Lecture 8 Lectio 8 Against lust Contra concupiscentiam 5:27 You have heard that it was said to them of old: do not commit adultery. [n. 504] 5:27 Audistis quia dictum est antiquis: non moechaberis. [n. 504] 5:28 But I say to you, that whoever will look on a woman to lust after her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart. [n. 506] 5:28 Ego autem dico vobis, quia omnis qui viderit mulierem ad concupiscendum eam, iam moechatus est eam in corde suo. [n. 506] 5:29 And if your right eye scandalize you, pluck it out and cast it from you. For it is expedient for you that one of your members would perish, rather than that your whole body would be cast into hell. [n. 508] 5:29 Quod si oculus tuus dexter scandalizat te, erue eum, et proiice abs te; expedit enim tibi ut pereat unum membrorum tuorum, quam totum corpus tuum mittatur in gehennam. [n. 508] 5:30 And if your right hand scandalize you, cut it off, and cast it from you: for it is expedient for you that one of your members would perish, rather than that your whole body would be cast into hell. [n. 508] 5:30 Et si dextera manus tua scandalizat te, abscide eam, et proiice abs te; expedit enim tibi ut pereat unum membrorum tuorum, quam ut totum corpus tuum eat in gehennam. [n. 508] 504. You have heard that it was said: ‘do not commit adultery.’ Above the Lord fulfilled the law as to the precept prohibiting homicide; now he fulfills it as to the precept prohibiting adultery. And concerning this he does three things: first, he lays down the precept; second, the fulfillment; third, he teaches how it could be observed. The second is at but I say to you, the third at if your right eye. And fittingly after the precept prohibiting homicide, the precept prohibiting adultery is discussed, because adultery holds second place after homicide. For homicide is against the life of man already existing; but adultery is against the life of a man to be generated: for it destroys certainty about children and as a result, their education. 504. Audistis quia dictum est antiquis: ‘non moechaberis.’ Supra Dominus adimplevit legem quantum ad praeceptum prohibitivum homicidii; nunc adimplet quantum ad praeceptum prohibitivum adulterii. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo ponit praeceptum; secundo adimpletionem; tertio docet qualiter observari possit. Secundum ibi ego autem; tertium ibi si oculus tuus. Et convenienter post praeceptum prohibitivum homicidii ponitur praeceptum prohibitivum adulterii, quia adulterium secundum locum tenet post homicidium. Homicidium enim est contra vitam hominis iam existentis; sed adulterium contra vitam hominis generandi: tollit enim certitudinem prolis et per consequens educationem eius. ‘Do not commit adultery.’ ‘Moechia’ is properly adultery. This precept is from Exodus and Deuteronomy (Exod 22; Deut 5). ‘Non moechaberis’. ‘Mechia’ enim est proprie adulterium. Hoc praeceptum est Exo. XXII et Deut. V. 505. And it should be known that since simple fornication is not prohibited in the precepts of the decalogue, but only adultery, some people believed that simple fornication was not a mortal sin, since it was not against the law if it was not in the precepts of the decalogue. First, it is said in Leviticus: if a man carnally lie with a woman (Lev 19:20). Therefore simple fornication is a venial sin; further, all iniquity is sin (1 John 5:17). But whoever commits simple fornication does iniquity to no one: not himself, for he fulfills his own will; not another; not God, for it is not directly against him like blasphemy and idolatry and that kind of thing. Therefore, it is not mortal. 505. Et sciendum quod quia in praeceptis decalogi non prohibetur fornicatio simplex, sed solum adulterium, aliqui crediderunt quod fornicatio simplex non sit peccatum mortale quia non contrariatur legi cum non sit in praeceptis decalogi. Primum dicitur Levit. XIX: homo si dormierit cum muliere coitu seminis etc. Vapulabunt ambo et non morientur etc., Ergo fornicatio simplex peccatum est veniale; praeterea omne peccatum iniquitas; sed qui committit simplicem fornicationem nulli facit iniquitatem: non sibi quia adimplet voluntatem suam, non alteri, non Deo quia non est directe contra eum sicut blasphemia et idolatria et huiusmodi. Ergo non est mortale. 506. It should be said that it must be absolutely certain among the faithful that every act of simple fornication is a mortal sin, as is basically any use of the genital organs outside of the marital use, for fornicators and adulterers God will judge (Heb 13:4); and he gave it separately because he will judge fornicators just as adulterers: take heed to keep yourself . . . from all fornication (Tob 4:13), and, there will be no prostitute among the daughters of Israel (Deut 22:17). Therefore it is clear by the authorities of the Old and New Testaments that it is a mortal sin. And the reason for this is that marriage is a natural thing, not only according to our faith, but even according to the gentiles, for it is natural that a man should be matrimonially joined not to any women indiscriminately, but to one particular woman. Nor does it matter what may be done by any multitude, as far as the intention of nature goes, but what is of natural law is perverted among those who lack reason. For the union of male and female is ordered to generation and education. In other animals the female alone suffices for education, and among such animals the father never involves himself in the education of the children; and thus there is no certainty about the children, and afterward he mingles indiscriminately with any female, as is seen among dogs. But among others we see that wherever the female does not suffice for the education of the children, the male and female remain together throughout the education of the children. Therefore it is clear that since the union is for the sake of the education, every union from which the due education does not follow is against nature. Therefore, since the child born needs much care from the father, it is necessary that a man have a particular woman: and this is marriage. But whether he may have several wives is another question. Fornication therefore will be against that education in the same way: therefore it is against nature and a mortal sin. But Moses spoke the most obvious notions to the Jews as a teacher to a primitive audience: the decalogue is the beginning of a law, and thus it only expresses those things that are most obvious. Hence some say that God himself spoke the decalogue, but he reserved all other things to be explained by others. Hence in this ‘do not commit adultery’ is understood every sin that there is by the use of those organs outside marriage. Likewise he sins against himself: whoever fornicates sins against his own body (1 Cor 6:18), because such an act should not be except for the generation of another. Likewise, in the law sins such as theft and many others were not punished by death: therefore this objection about Exodus does not hold. Therefore it is clear that fornication is mortal. 506. Dicendum quod certissimum debet esse apud fideles quod omnis simplex fornicatio est peccatum mortale, et breviter omnis usus membrorum genitalium praeter usum matrimonii, Hebr. ult. fornicatores et adulteros iudicabit Deus etc.; et dedit seorsum quia sicut adulteros ita et fornicatores iudicabit, Thob. IV: attende tibi ab omni fornicatione etc., et Deut. XXII: non est meretrix de filiabus Israel. Patet ergo per auctoritates Veteris et Novi Testamenti quod est peccatum mortale. Et ratio huius est quia matrimonium est naturale, non solum secundum fidem nostram, sed etiam secundum gentiles, quia naturale est quod homo matrimonialiter coniungatur non cuique indeterminatae sed uni et determinatae. Nec refert quacumque celebritate fiat, quantum ad intentionem nature, quid autem sit de lege naturali pervertitur in hiis quae carent ratione. Coniunctio enim maris et feminae ordinatur ad generationem et educationem. In aliquibus animalibus sola femella sufficit ad educationem, et in talibus pater nunquam intromittit se de educatione filiorum; et ideo non est certitudo prolis, et propterea indifferenter commiscetur cuicumque, sicut patet in canibus. In aliis autem videmus quod in quibuscumque femella non sufficit ad educationem prolis quod ibi commanent mas et femina usque ad prolis educationem. Ergo patet quod cum coniunctio sit propter educationem omnis coniunctio ex qua non sequitur debita educatio est contra naturam. Cum ergo natus indigeat multa cura patris, oportet quod habeat homo determinatam feminam: et hoc est matrimonium. Utrum autem habeat plures, de hoc est alia quaestio. Erit ergo fornicatio sic contra istam educationem: ergo est contra naturam et peccatum mortale. Moyses autem Iudaeis loquebatur sicut magister rudibus auditoribus propositiones manifestissimas: decalogus est initia legis, et ideo non expressit ibi nisi ea quae erant manifesta. Unde aliqui dicunt quod Deus locutus est per se ipsum decalogum, omnia alia reservavit aliis explicanda. Unde in hoc ‘non mechaberis’ intelligitur omne peccatum quod est per usum membrorum genitalium praeter matrimonium. Item peccat contra se, Cor. vi: qui fornicatur in corpus suum peccat quia actus huiusmodi non debet esse nisi propter generationem alterius. Item in lege quadam peccata non puniebantur per mortem sicut furtum et multa alia: ergo non valet illud quod obicitur de Exo. Patet ergo quod fornicatio est mortale. I say to you. Here the Lord brings the law to fulfillment. For the Pharisees and scribes understood ‘do not commit adultery’ only as to the act. But the Lord prohibits also the desire. But Augustine objects here that a precept of the decalogue is you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his house, nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant. Therefore the Lord did not fulfill it. And he answers that he understands you shall not covet to the point of carrying off; hence he mentions at the same time you shall not covet the wife or the slave-girl. Ego autem. Hic Dominus adimplet legem. Pharisaei enim et scribe hoc ‘non mechaberis’ intelligebant solum quantum ad actus. Dominus autem prohibet etiam concupiscentiam. Sed obiicit hic Augustinus quod praeceptum decalogi est uxorem proximi tui non concupisces, non domum, non agrum, non servum, non ancillam etc. Ergo Dominus non adimplevit. Et respondet quod intelligit non concupisces ad auferendum; unde simul ponit non concupisces uxorem et ancillam . 507. And note that he does not say whoever sees and covets, but whoever will look on a woman to lust after her. And it is explained in two ways. The first thus: whoever will look on a woman to lust after her, that is, so that he may covet her, as may be considered concomitance. And there are two kinds of concupiscence: one which is a propassion and the other which is a passion. A propassion is called an incomplete passion, as it were, when the movement remains in the sensible appetite alone, without the reason consenting. A passion is when reason consents, and then it is a mortal sin. And thus he says he has already committed adultery with her in his heart, for God is the searcher of hearts, and such a person does not refrain from the act except because of some obstacle to it. 507. Et nota quod non dicit qui videt et concupiscit, sed qui viderit ad concupiscendum. Et exponitur dupliciter. Primo sic: qui viderit ad concupiscendum, id est ut concupiscat, ut ponatur concomitatem. Et est duplex concupiscentia: una quae est propassio, alia quae est passio. Propassio appellatur quasi imperfecta passio, quando motus sistit in solo appetitu sensibili non ratione consentiente. Passio est quando ratio consentit, et tunc est peccatum mortale. Et ideo dicit iam mechatus est eam in corde, quia Deus inspector est cordium, et talis non dimittit actum nisi propter impedimentum. Or the to lust after her, according to Augustine, conveys purpose, i.e., whoever will look on a woman to lust, i.e., for the purpose of lusting after her. But the rule is that whatever a man does for the purpose of mortal sin, is completely mortal, and whatever he does for a meritorious purpose is completely meritorious; as is clear in the case of someone who goes to the church, or who goes to steal: regardless of what is done at the same time, the whole is either meritorious or a sin. But there are two kinds of consent: one consents to the act, as when reason goes first, insomuch that one wills to commit adultery; the other consent is to the pleasure, as when someone excites in himself base sensual pleasures so that he might enjoy them, although he does not consent to the act. Vel ly ad, secundum Augustinum, importat finem, id est qui viderit ad concupiscendum, id est eo fine ut concupiscat. Sed regula est quod quicquid homo facit sub fine peccati mortalis, totum mortale, et quicquid propter finem meritorium, totum meritorium; sicut patet de illo qui vadit ad ecclesiam vel ad furandum: quicquid interim fiat totum est vel meritorium vel peccatum. Est autem duplex consensus: unus in actu, sicut quando ratio praecedit intantum quod vult committere adulterium; alius in delectatione, sicut quando excitat sibi delectationes turpes ut delectetur, quamvis non consentiat. The first way is mortal, when someone looks on a woman for the purpose of sensual pleasure, and thus he consents. He has already committed adultery in his heart, before God: I made a covenant with my eyes that I would not . . . think on a virgin (Job 31:1); gaze not upon a maiden, lest her beauty be a stumbling block to you (Sir 9:5). Chrysostom says also that women who adorn themselves in order to be lusted after sin mortally: if someone opens a pit or digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or ass should fall in, the owner of the pit shall pay the price (Exod 21:33). And if no one lusts after her, it must be said that she sins mortally, like a person who prepares poison, even if it were not consumed by the one it was intended for, still, the person preparing it sins mortally because he did what he could to kill him. Primo modo est mortale, quando respicit propter hunc finem ut delectetur, et ideo consentit. Iam mechatus in corde, quantum ad Deum, Io. XXI: pepigi fedus cum oculis meis ut ne cogitarem quidem de virgine, Eccli. IX: virginem ne respicias ne forte scandalizeris in decore illius. Chrysostomus etiam dicit quod mulieres quae se parant ad hoc quod concupiscantur peccant mortaliter, Exo. XXI: si aliquis aperuerit cisternam et foderit et non cooperuerit etc. Et si nullus concupiscit eam, dicendum quod peccat mortaliter, sicut et ille qui parat venenum, quamvis non sumatur ab illo cui paratur, tamen parans peccat mortaliter quia quantum est in se eum occidit. 508. And if your right eye. Here the Lord shows how this precept can be more easily observed, namely by avoiding the occasions of sin. But four things are represented by the eyes and by the hands. The first is the physical eye and hand, and it may be understood thus: cut it off physically. According to Chrysostom, this reading cannot stand, for there is no member that does not scandalize: for I know that there does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh, that which is good (Rom 7:18). Hence all members would have to be cut off: and therefore this is not the meaning of the verse. Or another reading. For the body is said to be killed in two ways: as to the life of nature and as to the life of guilt: that the body of sin may be destroyed, to the end that we may serve sin no longer (Rom 6:6), and so cut away sin. But then the left eye would not be innocent: therefore this is not the meaning. 508. Quod si oculus. Hic ostendit Dominus quomodo istud praeceptum potest facilius observare, scilicet sic vitando occasiones peccati. Designantur autem per oculum et per manum quatuor. Primo oculus et manus corporalis, et sic intelligendum: abscinde corporaliter. Secundum Chrysostomum, hoc non potest stare, quia non est aliquod membrum quod non scandalizet, Ro. VII: scio quod non habitat in me, hoc est in carne mea, bonum. Unde omnia membra oporteret abscindere: ergo non est hic sensus. Vel aliter. Corpus enim dicitur occidi dupliciter: quantum ad vitam naturae et culpae, Ro. VI: ut destruatur corpus peccati ut ultra non serviamus peccato, et sic abscide peccato. Sed tunc sinister non esset innocens: ergo non est hic sensus. 509. Therefore it should be said that by the eye is sometimes meant a neighbor who has come to help: for the role of the eye is to direct your path. Hence your counselor in ordinary things is your left eye, and in divine things it is your right eye. The role of the hand is to help you. Hence the neighbor who manages temporal affairs is your left hand; the one who manages spiritual matters is your right: I was an eye to the blind, and a foot to the lame (Job 29:15). Therefore according to this reading, the eye and hand scandalizing can be understood in two ways, as when a certain counselor in everyday or divine matters scandalizes you. He makes no mention of the left eye because if the right eye must be cut off, the left eye must be even more. Or another way. The Lord wills that not only in you but also in your family you preserve purity. Hence if someone unclean lives with you, cut him off: he who works pride will not dwell in the midst of my house (Ps 101:7). 509. Dicendum ergo quod per oculum aliquando intelligitur proximus qui tui est in auxilium: officium enim oculi est ut te in via dirigat. Unde consiliator tuus in rebus mundanis est oculus sinister, in divinis dexter. Officium manus est quod adiuvet te. Unde proximus qui facit negotia in temporalibus, manus sinistra; in spiritualibus dextra, Iob XXIX oculus fui caeco et pes claudo. Ergo secundum hunc sensum intelligendo dupliciter oculus vel manus scandalizat, quia si consiliarius aliquis in rebus mundanis vel divinis scandalizat te, abscide. Non facit mentionem de sinistro quia si dexter debet, abscidi, multo magis abscide etc. Vel aliter. Dominus vult quod non solum in te sed etiam in familiam serves puritatem. Unde si aliquis immunde vivat, abscide etc., Ps. non habitabit in medio domus meae qui facit superbiam. Or we can understand the eye or the hand of man’s inner self: for which cause we do not faint, but though our outward man is corrupted, yet the inward man is renewed day by day (2 Cor 4:16), for as the exterior is, so is the interior: that the eyes of your heart enlightened (Eph 1:18). But it is said there that a hand is a power of moving, an eye is an intellective power. And according to this it can be explained in two ways. The first like this: by the fact that the eye which is in the intellective part, which has free will, is also in the right, the exterior is in the left, the Lord does not say that you should cut off the left because it is not in the power of free will that the external members do not move themselves, but that the internal members do not move themselves badly and look about wickedly. Therefore he says if your right eye scandalizes you by wicked thinking, remove this understanding; likewise, if there is a bad will, remove it. Vel possumus oculum vel manum intelligere interioris hominis, Cor. V: licet is qui foris est noster homo corrumpitur, tamen is qui intus est renovatur de die in diem, quia sicut exterior ita et interior, Eph. I: det vobis illuminatos oculos cordis vestri. Dicitur autem ibi manus vis motiva, oculus intellectiva. Et secundum hoc potest exponi dupliciter. Primo sic: ex hoc quod oculus qui est in parte intellectiva quae habet liberum arbitrium et est in dextra, exterior in sinistra, non dicit Dominus quod abscidas sinistram quia non est in potestate liberi arbitrii quod exteriora membra non moveantur, sed quod interiora non male moveantur et respiciant. Dicit ergo si oculus tuus scandalizat ad male cogitandum, remove hunc intellectum; item si mala voluntas, remove eam. 510. Or another way, the eye represents good intentions, the hand a good will. If scandal or an occasion of lust results from these things, remove them; just as if someone has a good will when visiting poor women, if the occasion of lust follows from it, pluck it out. 510. Vel aliter, oculus designat bonam intentionem, manus bonam voluntatem. Si ex istis sequatur scandalum vel occasio concupiscentiae, remove etc.; sicut si habet bonam voluntatem visitandi pauperes mulieres, si ex ista sequatur occasio concupiscentiae, abscide etc. Fourth, by the eye can be signified the contemplative life, and by the hand, the active life. Sometimes these things scandalize because sometimes error is met with in extreme contemplation. Likewise, someone, because he is not an apostle, may not fill the work of contemplation, but degenerate into laziness: the enemies have seen her and have mocked at her sabbaths (Lam 1:7). Therefore, pluck it out, and go to the practice of work. Or sometimes in the active life someone becomes restless and falls into occasions of sin: wherefore, he should cross over into the other state. Quarto per oculum potest significari vita contemplativa, per manus activa. Ista aliquando scandalizant quia aliquando ex contemplatione nimia incurritur error. Item aliquis quia non est apostolus non implet opus contemplationis, sed degenerat in pigritiam, Tren. I: viderunt eam hostes et deriserunt sabbata eius: abscide ergo, et vade ad exercitium operis. Vel in vita activa aliquando efficiuntur inquieti et incurrunt occasiones peccati: unde transeundum ad alium statum. 511. Therefore the first way is to be excluded; the second, about one’s neighbor, the third, about the interior man, and the fourth, about the active and contemplative life, make an explanation of for it is expedient for you that one of your members would perish; and the fifth concerns good consideration and good action. 511. Primus ergo modus excludendus est; secundus de proximo, tertius de homine interiori, quartus de vita activa et contemplativa faciunt ad expositionem: expedit enim tibi etc., et quintus de bono respectu et bona operatione. Lecture 9 Lectio 9 Against divorce Contra libellum repudii 5:31 It has been said: whoever will put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. [n. 512] 5:31 Dictum est autem: quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, det ei libellum repudii. [n. 512] 5:32 But I say to you, that whoever will put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery: and he who will marry her who is put away, commits adultery. [n. 515] 5:32 Ego autem dico vobis, quia omnis qui dimiserit uxorem suam, excepta fornicationis causa, facit eam moechari; et qui dimissam duxerit, adulterat. [n. 515] 512. It has been said: ‘whoever will put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce.’ After the Lord has fulfilled the prohibitive precepts of the law, now he fulfills the permissive precepts of the law. 512. Dictum est autem: ‘quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, det illi libellum repudii.’ Postquam Dominus adimplevit praecepta legis prohibitiva, nunc adimplet praecepta legis permissiva. And this part is divided into two parts: Et dividitur pars ista in partes duas: first, he fulfills the law as to the permissive precepts which pertain to God; primo adimplet legem quantum ad praecepta permissiva quae pertinent ad Deum; second, as to the precepts that pertain to one’s neighbor, at you have heard that it is said: ‘an eye for an eye’ (Matt 5:38). secundo quantum ad praecepta quae pertinent ad proximum, ibi audistis quia dictum est: ‘oculum pro oculo.’ The first is in two parts: first, he fulfills the permissive precept concerning the bill of divorce; Prima in duas: primo adimplet praeceptum permissivum de libello repudii; second, concerning swearing, at you have heard it said to them of old: ‘you shall not forswear yourself’ (Matt 5:33). secundo de iuramento, ibi audistis quia dictum est antiquis: ‘non periurabis.’ 513. As to the first he does two things: 513. Quantum ad primum duo facit: first, he sets down the words of the law; primo ponit verba legis; second, their fulfillment: but I say to you, that whoever will put away his wife. secunda ipsorum adimpletionem: ego autem dico vobis quia omnis etc. 514. Therefore he says it has been said: (Deut 24:1). A question. If ‘whoever will put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce’: this is commanded. But to put away one’s wife is a permission: for Moses permitted, he did not command. 514. Dicitur ergo dictum est etc.: Deut. XXIV. Quaestio. Si ‘dimiserit uxorem suam det illi libellum repudii’: hoc est praeceptum. Sed dimittere est permissio: Moyses enim permisit, non praecepit. But there are many kinds of permission, namely: a concession, when permitted things are conceded, as when a monk is allowed to leave the abbey to visit his father; Est autem multiplex permissio, scilicet concessionis, quando licita conceduntur, ut monacho conceditur visitare patrem ab abbate; a dispensation, when things that are not permitted become permitted by dispensation, as when it is permitted dispensatively for a monk to eat meat when he is with others; dispensationis, quando non licita fiunt licita per dispensationem, ut cum aliis dispensative permittitur monachum comedere carnes;