter and form. But passivity, as implying mere reception, need not be in matter, but can be in anything that is in potentiality. Now, though the soul is not composed of matter and form, yet it has something of potentiality, in respect of which it is competent to receive or to be passive, according as the act of understanding is a kind of passion, as stated in De Anima iii, 4.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod pati et moveri, etsi non conveniat animae per se, convenit tamen ei per accidens, ut in I de anima dicitur. Reply to Objection 2. Although it does not belong to the soul in itself to be passive and to be moved, yet it belongs accidentally as stated in De Anima i, 3.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de passione quae est cum transmutatione ad deterius. Et huiusmodi passio animae convenire non potest nisi per accidens, per se autem convenit composito, quod est corruptibile. Reply to Objection 3. This argument is true of passion accompanied by transmutation to something worse. And passion, in this sense, is not found in the soul, except accidentally: but the composite, which is corruptible, admits of it by reason of its own nature.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod passio magis sit in parte animae apprehensiva quam in parte appetitiva. Quod enim est primum in quolibet genere videtur esse maximum eorum quae sunt in genere illo, et causa aliorum, ut dicitur in II Metaphys. Sed passio prius invenitur in parte apprehensiva quam in parte appetitiva, non enim patitur pars appetitiva, nisi passione praecedente in parte apprehensiva. Ergo passio est magis in parte apprehensiva quam in parte appetitiva. Objection 1. It would seem that passion is in the apprehensive part of the soul rather than in the appetitive. Because that which is first in any genus, seems to rank first among all things that are in that genus, and to be their cause, as is stated in Metaph. ii, 1. Now passion is found to be in the apprehensive, before being in the appetitive part: for the appetitive part is not affected unless there be a previous passion in the apprehensive part. Therefore passion is in the apprehensive part more than in the appetitive.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, quod est magis activum, videtur esse minus passivum, actio enim passioni opponitur. Sed pars appetitiva est magis activa quam pars apprehensiva. Ergo videtur quod in parte apprehensiva magis sit passio. Objection 2. Further, what is more active is less passive; for action is contrary to passion. Now the appetitive part is more active than the apprehensive part. Therefore it seems that passion is more in the apprehensive part.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut appetitus sensitivus est virtus in organo corporali, ita et vis apprehensiva sensitiva. Sed passio animae fit, proprie loquendo, secundum transmutationem corporalem. Ergo non magis est passio in parte appetitiva sensitiva quam in apprehensiva sensitiva. Objection 3. Further, just as the sensitive appetite is the power of a corporeal organ, so is the power of sensitive apprehension. But passion in the soul occurs, properly speaking, in respect of a bodily transmutation. Therefore passion is not more in the sensitive appetitive than in the sensitive apprehensive part.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in IX de Civ. Dei, quod motus animi, quos Graeci pathe, nostri autem quidam, sicut Cicero, perturbationes, quidam affectiones vel affectus, quidam vero, sicut in Graeco habetur, expressius passiones vocant. Ex quo patet quod passiones animae sunt idem quod affectiones. Sed affectiones manifeste pertinent ad partem appetitivam, et non ad apprehensivam. Ergo et passiones magis sunt in appetitiva quam in apprehensiva. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 4) that "the movement of the soul, which the Greeks called pathe, are styled by some of our writers, Cicero [Those things which the Greeks call pathe, we prefer to call disturbances rather than diseases (Tusc. iv. 5)] for instance, disturbances; by some, affections or emotions; while others rendering the Greek more accurately, call them passions." From this it is evident that the passions of the soul are the same as affections. But affections manifestly belong to the appetitive, and not to the apprehensive part. Therefore the passions are in the appetitive rather than in the apprehensive part.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, in nomine passionis importatur quod patiens trahatur ad id quod est agentis. Magis autem trahitur anima ad rem per vim appetitivam quam per vim apprehensivam. Nam per vim appetitivam anima habet ordinem ad ipsas res, prout in seipsis sunt, unde philosophus dicit, in VI Metaphys., quod bonum et malum, quae sunt obiecta appetitivae potentiae, sunt in ipsis rebus. Vis autem apprehensiva non trahitur ad rem, secundum quod in seipsa est; sed cognoscit eam secundum intentionem rei, quam in se habet vel recipit secundum proprium modum. Unde et ibidem dicitur quod verum et falsum, quae ad cognitionem pertinent, non sunt in rebus, sed in mente. Unde patet quod ratio passionis magis invenitur in parte appetitiva quam in parte apprehensiva. I answer that, As we have already stated (1) the word "passion" implies that the patient is drawn to that which belongs to the agent. Now the soul is drawn to a thing by the appetitive power rather than by the apprehensive power: because the soul has, through its appetitive power, an order to things as they are in themselves: hence the Philosopher says (Metaph. vi, 4) that "good and evil," i.e. the objects of the appetitive power, "are in things themselves." On the other hand the apprehensive power is not drawn to a thing, as it is in itself; but knows it by reason of an "intention" of the thing, which "intention" it has in itself, or receives in its own way. Hence we find it stated (Metaph. vi, 4) that "the true and the false," which pertain to knowledge, "are not in things, but in the mind." Consequently it is evident that the nature of passion is consistent with the appetitive, rather than with the apprehensive part.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod e contrario se habet in his quae pertinent ad perfectionem, et in his quae pertinent ad defectum. Nam in his quae ad perfectionem pertinent, attenditur intensio per accessum ad unum primum principium, cui quanto est aliquid propinquius, tanto est magis intensum, sicut intensio lucidi attenditur per accessum ad aliquid summe lucidum, cui quanto aliquid magis appropinquat, tanto est magis lucidum. Sed in his quae ad defectum pertinent, attenditur intensio non per accessum ad aliquod summum, sed per recessum a perfecto, quia in hoc ratio privationis et defectus consistit. Et ideo quanto minus recedit a primo, tanto est minus intensum, et propter hoc, in principio semper invenitur parvus defectus, qui postea procedendo magis multiplicatur. Passio autem ad defectum pertinet, quia est alicuius secundum quod est in potentia. Unde in his quae appropinquant primo perfecto, scilicet Deo, invenitur parum de ratione potentiae et passionis, in aliis autem consequenter, plus. Et sic etiam in priori vi animae, scilicet apprehensiva, invenitur minus de ratione passionis. Reply to Objection 1. In things relating to perfection the case is the opposite, in comparison to things that pertain to defect. Because in things relating to perfection, intensity is in proportion to the approach to one first principle; to which the nearer a thing approaches, the more intense it is. Thus the intensity of a thing possessed of light depends on its approach to something endowed with light in a supreme degree, to which the nearer a thing approaches the more light it possesses. But in things that relate to defect, intensity depends, not on approach to something supreme, but in receding from that which is perfect; because therein consists the very notion of privation and defect. Wherefore the less a thing recedes from that which stands first, the less intense it is: and the result is that at first we always find some small defect, which afterwards increases as it goes on. Now passion pertains to defect, because it belongs to a thing according as it is in potentiality. Wherefore in those things that approach to the Supreme Perfection, i.e. to God, there is but little potentiality and passion: while in other things, consequently, there is more. Hence also, in the supreme, i.e. the apprehensive, power of the soul, passion is found less than in the other powers.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod vis appetitiva dicitur esse magis activa, quia est magis principium exterioris actus. Et hoc habet ex hoc ipso ex quo habet quod sit magis passiva, scilicet ex hoc quod habet ordinem ad rem ut est in seipsa, per actionem enim exteriorem pervenimus ad consequendas res. Reply to Objection 2. The appetitive power is said to be more active, because it is, more than the apprehensive power, the principle of the exterior action: and this for the same reason that it is more passive, namely, its being related to things as existing in themselves: since it is through the external action that we come into contact with things.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut in primo dictum est, dupliciter organum animae potest transmutari. Uno modo, transmutatione spirituali, secundum quod recipit intentionem rei. Et hoc per se invenitur in actu apprehensivae virtutis sensitivae, sicut oculus immutatur a visibili, non ita quod coloretur, sed ita quod recipiat intentionem coloris. Est autem alia naturalis transmutatio organi, prout organum transmutatur quantum ad suam naturalem dispositionem, puta quod calefit aut infrigidatur, vel alio simili modo transmutatur. Et huiusmodi transmutatio per accidens se habet ad actum apprehensivae virtutis sensitivae, puta cum oculus fatigatur ex forti intuitu, vel dissolvitur ex vehementia visibilis. Sed ad actum appetitus sensitivi per se ordinatur huiusmodi transmutatio, unde in definitione motuum appetitivae partis, materialiter ponitur aliqua naturalis transmutatio organi; sicut dicitur quod ira est accensio sanguinis circa cor. Unde patet quod ratio passionis magis invenitur in actu sensitivae virtutis appetitivae, quam in actu sensitivae virtutis apprehensivae, licet utraque sit actus organi corporalis. Reply to Objection 3. As stated in the I, 78, 3 the organs of the soul can be changed in two ways. First, by a spiritual change, in respect of which the organ receives an "intention" of the object. And this is essential to the act of the sensitive apprehension: thus is the eye changed by the object visible, not by being colored, but by receiving an intention of color. But the organs are receptive of another and natural change, which affects their natural disposition; for instance, when they become hot or cold, or undergo some similar change. And whereas this kind of change is accidental to the act of the sensitive apprehension; for instance, if the eye be wearied through gazing intently at something or be overcome by the intensity of the object: on the other hand, it is essential to the act of the sensitive appetite; wherefore the material element in the definitions of the movements of the appetitive part, is the natural change of the organ; for instance, "anger is" said to be "a kindling of the blood about the heart." Hence it is evident that the notion of passion is more consistent with the act of the sensitive appetite, than with that of the sensitive apprehension, although both are actions of a corporeal organ.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod passio non magis sit in appetitu sensitivo quam in appetitu intellectivo. Dicit enim Dionysius, II cap. de Div. Nom., quod Hierotheus ex quadam est doctus diviniore inspiratione, non solum discens, sed etiam patiens divina. Sed passio divinorum non potest pertinere ad appetitum sensitivum, cuius obiectum est bonum sensibile. Ergo passio est in appetitu intellectivo, sicut et in sensitivo. Objection 1. It would seem that passion is not more in the sensitive than in the intellectual appetite. For Dionysius declares (Div. Nom. ii) Hierotheus "to be taught by a kind of yet more Godlike instruction; not only by learning Divine things, but also by suffering [patiens] them." But the sensitive appetite cannot "suffer" Divine things, since its object is the sensible good. Therefore passion is in the intellectual appetite, just as it is also in the sensitive appetite.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, quanto activum est potentius, tanto passio est fortior. Sed obiectum appetitus intellectivi, quod est bonum universale, est potentius activum quam obiectum appetitus sensitivi, quod est bonum particulare. Ergo ratio passionis magis invenitur in appetitu intellectivo quam in appetitu sensitivo. Objection 2. Further, the more powerful the active force, the more intense the passion. But the object of the intellectual appetite, which is the universal good, is a more powerful active force than the object of the sensitive appetite, which is a particular good. Therefore passion is more consistent with the intellectual than with the sensitive appetite.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, gaudium et amor passiones quaedam esse dicuntur. Sed haec inveniuntur in appetitu intellectivo, et non solum in sensitivo, alioquin non attribuerentur in Scripturis Deo et Angelis. Ergo passiones non magis sunt in appetitu sensitivo quam in intellectivo. Objection 3. Further, joy and love are said to be passions. But these are to be found in the intellectual and not only in the sensitive appetite: else they would not be ascribed by the Scriptures to God and the angels. Therefore the passions are not more in the sensitive than in the intellectual appetite.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Damascenus, in II libro, describens animales passiones, passio est motus appetitivae virtutis sensibilis in imaginatione boni vel mali. Et aliter, passio est motus irrationalis animae per suspicionem boni vel mali. On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22), while describing the animal passions: "Passion is a movement of the sensitive appetite when we imagine good or evil: in other words, passion is a movement of the irrational soul, when we think of good or evil."
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, passio proprie invenitur ubi est transmutatio corporalis. Quae quidem invenitur in actibus appetitus sensitivi; et non solum spiritualis, sicut est in apprehensione sensitiva, sed etiam naturalis. In actu autem appetitus intellectivi non requiritur aliqua transmutatio corporalis, quia huiusmodi appetitus non est virtus alicuius organi. Unde patet quod ratio passionis magis proprie invenitur in actu appetitus sensitivi quam intellectivi; ut etiam patet per definitiones Damasceni inductas. I answer that, As stated above (Article 1) passion is properly to be found where there is corporeal transmutation. This corporeal transmutation is found in the act of the sensitive appetite, and is not only spiritual, as in the sensitive apprehension, but also natural. Now there is no need for corporeal transmutation in the act of the intellectual appetite: because this appetite is not exercised by means of a corporeal organ. It is therefore evident that passion is more properly in the act of the sensitive appetite, than in that of the intellectual appetite; and this is again evident from the definitions of Damascene quoted above.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod passio divinorum ibi dicitur affectio ad divina, et coniunctio ad ipsa per amorem, quod tamen fit sine transmutatione corporali. Reply to Objection 1. By "suffering" Divine things is meant being well affected towards them, and united to them by love: and this takes place without any alteration in the body.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod magnitudo passionis non solum dependet ex virtute agentis, sed etiam ex passibilitate patientis, quia quae sunt bene passibilia, multum patiuntur etiam a parvis activis. Licet ergo obiectum appetitus intellectivi sit magis activum quam obiectum appetitus sensitivi, tamen appetitus sensitivus est magis passivus. Reply to Objection 2. Intensity of passion depends not only on the power of the agent, but also on the passibility of the patient: because things that are disposed to passion, suffer much even from petty agents. Therefore although the object of the intellectual appetite has greater activity than the object of the sensitive appetite, yet the sensitive appetite is more passive.
Iª-IIae q. 22 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod amor et gaudium et alia huiusmodi, cum attribuuntur Deo vel Angelis, aut hominibus secundum appetitum intellectivum, significant simplicem actum voluntatis cum similitudine effectus, absque passione. Unde dicit Augustinus, IX de Civ. Dei, sancti Angeli et sine ira puniunt et sine miseriae compassione subveniunt. Et tamen, istarum nomina passionum, consuetudine locutionis humanae, etiam in eos usurpantur, propter quandam operum similitudinem, non propter affectionum infirmitatem. Reply to Objection 3. When love and joy and the like are ascribed to God or the angels, or to man in respect of his intellectual appetite, they signify simple acts of the will having like effects, but without passion. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5): "The holy angels feel no anger while they punish . . . no fellow-feeling with misery while they relieve the unhappy: and yet ordinary human speech is wont to ascribe to them also these passions by name, because, although they have none of our weakness, their acts bear a certain resemblance to ours."

Notes

Retrieved from ‘http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/index.php?title=Authors/Thomas_Aquinas/Summa_Theologiae/Part_IIa/Q21&oldid=11000’