Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 162 [<< | >>]
Deinde considerandum est de superbia.
|
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 162 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod superbia non sit peccatum. Nullum enim peccatum est repromissum a Deo, promittit enim Deus quod ipse facturus est; non est autem auctor peccati. Sed superbia connumeratur inter repromissiones divinas, dicitur enim Isaiae LX, ponam te in superbiam saeculorum, gaudium in generatione et generationem. Ergo superbia non est peccatum. | Objection 1: It would seem that pride is not a sin. For no sin is the object of God's promise. For God's promises refer to what He will do; and He is not the author of sin. Now pride is numbered among the Divine promises: for it is written (Is. 60:15): "I will make thee to be an everlasting pride [Douay: 'glory'], a joy unto generation and generation." Therefore pride is not a sin. |
| Praeterea, appetere divinam similitudinem non est peccatum, hoc enim naturaliter appetit quaelibet creatura, et in hoc optimum eius consistit. Et praecipue hoc convenit rationali creaturae, quae facta est ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei. Sed sicut dicitur in libro sententiarum prosperi, superbia est amor propriae excellentiae, per quam homo Deo similatur, qui est excellentissimus, unde dicit Augustinus, in II Confess., superbia celsitudinem imitatur, cum tu sis unus super omnia Deus excelsus. Ergo superbia non est peccatum. | Objection 2: Further, it is not a sin to wish to be like unto God: for every creature has a natural desire for this; and especially does this become the rational creature which is made to God's image and likeness. Now it is said in Prosper's Lib. Sent. 294, that "pride is love of one's own excellence, whereby one is likened to God who is supremely excellent." Hence Augustine says (Confess. ii, 6): "Pride imitates exaltedness; whereas Thou alone art God exalted over all." Therefore pride is not a sin. |
| Praeterea, peccatum non solum contrariatur virtuti, sed etiam opposito vitio, ut patet per philosophum, in II Ethic. Sed nullum vitium invenitur oppositum esse superbiae. Ergo superbia non est peccatum. | Objection 3: Further, a sin is opposed not only to a virtue but also to a contrary vice, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. ii, 8). But no vice is found to be opposed to pride. Therefore pride is not a sin. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Tobiae IV, superbiam nunquam in tuo sensu aut in tuo verbo dominari permittas. | On the contrary, It is written (Tobias 4:14): "Never suffer pride to reign in thy mind or in thy words." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod superbia nominatur ex hoc quod aliquis per voluntatem tendit supra id quod est, unde dicit Isidorus, in libro Etymol., superbus dictus est quia super vult videri quam est, qui enim vult supergredi quod est, superbus est. Habet autem hoc ratio recta, ut voluntas uniuscuiusque feratur in id quod est proportionatum sibi. Et ideo manifestum est quod superbia importat aliquid quod adversatur rationi rectae. Hoc autem facit rationem peccati, quia secundum Dionysium, IV cap. de Div. Nom., malum animae est praeter rationem esse. Unde manifestum est quod superbia est peccatum. | I answer that, Pride [superbia] is so called because a man thereby aims higher [supra] than he is; wherefore Isidore says (Etym. x): "A man is said to be proud, because he wishes to appear above (super) what he really is"; for he who wishes to overstep beyond what he is, is proud. Now right reason requires that every man's will should tend to that which is proportionate to him. Therefore it is evident that pride denotes something opposed to right reason, and this shows it to have the character of sin, because according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv, 4), "the soul's evil is to be opposed to reason." Therefore it is evident that pride is a sin. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod superbia dupliciter accipi potest. Uno modo, ex eo quod supergreditur regulam rationis. Et sic dicimus eam esse peccatum. Alio modo potest superbia nominari simpliciter a superexcessu. Et secundum hoc, omne superexcedens potest nominari superbia. Et ita repromittitur a Deo superbia, quasi quidam superexcessus bonorum. Unde et Glossa Hieronymi dicit, ibidem, quod est superbia bona, et mala. | Reply to Objection 1: Pride [superbia] may be understood in two ways. First, as overpassing [supergreditur] the rule of reason, and in this sense we say that it is a sin. Secondly, it may simply denominate "super-abundance"; in which sense any super-abundant thing may be called pride: and it is thus that God promises pride as significant of super-abundant good. Hence a gloss of Jerome on the same passage (Is. 61:6) says that "there is a good and an evil pride"; or "a sinful pride which God resists, and a pride that denotes the glory which He bestows." |
| Quamvis etiam dici possit quod superbia ibi accipitur materialiter pro abundantia rerum de quibus possunt homines superbire. | It may also be replied that pride there signifies abundance of those things in which men may take pride. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod eorum quae naturaliter homo appetit, ratio est ordinatrix, et ita, si aliquis a regula rationis recedit, vel in plus vel in minus, erit talis appetitus vitiosus; sicut patet de appetitu cibi, qui naturaliter desideratur. Superbia autem appetit excellentiam in excessu ad rationem rectam, unde Augustinus dicit, in XIV de Civ. Dei, quod superbia est perversae celsitudinis appetitus. Et inde est etiam quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XIX de Civ. Dei, superbia perverse imitatur Deum. Odit namque cum sociis aequalitatem sub illo, sed imponere vult sociis dominationem suam pro illo. | Reply to Objection 2: Reason has the direction of those things for which man has a natural appetite; so that if the appetite wander from the rule of reason, whether by excess or by default, it will be sinful, as is the case with the appetite for food which man desires naturally. Now pride is the appetite for excellence in excess of right reason. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 13) that pride is the "desire for inordinate exaltation": and hence it is that, as he asserts (De Civ. Dei xiv, 13; xix, 12), "pride imitates God inordinately: for it hath equality of fellowship under Him, and wishes to usurp Hi. dominion over our fellow-creatures." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod superbia directe opponitur virtuti humilitatis, quae quodammodo circa eadem magnanimitati existit, ut supra dictum est. Unde et vitium quod opponitur superbiae in defectum vergens, propinquum est vitio pusillanimitatis, quae opponitur magnanimitati secundum defectum. Nam sicut ad magnanimitatem pertinet impellere animum ad magna, contra desperationem; ita ad humilitatem pertinet retrahere animum ab inordinato appetitu magnorum, contra praesumptionem. Pusillanimitas autem, si importet defectum a prosecutione magnorum, proprie opponitur magnanimitati per modum defectus; si autem importet applicationem animi ad aliqua viliora quam hominem deceant, opponetur humilitati secundum defectum, utrumque enim ex animi parvitate procedit. Sicut et e contrario superbia potest secundum superexcessum et magnanimitati et humilitati opponi, secundum rationes diversas, humilitati quidem, secundum quod subiectionem aspernatur; magnanimitati autem, secundum quod inordinate ad magna se extendit. Sed quia superbia superioritatem quandam importat, directius opponitur humilitati, sicut et pusillanimitas, quae importat parvitatem animi in magna tendentis, directius opponitur magnanimitati. | Reply to Objection 3: Pride is directly opposed to the virtue of humility, which, in a way, is concerned about the same matter as magnanimity, as stated above (Question [161], Article [1], ad 3). Hence the vice opposed to pride by default is akin to the vice of pusillanimity, which is opposed by default to magnanimity. For just as it belongs to magnanimity to urge the mind to great things against despair, so it belongs to humility to withdraw the mind from the inordinate desire of great things against presumption. Now pusillanimity, if we take it for a deficiency in pursuing great things, is properly opposed to magnanimity by default; but if we take it for the mind's attachment to things beneath what is becoming to a man, it is opposed to humility by default; since each proceeds from a smallness of mind. In the same way, on the other hand, pride may be opposed by excess, both to magnanimity and humility, from different points of view: to humility, inasmuch as it scorns subjection, to magnanimity, inasmuch as it tends to great things inordinately. Since, however, pride implies a certain elation, it is more directly opposed to humility, even as pusillanimity, which denotes littleness of soul in tending towards great things, is more directly opposed to magnanimity. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 162 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod superbia non sit speciale peccatum. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de Nat. et gratia, quod sine superbiae appellatione, nullum peccatum invenies. Et prosper dicit, in libro de vita Contemplat., nullum peccatum absque superbia potest, vel potuit esse, aut poterit. Ergo superbia est generale peccatum. | Objection 1: It would seem that pride is not a special sin. For Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xxix) that "you will find no sin that is not labelled pride"; and Prosper says (De Vita Contempl. iii, 2) that "without pride no sin is, or was, or ever will be possible." Therefore pride is a general sin. |
| Praeterea, Iob XXXIII, ut avertat hominem ab iniquitate, dicit Glossa quod contra conditorem superbire est eius praecepta peccando transcendere. Sed secundum Ambrosium, omne peccatum est transgressio legis divinae et caelestium inobedientia mandatorum. Ergo omne peccatum est superbia. | Objection 2: Further, a gloss on Job 33:17, "That He may withdraw man from wickedness [*Vulg.: 'From the things that he is doing, and may deliver him from pride']," says that "a man prides himself when he transgresses His commandments by sin." Now according to Ambrose [*De Parad. viii], "every sin is a transgression of the Divine law, and a disobedience of the heavenly commandments." Therefore every sin is pride. |
| Praeterea, omne peccatum speciale alicui speciali virtuti opponitur. Sed superbia opponitur omnibus virtutibus, dicit enim Gregorius, XXXIV Moral., superbia nequaquam est unius virtutis extinctione contenta, per cuncta animae membra se erigit, et quasi generalis ac pestifer morbus, corpus omne corrumpit. Et Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., quod est ruina omnium virtutum ergo superbia non est speciale peccatum. | Objection 3: Further, every special sin is opposed to a special virtue. But pride is opposed to all the virtues, for Gregory says (Moral. xxxiv, 23): "Pride is by no means content with the destruction of one virtue; it raises itself up against all the powers of the soul, and like an all-pervading and poisonous disease corrupts the whole body"; and Isidore says (Etym. [*De Summo Bono ii, 38]) that it is "the downfall of all virtues." Therefore pride is not a special sin. |
| Praeterea, omne peccatum speciale habet specialem materiam. Sed superbia habet generalem materiam, dicit enim Gregorius, XXXIV Moral., quod alter intumescit auro, alter eloquio, alter infimis et terrenis rebus, alter summis caelestibusque virtutibus. Ergo superbia non est speciale peccatum, sed generale. | Objection 4: Further, every special sin has a special matter. Now pride has a general matter, for Gregory says (Moral. xxxiv, 23) that "one man is proud of his gold, another of his eloquence: one is elated by mean and earthly things, another by sublime and heavenly virtues." Therefore pride is not a special but a general sin. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de Nat. et gratia, quaerat, et inveniet, secundum legem Dei, superbiam esse peccatum multum discretum ab aliis vitiis. Genus autem non distinguitur a suis speciebus. Ergo superbia non est generale peccatum, sed speciale. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xxix): "If he look into the question carefully, he will find that, according to God's law, pride is a very different sin from other vices." Now the genus is not different from its species. Therefore pride is not a general but a special sin. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod peccatum superbiae dupliciter potest considerari. Uno modo, secundum propriam speciem, quam habet ex ratione proprii obiecti. Et hoc modo superbia est speciale peccatum, quia habet speciale obiectum, est enim inordinatus appetitus propriae excellentiae, ut dictum est. Alio modo potest considerari secundum redundantiam quandam in alia peccata. Et secundum hoc, habet quandam generalitatem, inquantum scilicet ex superbia oriri possunt omnia peccata, duplici ratione. Uno modo, per se, inquantum scilicet alia peccata ordinantur ad finem superbiae, qui est propria excellentia, ad quam potest ordinari omne id quod quis inordinate appetit. Alio modo, indirecte et quasi per accidens, scilicet removendo prohibens, inquantum scilicet per superbiam homo contemnit divinam legem, per quam prohibetur a peccando; secundum illud Ierem. II, confregisti iugum, rupisti vincula, dixisti, non serviam. | I answer that, The sin of pride may be considered in two ways. First with regard to its proper species, which it has under the aspect of its proper object. In this way pride is a special sin, because it has a special object: for it is inordinate desire of one's own excellence, as stated (Article [1], ad 2). Secondly, it may be considered as having a certain influence towards other sins. In this way it has somewhat of a generic character, inasmuch as all sins may arise from pride, in two ways. First directly, through other sins being directed to the end of pride which is one's own excellence, to which may be directed anything that is inordinately desired. Secondly, indirectly and accidentally as it were, that is by removing an obstacle, since pride makes a man despise the Divine law which hinders him from sinning, according to Jer. 2:20, "Thou hast broken My yoke, thou hast burst My bands, and thou saidst: I will not serve." |
| Sciendum tamen quod ad hanc generalitatem superbiae pertinet quod omnia vitia ex superbia interdum oriri possunt, non autem ad eam pertinet quod omnia vitia semper ex superbia oriantur. Quamvis enim omnia praecepta legis possit aliquis transgredi qualicumque peccato ex contemptu, qui pertinet ad superbiam; non tamen semper ex contemptu aliquis praecepta divina transgreditur, sed quandoque ex ignorantia, quandoque ex infirmitate. Et inde est quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Nat. et gratia, multa perperam fiunt, quae non fiunt superbe. | It must, however, be observed that this generic character of pride admits of the possibility of all vices arising from pride sometimes, but it does not imply that all vices originate from pride always. For though one may break the commandments of the Law by any kind of sin, through contempt which pertains to pride, yet one does not always break the Divine commandments through contempt, but sometimes through ignorance. and sometimes through weakness: and for this reason Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xxix) that "many things are done amiss which are not done through pride." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus illa verba inducit, in libro de Nat. et gratia, non ex persona sua, sed ex persona alterius, contra quem disputat. Unde et postmodum improbat ea, ostendens quod non semper ex superbia peccatur. Potest tamen dici quod auctoritates illae intelliguntur quantum ad exteriorem effectum superbiae, qui est transgredi praecepta, quod invenitur in quolibet peccato, non autem quantum ad interiorem actum superbiae, qui est contemptus praecepti. Non enim semper peccatum fit ex contemptu, sed quandoque ex ignorantia, quandoque ex infirmitate, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1: These words are introduced by Augustine into his book De Nat. et Grat., not as being his own, but as those of someone with whom he is arguing. Hence he subsequently disproves the assertion, and shows that not all sins are committed through pride. We might, however, reply that these authorities must be understood as referring to the outward effect of pride, namely the breaking of the commandments, which applies to every sin, and not to the inward act of pride, namely contempt of the commandment. For sin is committed, not always through contempt, but sometimes through ignorance, sometimes through weakness, as stated above. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod quandoque aliquis committit aliquod peccatum secundum effectum, sed non secundum affectum, sicut ille qui ignoranter occidit patrem, committit parricidium secundum effectum, sed non secundum affectum, quia hoc non intendebat. Et secundum hoc, transgredi praeceptum Dei dicitur esse contra Deum superbire, secundum effectum quidem semper, non autem semper secundum affectum. | Reply to Objection 2: A man may sometimes commit a sin effectively, but not affectively; thus he who, in ignorance, slays his father, is a parricide effectively, but not affectively, since he did not intend it. Accordingly he who breaks God's commandment is said to pride himself against God, effectively always, but not always affectively. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod peccatum aliquod potest corrumpere virtutem dupliciter. Uno modo, per directam contrarietatem ad virtutem. Et hoc modo superbia non corrumpit quamlibet virtutem, sed solam humilitatem, sicut et quodlibet aliud speciale peccatum corrumpit specialem virtutem sibi oppositam, contrarium agendo. Alio modo peccatum aliquod corrumpit virtutem abutendo ipsa virtute. Et sic superbia corrumpit quamlibet virtutem, inquantum scilicet ex ipsis virtutibus sumit occasionem superbiendi, sicut et quibuslibet aliis rebus ad excellentiam pertinentibus. Unde non sequitur quod sit generale peccatum. | Reply to Objection 3: A sin may destroy a virtue in two ways. In one way by direct contrariety to a virtue, and thus pride does not corrupt every virtue, but only humility; even as every special sin destroys the special virtue opposed to it, by acting counter thereto. In another way a sin destroys a virtue, by making ill use of that virtue: and thus pride destroys every virtue, in so far as it finds an occasion of pride in every virtue, just as in everything else pertaining to excellence. Hence it does not follow that it is a general sin. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod superbia attendit specialem rationem obiecti, quae tamen inveniri potest in diversis materiis. Est enim inordinatus amor propriae excellentiae, excellentia autem potest in diversis rebus inveniri. | Reply to Objection 4: Pride regards a special aspect in its object, which aspect may be found in various matters: for it is inordinate love of one's excellence, and excellence may be found in various things. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 162 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod superbia non sit in irascibili sicut in subiecto. Dicit enim Gregorius, XXIII Moral., obstaculum veritatis tumor mentis est, quia, dum inflat, obnubilat. Sed cognitio veritatis non pertinet ad irascibilem, sed ad vim rationalem. Ergo superbia non est in irascibili. | Objection 1: It would seem that the subject of pride is not the irascible faculty. For Gregory says (Moral. xxiii, 17): "A swollen mind is an obstacle to truth, for the swelling shuts out the light." Now the knowledge of truth pertains, not to the irascible but to the rational faculty. Therefore pride is not in the irascible. |
| Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, XXIV Moral., quod superbi non eorum vitam considerant quibus se humiliando postponant, sed quibus superbiendo se praeferant, et sic videtur superbia ex indebita consideratione procedere. Sed consideratio non pertinet ad irascibilem, sed potius ad rationalem. Ergo superbia non est in irascibili, sed potius in rationali. | Objection 2: Further, Gregory says (Moral. xxiv, 8) that "the proud observe other people's conduct not so as to set themselves beneath them with humility, but so as to set themselves above them with pride": wherefore it would seem that pride originates in undue observation. Now observation pertains not to the irascible but to the rational faculty. |
| Praeterea, superbia non solum quaerit excellentiam in rebus sensibilibus, sed etiam in rebus spiritualibus et intelligibilibus ipsa etiam principaliter consistit in contemptu Dei, secundum illud Eccli. X, initium superbiae hominis est apostatare a Deo. Sed irascibilis, cum sit pars appetitus sensitivi, non potest se extendere in Deum et in intelligibilia. Ergo superbia non potest esse in irascibili. | Objection 3: Further. pride seeks pre-eminence not only in sensible things, but also in spiritual and intelligible things: while it consists essentially in the contempt of God, according to Ecclus. 10:14, "The beginning of the pride of man is to fall off from God." Now the irascible, since it is a part of the sensitive appetite, cannot extend to God and things intelligible. Therefore pride cannot be in the irascible. |
| Praeterea, ut dicitur in libro sententiarum prosperi, superbia est amor propriae excellentiae. Sed amor non est in irascibili, sed in concupiscibili. Ergo superbia non est in irascibili. | Objection 4: Further, as stated in Prosper's Liber Sententiarum, sent. 294, "Pride is love of one's own excellence." But love is not in the irascible, but in the concupiscible. Therefore pride is not in the irascible. |
| Sed contra est quod Gregorius, in II Moral., ponit contra superbiam donum timoris. Timor autem pertinet ad irascibilem. Ergo superbia est in irascibili. | On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. ii, 49) opposes pride to the gift of fear. Now fear belongs to the irascible. Therefore pride is in the irascible. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod subiectum cuiuslibet virtutis vel vitii oportet inquirere ex proprio obiecto, non enim potest esse aliud obiectum habitus vel actus nisi quod est obiectum potentiae quae utrique subiicitur. Proprium autem obiectum superbiae est arduum, est enim appetitus propriae excellentiae, ut dictum est. Unde oportet quod superbia aliquo modo ad vim irascibilem pertineat. Sed irascibilis dupliciter accipi potest. Uno modo, proprie. Et sic est pars appetitus sensitivi, sicut et ira proprie sumpta est quaedam passio sensitivi appetitus. Alio modo, potest accipi irascibilis largius, ut scilicet pertineat etiam ad appetitum intellectivum, cui etiam quandoque attribuitur ira, prout scilicet attribuimus iram Deo et Angelis, non quidem secundum passionem, sed secundum iudicium iustitiae iudicantis. Et tamen irascibilis sic communiter dicta non est potentia distincta a concupiscibili, ut patet ex his quae in primo dicta sunt. | I answer that, The subject of any virtue or vice is to be ascertained from its proper object: for the object of a habit or act cannot be other than the object of the power, which is the subject of both. Now the proper object of pride is something difficult, for pride is the desire of one's own excellence, as stated above (Articles [1],2). Wherefore pride must needs pertain in some way to the irascible faculty. Now the irascible may be taken in two ways. First in a strict sense, and thus it is a part of the sensitive appetite, even as anger, strictly speaking, is a passion of the sensitive appetite. Secondly, the irascible may be taken in a broader sense, so as to belong also to the intellective appetite, to which also anger is sometimes ascribed. It is thus that we attribute anger to God and the angels, not as a passion, but as denoting the sentence of justice pronouncing judgment. Nevertheless the irascible understood in this broad sense is not distinct from the concupiscible power, as stated above in the FP, Question [59], Article [4]; FS, Question [82], Article [5], ad 1 and 2. |
| Si ergo arduum quod est obiectum superbiae, esset solum aliquid sensibile, in quod posset tendere appetitus sensitivus, oporteret quod superbia esset in irascibili quae est pars appetitus sensitivi. Sed quia arduum quod respicit superbia, communiter invenitur et in sensibilibus et in spiritualibus rebus necesse est dicere quod subiectum superbiae sit irascibilis non solum proprie sumpta, prout est pars appetitus sensitivi, sed etiam communius accepta, prout invenitur in appetitu intellectivo. Unde et in Daemonibus superbia ponitur. | Consequently if the difficult thing which is the object of pride, were merely some sensible object, whereto the sensitive appetite might tend, pride would have to be in the irascible which is part of the sensitive appetite. But since the difficult thing which pride has in view is common both to sensible and to spiritual things, we must needs say that the subject of pride is the irascible not only strictly so called, as a part of the sensitive appetite, but also in its wider acceptation, as applicable to the intellective appetite. Wherefore pride is ascribed also to the demons. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod cognitio veritatis est duplex. Una pure speculativa. Et hanc superbia indirecte impedit, subtrahendo causam. Superbus enim neque Deo suum intellectum subiicit, ut ab eo veritatis cognitionem percipiat, secundum illud Matth. XI, abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus, idest a superbis, qui sibi sapientes et prudentes videntur, et revelasti ea parvulis, idest humilibus. | Reply to Objection 1: Knowledge of truth is twofold. One is purely speculative, and pride hinders this indirectly by removing its cause. For the proud man subjects not his intellect to God, that he may receive the knowledge of truth from Him, according to Mt. 11:25, "Thou hast hid these things from the wise and the prudent," i.e. from the proud, who are wise and prudent in their own eyes, "and hast revealed them to little ones," i.e. to the humble. |
| Neque etiam ab hominibus addiscere dignantur, cum tamen dicatur, Eccli. VI, si inclinaveris aurem tuam. Scilicet humiliter audiendo, excipies doctrinam. Alia autem est cognitio veritatis affectiva. Et talem cognitionem veritatis directe impedit superbia. Quia superbi, dum delectantur in propria excellentia, excellentiam veritatis fastidiunt, ut Gregorius dicit, XXIII Moral., quod superbi et secreta quaedam intelligendo percipiunt, et eorum dulcedinem experiri non possunt, et si noverint quomodo sunt, ignorant quomodo sapiunt. Unde et Proverb. XI dicitur, ubi humilitas, ibi sapientia. | Nor does he deign to learn anything from man, whereas it is written (Ecclus. 6:34): "If thou wilt incline thy ear, thou shalt receive instruction." The other knowledge of truth is affective, and this is directly hindered by pride, because the proud, through delighting in their own excellence, disdain the excellence of truth; thus Gregory says (Moral. xxiii, 17) that "the proud, although certain hidden truths be conveyed to their understanding, cannot realize their sweetness: and if they know of them they cannot relish them." Hence it is written (Prov. 11:2): "Where humility is there also is wisdom." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, humilitas attendit ad regulam rationis rectae, secundum quam aliquis veram existimationem de se habet. Hanc autem regulam rectae rationis non attendit superbia, sed de se maiora existimat quam sint. Quod contingit ex inordinato appetitu propriae excellentiae, quia quod quis vehementer desiderat, facile credit. Et ex hoc etiam eius appetitus in altiora fertur quam sibi conveniant. Et ideo quaecumque ad hoc conferant quod aliquis existimet se supra id quod est, inducunt hominem ad superbiam. Quorum unum est quod aliquis consideret defectus aliorum, sicut e contrario Gregorius, ibidem, dicit quod sancti viri virtutum consideratione vicissim sibi alios praeferunt. Ex hoc ergo non habetur quod superbia sit in rationali, sed quod aliqua causa eius in ratione existat. | Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Question [161], Articles [2], 6), humility observes the rule of right reason whereby a man has true self-esteem. Now pride does not observe this rule of right reason, for he esteems himself greater than he is: and this is the outcome of an inordinate desire for his own excellence, since a man is ready to believe what he desires very much, the result being that his appetite is borne towards things higher than what become him. Consequently whatsoever things lead a man to inordinate self-esteem lead him to pride: and one of those is the observing of other people's failings, just as, on the other hand, in the words of Gregory (Moral. xxiii, 17), "holy men, by a like observation of other people's virtues, set others above themselves." Accordingly the conclusion is not that pride is in the rational faculty, but that one of its causes is in the reason. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod superbia non est solum in irascibili secundum quod est pars appetitus sensitivi, sed prout communius irascibilis accipitur, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3: Pride is in the irascible, not only as a part of the sensitive appetite, but also as having a more general signification, as stated above. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XIV de Civ. Dei, amor praecedit omnes alias animi affectiones, et est causa earum. Et ideo potest poni pro qualibet aliarum affectionum. Et secundum hoc, superbia dicitur esse amor propriae excellentiae, inquantum ex amore causatur inordinata praesumptio alios superandi, quod proprie pertinet ad superbiam. | Reply to Objection 4: According to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7,9), "love precedes all other emotions of the soul, and is their cause," wherefore it may be employed to denote any of the other emotions. It is in this sense that pride is said to be "love of one's own excellence," inasmuch as love makes a man presume inordinately on his superiority over others, and this belongs properly to pride. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 162 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter assignentur quatuor superbiae species quas Gregorius assignat, XXIII Moral., dicens, quatuor quippe sunt species quibus omnis tumor arrogantium demonstratur, cum bonum aut a semetipsis habere se aestimant; aut, si sibi datum desuper credunt, pro suis hoc accepisse meritis putant; aut cum iactant se habere quod non habent; aut, despectis ceteris, singulariter videri appetunt habere quod habent. Superbia enim est vitium distinctum ab infidelitate, sicut etiam humilitas est virtus distincta a fide. Sed quod aliquis existimet bonum se non habere a Deo, vel quod bonum gratiae habeat ex meritis propriis, ad infidelitatem pertinet. Ergo non debent poni species superbiae. | Objection 1: It seems that the four species of pride are unfittingly assigned by Gregory, who says (Moral. xxiii, 6): "There are four marks by which every kind of pride of the arrogant betrays itself; either when they think that their good is from themselves, or if they believe it to be from above, yet they think that it is due to their own merits; or when they boast of having what they have not, or despise others and wish to appear the exclusive possessors of what they have." For pride is a vice distinct from unbelief, just as humility is a distinct virtue from faith. Now it pertains to unbelief, if a man deem that he has not received his good from God, or that he has the good of grace through his own merits. Therefore this should not be reckoned a species of pride. |
| Praeterea, idem non debet poni species diversorum generum. Sed iactantia ponitur species mendacii, ut supra habitum est. Non ergo debet poni species superbiae. | Objection 2: Further, the same thing should not be reckoned a species of different genera. Now boasting is reckoned a species of lying, as stated above (Question [110], Article [2]; Question [112]). Therefore it should not be accounted a species of pride. |
| Praeterea, quaedam alia videntur ad superbiam pertinere quae hic non connumerantur. Dicit enim Hieronymus quod nihil est tam superbum quam ingratum videri. Et Augustinus dicit, XIV de Civ. Dei, quod excusare se de peccato commisso ad superbiam pertinet. Praesumptio etiam, qua quis tendit ad assequendum aliquid quod supra se est, maxime ad superbiam pertinere videtur. Non ergo sufficienter praedicta divisio comprehendit superbiae species. | Objection 3: Further, some other things apparently pertain to pride, which are not mentioned here. For Jerome [*Reference unknown] says that "nothing is so indicative of pride as to show oneself ungrateful": and Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 14) that "it belongs to pride to excuse oneself of a sin one has committed." Again, presumption whereby one aims at having what is above one, would seem to have much to do with pride. Therefore the aforesaid division does not sufficiently account for the different species of pride. |
| Praeterea, inveniuntur aliae divisiones superbiae. Dividit enim Anselmus exaltationem superbiae, dicens quod quaedam est in voluntate, quaedam in sermone, quaedam in operatione. Bernardus etiam ponit duodecim gradus superbiae, qui sunt, curiositas, mentis levitas, inepta laetitia, iactantia, singularitas, arrogantia, praesumptio, defensio peccatorum, simulata confessio, rebellio, libertas, peccandi consuetudo. Quae non videntur comprehendi sub speciebus a Gregorio assignatis. Ergo videtur quod inconvenienter assignentur. | Objection 4: Further, we find other divisions of pride. For Anselm [*Eadmer, De Similit. xxii, seqq.] divides the uplifting of pride, saying that there is "pride of will, pride of speech, end pride of deed." Bernard [*De Grad. Humil. et Superb. x, seqq.] also reckons twelve degrees of pride, namely "curiosity, frivolity of mind, senseless mirth, boasting, singularity, arrogance, presumption, defense of one's sins, deceitful confession, rebelliousness, license, sinful habit." Now these apparently are not comprised under the species mentioned by Gregory. Therefore the latter would seem to be assigned unfittingly. |
| In contrarium sufficiat auctoritas Gregorii. | On the contrary, The authority of Gregory suffices. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, superbia importat immoderatum excellentiae appetitum, qui scilicet non est secundum rationem rectam. Est autem considerandum quod quaelibet excellentia consequitur aliquod bonum habitum. Quod quidem potest considerari tripliciter. Uno modo, secundum se. Manifestum est enim quod quanto maius est bonum quod quis habet, tanto per hoc maiorem excellentiam consequitur. Et ideo cum aliquis attribuit sibi maius bonum quam habeat, consequens est quod eius appetitus tendit in excellentiam propriam ultra modum sibi convenientem. Et sic est tertia superbiae species, cum scilicet aliquis iactat se habere quod non habet. | I answer that, As stated above (Articles [1],2,3), pride denotes immoderate desire of one's own excellence, a desire, to wit, that is not in accord with right reason. Now it must be observed that all excellence results from a good possessed. Such a good may be considered in three ways. First, in itself. For it is evident that the greater the good that one has, the greater the excellence that one derives from it. Hence when a man ascribes to himself a good greater than what he has, it follows that his appetite tends to his own excellence in a measure exceeding his competency: and thus we have the third species of pride, namely "boasting of having what one has not." |
| Alio modo, ex parte causae, prout excellentius est quod aliquod bonum insit alicui a seipso, quam quod insit ei ab alio. Et ideo cum aliquis aestimat bonum quod habet ab alio, ac si haberet a seipso, fertur per consequens appetitus eius in propriam excellentiam supra suum modum. Est autem dupliciter aliquis causa sui boni, uno modo, efficienter; alio modo, meritorie. Et secundum hoc sumuntur duae primae superbiae species, scilicet, cum quis a semetipso habere aestimat quod a Deo habet; vel, cum propriis meritis sibi datum desuper credit. | Secondly, it may be considered with regard to its cause, in so far as to have a thing of oneself is more excellent than to have it of another. Hence when a man esteems the good he has received of another as though he had it of himself, the result is that his appetite is borne towards his own excellence immoderately. Now one is cause of one's own good in two ways, efficiently and meritoriously: and thus we have the first two species of pride, namely "when a man thinks he has from himself that which he has from God," or "when he believes that which he has received from above to be due to his own merits." |
| Tertio modo, ex parte modi habendi, prout excellentior aliquis redditur ex hoc quod aliquod bonum excellentius ceteris possidet. Unde et ex hoc etiam fertur inordinate appetitus in propriam excellentiam. Et secundum hoc sumitur quarta species superbiae, quae est cum aliquis, despectis ceteris, singulariter vult videri. | Thirdly, it may be considered with regard to the manner of having it, in so far as a man obtains greater excellence through possessing some good more excellently than other men; the result again being that his appetite is borne inordinately towards his own excellence: and thus we have the fourth species of pride, which is "when a man despises others and wishes to be singularly conspicuous." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod vera existimatio potest corrumpi dupliciter. Uno modo, in universali. Et sic, in his quae ad finem pertinent, corrumpitur vera existimatio per infidelitatem. Alio modo, in aliquo particulari eligibili. Et hoc non facit infidelitatem. Sicut ille qui fornicatur, aestimat pro tempore illo bonum esse sibi fornicari, nec tamen est infidelis, sicut esset si in universali diceret fornicationem esse bonam. Et ita etiam est in proposito. Nam dicere in universali aliquod bonum esse quod non est a Deo, vel gratiam hominibus pro meritis dari, pertinet ad infidelitatem. Sed quod aliquis, ex inordinato appetitu propriae excellentiae, ita de bonis suis glorietur ac si ea a se haberet vel ex meritis propriis, pertinet ad superbiam, et non ad infidelitatem, proprie loquendo. | Reply to Objection 1: A true judgment may be destroyed in two ways. First, universally: and thus in matters of faith, a true judgment is destroyed by unbelief. Secondly, in some particular matter of choice, and unbelief does not do this. Thus a man who commits fornication, judges that for the time being it is good for him to commit fornication; yet he is not an unbeliever, as he would be, were he to say that universally fornication is good. It is thus in the question in point: for it pertains to unbelief to assert universally that there is a good which is not from God, or that grace is given to men for their merits, whereas, properly speaking, it belongs to pride and not to unbelief, through inordinate desire of one's own excellence, to boast of one's goods as though one had them of oneself, or of one's own merits. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod iactantia ponitur species mendacii quantum ad exteriorem actum, quo quis falso sibi attribuit quod non habet. Sed quantum ad interiorem cordis arrogantiam, ponitur a Gregorio species superbiae. | Reply to Objection 2: Boasting is reckoned a species of lying, as regards the outward act whereby a man falsely ascribes to himself what he has not: but as regards the inward arrogance of the heart it is reckoned by Gregory to be a species of pride. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ingratus est qui sibi attribuit quod ab alio habet. Unde duae primae superbiae species ad ingratitudinem pertinent. Quod autem aliquis se excuset de peccato quod habet, pertinet ad tertiam speciem, quia per hoc aliquis sibi attribuit bonum innocentiae, quod non habet. Quod autem aliquis praesumptuose tendit in id quod supra ipsum est, praecipue videtur ad quartam speciem pertinere, secundum quam aliquis vult aliis praeferri. | Reply to Objection 3: The ungrateful man ascribes to himself what he has from another: wherefore the first two species of pride pertain to ingratitude. To excuse oneself of a sin one has committed, belongs to the third species, since by so doing a man ascribes to himself the good of innocence which he has not. To aim presumptuously at what is above one, would seem to belong chiefly to the fourth species, which consists in wishing to be preferred to others. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod illa tria quae ponit Anselmus, accipiuntur secundum progressum peccati cuiuslibet, quod primo, corde concipitur; secundo, ore profertur; tertio, opere perficitur. | Reply to Objection 4: The three mentioned by Anselm correspond to the progress of any particular sin: for it begins by being conceived in thought, then is uttered in word, and thirdly is accomplished in deed. |
| Illa autem duodecim quae ponit Bernardus, sumuntur per oppositum ad duodecim gradus humilitatis, de quibus supra habitum est. Nam primus gradus humilitatis est, corde et corpore semper humilitatem ostendere, defixis in terram aspectibus. Cui opponitur curiositas, per quam aliquis curiose ubique et inordinate circumspicit. Secundus gradus humilitatis est, ut pauca verba et rationabilia loquatur aliquis, non clamosa voce. Contra quem opponitur levitas mentis, per quam scilicet homo superbe se habet in verbo. Tertius gradus humilitatis est, ut non sit facilis aut promptus in risu. Cui opponitur inepta laetitia. Quartus gradus humilitatis est taciturnitas usque ad interrogationem. Cui opponitur iactantia. Quintus gradus humilitatis est, tenere quod communis regula monasterii habet. Cui opponitur singularitas, per quam scilicet aliquis sanctior vult apparere. Sextus gradus humilitatis est, credere et pronuntiare se omnibus viliorem. Cui opponitur arrogantia, per quam scilicet homo se aliis praefert. Septimus gradus humilitatis est, ad omnia inutilem et indignum se confiteri et credere. Cui opponitur praesumptio, per quam scilicet aliquis reputat se sufficientem ad maiora. Octavus gradus humilitatis est confessio peccatorum. Cui opponitur defensio peccatorum. Nonus gradus est, in duris et asperis patientiam amplecti. Cui opponitur simulata confessio, per quam scilicet aliquis non vult subire poenam pro peccatis, quae simulate confitetur. Decimus gradus humilitatis est obedientia. Cui opponitur rebellio. Undecimus autem gradus est, ut homo non delectetur facere propriam voluntatem. Cui opponitur libertas, per quam scilicet homo delectatur libere facere quod vult. Ultimus autem gradus humilitatis est timor Dei. Cui opponitur peccandi consuetudo, quae implicat Dei contemptum. | The twelve degrees mentioned by Bernard are reckoned by way of opposition to the twelve degrees of humility, of which we have spoken above (Question [161], Article [6]). For the first degree of humility is to "be humble in heart, and to show it in one's very person, one's eyes fixed on the ground": and to this is opposed "curiosity," which consists in looking around in all directions curiously and inordinately. The second degree of humility is "to speak few and sensible words, and not to be loud of voice": to this is opposed "frivolity of mind," by which a man is proud of speech. The third degree of humility is "not to be easily moved and disposed to laughter," to which is opposed "senseless mirth." The fourth degree of humility is "to maintain silence until one is asked," to which is opposed "boasting". The fifth degree of humility is "to do nothing but to what one is exhorted by the common rule of the monastery," to which is opposed "singularity," whereby a man wishes to seem more holy than others. The sixth degree of humility is "to believe and acknowledge oneself viler than all," to which is opposed "arrogance," whereby a man sets himself above others. The seventh degree of humility is "to think oneself worthless and unprofitable for all purposes," to which is opposed "presumption," whereby a man thinks himself capable of things that are above him. The eighth degree of humility is "to confess one's sins," to which is opposed "defense of one's sins." The ninth degree is "to embrace patience by obeying under difficult and contrary circumstances," to which is opposed "deceitful confession," whereby a man being unwilling to be punished for his sins confesses them deceitfully. The tenth degree of humility is "obedience," to which is opposed "rebelliousness." The eleventh degree of humility is "not to delight in fulfilling one's own desires"; to this is opposed "license," whereby a man delights in doing freely whatever he will. The last degree of humility is "fear of God": to this is opposed "the habit of sinning," which implies contempt of God. |
| In his autem duodecim gradibus tanguntur non solum superbiae species, sed etiam quaedam antecedentia et consequentia, sicut etiam supra de humilitate dictum est. | In these twelve degrees not only are the species of pride indicated, but also certain things that precede and follow them, as we have stated above with regard to humility (Question [161], Article [6]). |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 162 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod superbia non sit peccatum mortale. Quia super illud Psalmi, domine Deus meus si feci istud, dicit Glossa, scilicet universale peccatum, quod est superbia. Si igitur superbia esset peccatum mortale, omne peccatum esset mortale. | Objection 1: It would seem that pride is not a mortal sin. For a gloss on Ps. 7:4, "O Lord my God, if I have done this thing," says: "Namely, the universal sin which is pride." Therefore if pride were a mortal sin, so would every sin be. |
| Praeterea, omne peccatum contrariatur caritati. Sed peccatum superbiae non videtur contrariari caritati, neque quantum ad dilectionem Dei, neque quantum ad dilectionem proximi, quia excellentia quam quis inordinate per superbiam appetit, non semper contrariatur honori Dei aut utilitati proximi. Ergo superbia non est peccatum mortale. | Objection 2: Further, every mortal sin is contrary to charity. But pride is apparently not contrary to charity, neither as to the love of God, nor as to the love of one's neighbor, because the excellence which, by pride, one desires inordinately, is not always opposed to God's honor, or our neighbor's good. Therefore pride is not a mortal sin. |
| Praeterea, omne peccatum mortale contrariatur virtuti. Sed superbia non contrariatur virtuti, sed potius ex ea oritur, quia, ut Gregorius dicit, XXXIV Moral., aliquando homo ex summis caelestibusque virtutibus intumescit. Ergo superbia non est peccatum mortale. | Objection 3: Further, every mortal sin is opposed to virtue. But pride is not opposed to virtue; on the contrary, it arises therefrom, for as Gregory says (Moral. xxxiv, 23), "sometimes a man is elated by sublime and heavenly virtues." Therefore pride is not a mortal sin. |
| Sed contra est quod Gregorius, in eodem libro, dicit quod evidentissimum reproborum signum superbia est, at contra, humilitas electorum. Sed homines non fiunt reprobi pro peccatis venialibus. Ergo superbia non est peccatum veniale, sed mortale. | On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxxiv, 23) that "pride is a most evident sign of the reprobate, and contrariwise, humility of the elect." But men do not become reprobate on account of venial sins. Therefore pride is not a venial but a mortal sin. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod superbia humilitati opponitur. Humilitas autem proprie respicit subiectionem hominis ad Deum, ut supra dictum est. Unde e contrario superbia proprie respicit defectum huius subiectionis, secundum scilicet quod aliquis se extollit supra id quod est sibi praefixum secundum divinam regulam vel mensuram; contra id quod apostolus dicit, nos autem non in immensum gloriamur, sed secundum mensuram qua mensus est nobis Deus. Et ideo dicitur Eccli. X, quod initium superbiae hominis est apostatare a Deo, scilicet, in hoc radix superbiae consideratur, quod homo aliqualiter non subditur Deo et regulae ipsius. Manifestum est autem quod hoc ipsum quod est non subiici Deo, habet rationem peccati mortalis, hoc enim est averti a Deo. Unde consequens est quod superbia, secundum suum genus, sit peccatum mortale. Sicut tamen in aliis quae ex suo genere sunt peccata mortalia, puta in fornicatione et adulterio, sunt aliqui motus qui sunt peccata venialia propter eorum imperfectionem, quia scilicet praeveniunt rationis iudicium et sunt praeter eius consensum; ita etiam et circa superbiam accidit quod aliqui motus superbiae sunt peccata venialia, dum eis ratio non consentit. | I answer that, Pride is opposed to humility. Now humility properly regards the subjection of man to God, as stated above (Question [161], Article [1], ad 5). Hence pride properly regards lack of this subjection, in so far as a man raises himself above that which is appointed to him according to the Divine rule or measure, against the saying of the Apostle (2 Cor. 10:13), "But we will not glory beyond our measure; but according to the measure of the rule which God hath measured to us." Wherefore it is written (Ecclus. 10:14): "The beginning of the pride of man is to fall off from God" because, to wit, the root of pride is found to consist in man not being, in some way, subject to God and His rule. Now it is evident that not to be subject to God is of its very nature a mortal sin, for this consists in turning away from God: and consequently pride is, of its genus, a mortal sin. Nevertheless just as in other sins which are mortal by their genus (for instance fornication and adultery) there are certain motions that are venial by reason of their imperfection (through forestalling the judgment of reason, and being without its consent), so too in the matter of pride it happens that certain motions of pride are venial sins, when reason does not consent to them. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, superbia non est universale peccatum secundum suam essentiam, sed per quandam redundantiam, inquantum scilicet ex superbia omnia peccata oriri possunt. Unde non sequitur quod omnia peccata sint mortalia, sed solum quando oriuntur ex superbia completa, quam diximus esse peccatum mortale. | Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (Article [2]) pride is a general sin, not by its essence but by a kind of influence, in so far as all sins may have their origin in pride. Hence it does not follow that all sins are mortal, but only such as arise from perfect pride, which we have stated to be a mortal sin. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod superbia semper quidem contrariatur dilectioni divinae, inquantum scilicet superbus non se subiicit divinae regulae prout debet. Et quandoque etiam contrariatur dilectioni proximi, inquantum scilicet aliquis inordinate se praefert proximo, aut ab eius subiectione se subtrahit. In quo etiam derogatur divinae regulae, ex qua sunt hominum ordines instituti, prout scilicet unus eorum sub alio esse debet. | Reply to Objection 2: Pride is always contrary to the love of God, inasmuch as the proud man does not subject himself to the Divine rule as he ought. Sometimes it is also contrary to the love of our neighbor; when, namely, a man sets himself inordinately above his neighbor: and this again is a transgression of the Divine rule, which has established order among men, so that one ought to be subject to another. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod superbia non oritur ex virtutibus sicut ex causa per se, sed sicut ex causa per accidens, inquantum scilicet aliquis ex virtutibus occasiones superbiae sumit. Nihil autem prohibet quin unum contrariorum sit alterius causa per accidens, ut dicitur in VIII Physic. Unde etiam et de ipsa humilitate aliqui superbiunt. | Reply to Objection 3: Pride arises from virtue, not as from its direct cause, but as from an accidental cause, in so far as a man makes a virtue an occasion for pride. And nothing prevents one contrary from being the accidental cause of another, as stated in Phys. viii, 1. Hence some are even proud of their humility. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 162 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod superbia non sit gravissimum peccatorum. Quanto enim aliquod peccatum difficilius cavetur, tanto videtur esse levius. Sed superbia difficillime cavetur, quia sicut Augustinus dicit, in regula, cetera peccata in malis operibus exercentur, ut fiant, superbia vero bonis operibus insidiatur, ut pereant. Ergo superbia non est gravissimum peccatum. | Objection 1: It would seem that pride is not the most grievous of sins. For the more difficult a sin is to avoid, the less grievous it would seem to be. Now pride is most difficult to avoid; for Augustine says in his Rule (Ep. ccxi), "Other sins find their vent in the accomplishment of evil deeds, whereas pride lies in wait for good deeds to destroy them." Therefore pride is not the most grievous of sins. |
| Praeterea, maius malum maiori bono opponitur, ut philosophus dicit, in VIII Ethic. Sed humilitas, cui opponitur superbia, non est maxima virtutum, ut supra habitum est. Ergo et vitia quae opponuntur maioribus virtutibus, puta infidelitas, desperatio, odium Dei, homicidium, et alia huiusmodi, sunt graviora peccata quam superbia. | Objection 2: Further, "The greater evil is opposed to the greater good," as the Philosopher asserts (Ethic. viii, 10). Now humility to which pride is opposed is not the greatest of virtues, as stated above (Question [61], Article [5]). Therefore the vices that are opposed to greater virtues, such as unbelief, despair, hatred of God, murder, and so forth, are more grievous sins than pride. |
| Praeterea, maius malum non punitur per minus malum. Sed superbia interdum punitur per alia peccata, ut patet Rom. I, ubi dicitur quod philosophi propter elationem cordis traditi sunt in reprobum sensum, ut faciant quae non conveniunt. Ergo superbia non est gravissimum peccatorum. | Objection 3: Further, the greater evil is not punished by a lesser evil. But pride is sometimes punished by other sins according to Rm. 1:28, where it is stated that on account of their pride of heart, men of science were delivered "to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient." Therefore pride is not the most grievous of sins. |
| Sed contra est quod super illud Psalmi, superbi inique agebant usquequaque, dicit Glossa, maximum peccatum in homine est superbia. | On the contrary, A gloss on Ps. 118:51, "The proud did iniquitously," says: "The greatest sin in man is pride." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod in peccato duo attenduntur, scilicet conversio ad commutabile bonum, quae materialiter se habet in peccato; et aversio a bono incommutabili, quae est formalis et completiva peccati. Ex parte autem conversionis, non habet superbia quod sit maximum peccatorum, quia celsitudo, quam superbus inordinate appetit, secundum suam rationem non habet maximam repugnantiam ad bonum virtutis. Sed ex parte aversionis, superbia habet maximam gravitatem, quia in aliis peccatis homo a Deo avertitur vel propter ignorantiam, vel propter infirmitatem, sive propter desiderium cuiuscumque alterius boni; sed superbia habet aversionem a Deo ex hoc ipso quod non vult Deo et eius regulae subiici. Unde Boetius dicit quod, cum omnia vitia fugiant a Deo, sola superbia se Deo opponit. Propter quod etiam specialiter dicitur Iac. IV, quod Deus superbis resistit. Et ideo averti a Deo et eius praeceptis, quod est quasi consequens in aliis peccatis, per se ad superbiam pertinet, cuius actus est Dei contemptus. Et quia id quod est per se, semper est potius eo quod est per aliud, consequens est quod superbia sit gravissimum peccatorum secundum suum genus, quia excedit in aversione, quae formaliter complet peccatum. | I answer that, Two things are to be observed in sin, conversion to a mutable good, and this is the material part of sin; and aversion from the immutable good, and this gives sin its formal aspect and complement. Now on the part of the conversion, there is no reason for pride being the greatest of sins, because uplifting which pride covets inordinately, is not essentially most incompatible with the good of virtue. But on the part of the aversion, pride has extreme gravity, because in other sins man turns away from God, either through ignorance or through weakness, or through desire for any other good whatever; whereas pride denotes aversion from God simply through being unwilling to be subject to God and His rule. Hence Boethius [*Cf. Cassian, de Caenob. Inst. xii, 7] says that "while all vices flee from God, pride alone withstands God"; for which reason it is specially stated (James 4:6) that "God resisteth the proud." Wherefore aversion from God and His commandments, which is a consequence as it were in other sins, belongs to pride by its very nature, for its act is the contempt of God. And since that which belongs to a thing by its nature is always of greater weight than that which belongs to it through something else, it follows that pride is the most grievous of sins by its genus, because it exceeds in aversion which is the formal complement of sin. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod aliquod peccatum difficile cavetur dupliciter. Uno modo, propter vehementiam impugnationis, sicut ira vehementer impugnat propter suum impetum. Et adhuc difficilius est resistere concupiscentiae, propter eius connaturalitatem, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Et talis difficultas vitandi peccatum gravitatem peccati diminuit, quia quanto aliquis minoris tentationis impetu cadit, tanto gravius peccat, ut Augustinus dicit. | Reply to Objection 1: A sin is difficult to avoid in two ways. First, on account of the violence of its onslaught; thus anger is violent in its onslaught on account of its impetuosity; and "still more difficult is it to resist concupiscence, on account of its connaturality," as stated in Ethic. ii, 3,9. A difficulty of this kind in avoiding sin diminishes the gravity of the sin; because a man sins the more grievously, according as he yields to a less impetuous temptation, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 12,15). |
| Alio modo difficile est vitare aliquod peccatum propter eius latentiam. Et hoc modo superbiam difficile est vitare, quia etiam ex ipsis bonis occasionem sumit, ut dictum est. Et ideo signanter Augustinus dicit quod bonis operibus insidiatur et in Psalmo dicitur, in via hac qua ambulabam, absconderunt superbi laqueum mihi. Et ideo motus superbiae occulte subrepens non habet maximam gravitatem, antequam per iudicium rationis deprehendatur. Sed postquam deprehensus fuerit per rationem, tunc facile evitatur. Tum ex consideratione propriae infirmitatis, secundum illud Eccli. X, quid superbit terra et cinis? Tum etiam ex consideratione magnitudinis divinae, secundum illud Iob XV, quid tumet contra Deum spiritus tuus? Tum etiam ex imperfectione bonorum de quibus homo superbit, secundum illud Isaiae XL, omnis caro faenum, et omnis gloria eius quasi flos agri; et infra, LXIV, quasi pannus menstruatae universae iustitiae nostrae. | Secondly, it is difficult to avoid a sin, on account of its being hidden. In this way it is difficult to avoid pride, since it takes occasion even from good deeds, as stated (Article [5], ad 3). Hence Augustine says pointedly that it "lies in wait for good deeds"; and it is written (Ps. 141:4): "In the way wherein I walked, the proud [*Cf. Ps. 139:6, 'The proud have hidden a net for me.'] [Vulg.: 'they'] have hidden a snare for me." Hence no very great gravity attaches to the movement of pride while creeping in secretly, and before it is discovered by the judgment of reason: but once discovered by reason, it is easily avoided, both by considering one's own infirmity, according to Ecclus. 10:9, "Why is earth and ashes proud?" and by considering God's greatness, according to Job 15:13, "Why doth thy spirit swell against God?" as well as by considering the imperfection of the goods on which man prides himself, according to Is. 40:6, "All flesh is grass, and all the glory thereof as the flower of the field"; and farther on (Is. 64:6), "all our justices" are become "like the rag of a menstruous woman." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod oppositio vitii ad virtutem attenditur secundum obiectum, quod consideratur ex parte conversionis. Et secundum hoc superbia non habet quod sit maximum peccatorum, sicut nec humilitas quod sit maxima virtutum. Sed ex parte aversionis est maximum, utpote aliis peccatis magnitudinem praestans. Nam per hoc ipsum infidelitatis peccatum gravius redditur, si ex superbiae contemptu procedat, quam si ex ignorantia vel infirmitate proveniat. Et idem dicendum est de desperatione et aliis huiusmodi. | Reply to Objection 2: Opposition between a vice and a virtue is inferred from the object, which is considered on the part of conversion. In this way pride has no claim to be the greatest of sins, as neither has humility to be the greatest of virtues. But it is the greatest on the part of aversion, since it brings greatness upon other sins. For unbelief, by the very fact of its arising out of proud contempt, is rendered more grievous than if it be the outcome of ignorance or weakness. The same applies to despair and the like. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut in syllogismis ducentibus ad impossibile quandoque aliquis convincitur per hoc quod ducitur ad inconveniens magis manifestum; ita etiam, ad convincendum superbiam hominum, Deus aliquos punit permittens eos ruere in peccata carnalia, quae, etsi sint minora, tamen manifestiorem turpitudinem continent. Unde Isidorus dicit, in libro de summo bono, omni vitio deteriorem esse superbiam, seu propter quod a summis personis et primis assumitur; seu quod de opere iustitiae et virtutis exoritur, minusque culpa eius sentitur. Luxuria vero carnis ideo notabilis omnibus est, quoniam statim per se turpis est. Et tamen, dispensante Deo, superbia minor est, sed qui detinetur superbia et non sentit, labitur in carnis luxuriam, ut per hanc humiliatus, a confusione exurgat. | Reply to Objection 3: Just as in syllogisms that lead to an impossible conclusion one is sometimes convinced by being faced with a more evident absurdity, so too, in order to overcome their pride, God punishes certain men by allowing them to fall into sins of the flesh, which though they be less grievous are more evidently shameful. Hence Isidore says (De Summo Bono ii, 38) that "pride is the worst of all vices; whether because it is appropriate to those who are of highest and foremost rank, or because it originates from just and virtuous deeds, so that its guilt is less perceptible. on the other hand, carnal lust is apparent to all, because from the outset it is of a shameful nature: and yet, under God's dispensation, it is less grievous than pride. For he who is in the clutches of pride and feels it not, falls into the lusts of the flesh, that being thus humbled he may rise from his abasement." |
| Ex quo etiam patet gravitas peccati superbiae. Sicut enim medicus sapiens in remedium maioris morbi patitur infirmum in leviorem morbum incidere, ita etiam peccatum superbiae gravius esse ostenditur ex hoc ipso quod pro eius remedio Deus permittit ruere hominem in alia peccata. | From this indeed the gravity of pride is made manifest. For just as a wise physician, in order to cure a worse disease, allows the patient to contract one that is less dangerous, so the sin of pride is shown to be more grievous by the very fact that, as a remedy, God allows men to fall into other sins. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 162 [<< | >>]
Article: 7 [<< | >>]
| Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod superbia non sit primum omnium peccatorum. Primum enim salvatur in omnibus consequentibus. Sed non omnia peccata sunt cum superbia, nec oriuntur ex superbia, dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de Nat. et gratia, quod multa perperam fiunt quae non fiunt superbe. Ergo superbia non est primum omnium peccatorum. | Objection 1: It would seem that pride is not the first sin of all. For the first is maintained in all that follows. Now pride does not accompany all sins, nor is it the origin of all: for Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xx) that many things are done "amiss which are not done with pride." Therefore pride is not the first sin of all. |
| Praeterea, Eccli. X dicitur quod initium superbiae est apostatare a Deo. Ergo apostasia a Deo est prius quam superbia. | Objection 2: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 10:14) that the "beginning of . . . pride is to fall off from God." Therefore falling away from God precedes pride. |
| Praeterea, ordo peccatorum esse videtur secundum ordinem virtutum. Sed humilitas non est prima virtutum, sed magis fides. Ergo superbia non est primum peccatorum. | Objection 3: Further, the order of sins would seem to be according to the order of virtues. Now, not humility but faith is the first of all virtues. Therefore pride is not the first sin of all. |
| Praeterea, II ad Tim. III, dicitur, mali homines et seductores proficiunt in peius, et ita videtur quod principium malitiae hominis non sit a maximo peccatorum. Sed superbia est maximum peccatorum, ut dictum est. Non est igitur primum peccatum. | Objection 4: Further, it is written (2 Tim. 3:13): "Evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse"; so that apparently man's beginning of wickedness is not the greatest of sins. But pride is the greatest of sins as stated in the foregoing Article. Therefore pride is not the first sin. |
| Praeterea, id quod est secundum apparentiam et fictionem, est posterius eo quod est secundum veritatem. Sed philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod superbus est fictor fortitudinis et audaciae. Ergo vitium audaciae est prius vitio superbiae. | Objection 5: Further, resemblance and pretense come after the reality. Now the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 7) that "pride apes fortitude and daring." Therefore the vice of daring precedes the vice of pride. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Eccli. X, initium omnis peccati superbia. | On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 10:15): "Pride is the beginning of all sin." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod illud quod est per se, est primum in quolibet genere. Dictum est autem supra quod aversio a Deo, quae formaliter complet rationem peccati, pertinet ad superbiam per se, ad alia autem peccata ex consequenti. Et inde est quod superbia habet rationem primi; et est etiam principium omnium peccatorum, ut supra dictum est, cum de causis peccati ageretur, ex parte aversionis, quae est principalior in peccato. | I answer that, The first thing in every genus is that which is essential. Now it has been stated above (Article [6]) that aversion from God, which is the formal complement of sin, belongs to pride essentially, and to other sins, consequently. Hence it is that pride fulfils the conditions of a first thing, and is "the beginning of all sins," as stated above (FS, Question [84], Article [2]), when we were treating of the causes of sin on the part of the aversion which is the chief part of sin. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod superbia dicitur esse omnis peccati initium, non quia quodlibet peccatum singulariter ex superbia oriatur, sed quia quodlibet genus peccati natum est ex superbia oriri. | Reply to Objection 1: Pride is said to be "the beginning of all sin," not as though every sin originated from pride, but because any kind of sin is naturally liable to arise from pride. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod apostatare a Deo dicitur esse superbiae humanae initium, non quasi aliquod aliud peccatum a superbia existens, sed quia est prima superbiae pars. Dictum est enim quod superbia principaliter respicit subiectionem divinam, quam contemnit, ex consequenti autem contemnit subiici creaturae propter Deum. | Reply to Objection 2: To fall off from God is said to be the beginning of pride, not as though it were a distinct sin from pride, but as being the first part of pride. For it has been said above (Article [5]) that pride regards chiefly subjection to God which it scorns, and in consequence it scorns to be subject to a creature for God's sake. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod non oportet esse eundem ordinem virtutum et vitiorum. Nam vitium est corruptivum virtutis. Id autem quod est primum in generatione, est postremum in corruptione. Et ideo, sicut fides est prima virtutum, ita infidelitas est ultimum peccatorum, ad quam homo quandoque per alia peccata perducitur. Super illud Psalmi, exinanite, exinanite usque ad fundamentum in ea, dicit Glossa quod coacervatione vitiorum subrepit diffidentia. Et apostolus dicit, I ad Tim. I, quod quidam, repellentes conscientiam bonam, circa fidem naufragaverunt. | Reply to Objection 3: There is no need for the order of virtues to be the same as that of vices. For vice is corruptive of virtue. Now that which is first to be generated is the last to be corrupted. Wherefore as faith is the first of virtues, so unbelief is the last of sins, to which sometimes man is led by other sins. Hence a gloss on Ps. 136:7, "Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof," says that "by heaping vice upon vice a man will lapse into unbelief," and the Apostle says (1 Tim. 1:19) that "some rejecting a good conscience have made shipwreck concerning the faith." |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod superbia dicitur esse gravissimum peccatum ex eo quod per se competit peccato, ex quo attenditur gravitas in peccato. Et ideo superbia causat gravitatem aliorum peccatorum. Contingit ergo ante superbiam esse aliqua peccata leviora, quae scilicet ex ignorantia vel infirmitate committuntur. Sed inter gravia peccata primum est superbia, sicut causa per quam alia peccata aggravantur. Et quia id quod est primum in causando, est etiam ultimum in recedendo; ideo super illud Psalmi, emundabor a delicto maximo, dicit Glossa, hoc est, a delicto superbiae, quod est ultimum redeuntibus ad Deum, et primum recedentibus. | Reply to Objection 4: Pride is said to be the most grievous of sins because that which gives sin its gravity is essential to pride. Hence pride is the cause of gravity in other sins. Accordingly previous to pride there may be certain less grievous sins that are committed through ignorance or weakness. But among the grievous sins the first is pride, as the cause whereby other sins are rendered more grievous. And as that which is the first in causing sins is the last in the withdrawal from sin, a gloss on Ps. 18:13, "I shall be cleansed from the greatest sin," says: "Namely from the sin of pride, which is the last in those who return to God, and the first in those who withdraw from God." |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod philosophus ponit superbiam circa fictionem fortitudinis, non quia solum in hoc consistat, sed quia per hoc homo maxime reputat se posse excellentiam apud homines consequi, si audax vel fortis videatur. | Reply to Objection 5: The Philosopher associates pride with feigned fortitude, not that it consists precisely in this, but because man thinks he is more likely to be uplifted before men, if he seem to be daring or brave. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 162 [<< | >>]
Article: 8 [<< | >>]
| Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod superbia debeat poni vitium capitale. Isidorus enim, et etiam Cassianus, enumerant superbiam inter vitia capitalia. | Objection 1: It would seem that pride should be reckoned a capital vice, since Isidore [*Comment. in Deut. xvi] and Cassian [*De Inst. Caenob. v, 1: Collat. v, 2] number pride among the capital vices. |
| Praeterea, superbia videtur esse idem inani gloriae, quia utraque excellentiam quaerit. Sed inanis gloria ponitur vitium capitale. Ergo etiam superbia debet poni vitium capitale. | Objection 2: Further, pride is apparently the same as vainglory, since both covet excellence. Now vainglory is reckoned a capital vice. Therefore pride also should be reckoned a capital vice. |
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de Virginit., quod superbia invidiam parit, nec unquam est sine tali comite. Sed invidia ponitur vitium capitale, ut supra habitum est. Ergo multo magis superbia. | Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (De Virginit. xxxi) that "pride begets envy, nor is it ever without this companion." Now envy is reckoned a capital vice, as stated above (Question [36], Article [4]). Much more therefore is pride a capital vice. |
| Sed contra est quod Gregorius, XXXI Moral., non enumerat superbiam inter vitia capitalia. | On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) does not include pride among the capital vices. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex supra dictis patet, superbia dupliciter considerari potest, uno modo, secundum se, prout scilicet est quoddam speciale peccatum; alio modo, secundum quod habet quandam universalem influentiam in omnia peccata. Vitia autem capitalia ponuntur esse quaedam specialia peccata, ex quibus multa genera peccatorum oriuntur. Et ideo quidam, considerantes superbiam secundum quod est quoddam speciale peccatum, connumeraverunt eam aliis vitiis capitalibus. Gregorius vero, considerans universalem eius influentiam quam habet in omnia vitia, ut dictum est, non connumeravit eam aliis capitalibus vitiis, sed posuit eam reginam omnium vitiorum et matrem. Unde Gregorius dicit, in XXXI Moral., ipsa vitiorum regina superbia, cum devictum plene cor ceperit, mox illud septem principalibus vitiis, quasi quibusdam suis ducibus, devastandum tradit, ex quibus vitiorum multitudines oriuntur. | I answer that, As stated above (Articles [2],5, ad 1) pride may be considered in two ways; first in itself, as being a special sin; secondly, as having a general influence towards all sins. Now the capital vices are said to be certain special sins from which many kinds of sin arise. Wherefore some, considering pride in the light of a special sin, numbered it together with the other capital vices. But Gregory, taking into consideration its general influence towards all vices, as explained above (Article [2], Objection [3]), did not place it among the capital vices, but held it to be the "queen and mother of all the vices." Hence he says (Moral. xxxi, 45): "Pride, the queen of vices, when it has vanquished and captured the heart, forthwith delivers it into the hands of its lieutenants the seven principal vices, that they may despoil it and produce vices of all kinds." |
| Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum. | This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod superbia non est idem inani gloriae, sed causa eius. Nam superbia inordinate excellentiam appetit, sed inanis gloria appetit excellentiae manifestationem. | Reply to Objection 2: Pride is not the same as vainglory, but is the cause thereof: for pride covets excellence inordinately: while vainglory covets the outward show of excellence. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ex hoc quod invidia, quae est vitium capitale, oritur ex superbia, non sequitur quod superbia sit vitium capitale, sed quod sit aliquid principalius capitalibus vitiis. | Reply to Objection 3: The fact that envy, which is a capital vice, arises from pride, does not prove that pride is a capital vice, but that it is still more principal than the capital vices themselves. |