Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 41 [<< | >>]
| [40668] II-IIae q. 41 pr. Deinde considerandum est de rixa. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. | We must now consider strife, under which head there are two points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum rixa sit peccatum. | (1) Whether strife is a sin? |
| Secundo, utrum sit filia irae. | (2) Whether it is a daughter of anger? |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 41 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod rixa non semper sit peccatum. Rixa enim videtur esse contentio quaedam, dicit enim Isidorus, in libro Etymol., quod rixosus est a rictu canino dictus, semper enim ad contradicendum paratus est, et iurgio delectatur, et provocat contendentem. Sed contentio non semper est peccatum. Ergo neque rixa. | Objection 1: It would seem that strife is not always a sin. For strife seems a kind of contention: hence Isidore says (Etym. x) that the word "rixosus [quarrelsome] is derived from the snarling [rictu] of a dog, because the quarrelsome man is ever ready to contradict; he delights in brawling, and provokes contention." Now contention is not always a sin. Neither, therefore, is strife. |
| Praeterea, Gen. XXVI dicitur quod servi Isaac foderunt alium puteum, et pro illo quoque rixati sunt. Sed non est credendum quod familia Isaac rixaretur publice, eo non contradicente, si hoc esset peccatum. Ergo rixa non est peccatum. | Objection 2: Further, it is related (Gn. 26:21) that the servants of Isaac "digged" another well, "and for that they quarrelled likewise." Now it is not credible that the household of Isaac quarrelled publicly, without being reproved by him, supposing it were a sin. Therefore strife is not a sin. |
| Praeterea, rixa videtur esse quoddam particulare bellum. Sed bellum non semper est peccatum. Ergo rixa non semper est peccatum. | Objection 3: Further, strife seems to be a war between individuals. But war is not always sinful. Therefore strife is not always a sin. |
| Sed contra est quod ad Gal. V rixae ponuntur inter opera carnis, quae qui agunt regnum Dei non consequuntur. Ergo rixae non solum sunt peccata, sed etiam sunt peccata mortalia. | On the contrary, Strifes [*The Douay version has 'quarrels'] are reckoned among the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20), and "they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." Therefore strifes are not only sinful, but they are even mortal sins. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod sicut contentio importat quandam contradictionem verborum, ita etiam rixa importat quandam contradictionem in factis, unde super illud Gal. V dicit Glossa quod rixae sunt quando ex ira invicem se percutiunt. Et ideo rixa videtur esse quoddam privatum bellum, quod inter privatas personas agitur non ex aliqua publica auctoritate, sed magis ex inordinata voluntate. Et ideo rixa semper importat peccatum. Et in eo quidem qui alterum invadit iniuste est peccatum mortale, inferre enim nocumentum proximo etiam opere manuali non est absque mortali peccato. In eo autem qui se defendit potest esse sine peccato, et quandoque cum peccato veniali, et quandoque etiam cum mortali, secundum diversum motum animi eius, et diversum modum se defendendi. Nam si solo animo repellendi iniuriam illatam, et cum debita moderatione se defendat, non est peccatum, nec proprie potest dici rixa ex parte eius. Si vero cum animo vindictae vel odii, vel cum excessu debitae moderationis se defendat, semper est peccatum, sed veniale quidem quando aliquis levis motus odii vel vindictae se immiscet, vel cum non multum excedat moderatam defensionem; mortale autem quando obfirmato animo in impugnantem insurgit ad eum occidendum vel graviter laedendum. | I answer that, While contention implies a contradiction of words, strife denotes a certain contradiction of deeds. Wherefore a gloss on Gal. 5:20 says that "strifes are when persons strike one another through anger." Hence strife is a kind of private war, because it takes place between private persons, being declared not by public authority, but rather by an inordinate will. Therefore strife is always sinful. In fact it is a mortal sin in the man who attacks another unjustly, for it is not without mortal sin that one inflicts harm on another even if the deed be done by the hands. But in him who defends himself, it may be without sin, or it may sometimes involve a venial sin, or sometimes a mortal sin; and this depends on his intention and on his manner of defending himself. For if his sole intention be to withstand the injury done to him, and he defend himself with due moderation, it is no sin, and one cannot say properly that there is strife on his part. But if, on the other hand, his self-defense be inspired by vengeance and hatred, it is always a sin. It is a venial sin, if a slight movement of hatred or vengeance obtrude itself, or if he does not much exceed moderation in defending himself: but it is a mortal sin if he makes for his assailant with the fixed intention of killing him, or inflicting grievous harm on him. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod rixa non simpliciter nominat contentionem, sed tria in praemissis verbis Isidori ponuntur quae inordinationem rixae declarant. Primo quidem, promptitudinem animi ad contendendum, quod significat cum dicit, semper ad contradicendum paratus, scilicet sive alius bene aut male dicat aut faciat. Secundo, quia in ipsa contradictione delectatur, unde sequitur, et in iurgio delectatur. Tertio, quia ipse alios provocat ad contradictiones, unde sequitur, et provocat contendentem. | Reply to Objection 1: Strife is not just the same as contention: and there are three things in the passage quoted from Isidore, which express the inordinate nature of strife. First, the quarrelsome man is always ready to fight, and this is conveyed by the words, "ever ready to contradict," that is to say, whether the other man says or does well or ill. Secondly, he delights in quarrelling itself, and so the passage proceeds, "and delights in brawling." Thirdly, "he" provokes others to quarrel, wherefore it goes on, "and provokes contention." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ibi non intelligitur quod servi Isaac sint rixati, sed quod incolae terrae rixati sunt contra eos. Unde illi peccaverunt, non autem servi Isaac, qui calumniam patiebantur. | Reply to Objection 1: The sense of the text is not that the servants of Isaac quarrelled, but that the inhabitants of that country quarrelled with them: wherefore these sinned, and not the servants of Isaac, who bore the calumny [*Cf. Gn. 26:20]. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ad hoc quod iustum sit bellum, requiritur quod fiat auctoritate publicae potestatis, sicut supra dictum est. Rixa autem fit ex privato affectu irae vel odii. Si enim minister principis aut iudicis publica potestate aliquos invadat qui se defendant, non dicuntur ipsi rixari, sed illi qui publicae potestati resistunt. Et sic illi qui invadunt non rixantur neque peccant, sed illi qui se inordinate defendunt. | Reply to Objection 3: In order for a war to be just it must be declared by authority of the governing power, as stated above (Question [40], Article [1]); whereas strife proceeds from a private feeling of anger or hatred. For if the servants of a sovereign or judge, in virtue of their public authority, attack certain men and these defend themselves, it is not the former who are said to be guilty of strife, but those who resist the public authority. Hence it is not the assailants in this case who are guilty of strife and commit sin, but those who defend themselves inordinately. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 41 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod rixa non sit filia irae. Dicitur enim Iac. IV, unde bella et lites in vobis? Nonne ex concupiscentiis quae militant in membris vestris? Sed ira non pertinet ad concupiscibilem. Ergo rixa non est filia irae, sed magis concupiscentiae. | Objection 1: It would seem that strife is not a daughter of anger. For it is written (James 4:1): "Whence are wars and contentions? Are they not . . . from your concupiscences, which war in your members?" But anger is not in the concupiscible faculty. Therefore strife is a daughter, not of anger, but of concupiscence. |
| Praeterea, Prov. XXVIII dicitur, qui se iactat et dilatat iurgia concitat. Sed idem videtur esse rixa quod iurgium. Ergo videtur quod rixa sit filia superbiae vel inanis gloriae, ad quam pertinet se iactare et dilatare. | Objection 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 28:25): "He that boasteth and puffeth up himself, stirreth up quarrels." Now strife is apparently the same as quarrel. Therefore it seems that strife is a daughter of pride or vainglory which makes a man boast and puff himself up. |
| Praeterea, Prov. XVIII dicitur, labia stulti immiscent se rixis. Sed stultitia differt ab ira, non enim opponitur mansuetudini, sed magis sapientiae vel prudentiae. Ergo rixa non est filia irae. | Objection 3: Further, it is written (Prov. 18:6): "The lips of a fool intermeddle with strife." Now folly differs from anger, for it is opposed, not to meekness, but to wisdom or prudence. Therefore strife is not a daughter of anger. |
| Praeterea, Prov. X dicitur, odium suscitat rixas. Sed odium oritur ex invidia; ut Gregorius dicit, XXXI Moral. Ergo rixa non est filia irae, sed invidiae. | Objection 4: Further, it is written (Prov. 10:12): "Hatred stirreth up strifes." But hatred arises from envy, according to Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 17). Therefore strife is not a daughter of anger, but of envy. |
| Praeterea, Prov. XVII dicitur, qui meditatur discordias seminat rixas. Sed discordia est filia inanis gloriae, ut supra dictum est. Ergo et rixa. | Objection 5: Further, it is written (Prov. 17:19): "He that studieth discords, soweth [Vulg.: 'loveth'] quarrels." But discord is a daughter of vainglory, as stated above (Question [37], Article [2]). Therefore strife is also. |
| Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, XXXI Moral., quod ex ira oritur rixa. Et Prov. XV et XXIX dicitur, vir iracundus provocat rixas. | On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 17) that "anger gives rise to strife"; and it is written (Prov. 15:18; 29:22): "A passionate man stirreth up strifes." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, rixa importat quandam contradictionem usque ad facta pervenientem, dum unus alterum laedere molitur. Dupliciter autem unus alium laedere intendit. Uno modo, quasi intendens absolute malum ipsius. Et talis laesio pertinet ad odium, cuius intentio est ad laedendum inimicum vel in manifesto vel in occulto. Alio modo aliquis intendit alium laedere eo sciente et repugnante, quod importatur nomine rixae. Et hoc proprie pertinet ad iram, quae est appetitus vindictae, non enim sufficit irato quod latenter noceat ei contra quem irascitur, sed vult quod ipse sentiat, et quod contra voluntatem suam aliquid patiatur in vindictam eius quod fecit, ut patet per ea quae supra dicta sunt de passione irae. Et ideo rixa proprie oritur ex ira. | I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]), strife denotes an antagonism extending to deeds, when one man designs to harm another. Now there are two ways in which one man may intend to harm another. In one way it is as though he intended absolutely the other's hurt, which in this case is the outcome of hatred, for the intention of hatred is directed to the hurt of one's enemy either openly or secretly. In another way a man intends to hurt another who knows and withstands his intention. This is what we mean by strife, and belongs properly to anger which is the desire of vengeance: for the angry man is not content to hurt secretly the object of his anger, he even wishes him to feel the hurt and know that what he suffers is in revenge for what he has done, as may be seen from what has been said above about the passion of anger (FS, Question [46], Article [6], ad 2). Therefore, properly speaking, strife arises from anger. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, omnes passiones irascibilis ex passionibus concupiscibilis oriuntur. Et secundum hoc, illud quod proxime oritur ex ira, oritur etiam ex concupiscentia sicut ex prima radice. | Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (FS, Question [25], Articles [1],2), all the irascible passions arise from those of the concupiscible faculty, so that whatever is the immediate outcome of anger, arises also from concupiscence as from its first root. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod iactatio et dilatatio sui, quae fit per superbiam vel inanem gloriam, non directe concitat iurgium aut rixam, sed occasionaliter, inquantum scilicet ex hoc concitatur ira, dum aliquis sibi ad iniuriam reputat quod alter ei se praeferat; et sic ex ira sequuntur iurgia et rixae. | Reply to Objection 2: Boasting and puffing up of self which are the result of anger or vainglory, are not the direct but the occasional cause of quarrels or strife, because, when a man resents another being preferred to him, his anger is aroused, and then his anger results in quarrel and strife. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ira, sicut supra dictum est, impedit iudicium rationis, unde habet similitudinem cum stultitia. Et ex hoc sequitur quod habeant communem effectum, ex defectu enim rationis contingit quod aliquis inordinate alium laedere molitur. | Reply to Objection 3: Anger, as stated above (FS, Question [48], Article [3]) hinders the judgment of the reason, so that it bears a likeness to folly. Hence they have a common effect, since it is due to a defect in the reason that a man designs to hurt another inordinately. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod rixa, etsi quandoque ex odio oriatur, non tamen est proprius effectus odii. Quia praeter intentionem odientis est quod rixose et manifeste inimicum laedat, quandoque enim etiam occulte laedere quaerit; sed quando videt se praevalere cum rixa et iurgio laesionem intendit. Sed rixose aliquem laedere est proprius effectus irae, ratione iam dicta. | Reply to Objection 4: Although strife sometimes arises from hatred, it is not the proper effect thereof, because when one man hates another it is beside his intention to hurt him in a quarrelsome and open manner, since sometimes he seeks to hurt him secretly. When, however, he sees himself prevailing, he endeavors to harm him with strife and quarrel. But to hurt a man in a quarrel is the proper effect of anger, for the reason given above. |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod ex rixis sequitur odium et discordia in cordibus rixantium. Et ideo ille qui meditatur, idest qui intendit inter aliquos seminare discordias, procurat quod ad invicem rixantur, sicut quodlibet peccatum potest imperare actum alterius peccati, ordinando illum in suum finem. Sed ex hoc non sequitur quod rixa sit filia inanis gloriae proprie et directe. | Reply to Objection 5: Strifes give rise to hatred and discord in the hearts of those who are guilty of strife, and so he that "studies," i.e., intends to sow discord among others, causes them to quarrel among themselves. Even so any sin may command the act of another sin, by directing it to its own end. This does not, however, prove that strife is the daughter of vainglory properly and directly. |