Utrum oporteat aliquem plus exhibere in recompensatione quam susceperit in beneficio Whether the repayment of gratitude should surpass the favor received? Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non oporteat aliquem plus exhibere in recompensatione quam susceperit in beneficio. Quibusdam enim, sicut parentibus, nec etiam aequalis recompensatio fieri potest, sicut philosophus dicit, in VIII Ethic. Sed virtus non conatur ad impossibile. Non ergo gratiae recompensatio tendit ad aliquid maius. Objection 1: It seems that there is no need for the repayment of gratitude to surpass the favor received. For it is not possible to make even equal repayment to some, for instance, one’s parents, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 14). Now virtue does not attempt the impossible. Therefore gratitude for a favor does not tend to something yet greater. Praeterea, si aliquis plus recompensat quam in beneficio acceperit, ex hoc ipso quasi aliquid de novo dat. Sed ad beneficium de novo datum tenetur homo gratiam recompensare. Ergo ille qui primo beneficium dederat tenebitur aliquid maius recompensare, et sic procederet in infinitum. Sed virtus non conatur ad infinitum, quia infinitum aufert naturam boni, ut dicitur in II Metaphys. Ergo gratiae recompensatio non debet excedere acceptum beneficium. Obj. 2: Further, if one person repays another more than he has received by his favor, by that very fact he gives him something his turn, as it were. But the latter owes him repayment for the favor which in his turn the former has conferred on him. Therefore he that first conferred a favor will be bound to a yet greater repayment, and so on indefinitely. Now virtue does not strive at the indefinite, since the indefinite removes the nature of good (Metaph. ii, text. 8). Therefore repayment of gratitude should not surpass the favor received. Praeterea, iustitia in aequalitate consistit. Sed maius est quidam aequalitatis excessus. Cum ergo in qualibet virtute excessus sit vitiosus, videtur quod recompensare aliquid maius accepto beneficio sit vitiosum, et iustitiae oppositum. Obj. 3: Further, justice consists in equality. But more is excess of equality. Since therefore excess is sinful in every virtue, it seems that to repay more than the favor received is sinful and opposed to justice. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., refamulari oportet ei qui gratiam fecit, et rursum ipsum incipere. Quod quidem fit dum aliquid maius retribuitur. Ergo recompensatio debet tendere ad hoc quod aliquid maius faciat. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 5): We should repay those who are gracious to us, by being gracious to them return, and this is done by repaying more than we have received. Therefore gratitude should incline to do something greater. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, recompensatio gratiae respicit beneficium secundum voluntatem beneficiantis. In quo quidem praecipue hoc commendabile videtur quod gratis beneficium contulit ad quod non tenebatur. Et ideo qui beneficium accepit ad hoc obligatur, ex debito honestatis, ut similiter gratis aliquid impendat. Non autem videtur gratis aliquid impendere nisi excedat quantitatem accepti beneficii, quia quandiu recompensat minus vel aequale, non videtur facere gratis, sed reddere quod accepit. Et ideo gratiae recompensatio semper tendit ut, pro suo posse, aliquid maius retribuat. I answer that, As stated above (A. 5), gratitude regards the favor received according the intention of the benefactor; who seems to be deserving of praise, chiefly for having conferred the favor gratis without being bound to do so. Wherefore the beneficiary is under a moral obligation to bestow something gratis in return. Now he does not seem to bestow something gratis, unless he exceeds the quantity of the favor received: because so long as he repays less or an equivalent, he would seem to do nothing gratis, but only to return what he has received. Therefore gratitude always inclines, as far as possible, to pay back something more. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, in recompensatione beneficii magis est considerandus affectus benefici quam effectus. Si ergo consideremus effectum beneficii quod filius a parentibus accepit, scilicet esse et vivere, nihil aequale filius recompensare potest, ut philosophus dicit. Si autem attendamus ad ipsam voluntatem dantis et retribuentis, sic potest filius aliquid maius patri retribuere, ut Seneca dicit, in III de Benefic. Si tamen non posset, sufficeret ad gratitudinem recompensandi voluntas. Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (A. 3, ad 5; A. 5), in repaying favors we must consider the disposition rather than the deed. Accordingly, if we consider the effect of beneficence, which a son receives from his parents namely, to be and to live, the son cannot make an equal repayment, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 14). But if we consider the will of the giver and of the repayer, then it is possible for the son to pay back something greater to his father, as Seneca declares (De Benef. iii). If, however, he were unable to do so, the will to pay back would be sufficient for gratitude. Ad secundum dicendum quod debitum gratitudinis ex caritate derivatur, quae, quanto plus solvitur, tanto magis debetur, secundum illud Rom. XIII, nemini quidquam debeatis, nisi ut invicem diligatis. Et ideo non est inconveniens si obligatio gratitudinis interminabilis sit. Reply Obj. 2: The debt of gratitude flows from charity, which the more it is paid the more it is due, according to Rom. 13:8, Owe no man anything, but to love one another. Wherefore it is not unreasonable if the obligation of gratitude has no limit. Ad tertium dicendum quod sicut in iustitia quae est virtus cardinalis, attenditur aequalitas rerum, ita in gratitudine attenditur aequalitas voluntatum, ut scilicet sicut ex promptitudine voluntatis beneficus aliquid exhibuit ad quod non tenebatur, ita etiam ille qui suscepit beneficium aliquid supra debitum recompenset. Reply Obj. 3: As in justice, which is a cardinal virtue, we consider equality of things, so in gratitude we consider equality of wills. For while on the one hand the benefactor of his own free-will gave something he was not bound to give, so on the other hand the beneficiary repays something over and above what he has received. Quaestio 107 Question 107 De ingratitudine Ingratitude Deinde considerandum est de ingratitudine. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. We must now consider ingratitude, under which head there are four points of inquiry: Primo, utrum ingratitudo semper sit peccatum. (1) Whether ingratitude is always a sin? Secundo, utrum ingratitudo sit peccatum speciale. (2) Whether ingratitude is a special sin? Tertio, utrum omnis ingratitudo sit peccatum mortale. (3) Whether every act of ingratitude is a mortal sin? Quarto, utrum ingrato sint beneficia subtrahenda. (4) Whether favors should be withdrawn from the ungrateful? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum ingratitudo semper sit peccatum Whether ingratitude is always a sin? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ingratitudo non semper sit peccatum. Dicit enim Seneca, in III de Benefic., quod ingratus est qui non reddit beneficium. Sed quandoque non posset aliquis recompensare beneficium nisi peccando, puta si aliquis auxiliatus est homini ad peccandum. Cum ergo abstinere a peccato non sit peccatum, videtur quod ingratitudo non semper sit peccatum. Objection 1: It seems that ingratitude is not always a sin. For Seneca says (De Benef. iii) that he who does not repay a favor is ungrateful. But sometimes it is impossible to repay a favor without sinning, for instance if one man has helped another to commit a sin. Therefore, since it is not a sin to refrain from sinning, it seems that ingratitude is not always a sin. Praeterea, omne peccatum est in potestate peccantis, quia secundum Augustinum, nullus peccat in eo quod vitare non potest. Sed quandoque non est in potestate peccantis ingratitudinem vitare, puta cum non habet unde reddat. Oblivio etiam non est in potestate nostra, cum tamen Seneca dicat, in III de Benefic., quod ingratissimus omnium est qui oblitus est. Ergo ingratitudo non semper est peccatum. Obj. 2: Further, every sin is in the power of the person who commits it: because, according to Augustine (De Lib. Arb. iii; Retract. i), no man sins in what he cannot avoid. Now sometimes it is not in the power of the sinner to avoid ingratitude, for instance when he has not the means of repaying. Again forgetfulness is not in our power, and yet Seneca declares (De Benef. iii) that to forget a kindness is the height of ingratitude. Therefore ingratitude is not always a sin. Praeterea, non videtur peccare qui non vult aliquid debere, secundum illud apostoli, Rom. XIII, nemini quidquam debeatis. Sed qui invitus debet ingratus est, ut Seneca dicit, in IV de Benefic. Ergo non semper ingratitudo est peccatum. Obj. 3: Further, there would seem to be no repayment in being unwilling to owe anything, according to the Apostle (Rom 13:8), Owe no man anything. Yet an unwilling debtor is ungrateful, as Seneca declares (De Benef. iv). Therefore ingratitude is not always a sin. Sed contra est quod II ad Tim. III, ingratitudo connumeratur aliis peccatis, cum dicitur, parentibus non obedientes, ingrati, scelesti. On the contrary, Ingratitude is reckoned among other sins (2 Tim 3:2), where it is written: Disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked. etc. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, debitum gratitudinis est quoddam debitum honestatis quam virtus requirit. Ex hoc autem aliquid est peccatum quod repugnat virtuti. Unde manifestum est quod omnis ingratitudo est peccatum. I answer that, As stated above (Q. 106, A. 4, ad 1, A. 6) a debt of gratitude is a moral debt required by virtue. Now a thing is a sin from the fact of its being contrary to virtue. Wherefore it is evident that every ingratitude is a sin. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod gratitudo respicit beneficium. Ille autem qui alicui auxiliatur ad peccandum non confert beneficium, sed magis nocumentum. Et ideo non debetur ei gratiarum actio, nisi forte propter voluntatem, si sit deceptus, dum credidit adiuvare ad bonum, adiuvit ad peccandum. Sed tunc non debetur recompensatio talis ut adiuvetur ad peccandum, quia hoc non esset recompensare bonum, sed malum, quod contrariatur gratitudini. Reply Obj. 1: Gratitude regards a favor received: and he that helps another to commit a sin does him not a favor but an injury: and so no thanks are due to him, except perhaps on account of his good will, supposing him to have been deceived, and to have thought to help him in doing good, whereas he helped him to sin. In such a case the repayment due to him is not that he should be helped to commit a sin, because this would be repaying not good but evil, and this is contrary to gratitude. Ad secundum dicendum quod nullus propter impotentiam reddendi ab ingratitudine excusatur, ex quo ad debitum gratitudinis reddendum sufficit sola voluntas, ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 2: No man is excused from ingratitude through inability to repay, for the very reason that the mere will suffices for the repayment of the debt of gratitude, as stated above (Q. 106, A. 6, ad 1). Oblivio autem beneficii ad ingratitudinem pertinet, non quidem illa quae provenit ex naturali defectu, quae non subiacet voluntati; sed illa quae ex negligentia provenit. Ut enim dicit Seneca, in III de Benefic., apparet illum non saepe de reddendo cogitasse cui obrepsit oblivio. Forgetfulness of a favor received amounts to ingratitude, not indeed the forgetfulness that arises from a natural defect, that is not subject to the will, but that which arises from negligence. For, as Seneca observes (De Benef. iii), when forgetfulness of favors lays hold of a man, he has apparently given little thought to their repayment. Ad tertium dicendum quod debitum gratitudinis ex debito amoris derivatur, a quo nullus debet velle absolvi. Unde quod aliquis invitus hoc debitum debeat, videtur provenire ex defectu amoris ad eum qui beneficium dedit. Reply Obj. 3: The debt of gratitude flows from the debt of love, and from the latter no man should wish to be free. Hence that anyone should owe this debt unwillingly seems to arise from lack of love for his benefactor. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum ingratitudo sit speciale peccatum Whether ingratitude is a special sin? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ingratitudo non sit speciale peccatum. Quicumque enim peccat, contra Deum agit, qui est summus benefactor. Sed hoc pertinet ad ingratitudinem. Ergo ingratitudo non est speciale peccatum. Objection 1: It seems that ingratitude is not a special sin. For whoever sins acts against God his sovereign benefactor. But this pertains to ingratitude. Therefore ingratitude is not a special sin. Praeterea, nullum speciale peccatum sub diversis generibus peccatorum continetur. Sed diversis peccatorum generibus potest aliquis esse ingratus, puta si quis benefactori detrahat, si quis furetur, vel aliquid aliud huiusmodi contra eum committat. Ergo ingratitudo non est speciale peccatum. Obj. 2: Further, no special sin is contained under different kinds of sin. But one can be ungrateful by committing different kinds of sin, for instance by calumny, theft, or something similar committed against a benefactor. Therefore ingratitude is not a special sin. Praeterea, Seneca dicit, in III de Benefic., ingratus est qui dissimulat; ingratus qui non reddit; ingratissimus omnium qui oblitus est. Sed ista non videntur ad unam peccati speciem pertinere. Ergo ingratitudo non est speciale peccatum. Obj. 3: Further, Seneca writes (De Benef. iii): It is ungrateful to take no notice of a kindness, it is ungrateful not to repay one, but it is the height of ingratitude to forget it. Now these do not seem to belong to the same species of sin. Therefore ingratitude is not a special sin. Sed contra est quod ingratitudo opponitur gratitudini sive gratiae, quae est specialis virtus. Ergo est speciale peccatum. On the contrary, Ingratitude is opposed to gratitude or thankfulness, which is a special virtue. Therefore it is a special sin. Respondeo dicendum quod omne vitium ex defectu virtutis nominatur quod magis virtuti opponitur, sicut illiberalitas magis opponitur liberalitati quam prodigalitas. Potest autem virtuti gratitudinis aliquod vitium opponi per excessum, puta si recompensatio beneficii fiat vel pro quibus non debet, vel citius quam debet, ut ex dictis patet. Sed magis opponitur gratitudini vitium quod est per defectum, quia virtus gratitudinis, ut supra habitum est, in aliquid amplius tendit. Et ideo proprie ingratitudo nominatur ex gratitudinis defectu. Omnis autem defectus seu privatio speciem sortitur secundum habitum oppositum, differunt enim caecitas et surditas secundum differentiam visus et auditus. Unde sicut gratitudo vel gratia est una specialis virtus, ita etiam ingratitudo est unum speciale peccatum. I answer that, Every vice is denominated from a deficiency of virtue, because deficiency is more opposed to virtue: thus illiberality is more opposed to liberality than prodigality is. Now a vice may be opposed to the virtue of gratitude by way of excess, for instance if one were to show gratitude for things for which gratitude is not due, or sooner than it is due, as stated above (Q. 106, A. 4). But still more opposed to gratitude is the vice denoting deficiency of gratitude, because the virtue of gratitude, as stated above (Q. 106, A. 6), inclines to return something more. Wherefore ingratitude is properly denominated from being a deficiency of gratitude. Now every deficiency or privation takes its species from the opposite habit: for blindness and deafness differ according to the difference of sight and hearing. Therefore just as gratitude or thankfulness is one special virtue, so also is ingratitude one special sin. Habet tamen diversos gradus, secundum ordinem eorum quae ad gratitudinem requiruntur. In qua primum est quod homo beneficium acceptum recognoscat; secundum est quod laudet et gratias agat; tertium est quod retribuat, pro loco et tempore, secundum suam facultatem. Sed quia quod est ultimum in generatione est primum in resolutione, ideo primus ingratitudinis gradus est ut homo beneficium non retribuat; secundus est ut dissimulet, quasi non demonstrans se beneficium accepisse; tertium, et gravissimum est quod non recognoscat, sive per oblivionem, sive quocumque alio modo. Et quia in affirmatione opposita intelligitur negatio, ideo ad primum ingratitudinis gradum pertinet quod aliquis retribuat mala pro bonis; ad secundum, quod beneficium vituperet; ad tertium, quod beneficium quasi maleficium reputet. It has, however, various degrees corresponding in their order to the things required for gratitude. The first of these is to recognize the favor received, the second to express one’s appreciation and thanks, and the third to repay the favor at a suitable place and time according to one’s means. And since what is last in the order of generation is first in the order of destruction, it follows that the first degree of ingratitude is when a man fails to repay a favor, the second when he declines to notice or indicate that he has received a favor, while the third and supreme degree is when a man fails to recognize the reception of a favor, whether by forgetting it or in any other way. Moreover, since opposite affirmation includes negation, it follows that it belongs to the first degree of ingratitude to return evil for good, to the second to find fault with a favor received, and to the third to esteem kindness as though it were unkindness. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in quolibet peccato est materialis ingratitudo ad Deum, inquantum scilicet facit homo aliquid quod potest ad ingratitudinem pertinere. Formalis autem ingratitudo est quando actualiter beneficium contemnitur. Et hoc est speciale peccatum. Reply Obj. 1: In every sin there is material ingratitude to God, inasmuch as a man does something that may pertain to ingratitude. But formal ingratitude is when a favor is actually contemned, and this is a special sin.