Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part IIa/Q87

From The Logic Museum
Jump to navigationJump to search
←Q86 Q88→



Latin English
Iª-IIae q. 87 pr. Deinde considerandum est de reatu poenae. Et primo, de ipso reatu; secundo, de mortali et veniali peccato, quae distinguuntur secundum reatum. Circa primum quaeruntur octo. Primo, utrum reatus poenae sit effectus peccati. Secundo, utrum peccatum possit esse poena alterius peccati. Tertio, utrum aliquod peccatum faciat reum aeterna poena. Quarto, utrum faciat reum poena infinita secundum quantitatem. Quinto, utrum omne peccatum faciat reum aeterna et infinita poena. Sexto, utrum reatus poenae possit remanere post peccatum. Septimo, utrum omnis poena inferatur pro aliquo peccato. Octavo, utrum unus sit reus poenae pro peccato alterius. Question 87. The debt of punishment Is the debt of punishment an effect of sin? Can one sin be the punishment of another? Does any sin incur a debt of eternal punishment? Does sin incur a debt of punishment that is infinite in quantity? Does every sin incur a debt of eternal and infinite punishment? Can the debt of punishment remain after sin? Is every punishment inflicted for a sin? Can one person incur punishment for another's sin?
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod reatus poenae non sit effectus peccati. Quod enim per accidens se habet ad aliquid, non videtur esse proprius effectus eius. Sed reatus poenae per accidens se habet ad peccatum, cum sit praeter intentionem peccantis. Ergo reatus poenae non est effectus peccati. Objection 1. It would seem that the debt of punishment is not an effect of sin. For that which is accidentally related to a thing, does not seem to be its proper effect. Now the debt of punishment is accidentally related to sin, for it is beside the intention of the sinner. Therefore the debt of punishment is not an effect of sin.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, malum non est causa boni. Sed poena bona est, cum sit iusta, et a Deo. Ergo non est effectus peccati, quod est malum. Objection 2. Further, evil is not the cause of good. But punishment is good, since it is just, and is from God. Therefore it is not an effect of sin, which is evil.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in I Confess., quod omnis inordinatus animus sibi ipsi est poena. Sed poena non causat reatum alterius poenae, quia sic iretur in infinitum. Ergo peccatum non causat reatum poenae. Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (Confess. i) that "every inordinate affection is its own punishment." But punishment does not incur a further debt of punishment, because then it would go on indefinitely. Therefore sin does not incur the debt of punishment.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom. II, tribulatio et angustia in animam omnem operantis malum. Sed operari malum est peccare. Ergo peccatum inducit poenam, quae nomine tribulationis et angustiae designatur. On the contrary, It is written (Romans 2:9): "Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil." But to work evil is to sin. Therefore sin incurs a punishment which is signified by the words "tribulation and anguish."
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ex rebus naturalibus ad res humanas derivatur ut id quod contra aliquid insurgit, ab eo detrimentum patiatur. Videmus enim in rebus naturalibus quod unum contrarium vehementius agit, altero contrario superveniente, propter quod aquae calefactae magis congelantur, ut dicitur in I Meteor. Unde in hominibus hoc ex naturali inclinatione invenitur, ut unusquisque deprimat eum qui contra ipsum insurgit. Manifestum est autem quod quaecumque continentur sub aliquo ordine, sunt quodammodo unum in ordine ad principium ordinis. Unde quidquid contra ordinem aliquem insurgit, consequens est ut ab ipso ordine, vel principe ordinis, deprimatur. Cum autem peccatum sit actus inordinatus, manifestum est quod quicumque peccat, contra aliquem ordinem agit. Et ideo ab ipso ordine consequens est quod deprimatur. Quae quidem depressio poena est. Unde secundum tres ordines quibus subditur humana voluntas, triplici poena potest homo puniri. Primo quidem enim subditur humana natura ordini propriae rationis; secundo, ordini exterioris hominis gubernantis vel spiritualiter vel temporaliter, politice seu oeconomice; tertio, subditur universali ordini divini regiminis. Quilibet autem horum ordinum per peccatum pervertitur, dum ille qui peccat, agit et contra rationem, et contra legem humanam, et contra legem divinam. Unde triplicem poenam incurrit, unam quidem a seipso, quae est conscientiae remorsus, aliam vero ab homine, tertiam vero a Deo. I answer that, It has passed from natural things to human affairs that whenever one thing rises up against another, it suffers some detriment therefrom. For we observe in natural things that when one contrary supervenes, the other acts with greater energy, for which reason "hot water freezes more rapidly," as stated in Meteor. i, 12. Wherefore we find that the natural inclination of man is to repress those who rise up against him. Now it is evident that all things contained in an order, are, in a manner, one, in relation to the principle of that order. Consequently, whatever rises up against an order, is put down by that order or by the principle thereof. And because sin is an inordinate act, it is evident that whoever sins, commits an offense against an order: wherefore he is put down, in consequence, by that same order, which repression is punishment. Accordingly, man can be punished with a threefold punishment corresponding to the three orders to which the human will is subject. In the first place a man's nature is subjected to the order of his own reason; secondly, it is subjected to the order of another man who governs him either in spiritual or in temporal matters, as a member either of the state or of the household; thirdly, it is subjected to the universal order of the Divine government. Now each of these orders is disturbed by sin, for the sinner acts against his reason, and against human and Divine law. Wherefore he incurs a threefold punishment; one, inflicted by himself, viz. remorse of conscience; another, inflicted by man; and a third, inflicted by God.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod poena consequitur peccatum inquantum malum est, ratione suae inordinationis. Unde sicut malum est per accidens in actu peccantis, praeter intentionem ipsius, ita et reatus poenae. Reply to Objection 1. Punishment follows sin, inasmuch as this is an evil by reason of its being inordinate. Wherefore just as evil is accidental to the sinner's act, being beside his intention, so also is the debt of punishment.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod poena quidem iusta esse potest et a Deo et ab homine inflicta, unde ipsa poena non est effectus peccati directe, sed solum dispositive. Sed peccatum facit hominem esse reum poenae, quod est malum, dicit enim Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod puniri non est malum, sed fieri poena dignum. Unde reatus poenae directe ponitur effectus peccati. Reply to Objection 2. Further, a just punishment may be inflicted either by God or by man: wherefore the punishment itself is the effect of sin, not directly but dispositively. Sin, however, makes man deserving of punishment, and that is an evil: for Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "punishment is not an evil, but to deserve punishment is." Consequently the debt of punishment is considered to be directly the effect of sin.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod poena illa inordinati animi debetur peccato ex hoc quod ordinem rationis pervertit. Fit autem reus alterius poenae, per hoc quod pervertit ordinem legis divinae vel humanae. Reply to Objection 3. This punishment of the "inordinate affection" is due to sin as overturning the order of reason. Nevertheless sin incurs a further punishment, through disturbing the order of the Divine or human law.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatum non possit esse poena peccati. Poenae enim sunt inductae ut per eas homines reducantur ad bonum virtutis, ut patet per philosophum, in X Ethic. Sed per peccatum non reducitur homo in bonum virtutis, sed in oppositum. Ergo peccatum non est poena peccati. Objection 1. It would seem that sin cannot be the punishment of sin. For the purpose of punishment is to bring man back to the good of virtue, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. x, 9). Now sin does not bring man back to the good of virtue, but leads him in the opposite direction. Therefore sin is not the punishment of sin.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, poenae iustae sunt a Deo, ut patet per Augustinum, in libro octoginta trium quaest. Peccatum autem non est a Deo, et est iniustum. Non ergo peccatum potest esse poena peccati. Objection 2. Further, just punishments are from God, as Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 82). But sin is not from God, and is an injustice. Therefore sin cannot be the punishment of sin.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, de ratione poenae est quod sit contra voluntatem. Sed peccatum est a voluntate, ut ex supradictis patet. Ergo peccatum non potest esse poena peccati. Objection 3. Further, the nature of punishment is to be something against the will. But sin is something from the will, as shown above (74, A1,2). Therefore sin cannot be the punishment of sin.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, super Ezech., quod quaedam peccata sunt poenae peccati. On the contrary, Gregory speaks (Hom. xi in Ezech.) that some sins are punishments of others.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod de peccato dupliciter loqui possumus, per se, et per accidens. Per se quidem nullo modo peccatum potest esse poena peccati. Peccatum enim per se consideratur secundum quod egreditur a voluntate, sic enim habet rationem culpae. De ratione autem poenae est quod sit contra voluntatem, ut in primo habitum est. Unde manifestum est quod nullo modo, per se loquendo, peccatum potest esse poena peccati. Per accidens autem peccatum potest esse poena peccati, tripliciter. Primo quidem, ex parte causae quae est remotio prohibentis. Sunt enim causae inclinantes ad peccatum passiones, tentatio Diaboli, et alia huiusmodi; quae quidem causae impediuntur per auxilium divinae gratiae, quae subtrahitur per peccatum. Unde cum ipsa subtractio gratiae sit quaedam poena, et a Deo, ut supra dictum est; sequitur quod per accidens etiam peccatum quod ex hoc sequitur, poena dicatur. Et hoc modo loquitur apostolus, Rom. I, dicens, propter quod tradidit eos Deus in desideria cordis eorum, quae sunt animae passiones, quia scilicet deserti homines ab auxilio divinae gratiae, vincuntur a passionibus. Et hoc modo semper peccatum dicitur esse poena praecedentis peccati. Alio modo ex parte substantiae actus, quae afflictionem inducit, sive sit actus interior, ut patet in ira et invidia; sive actus exterior, ut patet cum aliqui gravi labore opprimuntur et damno, ut expleant actum peccati, secundum illud Sap. V, lassati sumus in via iniquitatis. Tertio modo, ex parte effectus, ut scilicet aliquod peccatum dicatur poena respectu effectus consequentis. Et his duobus ultimis modis, unum peccatum non solum est poena praecedentis peccati, sed etiam sui. I answer that, We may speak of sin in two ways: first, in its essence, as such; secondly, as to that which is accidental thereto. Sin as such can nowise be the punishment of another. Because sin considered in its essence is something proceeding from the will, for it is from this that it derives the character of guilt. Whereas punishment is essentially something against the will, as stated in the I, 48, 5. Consequently it is evident that sin regarded in its essence can nowise be the punishment of sin. On the other hand, sin can be the punishment of sin accidentally in three ways. First, when one sin is the cause of another, by removing an impediment thereto. For passions, temptations of the devil, and the like are causes of sin, but are impeded by the help of Divine grace which is withdrawn on account of sin. Wherefore since the withdrawal of grace is a punishment, and is from God, as stated above (Question 79, Article 3), the result is that the sin which ensues from this is also a punishment accidentally. It is in this sense that the Apostle speaks (Romans 1:24) when he says: "Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart," i.e. to their passions; because, to wit, when men are deprived of the help of Divine grace, they are overcome by their passions. In this way sin is always said to be the punishment of a preceding sin. Secondly, by reason of the substance of the act, which is such as to cause pain, whether it be an interior act, as is clearly the case with anger or envy, or an exterior act, as is the case with one who endures considerable trouble and loss in order to achieve a sinful act, according to Wisdom 5:7: "We wearied ourselves in the way of iniquity." Thirdly, on the part of the effect, so that one sin is said to be a punishment by reason of its effect. In the last two ways, a sin is a punishment not only in respect of a preceding sin, but also with regard to itself.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc etiam quod aliqui puniuntur a Deo, dum permittit eos in aliqua peccata profluere, ad bonum virtutis ordinatur. Quandoque quidem etiam ipsorum qui peccant, cum scilicet post peccatum humiliores et cautiores resurgunt. Semper autem est ad emendationem aliorum, qui videntes aliquos ruere de peccato in peccatum, magis reformidant peccare. In aliis autem duobus modis, manifestum est quod poena ordinatur ad emendationem quia hoc ipsum quod homo laborem et detrimentum patitur in peccando, natum est retrahere homines a peccato. Reply to Objection 1. Even when God punishes men by permitting them to fall into sin, this is directed to the good of virtue. Sometimes indeed it is for the good of those who are punished, when, to wit, men arise from sin, more humble and more cautious. But it is always for the amendment of others, who seeing some men fall from sin to sin, are the more fearful of sinning. With regard to the other two ways, it is evident that the punishment is intended for the sinner's amendment, since the very fact that man endures toil and loss in sinning, is of a nature to withdraw man from sin.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de peccato secundum se. Reply to Objection 2. This objection considers sin essentially as such:
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 2 ad 3 Et similiter dicendum est ad tertium. And the same answer applies to the Third Objection.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod nullum peccatum inducat reatum aeternae poenae. Poena enim iusta adaequatur culpae, iustitia enim aequalitas est. Unde dicitur Isaiae XXVII, in mensura contra mensuram, cum abiecta fuerit, iudicabit eam. Sed peccatum est temporale. Ergo non inducit reatum poenae aeternae. Objection 1. It would seem that no sin incurs a debt of eternal punishment. For a just punishment is equal to the fault, since justice is equality: wherefore it is written (Isaiah 27:8): "In measure against measure, when it shall be cast off, thou shalt judge it." Now sin is temporal. Therefore it does not incur a debt of eternal punishment.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, poenae medicinae quaedam sunt, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed nulla medicina debet esse infinita, quia ordinatur ad finem; quod autem ordinatur ad finem, non est infinitum, ut philosophus dicit, in I Polit. Ergo nulla poena debet esse infinita. Objection 2. Further, "punishments are a kind of medicine" (Ethic. ii, 3). But no medicine should be infinite, because it is directed to an end, and "what is directed to an end, is not infinite," as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 6). Therefore no punishment should be infinite.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, nullus semper facit aliquid, nisi propter se in ipso delectetur. Sed Deus non delectatur in perditione hominum, ut dicitur Sap. I. Ergo non puniet homines poena sempiterna. Objection 3. Further, no one does a thing always unless he delights in it for its own sake. But "God hath not pleasure in the destruction of men" [Vulgate: 'of the living']. Therefore He will not inflict eternal punishment on man.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 3 arg. 4 Praeterea, nihil quod est per accidens, est infinitum. Sed poena est per accidens, non est enim secundum naturam eius qui punitur. Ergo non potest in infinitum durare. Objection 4. Further, nothing accidental is infinite. But punishment is accidental, for it is not natural to the one who is punished. Therefore it cannot be of infinite duration.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. XXV, ibunt hi in supplicium aeternum. Et Marc. III dicitur, qui autem blasphemaverit in spiritum sanctum, non habebit remissionem in aeternum, sed erit reus aeterni delicti. On the contrary, It is written (Matthew 25:46): "These shall go into everlasting punishment"; and (Mark 3:29): "He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin."
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, peccatum ex hoc inducit reatum poenae, quod pervertit aliquem ordinem. Manente autem causa, manet effectus. Unde quandiu perversitas ordinis remanet, necesse est quod remaneat reatus poenae. Pervertit autem aliquis ordinem quandoque quidem reparabiliter, quandoque autem irreparabiliter. Semper enim defectus quo subtrahitur principium, irreparabilis est, si autem salvetur principium, eius virtute defectus reparari possunt. Sicut si corrumpatur principium visivum, non potest fieri visionis reparatio, nisi sola virtute divina, si vero, salvo principio visivo, aliqua impedimenta adveniant visioni, reparari possunt per naturam vel per artem. Cuiuslibet autem ordinis est aliquod principium, per quod aliquis fit particeps illius ordinis. Et ideo si per peccatum corrumpatur principium ordinis quo voluntas hominis subditur Deo, erit inordinatio, quantum est de se, irreparabilis, etsi reparari possit virtute divina. Principium autem huius ordinis est ultimus finis, cui homo inhaeret per caritatem. Et ideo quaecumque peccata avertunt a Deo, caritatem auferentia, quantum est de se, inducunt reatum aeternae poenae. I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), sin incurs a debt of punishment through disturbing an order. But the effect remains so long as the cause remains. Wherefore so long as the disturbance of the order remains the debt of punishment must needs remain also. Now disturbance of an order is sometimes reparable, sometimes irreparable: because a defect which destroys the principle is irreparable, whereas if the principle be saved, defects can be repaired by virtue of that principle. For instance, if the principle of sight be destroyed, sight cannot be restored except by Divine power; whereas, if the principle of sight be preserved, while there arise certain impediments to the use of sight, these can be remedied by nature or by art. Now in every order there is a principle whereby one takes part in that order. Consequently if a sin destroys the principle of the order whereby man's will is subject to God, the disorder will be such as to be considered in itself, irreparable, although it is possible to repair it by the power of God. Now the principle of this order is the last end, to which man adheres by charity. Therefore whatever sins turn man away from God, so as to destroy charity, considered in themselves, incur a debt of eternal punishment.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod poena peccato proportionatur secundum acerbitatem, tam in iudicio divino quam in humano, sicut Augustinus dicit, XXI de Civ. Dei, in nullo iudicio requiritur ut poena adaequetur culpae secundum durationem. Non enim quia adulterium vel homicidium in momento committitur, propter hoc momentanea poena punitur, sed quandoque quidem perpetuo carcere vel exilio, quandoque etiam morte. In qua non consideratur occisionis mora, sed potius quod in perpetuum auferatur a societate viventium, et sic repraesentat suo modo aeternitatem poenae inflictae divinitus. Iustum autem est, secundum Gregorium, quod qui in suo aeterno peccavit contra Deum, in aeterno Dei puniatur. Dicitur autem aliquis in suo aeterno peccasse, non solum secundum continuationem actus in tota hominis vita durantis, sed quia ex hoc ipso quod finem in peccato constituit, voluntatem habet in aeternum peccandi. Unde dicit Gregorius, XXXIV Moral., quod iniqui voluissent sine fine vivere, ut sine fine potuissent in iniquitatibus permanere. Reply to Objection 1. Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. In no judgment, however, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 11) is it requisite for punishment to equal fault in point of duration. For the fact that adultery or murder is committed in a moment does not call for a momentary punishment: in fact they are punished sometimes by imprisonment or banishment for life--sometimes even by death; wherein account is not taken of the time occupied in killing, but rather of the expediency of removing the murderer from the fellowship of the living, so that this punishment, in its own way, represents the eternity of punishment inflicted by God. Now according to Gregory (Dial. iv, 44) it is just that he who has sinned against God in his own eternity should be punished in God's eternity. A man is said to have sinned in his own eternity, not only as regards continual sinning throughout his whole life, but also because, from the very fact that he fixes his end in sin, he has the will to sin, everlastingly. Wherefore Gregory says (Dial. iv, 44) that the "wicked would wish to live without end, that they might abide in their sins for ever."
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod poena etiam quae secundum leges humanas infligitur, non semper est medicinalis ei qui punitur, sed solum aliis, sicut cum latro suspenditur, non ut ipse emendetur, sed propter alios, ut saltem metu poenae peccare desistant; secundum illud Prov. XIX, pestilente flagellato, stultus sapientior erit. Sic igitur et aeternae poenae reproborum a Deo inflictae, sunt medicinales his qui consideratione poenarum abstinent a peccatis; secundum illud Psalmi LIX, dedisti metuentibus te significationem, ut fugiant a facie arcus, ut liberentur dilecti tui. Reply to Objection 2. Even the punishment that is inflicted according to human laws, is not always intended as a medicine for the one who is punished, but sometimes only for others: thus when a thief is hanged, this is not for his own amendment, but for the sake of others, that at least they may be deterred from crime through fear of the punishment, according to Proverbs 19:25: "The wicked man being scourged, the fool shall be wiser." Accordingly the eternal punishments inflicted by God on the reprobate, are medicinal punishments for those who refrain from sin through the thought of those punishments, according to Psalm 59:6: "Thou hast given a warning to them that fear Thee, that they may flee from before the bow, that Thy beloved may be delivered."
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Deus non delectatur in poenis propter ipsas; sed delectatur in ordine suae iustitiae, quae haec requirit. Reply to Objection 3. God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 3 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod poena, etsi per accidens ordinetur ad naturam, per se tamen ordinatur ad privationem ordinis et ad Dei iustitiam. Et ideo, durante inordinatione, semper durat poena. Reply to Objection 4. Although punishment is related indirectly to nature, nevertheless it is essentially related to the disturbance of the order, and to God's justice. Wherefore, so long as the disturbance lasts, the punishment endures.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccato debeatur poena infinita secundum quantitatem. Dicitur enim Ierem. X, corripe me, domine, veruntamen in iudicio, et non in furore tuo, ne forte ad nihilum redigas me. Ira autem vel furor Dei metaphorice significat vindictam divinae iustitiae, redigi autem in nihilum est poena infinita, sicut et ex nihilo aliquid facere est virtutis infinitae. Ergo secundum vindictam divinam, peccatum punitur poena infinita secundum quantitatem. Objection 1. It would seem that sin incurs a debt of punishment infinite in quantity. For it is written (Jeremiah 10:24): "Correct me, O Lord, but yet with judgment: and not in Thy fury, lest Thou bring me to nothing." Now God's anger or fury signifies metaphorically the vengeance of Divine justice: and to be brought to nothing is an infinite punishment, even as to make a thing out of nothing denotes infinite power. Therefore according to God's vengeance, sin is awarded a punishment infinite in quantity.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, quantitati culpae respondet quantitas poenae; secundum illud Deuteron. XXV, pro mensura peccati erit et plagarum modus. Sed peccatum quod contra Deum committitur, est infinitum, tanto enim gravius est peccatum, quanto maior est persona contra quam peccatur, sicut gravius peccatum est percutere principem quam percutere hominem privatum; Dei autem magnitudo est infinita. Ergo poena infinita debetur pro peccato quod contra Deum committitur. Objection 2. Further, quantity of punishment corresponds to quantity of fault, according to Deuteronomy 25:2: "According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be." Now a sin which is committed against God, is infinite: because the gravity of a sin increases according to the greatness of the person sinned against (thus it is a more grievous sin to strike the sovereign than a private individual), and God's greatness is infinite. Therefore an infinite punishment is due for a sin committed against God.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, dupliciter est aliquid infinitum, duratione scilicet, et quantitate. Sed duratione est poena infinita. Ergo et quantitate. Objection 3. Further, a thing may be infinite in two ways, in duration, and in quantity. Now the punishment is infinite in duration. Therefore it is infinite in quantity also.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quia secundum hoc omnium mortalium peccatorum poenae essent aequales, non enim est infinitum infinito maius. On the contrary, If this were the case, the punishments of all mortal sins would be equal; because one infinite is not greater than another.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod poena proportionatur peccato. In peccato autem duo sunt. Quorum unum est aversio ab incommutabili bono, quod est infinitum, unde ex hac parte peccatum est infinitum. Aliud quod est in peccato, est inordinata conversio ad commutabile bonum. Et ex hac parte peccatum est finitum, tum quia ipsum bonum commutabile est finitum; tum quia ipsa conversio est finita, non enim possunt esse actus creaturae infiniti. Ex parte igitur aversionis, respondet peccato poena damni, quae etiam est infinita, est enim amissio infiniti boni, scilicet Dei. Ex parte autem inordinatae conversionis, respondet ei poena sensus, quae etiam est finita. I answer that, Punishment is proportionate to sin. Now sin comprises two things. First, there is the turning away from the immutable good, which is infinite, wherefore, in this respect, sin is infinite. Secondly, there is the inordinate turning to mutable good. In this respect sin is finite, both because the mutable good itself is finite, and because the movement of turning towards it is finite, since the acts of a creature cannot be infinite. Accordingly, in so far as sin consists in turning away from something, its corresponding punishment is the "pain of loss," which also is infinite, because it is the loss of the infinite good, i.e. God. But in so far as sin turns inordinately to something, its corresponding punishment is the "pain of sense," which is also finite.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omnino redigi in nihilum eum qui peccat, non convenit divinae iustitiae, quia repugnat perpetuitati poenae, quae est secundum divinam iustitiam, ut dictum est. Sed in nihilum redigi dicitur qui spiritualibus bonis privatur; secundum illud I Cor. XIII, si non habuero caritatem, nihil sum. Reply to Objection 1. It would be inconsistent with Divine justice for the sinner to be brought to nothing absolutely, because this would be incompatible with the perpetuity of punishment that Divine justice requires, as stated above (Article 3). The expression "to be brought to nothing" is applied to one who is deprived of spiritual goods, according to 1 Corinthians 13:2: "If I . . . have not charity, I am nothing."
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de peccato ex parte aversionis, sic enim homo contra Deum peccat. Reply to Objection 2. This argument considers sin as turning away from something, for it is thus that man sins against God.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod duratio poenae respondet durationi culpae, non quidem ex parte actus, sed ex parte maculae, qua durante manet reatus poenae. Sed acerbitas poenae respondet gravitati culpae. Culpa autem quae est irreparabilis, de se habet quod perpetuo duret, et ideo debetur ei poena aeterna. Non autem ex parte conversionis habet infinitatem, et ideo non debetur ei ex hac parte poena infinita secundum quantitatem. Reply to Objection 3. Duration of punishment corresponds to duration of fault, not indeed as regards the act, but on the part of the stain, for as long as this remains, the debt of punishment remains. But punishment corresponds to fault in the point of severity. And a fault which is irreparable, is such that, of itself, it lasts for ever; wherefore it incurs an everlasting punishment. But it is not infinite as regards the thing it turns to; wherefore, in this respect, it does not incur punishment of infinite quantity.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod omne peccatum inducat reatum poenae aeternae. Poena enim, ut dictum est, proportionatur culpae. Sed poena aeterna differt a temporali in infinitum. Nullum autem peccatum differre videtur ab altero in infinitum, cum omne peccatum sit humanus actus, qui infinitus esse non potest. Cum ergo alicui peccato debeatur poena aeterna, sicut dictum est, videtur quod nulli peccato debeatur poena temporalis tantum. Objection 1. It would seem that every sin incurs a debt of eternal punishment. Because punishment, as stated above (Article 4), is proportionate to the fault. Now eternal punishment differs infinitely from temporal punishment: whereas no sin, apparently, differs infinitely from another, since every sin is a human act, which cannot be infinite. Since therefore some sins incur a debt of everlasting punishment, as stated above (Article 4), it seems that no sin incurs a debt of mere temporal punishment.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, peccatum originale est minimum peccatorum, unde et Augustinus dicit, in Enchirid., quod mitissima poena est eorum qui pro solo peccato originali puniuntur. Sed peccato originali debetur poena perpetua, nunquam enim videbunt regnum Dei pueri qui sine Baptismo decesserunt cum originali peccato; ut patet per id quod dominus dicit, Ioan. III, nisi quis renatus fuerit denuo, non potest videre regnum Dei. Ergo multo magis omnium aliorum peccatorum poena erit aeterna. Objection 2. Further, original sin is the least of all sins, wherefore Augustine says (Enchiridion xciii) that "the lightest punishment is incurred by those who are punished for original sin alone." But original sin incurs everlasting punishment, since children who have died in original sin through not being baptized, will never see the kingdom of God, as shown by our Lord's words (John 3:3): " Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Much more, therefore, will the punishments of all other sins be everlasting.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, peccato non debetur maior poena ex hoc quod alteri peccato adiungitur, cum utrumque peccatum suam habeat poenam taxatam secundum divinam iustitiam. Sed peccato veniali debetur poena aeterna, si cum mortali peccato inveniatur in aliquo damnato, quia in Inferno nulla potest esse remissio. Ergo peccato veniali simpliciter debetur poena aeterna. Nulli ergo peccato debetur poena temporalis. Objection 3. Further, a sin does not deserve greater punishment through being united to another sin; for Divine justice has allotted its punishment to each sin. Now a venial sin deserves eternal punishment if it be united to a mortal sin in a lost soul, because in hell there is no remission of sins. Therefore venial sin by itself deserves eternal punishment. Therefore temporal punishment is not due for any sin.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, in IV Dialog., quod quaedam leviores culpae post hanc vitam remittuntur. Non ergo omnia peccata aeterna poena puniuntur. On the contrary, Gregory says (Dial. iv, 39), that certain slighter sins are remitted after this life. Therefore all sins are not punished eternally.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, peccatum causat reatum poenae aeternae, inquantum irreparabiliter repugnat ordini divinae iustitiae, per hoc scilicet quod contrariatur ipsi principio ordinis, quod est ultimus finis. Manifestum est autem quod in quibusdam peccatis est quidem aliqua inordinatio, non tamen per contrarietatem ad ultimum finem, sed solum circa ea quae sunt ad finem, inquantum plus vel minus debite eis intenditur, salvato tamen ordine ad ultimum finem, puta cum homo, etsi nimis ad aliquam rem temporalem afficiatur, non tamen pro ea vellet Deum offendere, aliquid contra praeceptum eius faciendo. Unde huiusmodi peccatis non debetur aeterna poena, sed temporalis. I answer that, As stated above (Article 3), a sin incurs a debt of eternal punishment, in so far as it causes an irreparable disorder in the order of Divine justice, through being contrary to the very principle of that order, viz. the last end. Now it is evident that in some sins there is disorder indeed, but such as not to involve contrariety in respect of the last end, but only in respect of things referable to the end, in so far as one is too much or too little intent on them without prejudicing the order to the last end: as, for instance, when a man is too fond of some temporal thing, yet would not offend God for its sake, by breaking one of His commandments. Consequently such sins do not incur everlasting, but only temporal punishment.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod peccata non differunt in infinitum ex parte conversionis ad bonum commutabile, in qua consistit substantia actus, differunt autem in infinitum ex parte aversionis. Nam quaedam peccata committuntur per aversionem ab ultimo fine, quaedam vero per inordinationem circa ea quae sunt ad finem. Finis autem ultimus ab his quae sunt ad finem, in infinitum differt. Reply to Objection 1. Sins do not differ infinitely from one another in respect of their turning towards mutable good, which constitutes the substance of the sinful act; but they do differ infinitely in respect of their turning away from something. Because some sins consist in turning away from the last end, and some in a disorder affecting things referable to the end: and the last end differs infinitely from the things that are referred to it.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod peccato originali non debetur poena aeterna ratione suae gravitatis, sed ratione conditionis subiecti, scilicet hominis qui sine gratia invenitur, per quam solam fit remissio poenae. Reply to Objection 2. Original sin incurs everlasting punishment, not on account of its gravity, but by reason of the condition of the subject, viz. a human being deprived of grace, without which there is no remission of sin.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 5 ad 3 Et similiter dicendum est ad tertium, de veniali peccato. Aeternitas enim poenae non respondet quantitati culpae, sed irremissibilitati ipsius, ut dictum est. The same answer applies to the Third Objection about venial sin. Because eternity of punishment does not correspond to the quantity of the sin, but to its irremissibility, as stated above (Article 3).
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod reatus poenae non remaneat post peccatum. Remota enim causa, removetur effectus. Sed peccatum est causa reatus poenae. Ergo, remoto peccato, cessat reatus poenae. Objection 1. It would seem that there remains no debt of punishment after sin. For if the cause be removed the effect is removed. But sin is the cause of the debt of punishment. Therefore, when the sin is removed, the debt of punishment ceases also.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, peccatum removetur per hoc quod homo ad virtutem redit. Sed virtuoso non debetur poena, sed magis praemium. Ergo, remoto peccato, non remanet reatus poenae. Objection 2. Further, sin is removed by man returning to virtue. Now a virtuous man deserves, not punishment, but reward. Therefore, when sin is removed, the debt of punishment no longer remains.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, poenae sunt medicinae, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed postquam aliquis iam est ab infirmitate curatus, non adhibetur sibi medicina. Ergo, remoto peccato, non remanet debitum poenae. Objection 3. Further, "Punishments are a kind of medicine" (Ethic. ii, 3). But a man is not given medicine after being cured of his disease. Therefore, when sin is removed the debt of punishment does not remain.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur II Reg. XII, quod David dixit ad Nathan, peccavi domino. Dixitque Nathan ad David, dominus quoque transtulit peccatum tuum, non morieris. Veruntamen quia blasphemare fecisti inimicos nomen domini, filius qui natus est tibi, morte morietur. Punitur ergo aliquis a Deo etiam postquam ei peccatum dimittitur. Et sic reatus poenae remanet, peccato remoto. On the contrary, It is written (2 Samuel 12:13-14): "David said to Nathan: I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David: The Lord also hath taken away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Nevertheless because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme . . . the child that is born to thee shall die." Therefore a man is punished by God even after his sin is forgiven: and so the debt of punishment remains, when the sin has been removed.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in peccato duo possunt considerari, scilicet actus culpae, et macula sequens. Planum est autem quod, cessante actu peccati, remanet reatus, in omnibus peccatis actualibus. Actus enim peccati facit hominem reum poenae, inquantum transgreditur ordinem divinae iustitiae; ad quem non redit nisi per quandam recompensationem poenae, quae ad aequalitatem iustitiae reducit; ut scilicet qui plus voluntati suae indulsit quam debuit, contra mandatum Dei agens, secundum ordinem divinae iustitiae, aliquid contra illud quod vellet, spontaneus vel invitus patiatur. Quod etiam in iniuriis hominibus factis observatur, ut per recompensationem poenae reintegretur aequalitas iustitiae. Unde patet quod, cessante actu peccati vel iniuriae illatae, adhuc remanet debitum poenae. Sed si loquamur de ablatione peccati quantum ad maculam, sic manifestum est quod macula peccati ab anima auferri non potest, nisi per hoc quod anima Deo coniungitur, per cuius distantiam detrimentum proprii nitoris incurrebat, quod est macula, ut supra dictum est. Coniungitur autem homo Deo per voluntatem. Unde macula peccati ab homine tolli non potest nisi voluntas hominis ordinem divinae iustitiae acceptet, ut scilicet vel ipse poenam sibi spontaneus assumat in recompensationem culpae praeteritae, vel etiam a Deo illatam patienter sustineat, utroque enim modo poena rationem satisfactionis habet. Poena autem satisfactoria diminuit aliquid de ratione poenae. Est enim de ratione poenae quod sit contra voluntatem. Poena autem satisfactoria, etsi secundum absolutam considerationem sit contra voluntatem, tamen tunc, et pro hoc, est voluntaria. Unde simpliciter est voluntaria, secundum quid autem involuntaria, sicut patet ex his quae supra de voluntario et involuntario dicta sunt. Dicendum est ergo quod, remota macula culpae, potest quidem remanere reatus non poenae simpliciter, sed satisfactoriae. I answer that, Two things may be considered in sin: the guilty act, and the consequent stain. Now it is evident that in all actual sins, when the act of sin has ceased, the guilt remains; because the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice; so that, according to the order of Divine justice, he who has been too indulgent to his will, by transgressing God's commandments, suffers, either willingly or unwillingly, something contrary to what he would wish. This restoration of the equality of justice by penal compensation is also to be observed in injuries done to one's fellow men. Consequently it is evident that when the sinful or injurious act has ceased there still remains the debt of punishment. But if we speak of the removal of sin as to the stain, it is evident that the stain of sin cannot be removed from the soul, without the soul being united to God, since it was through being separated from Him that it suffered the loss of its brightness, in which the stain consists, as stated above (Question 86, Article 1). Now man is united to God by his will. Wherefore the stain of sin cannot be removed from man, unless his will accept the order of Divine justice, that is to say, unless either of his own accord he take upon himself the punishment of his past sin, or bear patiently the punishment which God inflicts on him; and in both ways punishment avails for satisfaction. Now when punishment is satisfactory, it loses somewhat of the nature of punishment: for the nature of punishment is to be against the will; and although satisfactory punishment, absolutely speaking, is against the will, nevertheless in this particular case and for this particular purpose, it is voluntary. Consequently it is voluntary simply, but involuntary in a certain respect, as we have explained when speaking of the voluntary and the involuntary (6, 6). We must, therefore, say that, when the stain of sin has been removed, there may remain a debt of punishment, not indeed of punishment simply, but of satisfactory punishment.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sicut, cessante actu peccati, remanet macula, ut supra dictum est; ita etiam potest remanere reatus. Cessante vero macula, non remanet reatus secundum eandem rationem, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. Just as after the act of sin has ceased, the stain remains, as stated above (Question 86, Article 2), so the debt of punishment also can remain. But when the stain has been removed, the debt of punishment does not remain in the same way, as stated.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod virtuoso non debetur poena simpliciter, potest tamen sibi deberi poena ut satisfactoria, quia hoc ipsum ad virtutem pertinet, ut satisfaciat pro his in quibus offendit vel Deum vel hominem. Reply to Objection 2. The virtuous man does not deserve punishment simply, but he may deserve it as satisfactory: because his very virtue demands that he should do satisfaction for his offenses against God or man.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, remota macula, sanatum est vulnus peccati quantum ad voluntatem. Requiritur autem adhuc poena ad sanationem aliarum virium animae, quae per peccatum praecedens deordinatae fuerunt, ut scilicet per contraria curentur. Requiritur etiam ad restituendum aequalitatem iustitiae; et ad amovendum scandalum aliorum, ut aedificentur in poena qui sunt scandalizati in culpa; ut patet ex exemplo de David inducto. Reply to Objection 3. When the stain is removed, the wound of sin is healed as regards the will. But punishment is still requisite in order that the other powers of the soul be healed, since they were so disordered by the sin committed, so that, to wit, the disorder may be remedied by the contrary of that which caused it. Moreover punishment is requisite in order to restore the equality of justice, and to remove the scandal given to others, so that those who were scandalized at the sin many be edified by the punishment, as may be seen in the example of David quoted above.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnis poena sit propter aliquam culpam. Dicitur enim Ioan. IX, de caeco nato, neque hic peccavit, neque parentes eius, ut nasceretur caecus. Et similiter videmus quod multi pueri, etiam baptizati, graves poenas patiuntur, ut puta febres, Daemonum oppressiones, et multa huiusmodi, cum tamen in eis non sit peccatum, postquam sunt baptizati. Et antequam sint baptizati, non est in eis plus de peccato quam in aliis pueris, qui haec non patiuntur. Non ergo omnis poena est pro peccato. Objection 1. It would seem that not every punishment is inflicted for a sin. For it is written (John 9:3,2) about the man born blind: "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents . . . that he should be born blind." In like manner we see that many children, those also who have been baptized, suffer grievous punishments, fevers, for instance, diabolical possession, and so forth, and yet there is no sin in them after they have been baptized. Moreover before they are baptized, there is no more sin in them than in the other children who do not suffer such things. Therefore not every punishment is inflicted for a sin.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, eiusdem rationis esse videtur quod peccatores prosperentur, et quod aliqui innocentes puniantur. Utrumque autem in rebus humanis frequenter invenimus, dicitur enim de iniquis in Psalmo LXXII, in labore hominum non sunt, et cum hominibus non flagellabuntur; et Iob XXI, impii vivunt, sublevati sunt, confortatique divitiis; et Habacuc I, dicitur, quare respicis contemptores et taces, conculcante impio iustiorem se? Non ergo omnis poena infligitur pro culpa. Objection 2. Further, that sinners should thrive and that the innocent should be punished seem to come under the same head. Now each of these is frequently observed in human affairs, for it is written about the wicked (Psalm 72:5): "They are not in the labor of men: neither shall they be scourged like other men"; and (Job 21:7): "[Why then do] the wicked live, are [they] advanced, and strengthened with riches" (?)[The words in brackets show the readings of the Vulgate]; and (Habakkuk 1:13): "Why lookest Thou upon the contemptuous [Vulgate: 'them that do unjust things'], and holdest Thy peace, when the wicked man oppresseth [Vulgate: 'devoureth'], the man that is more just than himself?" Therefore not every punishment is inflicted for a sin.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, de Christo dicitur I Pet. II, quod peccatum non fecit, nec inventus est dolus in ore eius. Et tamen ibidem dicitur quod passus est pro nobis. Ergo non semper poena a Deo dispensatur pro culpa. Objection 3. Further, it is written of Christ (1 Peter 2:22) that "He did no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth." And yet it is said (1 Peter 2:21) that "He suffered for us." Therefore punishment is not always inflicted by God for sin.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Iob IV, quis unquam innocens periit? Aut quando recti deleti sunt? Quin potius vidi eos qui operantur iniquitatem, flante Deo, periisse. Et Augustinus dicit, in I Retract., quod omnis poena iusta est, et pro peccato aliquo impenditur. On the contrary, It is written (Job 4:7, seqq.): "Who ever perished innocent? Or when were the just destroyed? On the contrary, I have seen those who work iniquity . . . perishing by the blast of God"; and Augustine writes (Retract. i) that "all punishment is just, and is inflicted for a sin."
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, poena potest dupliciter considerari, simpliciter, et inquantum est satisfactoria. Poena quidem satisfactoria est quodammodo voluntaria. Et quia contingit eos qui differunt in reatu poenae, esse unum secundum voluntatem unione amoris, inde est quod interdum aliquis qui non peccavit, poenam voluntarius pro alio portat, sicut etiam in rebus humanis videmus quod aliquis in se transfert alterius debitum. Si vero loquamur de poena simpliciter, secundum quod habet rationem poenae, sic semper habet ordinem ad culpam propriam, sed quandoque quidem ad culpam actualem, puta quando aliquis vel a Deo vel ab homine pro peccato commisso punitur; quandoque vero ad culpam originalem. Et hoc quidem vel principaliter, vel consequenter. Principaliter quidem poena originalis peccati est quod natura humana sibi relinquitur, destituta auxilio originalis iustitiae, sed ad hoc consequuntur omnes poenalitates quae ex defectu naturae in hominibus contingunt. Sciendum tamen est quod quandoque aliquid videtur esse poenale, quod tamen non habet simpliciter rationem poenae. Poena enim est species mali, ut in primo dictum est. Malum autem est privatio boni. Cum autem sint plura hominis bona, scilicet animae, corporis, et exteriorum rerum; contingit interdum quod homo patiatur detrimentum in minori bono, ut augeatur in maiori, sicut cum patitur detrimentum pecuniae propter sanitatem corporis, vel in utroque horum propter salutem animae et propter gloriam Dei. Et tunc tale detrimentum non est simpliciter malum hominis, sed secundum quid. Unde non dicit simpliciter rationem poenae, sed medicinae, nam et medici austeras potiones propinant infirmis, ut conferant sanitatem. Et quia huiusmodi non proprie habent rationem poenae, non reducuntur ad culpam sicut ad causam, nisi pro tanto, quia hoc ipsum quod oportet humanae naturae medicinas poenales exhibere, est ex corruptione naturae, quae est poena originalis peccati. In statu enim innocentiae non oportuisset aliquem ad profectum virtutis inducere per poenalia exercitia. Unde hoc ipsum quod est poenale in talibus reducitur ad originalem culpam sicut ad causam. I answer that, As already stated (6), punishment can be considered in two ways--simply, and as being satisfactory. A satisfactory punishment is, in a way, voluntary. And since those who differ as to the debt of punishment, may be one in will by the union of love, it happens that one who has not sinned, bears willingly the punishment for another: thus even in human affairs we see men take the debts of another upon themselves. If, however, we speak of punishment simply, in respect of its being something penal, it has always a relation to a sin in the one punished. Sometimes this is a relation to actual sin, as when a man is punished by God or man for a sin committed by him. Sometimes it is a relation to original sin: and this, either principally or consequently--principally, the punishment of original sin is that human nature is left to itself, and deprived of original justice: and consequently, all the penalties which result from this defect in human nature. Nevertheless we must observe that sometimes a thing seems penal, and yet is not so simply. Because punishment is a species of evil, as stated in the I, 48, 5. Now evil is privation of good. And since man's good is manifold, viz. good of the soul, good of the body, and external goods, it happens sometimes that man suffers the loss of a lesser good, that he may profit in a greater good, as when he suffers loss of money for the sake of bodily health, or loss of both of these, for the sake of his soul's health and the glory of God. In such cases the loss is an evil to man, not simply but relatively; wherefore it does not answer to the name of punishment simply, but of medicinal punishment, because a medical man prescribes bitter potions to his patients, that he may restore them to health. And since such like are not punishments properly speaking, they are not referred to sin as their cause, except in a restricted sense: because the very fact that human nature needs a treatment of penal medicines, is due to the corruption of nature which is itself the punishment of original sin. For there was no need, in the state of innocence, for penal exercises in order to make progress in virtue; so that whatever is penal in the exercise of virtue, is reduced to original sin as its cause.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod huiusmodi defectus eorum qui nascuntur, vel etiam puerorum, sunt effectus et poenae originalis peccati, ut dictum est. Et manent etiam post Baptismum, propter causam superius dictam. Et quod non sint aequaliter in omnibus, contingit propter naturae diversitatem, quae sibi relinquitur, ut supra dictum est. Ordinantur tamen huiusmodi defectus, secundum divinam providentiam, ad salutem hominum, vel eorum qui patiuntur, vel aliorum, qui poenis admonentur; et etiam ad gloriam Dei. Reply to Objection 1. Such like defects of those who are born with them, or which children suffer from, are the effects and the punishments of original sin, as stated above (Question 85, Article 5); and they remain even after baptism, for the cause stated above (85, 5, ad 2): and that they are not equally in all, is due to the diversity of nature, which is left to itself, as stated above (85, 5, ad 1). Nevertheless, they are directed by Divine providence, to the salvation of men, either of those who suffer, or of others who are admonished by their means--and also to the glory of God.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod bona temporalia et corporalia sunt quidem aliqua bona hominis, sed parva, bona vero spiritualia sunt magna hominis bona. Pertinet igitur ad divinam iustitiam ut virtuosis det spiritualia bona; et de temporalibus bonis vel malis tantum det eis, quantum sufficit ad virtutem, ut enim Dionysius dicit, VIII cap. de Div. Nom., divinae iustitiae est non emollire optimorum fortitudinem materialium donationibus. Aliis vero hoc ipsum quod temporalia dantur, in malum spiritualium cedit. Unde in Psalmo LXXII concluditur, ideo tenuit eos superbia. Reply to Objection 2. Temporal and bodily goods are indeed goods of man, but they are of small account: whereas spiritual goods are man's chief goods. Consequently it belongs to Divine justice to give spiritual goods to the virtuous, and to award them as much temporal goods or evils, as suffices for virtue: for, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. viii), "Divine justice does not enfeeble the fortitude of the virtuous man, by material gifts." The very fact that others receive temporal goods, is detrimental to their spiritual good; wherefore the psalm quoted concludes (verse 6): "Therefore pride hath held them fast."
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Christus poenam sustinuit satisfactoriam non pro suis, sed pro nostris peccatis. Reply to Objection 3. Christ bore a satisfactory punishment, not for His, but for our sins.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis puniatur pro peccato alterius. Dicitur enim Exodi XX, ego sum Deus Zelotes, visitans iniquitatem patrum in filios in tertiam et quartam generationem, his qui oderunt me. Et Matth. XXIII dicitur, ut veniat super vos omnis sanguis iustus qui effusus est super terram. Objection 1. It would seem that one may be punished for another's sin. For it is written (Exodus 20:5): "I am . . . God . . . jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me"; and (Matthew 23:35): "That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth."
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, iustitia humana derivatur a iustitia divina. Sed secundum iustitiam humanam aliquando filii puniuntur pro parentibus, sicut patet in crimine laesae maiestatis. Ergo etiam secundum divinam iustitiam, unus punitur pro peccato alterius. Objection 2. Further, human justice springs from Divine justice. Now, according to human justice, children are sometimes punished for their parents, as in the case of high treason. Therefore also according to Divine justice, one is punished for another's sin.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, si dicatur filius non puniri pro peccato patris, sed pro peccato proprio, inquantum imitatur malitiam paternam, non magis hoc diceretur de filiis quam de extraneis, qui simili poena puniuntur his quorum peccata imitantur. Non ergo videtur quod filii pro peccatis propriis puniantur, sed pro peccatis parentum. Objection 3. Further, if it be replied that the son is punished, not for the father's sin, but for his own, inasmuch as he imitates his father's wickedness; this would not be said of the children rather than of outsiders, who are punished in like manner as those whose crimes they imitate. It seems, therefore, that children are punished, not for their own sins, but for those of their parents.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Ezech. XVIII, filius non portabit iniquitatem patris. On the contrary, It is written (Ezekiel 18:20): "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father."
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, si loquamur de poena satisfactoria, quae voluntarie assumitur, contingit quod unus portet poenam alterius inquantum sunt quodammodo unum, sicut iam dictum est. Si autem loquamur de poena pro peccato inflicta, inquantum habet rationem poenae, sic solum unusquisque pro peccato suo punitur, quia actus peccati aliquid personale est. Si autem loquamur de poena quae habet rationem medicinae, sic contingit quod unus punitur pro peccato alterius. Dictum est enim quod detrimenta corporalium rerum, vel etiam ipsius corporis, sunt quaedam poenales medicinae ordinatae ad salutem animae. Unde nihil prohibet talibus poenis aliquem puniri pro peccato alterius, vel a Deo vel ab homine, utpote filios pro patribus, et subditos pro dominis, inquantum sunt quaedam res eorum. Ita tamen quod, si filius vel subditus est particeps culpae, huiusmodi poenalis defectus habet rationem poenae quantum ad utrumque, scilicet eum qui punitur, et eum pro quo punitur. Si vero non sit particeps culpae, habet rationem poenae quantum ad eum pro quo punitur, quantum vero ad eum qui punitur, rationem medicinae tantum, nisi per accidens, inquantum peccato alterius consentit; ordinatur enim ei ad bonum animae, si patienter sustineat. Poenae vero spirituales non sunt medicinales tantum, quia bonum animae non ordinatur ad aliud melius bonum. Unde in bonis animae nullus patitur detrimentum sine culpa propria. Et propter hoc etiam talibus poenis, ut dicit Augustinus in epistola ad avitum, unus non punitur pro alio, quia quantum ad animam, filius non est res patris. Unde et huius causam dominus assignans, dicit, Ezech. XVIII, omnes animae meae sunt. I answer that, If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another's punishment, in so far as they are, in some way, one, as stated above (Article 7). If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sin only, because the sinful act is something personal. But if we speak of a punishment that is medicinal, in this way it does happen that one is punished for another's sin. For it has been stated (7) that ills sustained in bodily goods or even in the body itself, are medicinal punishments intended for the health of the soul. Wherefore there is no reason why one should not have such like punishments inflicted on one for another's sin, either by God or by man; e.g. on children for their parents, or on servants for their masters, inasmuch as they are their property so to speak; in such a way, however, that, if the children or the servants take part in the sin, this penal ill has the character of punishment in regard to both the one punished and the one he is punished for. But if they do not take part in the sin, it has the character of punishment in regard to the one for whom the punishment is borne, while, in regard to the one who is punished, it is merely medicinal (except accidentally, if he consent to the other's sin), since it is intended for the good of his soul, if he bears it patiently. With regard to spiritual punishments, these are not merely medicinal, because the good of the soul is not directed to a yet higher good. Consequently no one suffers loss in the goods of the soul without some fault of his own. Wherefore Augustine says (Ep. ad Avit.) [Ep. ad Auxilium, ccl.], such like punishments are not inflicted on one for another's sin, because, as regards the soul, the son is not the father's property. Hence the Lord assigns the reason for this by saying (Ezekiel 18:4): "All souls are Mine."
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod utrumque dictum videtur esse referendum ad poenas temporales vel corporales, inquantum filii sunt res quaedam parentum, et successores praedecessorum. Vel si referatur ad poenas spirituales, hoc dicitur propter imitationem culpae, unde in Exodo additur, his qui oderunt me; et in Matthaeo dicitur, et vos implete mensuram patrum vestrorum. Dicit autem puniri peccata patrum in filiis, quia filii, in peccatis parentum nutriti, proniores sunt ad peccandum, tum propter consuetudinem; tum etiam propter exemplum, patrum quasi auctoritatem sequentes. Sunt etiam maiori poena digni, si, poenas patrum videntes, correcti non sunt. Ideo autem addidit, in tertiam et quartam generationem, quia tantum consueverunt homines vivere, ut tertiam et quartam generationem videant; et sic mutuo videre possunt et filii peccata patrum ad imitandum, et patres poenas filiorum ad dolendum. Reply to Objection 1. Both the passages quoted should, seemingly, be referred to temporal or bodily punishments, in so far as children are the property of their parents, and posterity, of their forefathers. Else, if they be referred to spiritual punishments, they must be understood in reference to the imitation of sin, wherefore in Exodus these words are added, "Of them that hate Me," and in the chapter quoted from Matthew (verse 32) we read: "Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers." The sins of the fathers are said to be punished in their children, because the latter are the more prone to sin through being brought up amid their parents' crimes, both by becoming accustomed to them, and by imitating their parents' example, conforming to their authority as it were. Moreover they deserve heavier punishment if, seeing the punishment of their parents, they fail to mend their ways. The text adds, "to the third and fourth generation," because men are wont to live long enough to see the third and fourth generation, so that both the children can witness their parents' sins so as to imitate them, and the parents can see their children's punishments so as to grieve for them.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod poenae illae sunt corporales et temporales quas iustitia humana uni pro peccato alterius infligit. Et sunt remedia quaedam, vel medicinae, contra culpas sequentes, ut vel ipsi qui puniuntur, vel alii, cohibeantur a similibus culpis. Reply to Objection 2. The punishments which human justice inflicts on one for another's sin are bodily and temporal. They are also remedies or medicines against future sins, in order that either they who are punished, or others may be restrained from similar faults.
Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod magis dicuntur puniri pro peccatis aliorum propinqui quam extranei, tum quia poena propinquorum quodammodo redundat in illos qui peccaverunt, ut dictum est, inquantum filius est quaedam res patris. Tum etiam quia et domestica exempla, et domesticae poenae, magis movent. Unde quando aliquis nutritus est in peccatis parentum, vehementius ea sequitur; et si ex eorum poenis non est deterritus, obstinatior videtur; unde et maiori poena dignus. Reply to Objection 3. Those who are near of kin are said to be punished, rather than outsiders, for the sins of others, both because the punishment of kindred redounds somewhat upon those who sinned, as stated above, in so far as the child is the father's property, and because the examples and the punishments that occur in one's own household are more moving. Consequently when a man is brought up amid the sins of his parents, he is more eager to imitate them, and if he is not deterred by their punishments, he would seem to be the more obstinate, and, therefore, to deserve more severe punishment.

Notes

Retrieved from ‘http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/index.php?title=Authors/Thomas_Aquinas/Summa_Theologiae/Part_IIa/Q87&oldid=11072’