Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 53 [<< | >>]
Deinde considerandum est de vitiis oppositis prudentiae. Dicit autem Augustinus, in IV contra Iulian., quod omnibus virtutibus non solum sunt vitia manifesta discretione contraria, sicut prudentiae temeritas, verum etiam vicina quodammodo, nec veritate, sed quadam specie fallente similia, sicut ipsi prudentiae astutia.
|
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 53 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod imprudentia non sit peccatum. Omne enim peccatum est voluntarium, ut Augustinus dicit. Imprudentia autem non est aliquid voluntarium, nullus enim vult esse imprudens. Ergo imprudentia non est peccatum. | Objection 1: It would seem that imprudence is not a sin. For every sin is voluntary, according to Augustine [*De Vera Relig. xiv]; whereas imprudence is not voluntary, since no man wishes to be imprudent. Therefore imprudence is not a sin. |
| Praeterea, nullum peccatum nascitur cum homine nisi originale. Sed imprudentia nascitur cum homine, unde et iuvenes imprudentes sunt. Nec est originale peccatum, quod opponitur originali iustitiae. Ergo imprudentia non est peccatum. | Objection 2: Further, none but original sin comes to man with his birth. But imprudence comes to man with his birth, wherefore the young are imprudent; and yet it is not original sin which is opposed to original justice. Therefore imprudence is not a sin. |
| Praeterea, omne peccatum per poenitentiam tollitur. Sed imprudentia non tollitur per poenitentiam. Ergo imprudentia non est peccatum. | Objection 3: Further, every sin is taken away by repentance. But imprudence is not taken away by repentance. Therefore imprudence is not a sin. |
| Sed contra, spiritualis thesaurus gratiae non tollitur nisi per peccatum. Tollitur autem per imprudentiam, secundum illud Prov. XXI, thesaurus desiderabilis et oleum in habitaculo iusti, et homo imprudens dissipabit illud. | On the contrary, The spiritual treasure of grace is not taken away save by sin. But it is taken away by imprudence, according to Prov. 21:20, "There is a treasure to be desired, and oil in the dwelling of the just, and the imprudent [Douay: 'foolish'] man shall spend it." Therefore imprudence is a sin. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod imprudentia dupliciter accipi potest, uno modo, privative; alio modo, contrarie. Negative autem non proprie dicitur, ita scilicet quod importet solam carentiam prudentiae, quae potest esse sine peccato. Privative quidem imprudentia dicitur inquantum aliquis caret prudentia quam natus est et debet habere. Et secundum hoc imprudentia est peccatum ratione negligentiae, qua quis non adhibet studium ad prudentiam habendam. | I answer that, Imprudence may be taken in two ways, first, as a privation, secondly, as a contrary. Properly speaking it is not taken as a negation, so as merely to signify the absence of prudence, for this can be without any sin. Taken as a privation, imprudence denotes lack of that prudence which a man can and ought to have, and in this sense imprudence is a sin by reason of a man's negligence in striving to have prudence. |
| Contrarie vero accipitur imprudentia secundum quod ratio contrario modo movetur vel agit prudentiae. Puta, si recta ratio prudentiae agit consiliando, imprudens consilium spernit, et sic de aliis quae in actu prudentis observanda sunt. Et hoc modo imprudentia est peccatum secundum rationem propriam prudentiae. Non enim potest hoc contingere quod homo contra prudentiam agat, nisi divertens a regulis quibus ratio prudentiae rectificatur. Unde si hoc contingat per aversionem a regulis divinis, est peccatum mortale, puta cum quis quasi contemnens et repudians divina documenta, praecipitanter agit. Si vero praeter eas agat absque contemptu, et absque detrimento eorum quae sunt de necessitate salutis, est peccatum veniale. | Imprudence is taken as a contrary, in so far as the movement or act of reason is in opposition to prudence: for instance, whereas the right reason of prudence acts by taking counsel, the imprudent man despises counsel, and the same applies to the other conditions which require consideration in the act of prudence. In this way imprudence is a sin in respect of prudence considered under its proper aspect, since it is not possible for a man to act against prudence, except by infringing the rules on which the right reason of prudence depends. Wherefore, if this should happen through aversion from the Divine Law, it will be a mortal sin, as when a man acts precipitately through contempt and rejection of the Divine teaching: whereas if he act beside the Law and without contempt, and without detriment to things necessary for salvation, it will be a venial sin. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod deformitatem imprudentiae nullus vult, sed actum imprudentiae vult temerarius, qui vult praecipitanter agere. Unde et philosophus dicit, VI Ethic., quod ille qui circa prudentiam peccat volens, minus acceptatur. | Reply to Objection 1: No man desires the deformity of imprudence, but the rash man wills the act of imprudence, because he wishes to act precipitately. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 5) that "he who sins willingly against prudence is less to be commended." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de imprudentia secundum quod sumitur negative. Sciendum tamen quod carentia prudentiae et cuiuslibet virtutis includitur in carentia originalis iustitiae, quae totam animam perficiebat. Et secundum hoc omnes isti defectus virtutum possunt reduci ad originale peccatum. | Reply to Objection 2: This argument takes imprudence in the negative sense. It must be observed however that lack of prudence or of any other virtue is included in the lack of original justice which perfected the entire soul. Accordingly all such lack of virtue may be ascribed to original sin. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod per poenitentiam restituitur prudentia infusa, et sic cessat carentia huius prudentiae. Non tamen restituitur prudentia acquisita quantum ad habitum, sed tollitur actus contrarius, in quo proprie consistit peccatum imprudentiae. | Reply to Objection 3: Repentance restores infused prudence, and thus the lack of this prudence ceases; but acquired prudence is not restored as to the habit, although the contrary act is taken away, wherein properly speaking the sin of imprudence consists. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 53 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod imprudentia non sit speciale peccatum. Quicumque enim peccat agit contra rationem rectam, quae est prudentia. Sed imprudentia consistit in hoc quod aliquis agit contra prudentiam, ut dictum est. Ergo imprudentia non est speciale peccatum. | Objection 1: It would seem that imprudence is not a special sin. For whoever sins, acts against right reason, i.e. against prudence. But imprudence consists in acting against prudence, as stated above (Article [1]). Therefore imprudence is not a special sin. |
| Praeterea, prudentia magis est affinis moralibus actibus quam scientia. Sed ignorantia, quae opponitur scientiae, ponitur inter generales causas peccati. Ergo multo magis imprudentia. | Objection 2: Further, prudence is more akin to moral action than knowledge is. But ignorance which is opposed to knowledge, is reckoned one of the general causes of sin. Much more therefore should imprudence be reckoned among those causes. |
| Praeterea, peccata contingunt ex hoc quod virtutum circumstantiae corrumpuntur, unde et Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod malum contingit ex singularibus defectibus. Sed multa requiruntur ad prudentiam, sicut ratio, intellectus, docilitas, et cetera quae supra posita sunt. Ergo multae sunt imprudentiae species. Ergo non est peccatum speciale. | Objection 3: Further, sin consists in the corruption of the circumstances of virtue, wherefore Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "evil results from each single defect." Now many things are requisite for prudence; for instance, reason, intelligence docility, and so on, as stated above (Questions [48],49). Therefore there are many species of imprudence, so that it is not a special sin. |
| Sed contra, imprudentia est contrarium prudentiae, ut dictum est. Sed prudentia est una virtus specialis. Ergo imprudentia est unum vitium speciale. | On the contrary, Imprudence is opposed to prudence, as stated above (Article [1]). Now prudence is a special virtue. Therefore imprudence too is one special vice. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod aliquod vitium vel peccatum potest dici generale dupliciter, uno modo, absolute, quia scilicet est generale respectu omnium peccatorum; alio modo, quia est generale respectu quorundam vitiorum quae sunt species eius. Primo autem modo potest dici aliquod vitium generale dupliciter. Uno modo, per essentiam, quia scilicet praedicatur de omnibus peccatis. Et hoc modo imprudentia non est generale peccatum, sicut nec prudentia generalis virtus, cum sint circa actus speciales, scilicet circa ipsos actus rationis. Alio modo, per participationem. Et hoc modo imprudentia est generale peccatum. Sicut enim prudentia participatur quodammodo in omnibus virtutibus, inquantum est directiva earum, ita et imprudentia in omnibus vitiis et peccatis, nullum enim peccatum accidere potest nisi sit defectus in aliquo actu rationis dirigentis, quod pertinet ad imprudentiam. | I answer that, A vice or sin may be styled general in two ways; first, absolutely, because, to wit, it is general in respect of all sins; secondly, because it is general in respect of certain vices, which are its species. In the first way, a vice may be said to be general on two counts: first, essentially, because it is predicated of all sins: and in this way imprudence is not a general sin, as neither is prudence a general virtue: since it is concerned with special acts, namely the very acts of reason: secondly, by participation; and in this way imprudence is a general sin: for, just as all the virtues have a share of prudence, in so far as it directs them, so have all vices and sins a share of imprudence, because no sin can occur, without some defect in an act of the directing reason, which defect belongs to imprudence. |
| Si vero dicatur peccatum generale non simpliciter, sed secundum aliquod genus, quia scilicet continet sub se multas species; sic imprudentia est generale peccatum. Continet enim sub se diversas species tripliciter. Uno quidem modo, per oppositum ad diversas partes subiectivas prudentiae. Sicut enim distinguitur prudentia in monasticam, quae est regitiva unius, et in alias species prudentiae quae sunt multitudinis regitivae, ut supra habitum est; ita etiam imprudentia. Alio modo, secundum partes quasi potentiales prudentiae, quae sunt virtutes adiunctae, et accipiuntur secundum diversos actus rationis. Et hoc modo, quantum ad defectum consilii, circa quod est eubulia, est praecipitatio, sive temeritas, imprudentiae species. Quantum vero ad defectum iudicii, circa quod sunt synesis et gnome, est inconsideratio. Quantum vero ad ipsum praeceptum, quod est proprius actus prudentiae, est inconstantia et negligentia. Tertio modo possunt sumi per oppositum ad ea quae requiruntur ad prudentiam, quae sunt quasi partes integrales prudentiae. Sed quia omnia illa ordinantur ad dirigendum praedictos tres rationis actus, inde est quod omnes defectus oppositi reducuntur ad quatuor praedictas partes. Sicut incautela et incircumspectio includitur sub inconsideratione. Quod autem aliquis deficiat a docilitate vel memoria vel ratione, pertinet ad praecipitationem. Improvidentia vero et defectus intelligentiae et solertiae pertinent ad negligentiam et inconstantiam. | If, on the other hand, a sin be called general, not simply but in some particular genus, that is, as containing several species of sin, then imprudence is a general sin. For it contains various species in three ways. First, by opposition to the various subjective parts of prudence, for just as we distinguish the prudence that guides the individual, from other kinds that govern communities, as stated above (Question [48]; Question [50], Article [7]), so also we distinguish various kinds of imprudence. Secondly, in respect of the quasi-potential parts of prudence, which are virtues connected with it, and correspond to the several acts of reason. Thus, by defect of "counsel" to which {euboulia} (deliberating well) corresponds, "precipitation" or "temerity" is a species of imprudence; by defect of "judgment," to which {synesis} (judging well according to common law) and {gnome} (judging well according to general law) refer, there is "thoughtlessness"; while "inconstancy" and "negligence" correspond to the "command" which is the proper act of prudence. Thirdly, this may be taken by opposition to those things which are requisite for prudence, which are the quasi-integral parts of prudence. Since however all these things are intended for the direction of the aforesaid three acts of reason, it follows that all the opposite defects are reducible to the four parts mentioned above. Thus incautiousness and incircumspection are included in "thoughtlessness"; lack of docility, memory, or reason is referable to "precipitation"; improvidence, lack of intelligence and of shrewdness, belong to "negligence" and "inconstancy." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de generalitate quae est secundum participationem. | Reply to Objection 1: This argument considers generality by participation. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod quia scientia est magis remota a moralibus quam prudentia secundum propriam rationem utriusque, inde est quod ignorantia non habet de se rationem peccati moralis, sed solum ratione negligentiae praecedentis vel effectus sequentis. Et propter hoc ponitur inter generales causas peccati. Sed imprudentia secundum propriam rationem importat vitium morale. Et ideo magis potest poni speciale peccatum. | Reply to Objection 2: Since knowledge is further removed from morality than prudence is, according to their respective proper natures, it follows that ignorance has the nature of mortal sin, not of itself, but on account either of a preceding negligence, or of the consequent result, and for this reason it is reckoned one of the general causes of sin. On the other hand imprudence, by its very nature, denotes a moral vice; and for this reason it can be called a special sin. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod quando corruptio diversarum circumstantiarum habet idem motivum, non diversificatur peccati species, sicut eiusdem speciei est peccatum ut aliquis accipiat non sua ubi non debet, et quando non debet. Sed si sint diversa motiva, tunc essent diversae species, puta si unus acciperet unde non deberet ut faceret iniuriam loco sacro, quod faceret speciem sacrilegii; alius quando non debet propter solum superfluum appetitum habendi, quod esset simplex avaritia. Et ideo defectus eorum quae requiruntur ad prudentiam non diversificant species nisi quatenus ordinantur ad diversos actus rationis, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3: When various circumstances are corrupted for the same motive, the species of sin is not multiplied: thus it is the same species of sin to take what is not one's own, where one ought not, and when one ought not. If, however, there be various motives, there are various species: for instance, if one man were to take another's property from where he ought not, so as to wrong a sacred place, this would constitute the species called sacrilege, while if another were to take another's property when he ought not, merely through the lust of possession, this would be a case of simple avarice. Hence the lack of those things which are requisite for prudence, does not constitute a diversity of species, except in so far as they are directed to different acts of reason, as stated above. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 53 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod praecipitatio non sit peccatum sub imprudentia contentum. Imprudentia enim opponitur virtuti prudentiae. Sed praecipitatio opponitur dono consilii, dicit enim Gregorius, in II Moral., quod donum consilii datur contra praecipitationem. Ergo praecipitatio non est peccatum sub imprudentia contentum. | Objection 1: It would seem that precipitation is not a sin included in imprudence. Imprudence is opposed to the virtue of prudence; whereas precipitation is opposed to the gift of counsel, according to Gregory, who says (Moral. ii, 49) that the gift of "counsel is given as a remedy to precipitation." Therefore precipitation is not a sin contained under imprudence. |
| Praeterea, praecipitatio videtur ad temeritatem pertinere. Temeritas autem praesumptionem importat, quae pertinet ad superbiam. Ergo praecipitatio non est vitium sub imprudentia contentum. | Objection 2: Further, precipitation seemingly pertains to rashness. Now rashness implies presumption, which pertains to pride. Therefore precipitation is not a vice contained under imprudence. |
| Praeterea, praecipitatio videtur importare quandam inordinatam festinationem. Sed in consiliando non solum contingit esse peccatum per hoc quod aliquis est festinus, sed etiam si sit nimis tardus, ita quod praetereat opportunitas operis; et etiam secundum inordinationes aliarum circumstantiarum, ut dicitur in VI Ethic. Ergo non magis praecipitatio debet poni peccatum sub imprudentia contentum quam tarditas, aut aliqua alia huiusmodi ad inordinationem consilii pertinentia. | Objection 3: Further, precipitation seems to denote inordinate haste. Now sin happens in counselling not only through being over hasty but also through being over slow, so that the opportunity for action passes by, and through corruption of other circumstances, as stated in Ethic. vi, 9. Therefore there is no reason for reckoning precipitation as a sin contained under imprudence, rather than slowness, or something else of the kind pertaining to inordinate counsel. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Prov. IV, via impiorum tenebrosa, nesciunt ubi corruant. Tenebrae autem viae impietatis pertinent ad imprudentiam. Ergo corruere, sive praecipitari, ad imprudentiam pertinet. | On the contrary, It is written (Prov. 4:19): "The way of the wicked is darksome, they know not where they fall." Now the darksome ways of ungodliness belong to imprudence. Therefore imprudence leads a man to fall or to be precipitate. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod praecipitatio in actibus animae metaphorice dicitur secundum similitudinem a corporali motu acceptam. Dicitur autem praecipitari secundum corporalem motum quod a superiori in ima pervenit secundum impetum quendam proprii motus vel alicuius impellentis, non ordinate incedendo per gradus. Summum autem animae est ipsa ratio. Imum autem est operatio per corpus exercita. Gradus autem medii, per quos oportet ordinate descendere, sunt memoria praeteritorum, intelligentia praesentium, solertia in considerandis futuris eventibus, ratiocinatio conferens unum alteri, docilitas, per quam aliquis acquiescit sententiis maiorum, per quos quidem gradus aliquis ordinate descendit recte consiliando. Si quis autem feratur ad agendum per impetum voluntatis vel passionis, pertransitis huiusmodi gradibus, erit praecipitatio. Cum ergo inordinatio consilii ad imprudentiam pertineat, manifestum est quod vitium praecipitationis sub imprudentia continetur. | I answer that, Precipitation is ascribed metaphorically to acts of the soul, by way of similitude to bodily movement. Now a thing is said to be precipitated as regards bodily movement, when it is brought down from above by the impulse either of its own movement or of another's, and not in orderly fashion by degrees. Now the summit of the soul is the reason, and the base is reached in the action performed by the body; while the steps that intervene by which one ought to descend in orderly fashion are "memory" of the past, "intelligence" of the present, "shrewdness" in considering the future outcome, "reasoning" which compares one thing with another, "docility" in accepting the opinions of others. He that takes counsel descends by these steps in due order, whereas if a man is rushed into action by the impulse of his will or of a passion, without taking these steps, it will be a case of precipitation. Since then inordinate counsel pertains to imprudence, it is evident that the vice of precipitation is contained under imprudence. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod consilii rectitudo pertinet ad donum consilii et ad virtutem prudentiae, licet diversimode, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo praecipitatio utrique contrariatur. | Reply to Objection 1: Rectitude of counsel belongs to the gift of counsel and to the virtue of prudence; albeit in different ways, as stated above (Question [52], Article [2]), and consequently precipitation is opposed to both. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod illa dicuntur fieri temere quae ratione non reguntur. Quod quidem potest contingere dupliciter. Uno modo, ex impetu voluntatis vel passionis. Alio modo, ex contemptu regulae dirigentis, et hoc proprie importat temeritas. Unde videtur ex radice superbiae provenire, quae refugit subesse regulae alienae. Praecipitatio autem se habet ad utrumque. Unde temeritas sub praecipitatione continetur, quamvis praecipitatio magis respiciat primum. | Reply to Objection 2: Things are said to be done rashly when they are not directed by reason: and this may happen in two ways; first through the impulse of the will or of a passion, secondly through contempt of the directing rule; and this is what is meant by rashness properly speaking, wherefore it appears to proceed from that root of pride, which refuses to submit to another's ruling. But precipitation refers to both, so that rashness is contained under precipitation, although precipitation refers rather to the first. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod in inquisitione consilii multa particularia sunt consideranda, et ideo philosophus dicit, in VI Ethic., oportet consiliari tarde. Unde praecipitatio directius opponitur rectitudini consilii quam tarditas superflua, quae habet quandam similitudinem recti consilii. | Reply to Objection 3: Many things have to be considered in the research of reason; hence the Philosopher declares (Ethic. vi, 9) that "one should be slow in taking counsel." Hence precipitation is more directly opposed to rectitude of counsel than over slowness is, for the latter bears a certain likeness to right counsel. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 53 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconsideratio non sit peccatum speciale sub imprudentia contentum. Lex enim divina ad nullum peccatum nos inducit, secundum illud Psalm., lex domini immaculata. Inducit autem ad non considerandum, secundum illud Matth. X, nolite cogitare quomodo aut quid loquamini. Ergo inconsideratio non est peccatum. | Objection 1: It would seem that thoughtlessness is not a special sin included in imprudence. For the Divine law does not incite us to any sin, according to Ps. 18:8, "The law of the Lord is unspotted"; and yet it incites us to be thoughtless, according to Mt. 10:19, "Take no thought how or what to speak." Therefore thoughtlessness is not a sin. |
| Praeterea, quicumque consiliatur oportet quod multa consideret. Sed per defectum consilii est praecipitatio; et per consequens ex defectu considerationis. Ergo praecipitatio sub inconsideratione continetur. Non ergo inconsideratio est speciale peccatum. | Objection 2: Further, whoever takes counsel must needs give thought to many things. Now precipitation is due to a defect of counsel and therefore to a defect of thought. Therefore precipitation is contained under thoughtlessness: and consequently thoughtlessness is not a special sin. |
| Praeterea, prudentia consistit in actibus rationis practicae, qui sunt consiliari, iudicare de consiliatis, et praecipere. Sed considerare praecedit omnes istos actus, quia pertinet etiam ad intellectum speculativum. Ergo inconsideratio non est speciale peccatum sub imprudentia contentum. | Objection 3: Further, prudence consists in acts of the practical reason, viz. "counsel," "judgment" about what has been counselled, and "command" [*Cf. Question [47], Article [8]]. Now thought precedes all these acts, since it belongs also to the speculative intellect. Therefore thoughtlessness is not a special sin contained under imprudence. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Prov. IV, oculi tui videant recta, et palpebrae tuae praecedant gressus tuos, quod pertinet ad prudentiam. Sed contrarium huius agitur per inconsiderationem. Ergo inconsideratio est speciale peccatum sub imprudentia contentum. | On the contrary, It is written (Prov. 4:25): "Let thy eyes look straight on, and let thine eye-lids go before thy steps." Now this pertains to prudence, while the contrary pertains to thoughtlessness. Therefore thoughtlessness is a special sin contained under imprudence. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod consideratio importat actum intellectus veritatem rei intuentis. Sicut autem inquisitio pertinet ad rationem, ita iudicium pertinet ad intellectum, unde et in speculativis demonstrativa scientia dicitur iudicativa, inquantum per resolutionem in prima principia intelligibilia de veritate inquisitorum diiudicatur. Et ideo consideratio maxime pertinet ad iudicium. Unde et defectus recti iudicii ad vitium inconsiderationis pertinet, prout scilicet aliquis in recte iudicando deficit ex hoc quod contemnit vel negligit attendere ea ex quibus rectum iudicium procedit. Unde manifestum est quod inconsideratio est peccatum. | I answer that, Thought signifies the act of the intellect in considering the truth about. something. Now just as research belongs to the reason, so judgment belongs to the intellect. Wherefore in speculative matters a demonstrative science is said to exercise judgment, in so far as it judges the truth of the results of research by tracing those results back to the first indemonstrable principles. Hence thought pertains chiefly to judgment; and consequently the lack of right judgment belongs to the vice of thoughtlessness, in so far, to wit, as one fails to judge rightly through contempt or neglect of those things on which a right judgment depends. It is therefore evident that thoughtlessness is a sin. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dominus non prohibet considerare ea quae sunt agenda vel dicenda, quando homo habet opportunitatem. Sed dat fiduciam discipulis in verbis inductis ut, deficiente sibi opportunitate vel propter imperitiam vel quia subito praeoccupantur, in solo divino confidant consilio, quia cum ignoramus quid agere debeamus, hoc solum habemus residui, ut oculos nostros dirigamus ad Deum, sicut dicitur II Paral. XX. Alioquin, si homo praetermittat facere quod potest, solum divinum auxilium expectans, videtur tentare Deum. | Reply to Objection 1: Our Lord did not forbid us to take thought, when we have the opportunity, about what we ought to do or say, but, in the words quoted, He encourages His disciples, so that when they had no opportunity of taking thought, either through lack of knowledge or through a sudden call, they should trust in the guidance of God alone, because "as we know not what to do, we can only turn our eyes to God," according to 2 Paral 20:12: else if man, instead of doing what he can, were to be content with awaiting God's assistance, he would seem to tempt God. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod tota consideratio eorum quae in consilio attenduntur ordinatur ad recte iudicandum, et ideo consideratio in iudicio perficitur. Unde etiam inconsideratio maxime opponitur rectitudini iudicii. | Reply to Objection 2: All thought about those things of which counsel takes cognizance, is directed to the formation of a right judgment, wherefore this thought is perfected in judgment. Consequently thoughtlessness is above all opposed to the rectitude of judgment. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod inconsideratio hic accipitur secundum determinatam materiam, idest secundum agibilia humana, in quibus plura sunt attendenda ad recte iudicandum quam etiam in speculativis; quia operationes sunt in singularibus. | Reply to Objection 3: Thoughtlessness is to be taken here in relation to a determinate matter, namely, that of human action, wherein more things have to be thought about for the purpose of right judgment, than in speculative matters, because actions are about singulars. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 53 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconstantia non sit vitium sub imprudentia contentum. Inconstantia enim videtur in hoc consistere quod homo non persistat in aliquo difficili. Sed persistere in difficilibus pertinet ad fortitudinem. Ergo inconstantia magis opponitur fortitudini quam prudentiae. | Objection 1: It would seem that inconstancy is not a vice contained under imprudence. For inconstancy consists seemingly in a lack of perseverance in matters of difficulty. But perseverance in difficult matters belongs to fortitude. Therefore inconstancy is opposed to fortitude rather than to prudence. |
| Praeterea, Iac. III dicitur, ubi zelus et contentio, ibi inconstantia et omne opus pravum. Sed zelus ad invidiam pertinet. Ergo inconstantia non pertinet ad imprudentiam, sed magis ad invidiam. | Objection 2: Further, it is written (James 3:16): "Where jealousy [Douay: 'envy'] and contention are, there are inconstancy and every evil work." But jealousy pertains to envy. Therefore inconstancy pertains not to imprudence but to envy. |
| Praeterea, ille videtur esse inconstans qui non perseverat in eo quod proposuerat. Quod quidem pertinet in delectationibus ad incontinentem, in tristitiis autem ad mollem sive delicatum, ut dicitur VII Ethic. Ergo inconstantia non pertinet ad imprudentiam. | Objection 3: Further, a man would seem to be inconstant who fails to persevere in what he has proposed to do. Now this is a mark of "incontinency" in pleasurable matters, and of "effeminacy" or "squeamishness" in unpleasant matters, according to Ethic. vii, 1. Therefore inconstancy does not pertain to imprudence. |
| Sed contra est quod ad prudentiam pertinet praeferre maius bonum minus bono. Ergo desistere a meliori pertinet ad imprudentiam. Sed hoc est inconstantia. Ergo inconstantia pertinet ad imprudentiam. | On the contrary, It belongs to prudence to prefer the greater good to the lesser. Therefore to forsake the greater good belongs to imprudence. Now this is inconstancy. Therefore inconstancy belongs to imprudence. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod inconstantia importat recessum quendam a bono proposito definito. Huiusmodi autem recessus principium quidem habet a vi appetitiva, non enim aliquis recedit a priori bono proposito nisi propter aliquid quod sibi inordinate placet. Sed iste recessus non consummatur nisi per defectum rationis, quae fallitur in hoc quod repudiat id quod recte acceptaverat, et quia, cum possit resistere impulsui passionis, si non resistat, hoc est ex debilitate ipsius, quae non tenet se firmiter in bono concepto. Et ideo inconstantia, quantum ad sui consummationem, pertinet ad defectum rationis. Sicut autem omnis rectitudo rationis practicae pertinet aliqualiter ad prudentiam, ita omnis defectus eiusdem pertinet ad imprudentiam. Et ideo inconstantia, secundum sui consummationem, ad imprudentiam pertinet. Et sicut praecipitatio est ex defectu circa actum consilii, et inconsideratio circa actum iudicii, ita inconstantia circa actum praecepti, ex hoc enim dicitur aliquis esse inconstans quod ratio deficit in praecipiendo ea quae sunt consiliata et iudicata. | I answer that, Inconstancy denotes withdrawal from a definite good purpose. Now the origin of this withdrawal is in the appetite, for a man does not withdraw from a previous good purpose, except on account of something being inordinately pleasing to him: nor is this withdrawal completed except through a defect of reason, which is deceived in rejecting what before it had rightly accepted. And since it can resist the impulse of the passions, if it fail to do this, it is due to its own weakness in not standing to the good purpose it has conceived; hence inconstancy, as to its completion, is due to a defect in the reason. Now just as all rectitude of the practical reason belongs in some degree to prudence, so all lack of that rectitude belongs to imprudence. Consequently inconstancy, as to its completion, belongs to imprudence. And just as precipitation is due to a defect in the act of counsel, and thoughtlessness to a defect in the act of judgment, so inconstancy arises from a defect in the act of command. For a man is stated to be inconstant because his reason fails in commanding what has been counselled and judged. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod bonum prudentiae participatur in omnibus virtutibus moralibus, et secundum hoc persistere in bono pertinet ad omnes virtutes morales. Praecipue tamen ad fortitudinem, quae patitur maiorem impulsum ad contrarium. | Reply to Objection 1: The good of prudence is shared by all the moral virtues, and accordingly perseverance in good belongs to all moral virtues, chiefly, however, to fortitude, which suffers a greater impulse to the contrary. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod invidia et ira, quae est contentionis principium, faciunt inconstantiam ex parte appetitivae virtutis, ex qua est principium inconstantiae, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 2: Envy and anger, which are the source of contention, cause inconstancy on the part of the appetite, to which power the origin of inconstancy is due, as stated above. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod continentia et perseverantia non videntur esse in vi appetitiva, sed solum in ratione. Continens enim patitur quidem perversas concupiscentias, et perseverans graves tristitias, quod designat defectum appetitivae virtutis, sed ratio firmiter persistit, continentis quidem contra concupiscentias, perseverantis autem contra tristitias. Unde continentia et perseverantia videntur esse species constantiae ad rationem pertinentis, ad quam etiam pertinet inconstantia | Reply to Objection 3: Continency and perseverance seem to be not in the appetitive power, but in the reason. For the continent man suffers evil concupiscences, and the persevering man suffers grievous sorrows (which points to a defect in the appetitive power); but reason stands firm, in the continent man, against concupiscence, and in the persevering man, against sorrow. Hence continency and perseverance seem to be species of constancy which pertains to reason; and to this power inconstancy pertains also. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 53 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod praedicta vitia non oriantur ex luxuria. Inconstantia enim oritur ex invidia, ut dictum est. Sed invidia est vitium distinctum a luxuria. Ergo praedicta vitia non oriuntur ex luxuria. | Objection 1: It would seem that the aforesaid vices do not arise from lust. For inconstancy arises from envy, as stated above (Article [5], ad 2). But envy is a distinct vice from lust. |
| Praeterea, Iac. I dicitur, vir duplex animo inconstans est in omnibus viis suis. Sed duplicitas non videtur ad luxuriam pertinere, sed magis ad dolositatem, quae est filia avaritiae, secundum Gregorium, XXXI Moral. Ergo praedicta vitia non oriuntur ex luxuria. | Objection 2: Further, it is written (James 1:8): "A double-minded man is inconstant in all his ways." Now duplicity does not seem to pertain to lust, but rather to deceitfulness, which is a daughter of covetousness, according to Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45). Therefore the aforesaid vices do not arise from lust. |
| Praeterea, praedicta vitia pertinent ad defectum rationis. Sed vitia spiritualia propinquiora sunt rationi quam vitia carnalia. Ergo praedicta vitia magis oriuntur ex vitiis spiritualibus quam ex vitiis carnalibus. | Objection 3: Further, the aforesaid vices are connected with some defect of reason. Now spiritual vices are more akin to the reason than carnal vices. Therefore the aforesaid vices arise from spiritual vices rather than from carnal vices. |
| Sed contra est quod Gregorius, XXXI Moral., ponit praedicta vitia ex luxuria oriri. | On the contrary, Gregory declares (Moral. xxxi, 45) that the aforesaid vices arise from lust. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in VI Ethic., delectatio maxime corrumpit existimationem prudentiae, et praecipue delectatio quae est in venereis, quae totam animam absorbet et trahit ad sensibilem delectationem; perfectio autem prudentiae, et cuiuslibet intellectualis virtutis, consistit in abstractione a sensibilibus. Unde cum praedicta vitia pertineant ad defectum prudentiae et rationis practicae, sicut habitum est, sequitur quod ex luxuria maxime oriantur. | I answer that, As the Philosopher states (Ethic. vi, 5) "pleasure above all corrupts the estimate of prudence," and chiefly sexual pleasure which absorbs the mind, and draws it to sensible delight. Now the perfection of prudence and of every intellectual virtue consists in abstraction from sensible objects. Wherefore, since the aforesaid vices involve a defect of prudence and of the practical reason, as stated above (Articles [2],5), it follows that they arise chiefly from lust. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod invidia et ira causant inconstantiam pertrahendo rationem ad aliud, sed luxuria causat inconstantiam totaliter extinguendo iudicium rationis. Unde philosophus dicit, in VII Ethic., quod incontinens irae audit quidem rationem, sed non perfecte, incontinens autem concupiscentiae totaliter eam non audit. | Reply to Objection 1: Envy and anger cause inconstancy by drawing away the reason to something else; whereas lust causes inconstancy by destroying the judgment of reason entirely. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 6) that "the man who is incontinent through anger listens to reason, yet not perfectly, whereas he who is incontinent through lust does not listen to it at all." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod etiam duplicitas animi est quoddam consequens ad luxuriam, sicut et inconstantia, prout duplicitas animi importat vertibilitatem animi ad diversa. Unde et Terentius dicit, in eunucho, quod in amore est bellum, et rursus pax et indutiae. | Reply to Objection 2: Duplicity also is something resulting from lust, just as inconstancy is, if by duplicity we understand fluctuation of the mind from one thing to another. Hence Terence says (Eunuch. act 1, sc. 1) that "love leads to war, and likewise to peace and truce." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod vitia carnalia intantum magis extinguunt iudicium rationis inquantum longius abducunt a ratione. | Reply to Objection 3: Carnal vices destroy the judgment of reason so much the more as they lead us away from reason. |