Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part IIb/Q142

From The Logic Museum
Jump to navigationJump to search
←Q141 Q143→



Latin English
IIª-IIae q. 142 pr. Deinde considerandum est de vitiis oppositis temperantiae. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum insensibilitas sit peccatum. Secundo, utrum intemperantia sit vitium puerile. Tertio, de comparatione intemperantiae ad timiditatem. Quarto, utrum vitium intemperantiae sit maxime opprobriosum. Question 142. The vices opposed to temperance 1. Is insensibility a sin? 2. Is intemperance a childish sin? 3. The comparison between intemperance and timidity 4. Is intemperance the most disgraceful of vices?
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod insensibilitas non sit vitium. Dicuntur enim insensibiles qui deficiunt circa delectationes tactus. Sed in his penitus deficere videtur esse laudabile et virtuosum, dicitur enim Dan. X, in diebus illis ego, Daniel, lugebam trium hebdomadarum tempus, panem desiderabilem non comedi, et caro et vinum non introierunt in os meum, sed neque unguento unctus sum. Ergo insensibilitas non est peccatum. Objection 1. It would seem that insensibility is not a vice. For those are called insensible who are deficient with regard to pleasures of touch. Now seemingly it is praiseworthy and virtuous to be altogether deficient in such matters: for it is written (Daniel 10:2-3): "In those days Daniel mourned the days of three weeks, I ate no desirable bread, and neither flesh nor wine entered my mouth, neither was I anointed with ointment." Therefore insensibility is not a sin.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, bonum hominis est secundum rationem esse, secundum Dionysium, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Sed abstinere ab omnibus delectabilibus tactus maxime promovet hominem in bono rationis, dicitur enim Dan. I, quod pueris qui utebantur leguminibus dedit Deus scientiam et disciplinam in omni libro et sapientia. Ergo insensibilitas, quae universaliter repellit huiusmodi delectationes, non est vitiosa. Objection 2. Further, "man's good is to be in accord with reason," according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). Now abstinence from all pleasures of touch is most conducive to man's progress in the good of reason: for it is written (Daniel 1:17) that "to the children" who took pulse for their food (Daniel 1:12), "God gave knowledge, and understanding in every book and wisdom." Therefore insensibility, which rejects these pleasures altogether, is not sinful.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, illud per quod maxime receditur a peccato, non videtur esse vitiosum. Sed hoc est potissimum remedium abstinendi a peccato, quod aliquis fugiat delectationes, quod pertinet ad insensibilitatem, dicit enim philosophus, in II Ethic., quod abiicientes delectationem minus peccabimus. Ergo insensibilitas non est aliquid vitiosum. Objection 3. Further, that which is a very effective means of avoiding sin would seem not to be sinful. Now the most effective remedy in avoiding sin is to shun pleasures, and this pertains to insensibility. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 9) that "if we deny ourselves pleasures we are less liable to sin." Therefore there is nothing vicious in insensibility.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra, nihil opponitur virtuti nisi vitium. Sed insensibilitas virtuti temperantiae opponitur, ut patet per philosophum, in II et III Ethic. Ergo insensibilitas est vitium. On the contrary, Nothing save vice is opposed to virtue. Now insensibility is opposed to the virtue of temperance according to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 7; iii, 11). Therefore insensibility is a vice.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod omne illud quod contrariatur ordini naturali, est vitiosum. Natura autem delectationem apposuit operationibus necessariis ad vitam hominis. Et ideo naturalis ordo requirit ut homo intantum huiusmodi delectationibus utatur, quantum necessarium est saluti humanae, vel quantum ad conservationem individui vel quantum ad conservationem speciei. Si quis ergo intantum delectationem refugeret quod praetermitteret ea quae sunt necessaria ad conservationem naturae peccaret, quasi ordini naturali repugnans. Et hoc pertinet ad vitium insensibilitatis. Sciendum tamen quod ab huiusmodi delectationibus consequentibus huiusmodi operationes, quandoque laudabile, vel etiam necessarium est abstinere, propter aliquem finem. Sicut propter sanitatem corporalem, aliqui abstinent a quibusdam delectationibus, cibis et potibus et venereis. Et etiam propter alicuius officii executionem, sicut athletas et milites necesse est a multis delectationibus abstinere, ut officium proprium exequantur. Et similiter poenitentes, ad recuperandam animae sanitatem, abstinentia delectabilium quasi quadam diaeta utuntur. Et homines volentes contemplationi et rebus divinis vacare, oportet quod se magis a carnalibus abstrahant. Nec aliquid praedictorum ad insensibilitatis vitium pertinet, quia sunt secundum rationem rectam. I answer that, Whatever is contrary to the natural order is vicious. Now nature has introduced pleasure into the operations that are necessary for man's life. Wherefore the natural order requires that man should make use of these pleasures, in so far as they are necessary for man's well-being, as regards the preservation either of the individual or of the species. Accordingly, if anyone were to reject pleasure to the extent of omitting things that are necessary for nature's preservation, he would sin, as acting counter to the order of nature. And this pertains to the vice of insensibility. It must, however, be observed that it is sometimes praiseworthy, and even necessary for the sake of an end, to abstain from such pleasures as result from these operations. Thus, for the sake of the body's health, certain persons refrain from pleasures of meat, drink, and sex; as also for the fulfilment of certain engagements: thus athletes and soldiers have to deny themselves many pleasures, in order to fulfil their respective duties. On like manner penitents, in order to recover health of soul, have recourse to abstinence from pleasures, as a kind of diet, and those who are desirous of giving themselves up to contemplation and Divine things need much to refrain from carnal things. Nor do any of these things pertain to the vice of insensibility, because they are in accord with right reason.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Daniel illa abstinentia a delectabilibus utebatur, non quasi propter se abhorrens delectationes, ut secundum se malas, sed propter aliquem finem laudabilem, ut scilicet idoneum se ad altitudinem contemplationis redderet, abstinendo scilicet a corporalibus delectationibus. Unde et statim ibi subditur de revelatione facta. Reply to Objection 1. Daniel abstained thus from pleasures, not through any horror of pleasure as though it were evil in itself, but for some praiseworthy end, in order, namely, to adapt himself to the heights of contemplation by abstaining from pleasures of the body. Hence the text goes on to tell of the revelation that he received immediately afterwards.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, quia ratione homo uti non potest sine sensitivis potentiis, quae indigent organo corporali, ut in primo habitum est; necesse est quod homo sustentet corpus, ad hoc quod ratione utatur. Sustentatio autem corporis fit per operationes delectabiles. Unde non potest esse bonum rationis in homine si abstineat ab omnibus delectabilibus. Secundum tamen quod homo in exequendo actum rationis plus vel minus indiget corporali virtute, secundum hoc plus vel minus necesse habet delectabilibus corporalibus uti. Et ideo homines qui hoc officium assumpserunt ut contemplationi vacent, et bonum spirituale quasi quadam spirituali propagatione in alios transmittant, a multis delectabilibus laudabiliter abstinent, a quibus illi quibus ex officio competit operibus corporalibus et generationi carnali vacare, laudabiliter non abstinerent. Reply to Objection 2. Since man cannot use his reason without his sensitive powers. which need a bodily organ. as stated in I, 84, 7,8, man needs to sustain his body in order that he may use his reason. Now the body is sustained by means of operations that afford pleasure: wherefore the good of reason cannot be in a man if he abstain from all pleasures. Yet this need for using pleasures of the body will be greater or less, according as man needs more or less the powers of his body in accomplishing the act of reason. Wherefore it is commendable for those who undertake the duty of giving themselves to contemplation, and of imparting to others a spiritual good, by a kind of spiritual procreation, as it were, to abstain from many pleasures, but not for those who are in duty bound to bodily occupations and carnal procreation.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod delectatio fugienda est ad vitandum peccatum, non totaliter, sed ut non ultra quaeratur quam necessitas requirat. Reply to Objection 3. In order to avoid sin, pleasure must be shunned, not altogether, but so that it is not sought more than necessity requires.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod intemperantia non sit puerile peccatum. Quia super illud Matth. XVIII, nisi conversi fueritis sicut parvuli etc., dicit Hieronymus quod parvulus non perseverat in iracundia, laesus non meminit, videns pulchram mulierem non delectatur, quod contrariatur intemperantiae. Ergo intemperantia non est puerile peccatum. Objection 1. It would seem that intemperance is not a childish sin. For Jerome in commenting on Matthew 18:3, "Unless you be converted, and become as little children," says that "a child persists not in anger, is unmindful of injuries, takes no pleasure in seeing a beautiful woman," all of which is contrary to intemperance. Therefore intemperance is not a childish sin.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, pueri non habent nisi concupiscentias naturales. Sed circa naturales concupiscentias parum aliqui peccant per intemperantiam, ut philosophus dicit, in III Ethic. Ergo intemperantia non est peccatum puerile. Objection 2. Further, children have none but natural desires. Now "in respect of natural desires few sin by intemperance," according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 11). Therefore intemperance is not a childish sin.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, pueri sunt nutriendi et fovendi. Sed concupiscentia et delectatio, circa quae est intemperantia, est semper diminuenda et extirpanda, secundum illud Coloss. III, mortificate membra vestra super terram, quae sunt concupiscentia, et cetera. Ergo intemperantia non est puerile peccatum. Objection 3. Further, children should be fostered and nourished: whereas concupiscence and pleasure, about which intemperance is concerned, are always to be thwarted and uprooted, according to Colossians 3:5, "Mortify . . . your members upon the earth, which are . . . concupiscence" [Vulgate: 'your members which are upon the earth, fornication . . . concupiscence'], etc. Therefore intemperance is not a childish sin.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod nomen intemperantiae ferimus ad puerilia peccata. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 12) that "we apply the term intemperance* to childish faults." [Akolasia which Aristotle refers to kolazo to punish, so that its original sense would be 'impunity' or 'unrestraint.']
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod aliquid dicitur esse puerile dupliciter. Uno modo, quia convenit pueris. Et sic non intendit philosophus dicere quod peccatum intemperantiae sit puerile. Alio modo, secundum quandam similitudinem. Et hoc modo peccata intemperantiae puerilia dicuntur. Peccatum enim intemperantiae est peccatum superfluae concupiscentiae, quae assimilatur puero quantum ad tria primo quidem, quantum ad id quod uterque appetit. Sicut enim puer, ita et concupiscentia appetit aliquid turpe. Cuius ratio est quia pulchrum in rebus humanis attenditur prout aliquid est ordinatum secundum rationem, unde Tullius dicit, in I de Offic., quod pulchrum est quod consentaneum est hominis excellentiae in eo in quo natura eius a reliquis animantibus differt. Puer autem non attendit ad ordinem rationis. Et similiter concupiscentia non audit rationem, ut dicitur in VII Ethic. Secundo conveniunt quantum ad eventum. Puer enim, si suae voluntati dimittatur, crescit in propria voluntate, unde dicitur Eccli. XXX, equus indomitus evadit durus, et filius remissus evadet praeceps. Ita etiam et concupiscentia, si ei satisfiat, maius robur accipit, unde Augustinus dicit, in VIII Confess., dum servitur libidini, facta est consuetudo, et dum consuetudini non resistitur, facta est necessitas. Tertio, quantum ad remedium quod utrique praebetur. Puer enim emendatur per hoc quod coercetur, unde dicitur Prov. XXIII, noli subtrahere a puero disciplinam, tu virga percuties eum, et animam eius de Inferno liberabis. Et similiter, dum concupiscentiae resistitur, reducitur ad debitum honestatis modum. Et hoc est quod Augustinus dicit, in VI musicae, quod, mente in spiritualia suspensa atque ibi fixa et manente, consuetudinis, scilicet carnalis concupiscentiae. Impetus frangitur, et paulatim repressus extinguitur. Maior enim erat cum sequeremur, non omnino nullus, sed certe minor, cum refrenamus. Et ideo philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod quemadmodum puerum oportet secundum praeceptum paedagogi vivere, sic et concupiscibile consonare rationi. I answer that, A thing is said to be childish for two reasons. First, because it is becoming to children, and the Philosopher does not mean that the sin of intemperance is childish in this sense. Secondly. by way of likeness, and it is in this sense that sins of intemperance are said to be childish. For the sin of intemperance is one of unchecked concupiscence, which is likened to a child in three ways. First, as rewards that which they both desire, for like a child concupiscence desires something disgraceful. This is because in human affairs a thing is beautiful according as it harmonizes with reason. Wherefore Tully says (De Offic. i, 27) under the heading "Comeliness is twofold," that "the beautiful is that which is in keeping with man's excellence in so far as his nature differs from other animals." Now a child does not attend to the order of reason; and in like manner "concupiscence does not listen to reason," according to Ethic. vii, 6. Secondly, they are alike as to the result. For a child, if left to his own will, becomes more self-willed: hence it is written (Sirach 30:8): "A horse not broken becometh stubborn, and a child left to himself will become headstrong." So, too, concupiscence, if indulged, gathers strength: wherefore Augustine says (Confess. viii, 5): "Lust served became a custom, and custom not resisted became necessity." Thirdly, as to the remedy which is applied to both. For a child is corrected by being restrained; hence it is written (Proverbs 23:13-14): "Withhold not correction from a child . . . Thou shalt beat him with a rod, and deliver his soul from Hell." On like manner by resisting concupiscence we moderate it according to the demands of virtue. Augustine indicates this when he says (Music. vi, 11) that if the mind be lifted up to spiritual things, and remain fixed "thereon, the impulse of custom," i.e. carnal concupiscence, "is broken, and being suppressed is gradually weakened: for it was stronger when we followed it, and though not wholly destroyed, it is certainly less strong when we curb it." Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 12) that "as a child ought to live according to the direction of his tutor, so ought the concupiscible to accord with reason."
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit secundum illum modum quo puerile dicitur id quod in pueris invenitur. Sic autem non dicitur peccatum intemperantiae puerile, sed secundum similitudinem, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. This argument takes the term "childish" as denoting what is observed in children. It is not in this sense that the sin of intemperance is said to be childish, but by way of likeness, as stated above.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod concupiscentia aliqua potest dici naturalis dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum suum genus. Et sic temperantia et intemperantia sunt circa concupiscentias naturales, sunt enim circa concupiscentias ciborum et venereorum, quae ordinantur ad conservationem naturae. Alio modo potest dici concupiscentia naturalis quantum ad speciem eius quod natura ad sui conservationem requirit. Et sic non multum contingit peccare circa naturales concupiscentias. Natura enim non requirit nisi id per quod subvenitur necessitati naturae, in cuius desiderio non contingit esse peccatum, nisi solum secundum quantitatis excessum; et secundum hoc solum peccatur circa naturalem concupiscentiam, ut philosophus dicit, in III Ethic. Alia vero, circa quae plurimum peccatur, sunt quaedam concupiscentiae incitamenta, quae hominum curiositas adinvenit, sicut cibi curiose praeparati, et mulieres ornatae. Et quamvis ista non multum requirant pueri, nihilominus tamen intemperantia dicitur puerile peccatum ratione iam dicta. Reply to Objection 2. A desire may be said to be natural in two ways. First, with regard to its genus, and thus temperance and intemperance are about natural desires, since they are about desires of food and sex, which are directed to the preservation of nature. Secondly, a desire may be called natural with regard to the species of the thing that nature requires for its own preservation; and in this way it does not happen often that one sins in the matter of natural desires, for nature requires only that which supplies its need, and there is no sin in desiring this, save only where it is desired in excess as to quantity. This is the only way in which sin can occur with regard to natural desires, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 11). There are other things in respect of which sins frequently occur, and these are certain incentives to desire devised by human curiosity [Cf. 167], such as the nice [curiosa] preparation of food, or the adornment of women. And though children do not affect these things much, yet intemperance is called a childish sin for the reason given above.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod id quod ad naturam pertinet in pueris est augmentandum et fovendum. Quod autem pertinet ad defectum rationis in eis non est fovendum, sed emendandum, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 3. That which regards nature should be nourished and fostered in children, but that which pertains to the lack of reason in them should not be fostered, but corrected, as stated above.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod timiditas sit maius vitium quam intemperantia. Ex hoc enim aliquod vitium vituperatur quod opponitur bono virtutis. Sed timiditas opponitur fortitudini, quae est nobilior virtus quam temperantia, cui opponitur intemperantia, ut ex supra dictis patet. Ergo timiditas est maius vitium quam intemperantia. Objection 1. It would seem that cowardice is a greater vice than intemperance. For a vice deserves reproach through being opposed to the good of virtue. Now cowardice is opposed to fortitude, which is a more excellent virtue than temperance, as stated above (2; 141, 8). Therefore cowardice is a greater vice than intemperance.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, quanto aliquis deficit in eo quod difficilius vincitur, tanto minus vituperatur, unde philosophus dicit, in VII Ethic., quod si quis a fortibus et superexcellentibus delectationibus vincitur vel tristitiis, non est admirabile, sed condonabile. Sed difficilius videtur vincere delectationes quam alias passiones, unde in II Ethic. dicitur quod difficilius est contra voluptatem pugnare quam contra iram, quae videtur esse fortior quam timor. Ergo intemperantia, quae vincitur a delectatione, minus peccatum est quam timiditas, quae vincitur a timore. Objection 2. Further, the greater the difficulty to be surmounted, the less is a man to be reproached for failure, wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7) that "it is no wonder, in fact it is pardonable, if a man is mastered by strong and overwhelming pleasures or pains." Now seemingly it is more difficult to control pleasures than other passions; hence it is stated in Ethic. ii, 3, that "it is more difficult to contend against pleasure than against anger, which would seem to be stronger than fear." Therefore intemperance, which is overcome by pleasure, is a less grievous sin than cowardice, which is overcome by fear.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, de ratione peccati est quod sit voluntarium. Sed timiditas est magis voluntaria quam intemperantia, nullus enim concupiscit intemperatus esse; aliqui autem concupiscunt fugere mortis pericula, quod pertinet ad timiditatem. Ergo timiditas est gravius peccatum quam intemperantia. Objection 3. Further, it is essential to sin that it be voluntary. Now cowardice is more voluntary than intemperance, since no man desires to be intemperate, whereas some desire to avoid dangers of death, which pertains to cowardice. Therefore cowardice is a more grievous sin than intemperance.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod intemperantia assimilatur magis voluntario quam timiditas. Ergo plus habet de ratione peccati. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 12) that "intemperance seems more akin to voluntary action than cowardice." Therefore it is more sinful.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod unum vitium potest alteri comparari dupliciter, uno modo, ex parte materiae vel obiecti; alio modo, ex parte ipsius hominis peccantis. Et utroque modo intemperantia est gravius vitium quam timiditas. Primo namque ex parte materiae. Nam timiditas refugit pericula mortis, ad quae vitanda inducit maxima necessitas conservandae vitae. Intemperantia autem est circa delectationes, quarum appetitus non est adeo necessarius ad vitae conservationem, quia, ut dictum est, intemperantia magis est circa quasdam appositas delectationes seu concupiscentias quam circa concupiscentias seu delectationes naturales. Quanto autem illud quod commovet ad peccandum videtur esse magis necessarium, tanto peccatum levius est. Et ideo intemperantia est gravius vitium quam timiditas ex parte obiecti sive materiae moventis. Similiter etiam et ex parte ipsius hominis peccantis. Et hoc triplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia quanto ille qui peccat magis est compos suae mentis, tanto gravius peccat, unde alienatis non imputantur peccata. Timores autem et tristitiae graves, et maxime in periculis mortis, stupefaciunt mentem hominis. Quod non facit delectatio, quae movet ad intemperantiam. Secundo, quia quanto aliquod peccatum est magis voluntarium, tanto est gravius. Intemperantia autem habet plus de voluntario quam timiditas. Et hoc duplici ratione. Uno modo, quia ea quae per timorem fiunt principium habent ab exteriori impellente, unde non sunt simpliciter voluntaria, sed mixta, ut dicitur in III Ethic. Ea autem quae per delectationem fiunt sunt simpliciter voluntaria. Alio modo, quia ea quae sunt intemperati sunt magis voluntaria in particulari, minus autem voluntaria in universali, nullus enim vellet intemperatus esse; allicitur tamen homo a singularibus delectabilibus, quae intemperatum faciunt hominem. Propter quod, ad vitandum intemperantiam maximum remedium est ut non immoretur homo circa singularium considerationem. Sed in his quae pertinent ad timiditatem est e converso. Nam singula quae imminent sunt minus voluntaria, ut abiicere clipeum et alia huiusmodi, sed ipsum commune est magis voluntarium, puta fugiendo salvari. Hoc autem est simpliciter magis voluntarium quod est magis voluntarium in singularibus, in quibus est actus. Et ideo intemperantia, cum sit simpliciter magis voluntarium quam timiditas, est maius vitium. Tertio, quia contra intemperantiam potest magis de facili remedium adhiberi quam contra timiditatem, eo quod delectationes ciborum et venereorum, circa quas est intemperantia, per totam vitam occurrunt, et sine periculo potest homo circa ea exercitari ad hoc quod sit temperatus; sed pericula mortis et rarius occurrunt, et periculosius in his homo exercitatur ad timiditatem fugiendam. Et ideo intemperantia est simpliciter maius peccatum quam timiditas. I answer that, one may be compared with another in two ways. First, with regard to the matter or object; secondly, on the part of the man who sins: and in both ways intemperance is a more grievous sin than cowardice. First, as regards the matter. For cowardice shuns dangers of death, to avoid which the principal motive is the necessity of preserving life. On the other hand, intemperance is about pleasures, the desire of which is not so necessary for the preservation of life, because, as stated above (2, ad 2), intemperance is more about certain annexed pleasures or desires than about natural desires or pleasures. Now the more necessary the motive of sin the less grievous the sin. Wherefore intemperance is a more grievous vice than cowardice, on the part of the object or motive matter. In like manner again, on the part of the man who sins, and this for three reasons. First, because the more sound-minded a man is, the more grievous his sin, wherefore sins are not imputed to those who are demented. Now grave fear and sorrow, especially in dangers of death, stun the human mind, but not so pleasure which is the motive of intemperance. Secondly, because the more voluntary a sin the graver it is. Now intemperance has more of the voluntary in it than cowardice has, and this for two reasons. The first is because actions done through fear have their origin in the compulsion of an external agent, so that they are not simply voluntary but mixed, as stated in Ethic. iii, 1, whereas actions done for the sake of pleasure are simply voluntary. The second reason is because the actions of an intemperate man are more voluntary individually and less voluntary generically. For no one would wish to be intemperate, yet man is enticed by individual pleasures which make of him an intemperate man. Hence the most effective remedy against intemperance is not to dwell on the consideration of singulars. It is the other way about in matters relating to cowardice: because the particular action that imposes itself on a man is less voluntary, for instance to cast aside his shield, and the like, whereas the general purpose is more voluntary, for instance to save himself by flight. Now that which is more voluntary in the particular circumstances in which the act takes place, is simply more voluntary. Wherefore intemperance, being simply more voluntary than cowardice, is a greater vice. Thirdly, because it is easier to find a remedy for intemperance than for cowardice, since pleasures of food and sex, which are the matter of intemperance, are of everyday occurrence, and it is possible for man without danger by frequent practice in their regard to become temperate; whereas dangers of death are of rare occurrence, and it is more dangerous for man to encounter them frequently in order to cease being a coward.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod excellentia fortitudinis supra temperantiam potest considerari dupliciter. Uno modo, ex parte finis, quod pertinet ad rationem boni, quia scilicet fortitudo magis ordinatur ad bonum commune quam temperantia. Ex hac etiam parte timiditas habet quandam excellentiam supra intemperantiam, inquantum scilicet per timiditatem aliqui desistunt a defensione boni communis. Alio modo, ex parte difficultatis, inquantum scilicet difficilius est subire pericula mortis quam abstinere a quibusdam delectabilibus. Et quantum ad hoc, non oportet quod timiditas praecellat intemperantiam. Sicut enim maioris virtutis est non vinci a fortiori, ita etiam e contrario minoris vitii est a fortiori vinci, et maioris vitii a debiliori superari. Reply to Objection 1. The excellence of fortitude in comparison with temperance may be considered from two standpoints. First, with regard to the end, which has the aspect of good: because fortitude is directed to the common good more than temperance is. And from this point of view cowardice has a certain precedence over intemperance, since by cowardice some people forsake the defense of the common good. Secondly, with regard to the difficulty, because it is more difficult to endure dangers of death than to refrain from any pleasures whatever: and from this point of view there is no need for cowardice to take precedence of intemperance. For just as it is a greater strength that does not succumb to a stronger force, so on the other hand to be overcome by a stronger force is proof of a lesser vice, and to succumb to a weaker force, is the proof of a greater vice.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod amor conservationis vitae, propter quam vitantur pericula mortis, est multo magis connaturalis quam quaecumque delectationes ciborum vel venereorum, quae ad conservationem vitae ordinantur. Et ideo difficilius est vincere timorem periculorum mortis quam concupiscentiam delectationum, quae est in cibis et venereis. Cui tamen difficilius est resistere quam irae, tristitiae et timori quorundam aliorum malorum. Reply to Objection 2. Love of self-preservation, for the sake of which one shuns perils of death, is much more connatural than any pleasures whatever of food and sex which are directed to the preservation of life. Hence it is more difficult to overcome the fear of dangers of death, than the desire of pleasure in matters of food and sex: although the latter is more difficult to resist than anger, sorrow, and fear, occasioned by certain other evils.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in timiditate consideratur magis voluntarium in universali, minus tamen in particulari. Et ideo in ea est magis voluntarium secundum quid, sed non simpliciter. Reply to Objection 3. The voluntary, in cowardice, depends rather on a general than on a particular consideration: wherefore in such cases we have the voluntary not simply but in a restricted sense.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatum intemperantiae non sit maxime exprobrabile. Sicut enim honor debetur virtuti, ita exprobratio debetur peccato. Sed quaedam peccata sunt graviora quam intemperantia, sicut homicidium, blasphemia et alia huiusmodi. Ergo peccatum intemperantiae non est maxime exprobrabile. Objection 1. It would seem that intemperance is not the most disgraceful of sins. As honor is due to virtue so is disgrace due to sin. Now some sins are more grievous than intemperance: for instance murder, blasphemy, and the like. Therefore intemperance is not the most disgraceful of sins.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, peccata quae sunt magis communia videntur esse minus exprobrabilia, eo quod de his homines minus verecundantur. Sed peccata intemperantiae sunt maxime communia, quia sunt circa ea quae communiter in usum humanae vitae veniunt, in quibus etiam plurimi peccant. Ergo peccata intemperantiae non videntur esse maxime exprobrabilia. Objection 2. Further, those sins which are the more common are seemingly less disgraceful, since men are less ashamed of them. Now sins of intemperance are most common, because they are about things connected with the common use of human life, and in which many happen to sin. Therefore sins of intemperance do not seem to be most disgraceful.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in VII Ethic., quod temperantia et intemperantia sunt circa concupiscentias et delectationes humanas. Sunt autem quaedam concupiscentiae et delectationes turpiores concupiscentiis et delectationibus humanis, quae dicuntur bestiales et aegritudinales, ut in eodem libro philosophus dicit. Ergo intemperantia non est maxime exprobrabilis. Objection 3. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 6) temperance and intemperance are about human desires and pleasures. Now certain desires and pleasures are more shameful than human desires and pleasures; such are brutal pleasures and those caused by disease as the Philosopher states (Ethic. vii, 5). Therefore intemperance is not the most disgraceful of sins.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod intemperantia inter alia vitia videtur iuste exprobrabilis esse. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 10) that "intemperance is justly more deserving of reproach than other vices."
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod exprobratio opponi videtur honori et gloriae. Honor autem excellentiae debetur, ut supra habitum est, gloria autem claritatem importat. Est igitur intemperantia maxime exprobrabilis, propter duo. Primo quidem, quia maxime repugnat excellentiae hominis, est enim circa delectationes communes nobis et brutis, ut supra habitum est. Unde et in Psalmo dicitur, homo, cum in honore esset, non intellexit, comparatus est iumentis insipientibus, et similis factus est illis. Secundo, quia maxime repugnat eius claritati vel pulchritudini, inquantum scilicet in delectationibus circa quas est intemperantia, minus apparet de lumine rationis, ex qua est tota claritas et pulchritudo virtutis. Unde et huiusmodi delectationes dicuntur maxime serviles. I answer that, Disgrace is seemingly opposed to honor and glory. Now honor is due to excellence, as stated above (Question 103, Article 1), and glory denotes clarity (103, 1, ad 3). Accordingly intemperance is most disgraceful for two reasons. First, because it is most repugnant to human excellence, since it is about pleasures common to us and the lower animals, as stated above (141, 2,3). Wherefore it is written (Psalm 48:21): "Man, when he was in honor, did not understand: he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them." Secondly, because it is most repugnant to man's clarity or beauty; inasmuch as the pleasures which are the matter of intemperance dim the light of reason from which all the clarity and beauty of virtue arises: wherefore these pleasures are described as being most slavish.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Gregorius dicit, vitia carnalia, quae sub intemperantia continentur, etsi sint minoris culpae, sunt tamen maioris infamiae. Nam magnitudo culpae respicit deordinationem a fine, infamia autem respicit turpitudinem, quae maxime consideratur secundum indecentiam peccantis. Reply to Objection 1. As Gregory says [Moral. xxxiii. 12, "the sins of the flesh," which are comprised under the head of intemperance, although less culpable, are more disgraceful. The reason is that culpability is measured by inordinateness in respect of the end, while disgrace regards shamefulness, which depends chiefly on the unbecomingness of the sin in respect of the sinner.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod consuetudo peccandi diminuit turpitudinem et infamiam peccati secundum opinionem hominum, non autem secundum naturam ipsorum vitiorum. Reply to Objection 2. The commonness of a sin diminishes the shamefulness and disgrace of a sin in the opinion of men, but not as regards the nature of the vices themselves.
IIª-IIae q. 142 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod cum dicitur intemperantia maxime esse exprobrabilis, est intelligendum inter vitia humana, quae scilicet attenduntur secundum passiones humanae naturae aliqualiter conformes. Sed illa vitia quae excedunt modum humanae naturae, sunt magis exprobrabilia. Et tamen illa etiam videntur reduci ad genus intemperantiae secundum quendam excessum, sicut si aliquis delectaretur in comestione carnium humanarum, aut in coitu bestiarum aut masculorum. Reply to Objection 3. When we say that intemperance is most disgraceful, we mean in comparison with human vices, those, namely, that are connected with human passions which to a certain extent are in conformity with human nature. But those vices which exceed the mode of human nature are still more disgraceful. Nevertheless such vices are apparently reducible to the genus of intemperance, by way of excess: for instance, if a man delight in eating human flesh, or in committing the unnatural vice.

Notes

Retrieved from ‘http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/index.php?title=Authors/Thomas_Aquinas/Summa_Theologiae/Part_IIb/Q142&oldid=11253’