Quaestio 88 Question 88 De peccatis venialis et mortalis Of Venial and Mortal Sin Deinde, quia peccatum veniale et mortale distinguuntur secundum reatum, considerandum est de eis. Et primo, considerandum est de veniali per comparationem ad mortale; secundo, de veniali secundum se. In the next place, since venial and mortal sins differ in respect of the debt of punishment, we must consider them. First, we shall consider venial sin as compared with mortal sin; second, we shall consider venial sin in itself. Circa primum quaeruntur sex. Under the first head there are six points of inquiry: Primo, utrum veniale peccatum convenienter dividatur contra mortale. (1) Whether venial sin is fittingly condivided with mortal sin? Secundo, utrum distinguantur genere. (2) Whether they differ generically? Tertio, utrum veniale peccatum sit dispositio ad mortale. (3) Whether venial sin is a disposition to mortal sin? Quarto, utrum veniale peccatum possit fieri mortale. (4) Whether a venial sin can become mortal? Quinto, utrum circumstantia aggravans possit de veniali peccato facere mortale. (5) Whether a venial sin can become mortal by reason of an aggravating circumstance? Sexto, utrum peccatum mortale possit fieri veniale. (6) Whether a mortal sin can become venial? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum veniale peccatum convenienter dividatur contra mortale Whether venial sin is fittingly condivided with mortal sin? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod veniale peccatum non convenienter dividatur contra mortale. Dicit enim Augustinus, XXII libro contra Faustum, peccatum est dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem aeternam. Sed esse contra legem aeternam, dat peccato quod sit mortale. Ergo omne peccatum est mortale. Non ergo peccatum veniale dividitur contra mortale. Objection 1: It would seem that venial sin is unfittingly condivided with mortal sin. For Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 27): Sin is a word, deed or desire contrary to the eternal law. But the fact of being against the eternal law makes a sin to be mortal. Consequently every sin is mortal. Therefore venial sin is not condivided with mortal sin. Praeterea, apostolus dicit, I Cor. X, sive manducatis, sive bibitis, sive aliquid aliud facitis, omnia in gloriam Dei facite. Sed contra hoc praeceptum facit quicumque peccat, non enim peccatum fit propter gloriam Dei. Cum ergo facere contra praeceptum sit peccatum mortale, videtur quod quicumque peccat, mortaliter peccet. Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor 10:31): Whether you eat or drink, or whatever else you do; do all to the glory of God. Now whoever sins breaks this commandment, because sin is not done for God’s glory. Consequently, since to break a commandment is to commit a mortal sin, it seems that whoever sins, sins mortally. Praeterea, quicumque amore alicui rei inhaeret, inhaeret ei vel sicut fruens, vel sicut utens; ut patet per Augustinum, in I de Doctr. Christ. Sed nullus peccans inhaeret bono commutabili quasi utens, non enim refert ipsum ad bonum quod nos beatos facit, quod proprie est uti, ut Augustinus dicit ibidem. Ergo quicumque peccat, fruitur bono commutabili. Sed frui rebus utendis est humana perversitas, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro octoginta trium quaest. Cum ergo perversitas peccatum mortale nominet, videtur quod quicumque peccat, mortaliter peccet. Obj. 3: Further, whoever cleaves to a thing by love, cleaves either as enjoying it, or as using it, as Augustine states (De Doctr. Christ. i, 3,4). But no person, in sinning, cleaves to a mutable good as using it: because he does not refer it to that good which gives us happiness, which, properly speaking, is to use, according to Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. i, 3,4). Therefore whoever sins enjoys a mutable good. Now to enjoy what we should use is human perverseness, as Augustine again says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 30). Therefore, since perverseness denotes a mortal sin, it seems that whoever sins, sins mortally. Praeterea, quicumque accedit ad unum terminum, ex hoc ipso recedit ab alio. Sed quicumque peccat, accedit ad bonum commutabile. Ergo recedit a bono incommutabili. Ergo peccat mortaliter. Non ergo convenienter peccatum veniale contra mortale dividitur. Obj. 4: Further, whoever approaches one term, from that very fact turns away from the opposite. Now whoever sins, approaches a mutable good, and, consequently turns away from the immutable good, so that he sins mortally. Therefore venial sin is unfittingly condivided with mortal sin. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in Homil. XLI super Ioan., quod crimen est quod damnationem meretur, veniale autem est quod non meretur damnationem. Sed crimen nominat peccatum mortale. Ergo veniale peccatum convenienter dividitur contra mortale. On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. xli in Joan.), that a crime is one that merits damnation, and a venial sin, one that does not. But a crime denotes a mortal sin. Therefore venial sin is fittingly condivided with mortal sin. Respondeo dicendum quod aliqua, secundum quod proprie accipiuntur, non videntur esse opposita, quae si metaphorice accipiantur, opponi inveniuntur, sicut ridere non opponitur ei quod est arescere; sed secundum quod ridere metaphorice de prato dicitur propter eius floritionem et virorem, opponitur ei quod est arescere. Similiter si mortale proprie accipiatur, prout refertur ad mortem corporalem, non videtur oppositionem habere cum veniali, nec ad idem genus pertinere. Sed si mortale accipiatur metaphorice, secundum quod dicitur in peccatis, mortale opponitur ei quod est veniale. I answer that, Certain terms do not appear to be mutually opposed, if taken in their proper sense, whereas they are opposed if taken metaphorically: thus to smile is not opposed to being dry; but if we speak of the smiling meadows when they are decked with flowers and fresh with green hues this is opposed to drought. In like manner if mortal be taken literally as referring to the death of the body, it does not imply opposition to venial, nor belong to the same genus. But if mortal be taken metaphorically, as applied to sin, it is opposed to that which is venial. Cum enim peccatum sit quaedam infirmitas animae, ut supra habitum est, peccatum aliquod mortale dicitur ad similitudinem morbi, qui dicitur mortalis ex eo quod inducit defectum irreparabilem per destitutionem alicuius principii, ut dictum est. Principium autem spiritualis vitae, quae est secundum virtutem, est ordo ad ultimum finem, ut supra dictum est. Qui quidem si destitutus fuerit, reparari non potest per aliquod principium intrinsecum, sed solum per virtutem divinam, ut supra dictum est, quia inordinationes eorum quae sunt ad finem, reparantur ex fine, sicut error qui accidit circa conclusiones, per veritatem principiorum. Defectus ergo ordinis ultimi finis non potest per aliquid aliud reparari quod sit principalius; sicut nec error qui est circa principia. Et ideo huiusmodi peccata dicuntur mortalia, quasi irreparabilia. Peccata autem quae habent inordinationem circa ea quae sunt ad finem, conservato ordine ad ultimum finem, reparabilia sunt. Et haec dicuntur venialia, tunc enim peccatum veniam habet, quando reatus poenae tollitur, qui cessat cessante peccato, ut dictum est. For sin, being a sickness of the soul, as stated above (Q71, A1, ad 3; Q72, A5; Q74, A9, ad 2), is said to be mortal by comparison with a disease, which is said to be mortal, through causing an irreparable defect consisting in the corruption of a principle, as stated above (Q72, A5). Now the principle of the spiritual life, which is a life in accord with virtue, is the order to the last end, as stated above (Q72, A5; Q87, A3): and if this order be corrupted, it cannot be repaired by any intrinsic principle, but by the power of God alone, as stated above (Q87, A3), because disorders in things referred to the end, are repaired through the end, even as an error about conclusions can be repaired through the truth of the principles. Hence the defect of order to the last end cannot be repaired through something else as a higher principle, as neither can an error about principles. Wherefore such sins are called mortal, as being irreparable. On the other hand, sins which imply a disorder in things referred to the end, the order to the end itself being preserved, are reparable. These sins are called venial: because a sin receives its acquittal when the debt of punishment is taken away, and this ceases when the sin ceases, as explained above (Q87, A6). Secundum hoc ergo, mortale et veniale opponuntur sicut reparabile et irreparabile. Et hoc dico per principium interius, non autem per comparationem ad virtutem divinam, quae omnem morbum et corporalem et spiritualem potest reparare. Et propter hoc veniale peccatum convenienter dividitur contra mortale. Accordingly, mortal and venial are mutually opposed as reparable and irreparable: and I say this with reference to the intrinsic principle, but not to the Divine power, which can repair all diseases, whether of the body or of the soul. Therefore venial sin is fittingly condivided with mortal sin. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod divisio peccati venialis et mortalis non est divisio generis in species, quae aequaliter participent rationem generis, sed analogi in ea de quibus praedicatur secundum prius et posterius. Et ideo perfecta ratio peccati, quam Augustinus ponit, convenit peccato mortali. Peccatum autem veniale dicitur peccatum secundum rationem imperfectam, et in ordine ad peccatum mortale, sicut accidens dicitur ens in ordine ad substantiam, secundum imperfectam rationem entis. Non enim est contra legem, quia venialiter peccans non facit quod lex prohibet, nec praetermittit id ad quod lex per praeceptum obligat; sed facit praeter legem, quia non observat modum rationis quem lex intendit. Reply Obj. 1: The division of sin into venial and mortal is not a division of a genus into its species which have an equal share of the generic nature: but it is the division of an analogous term into its parts, of which it is predicated, of the one first, and of the other afterwards. Consequently the perfect notion of sin, which Augustine gives, applies to mortal sin. On the other hand, venial sin is called a sin, in reference to an imperfect notion of sin, and in relation to mortal sin: even as an accident is called a being, in relation to substance, in reference to the imperfect notion of being. For it is not against the law, since he who sins venially neither does what the law forbids, nor omits what the law prescribes to be done; but he acts beside the law, through not observing the mode of reason, which the law intends. Ad secundum dicendum quod illud praeceptum apostoli est affirmativum, unde non obligat ad semper. Et sic non facit contra hoc praeceptum quicumque non actu refert in gloriam Dei omne quod facit. Sufficit ergo quod aliquis habitualiter referat se et omnia sua in Deum, ad hoc quod non semper mortaliter peccet, cum aliquem actum non refert in gloriam Dei actualiter. Veniale autem peccatum non excludit habitualem ordinationem actus humani in gloriam Dei, sed solum actualem, quia non excludit caritatem, quae habitualiter ordinat in Deum. Unde non sequitur quod ille qui peccat venialiter, peccet mortaliter. Reply Obj. 2: This precept of the Apostle is affirmative, and so it does not bind for all times. Consequently everyone who does not actually refer all his actions to the glory of God, does not therefore act against this precept. In order, therefore, to avoid mortal sin each time that one fails actually to refer an action to God’s glory, it is enough to refer oneself and all that one has to God habitually. Now venial sin excludes only actual reference of the human act to God’s glory, and not habitual reference: because it does not exclude charity, which refers man to God habitually. Therefore it does not follow that he who sins venially, sins mortally. Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui peccat venialiter, inhaeret bono temporali non ut fruens, quia non constituit in eo finem; sed ut utens, referens in Deum non actu, sed habitu. Reply Obj. 3: He that sins venially, cleaves to temporal good, not as enjoying it, because he does not fix his end in it, but as using it, by referring it to God, not actually but habitually. Ad quartum dicendum quod bonum commutabile non accipitur ut terminus contrapositus incommutabili bono, nisi quando constituitur in eo finis. Quod enim est ad finem, non habet rationem termini. Reply Obj. 4: Mutable good is not considered to be a term in contraposition to the immutable good, unless one’s end is fixed therein: because what is referred to the end has not the character of finality. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum peccatum veniale et mortale differant genere Whether mortal and venial sin differ generically? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatum veniale et mortale non differant genere, ita scilicet quod aliquod sit peccatum mortale ex genere, et aliquod veniale ex genere. Bonum enim et malum ex genere in actibus humanis accipitur per comparationem ad materiam sive ad obiectum, ut supra dictum est. Sed secundum quodlibet obiectum vel materiam, contingit peccare mortaliter et venialiter, quodlibet enim bonum commutabile potest homo diligere vel infra Deum, quod est peccare venialiter, vel supra Deum quod est peccare mortaliter. Ergo peccatum veniale et mortale non differunt genere. Objection 1: It would seem that venial and mortal sin do not differ generically, so that some sins be generically mortal, and some generically venial. Because human acts are considered to be generically good or evil according to their matter or object, as stated above (Q18, A2). Now either mortal or venial sin may be committed in regard to any object or matter: since man can love any mutable good, either less than God, which may be a venial sin, or more than God, which is a mortal sin. Therefore venial and mortal sin do not differ generically. Praeterea, sicut dictum est supra, peccatum mortale dicitur quod est irreparabile, peccatum autem veniale quod est reparabile. Sed esse irreparabile convenit peccato quod fit ex malitia, quod secundum quosdam irremissibile dicitur, esse autem reparabile convenit peccato quod fit per infirmitatem vel ignorantiam, quod dicitur remissibile. Ergo peccatum mortale et veniale differunt sicut peccatum quod est ex malitia commissum, vel ex infirmitate et ignorantia. Sed secundum hoc non differunt peccata genere, sed causa, ut supra dictum est. Ergo peccatum veniale et mortale non differunt genere. Obj. 2: Further, as stated above (A1; Q72, A5; Q87, A3), a sin is called mortal when it is irreparable, venial when it can be repaired. Now irreparability belongs to sin committed out of malice, which, according to some, is irremissible: whereas reparability belongs to sins committed through weakness or ignorance, which are remissible. Therefore mortal and venial sin differ as sin committed through malice differs from sin committed through weakness or ignorance. But, in this respect, sins differ not in genus but in cause, as stated above (Q77, A8, ad 1). Therefore venial and mortal sin do not differ generically. Praeterea, supra dictum est quod subiti motus tam sensualitatis quam rationis, sunt peccata venialia. Sed subiti motus inveniuntur in quolibet peccati genere. Ergo non sunt aliqua peccata venialia ex genere. Obj. 3: Further, it was stated above (Q74, A3, ad 3; A10) that sudden movements both of the sensuality and of the reason are venial sins. But sudden movements occur in every kind of sin. Therefore no sins are generically venial. Sed contra est quod Augustinus, in sermone de Purgatorio, enumerat quaedam genera peccatorum venialium, et quaedam genera peccatorum mortalium. On the contrary, Augustine, in a sermon on Purgatory (De Sanctis, serm. xli), enumerates certain generic venial sins, and certain generic mortal sins. Respondeo dicendum quod peccatum veniale a venia dicitur. Potest igitur aliquod peccatum dici veniale uno modo, quia est veniam consecutum, et sic dicit Ambrosius quod omne peccatum per poenitentiam fit veniale. Et hoc dicitur veniale ex eventu. Alio modo dicitur veniale, quia non habet in se unde veniam non consequatur vel totaliter vel in parte. In parte quidem, sicut cum habet in se aliquid diminuens culpam, ut cum fit ex infirmitate vel ignorantia. Et hoc dicitur veniale ex causa. In toto autem, ex eo quod non tollit ordinem ad ultimum finem, unde non meretur poenam aeternam, sed temporalem. Et de hoc veniali ad praesens intendimus. I answer that, Venial sin is so called from venia (pardon). Consequently a sin may be called venial, first of all, because it has been pardoned: thus Ambrose says that penance makes every sin venial: and this is called venial from the result. Second, a sin is called venial because it does not contain anything either partially or totally, to prevent its being pardoned: partially, as when a sin contains something diminishing its guilt, e.g., a sin committed through weakness or ignorance: and this is called venial from the cause: totally, through not destroying the order to the last end, wherefore it deserves temporal, but not everlasting punishment. It is of this venial sin that we wish to speak now. De primis enim duobus constat quod non habent genus aliquod determinatum. Sed veniale tertio modo dictum, potest habere genus determinatum, ita quod aliquod peccatum dicatur veniale ex genere, et aliquod mortale ex genere, secundum quod genus vel species actus determinantur ex obiecto. Cum enim voluntas fertur in aliquid quod secundum se repugnat caritati, per quam homo ordinatur in ultimum finem, peccatum ex suo obiecto habet quod sit mortale. Unde est mortale ex genere, sive sit contra dilectionem Dei, sicut blasphemia, periurium, et huiusmodi; sive contra dilectionem proximi, sicut homicidium, adulterium, et similia. Unde huiusmodi sunt peccata mortalia ex suo genere. Quandoque vero voluntas peccantis fertur in id quod in se continet quandam inordinationem, non tamen contrariatur dilectioni Dei et proximi, sicut verbum otiosum, risus superfluus, et alia huiusmodi. Et talia sunt peccata venialia ex suo genere. For as regards the first two, it is evident that they have no determinate genus: whereas venial sin, taken in the third sense, can have a determinate genus, so that one sin may be venial generically, and another generically mortal, according as the genus or species of an act is determined by its object. For, when the will is directed to a thing that is in itself contrary to charity, whereby man is directed to his last end, the sin is mortal by reason of its object. Consequently it is a mortal sin generically, whether it be contrary to the love of God, e.g., blasphemy, perjury, and the like, or against the love of one’s neighbor, e.g., murder, adultery, and such like: wherefore such sins are mortal by reason of their genus. Sometimes, however, the sinner’s will is directed to a thing containing a certain inordinateness, but which is not contrary to the love of God and one’s neighbor, e.g., an idle word, excessive laughter, and so forth: and such sins are venial by reason of their genus. Sed quia actus morales recipiunt rationem boni et mali non solum ex obiecto, sed etiam ex aliqua dispositione agentis, ut supra habitum est; contingit quandoque quod id quod est peccatum veniale ex genere ratione sui obiecti, fit mortale ex parte agentis, vel quia in eo constituit finem ultimum, vel quia ordinat ipsum ad aliquid quod est peccatum mortale ex genere, puta cum aliquis ordinat verbum otiosum ad adulterium committendum. Similiter etiam ex parte agentis contingit quod aliquod peccatum quod ex suo genere est mortale, fit veniale, propter hoc scilicet quod actus est imperfectus, idest non deliberatus ratione, quae est principium proprium mali actus, sicut supra dictum est de subitis motibus infidelitatis. Nevertheless, since moral acts derive their character of goodness and malice, not only from their objects, but also from some disposition of the agent, as stated above (Q18, AA4,6), it happens sometimes that a sin which is venial generically by reason of its object, becomes mortal on the part of the agent, either because he fixes his last end therein, or because he directs it to something that is a mortal sin in its own genus; for example, if a man direct an idle word to the commission of adultery. In like manner it may happen, on the part of the agent, that a sin generically mortal becomes venial, by reason of the act being imperfect, i.e., not deliberated by reason, which is the proper principle of an evil act, as we have said above in reference to sudden movements of unbelief. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex hoc ipso quod aliquis eligit id quod repugnat divinae caritati, convincitur praeferre illud caritati divinae, et per consequens plus amare ipsum quam Deum. Et ideo aliqua peccata ex genere, quae de se repugnant caritati, habent quod aliquid diligatur supra Deum. Et sic sunt ex genere suo mortalia. Reply Obj. 1: The very fact that anyone chooses something that is contrary to divine charity, proves that he prefers it to the love of God, and consequently, that he loves it more than he loves God. Hence it belongs to the genus of some sins, which are of themselves contrary to charity, that something is loved more than God; so that they are mortal by reason of their genus. Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de peccato veniali ex causa. Reply Obj. 2: This argument considers those sins which are venial from their cause. Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de peccato quod est veniale propter imperfectionem actus. Reply Obj. 3: This argument considers those sins which are venial by reason of the imperfection of the act.