Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum in defectu ludi consistat aliquod peccatum Whether there is a sin in lack of mirth? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in defectu ludi non consistat aliquod peccatum. Nullum enim peccatum indicitur poenitenti. Sed Augustinus dicit, de poenitente loquens, cohibeat se a ludis, a spectaculis saeculi, qui perfectam vult consequi remissionis gratiam. Ergo in defectu ludi non est aliquod peccatum. Objection 1: It would seem that there is no sin in lack of mirth. For no sin is prescribed to a penitent. But Augustine speaking of a penitent says (De Vera et Falsa Poenit. 15): Let him refrain from games and the sights of the world, if he wishes to obtain the grace of a full pardon. Therefore there is no sin in lack of mirth. Praeterea, nullum peccatum ponitur in commendatione sanctorum. Sed in commendatione quorundam ponitur quod a ludo abstinuerunt, dicitur enim Ierem. XV, non sedi in Concilio ludentium; et Tobiae III dicitur, nunquam cum ludentibus miscui me, neque cum his qui in levitate ambulant, participem me praebui. Ergo in defectu ludi non potest esse peccatum. Obj. 2: Further, no sin is included in the praise given to holy men. But some persons are praised for having refrained from mirth; for it is written (Jer 15:17): I sat not in the assembly of jesters, and (Tob 3:17): Never have I joined myself with them that play; neither have I made myself partaker with them that walk in lightness. Therefore there can be no sin in the lack of mirth. Praeterea, Andronicus ponit austeritatem, quam inter virtutes numerat, esse habitum secundum quem aliqui neque afferunt aliis delectationes collocutionum, neque ab aliis recipiunt. Sed hoc pertinet ad defectum ludi. Ergo defectus ludi magis pertinet ad virtutem quam ad vitium. Obj. 3: Further, Andronicus counts austerity to be one of the virtues, and he describes it as a habit whereby a man neither gives nor receives the pleasures of conversation. Now this pertains to the lack of mirth. Therefore the lack of mirth is virtuous rather than sinful. Sed contra est quod philosophus, in II et IV Ethic., ponit defectum in ludo esse vitiosum. On the contrary, The Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 7; iv, 8) reckons the lack of mirth to be a vice. Respondeo dicendum quod omne quod est contra rationem in rebus humanis, vitiosum est. Est autem contra rationem ut aliquis se aliis onerosum exhibeat, puta dum nihil delectabile exhibet, et etiam delectationes aliorum impedit. Unde Seneca dicit, sic te geras sapienter ut nullus te habeat tanquam asperum, nec contemnat quasi vilem. Illi autem qui in ludo deficiunt, neque ipsi dicunt aliquod ridiculum; et dicentibus molesti sunt, quia scilicet moderatos aliorum ludos non recipiunt. Et ideo tales vitiosi sunt, et dicuntur duri et agrestes, ut philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic. I answer that, In human affairs whatever is against reason is a sin. Now it is against reason for a man to be burdensome to others, by offering no pleasure to others, and by hindering their enjoyment. Wherefore Seneca says (De Quat. Virt., cap. De Continentia): Let your conduct be guided by wisdom so that no one will think you rude, or despise you as a cad. Now a man who is without mirth, not only is lacking in playful speech, but is also burdensome to others, since he is deaf to the moderate mirth of others. Consequently they are vicious, and are said to be boorish or rude, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. iv, 8). Sed quia ludus est utilis propter delectationem et quietem; delectatio autem et quies non propter se quaeruntur in humana vita, sed propter operationem, ut dicitur in X Ethic., defectus ludi minus est vitiosus quam ludi superexcessus. Unde philosophus dicit, in IX Ethic., quod pauci amici propter delectationem sunt habendi, quia parum de delectatione sufficit ad vitam, quasi pro condimento; sicut parum de sale sufficit in cibo. Since, however, mirth is useful for the sake of the rest and pleasures it affords; and since, in human life, pleasure and rest are not in quest for their own sake, but for the sake of operation, as stated in Ethic. x, 6, it follows that lack of mirth is less sinful than excess thereof. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 10): We should make few friends for the sake of pleasure, since but little sweetness suffices to season life, just as little salt suffices for our meat. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quia poenitentibus luctus indicitur pro peccatis, ideo interdicitur eis ludus. Nec hoc pertinet ad vitium defectus, quia hoc ipsum est secundum rationem quod in eis ludus diminuatur. Reply Obj. 1: Mirth is forbidden the penitent because he is called upon to mourn for his sins. Nor does this imply a vice in default, because this very diminishment of mirth in them is in accordance with reason. Ad secundum dicendum quod Ieremias ibi loquitur secundum congruentiam temporis cuius status magis luctum requirebat. Unde subdit, solus sedebam, quoniam amaritudine replevisti me. Quod autem dicitur Tobiae III, pertinet ad ludum superfluum. Quod patet ex eo quod sequitur, neque cum his qui in levitate ambulant participem me praebui. Reply Obj. 2: Jeremias speaks there in accordance with the times, the state of which required that man should mourn; wherefore he adds: I sat alone, because Thou hast filled me with threats. The words of Tobias 3 refer to excessive mirth; and this is evident from his adding: Neither have I made myself partaker with them that walk in lightness. Ad tertium dicendum quod austeritas, secundum quod est virtus, non excludit omnes delectationes, sed superfluas et inordinatas. Unde videtur pertinere ad affabilitatem, quam philosophus amicitiam nominat, vel ad eutrapeliam, sive iucunditatem. Et tamen nominat et definit eam sic secundum convenientiam ad temperantiam, cuius est delectationes reprimere. Reply Obj. 3: Austerity, as a virtue, does not exclude all pleasures, but only such as are excessive and inordinate; wherefore it would seem to pertain to affability, which the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 6) calls friendliness, or eutrapelia, otherwise wittiness. Nevertheless he names and defines it thus in respect of its agreement with temperance, to which it belongs to restrain pleasure. Quaestio 169 Question 169 De modestia secundum quod consistit in exteriori apparatu Modesty in the Outward Apparel Deinde considerandum est de modestia secundum quod consistit in exteriori apparatu. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. We must now consider modesty as connected with the outward apparel, and under this head there are two points of inquiry: Primo, utrum circa exteriorem apparatum possit esse virtus et vitium. (1) Whether there can be virtue and vice in connection with outward apparel? Secundo, utrum mulieres mortaliter peccent in superfluo ornatu. (2) Whether women sin mortally by excessive adornment? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum circa exteriorem ornatum possit esse virtus et vitium Whether there can be virtue and vice in connection with outward apparel? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod circa exteriorem ornatum non possit esse virtus et vitium. Exterior enim ornatus non est in nobis a natura, unde et secundum diversitatem temporum et locorum variantur. Unde Augustinus dicit, in III de Doct. Christ., quod talares et manicatas tunicas habere apud veteres Romanos flagitium erat, nunc autem honesto loco natis non eas habere flagitium est. Sed sicut philosophus dicit, in II Ethic., naturalis inest nobis aptitudo ad virtutes. Ergo circa huiusmodi non est virtus et vitium. Objection 1: It would seem that there cannot be virtue and vice in connection with outward apparel. For outward adornment does not belong to us by nature, wherefore it varies according to different times and places. Hence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12) that among the ancient Romans it was scandalous for one to wear a cloak with sleeves and reaching to the ankles, whereas now it is scandalous for anyone hailing from a reputable place to be without them. Now according to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 1) there is in us a natural aptitude for the virtues. Therefore there is no virtue or vice about such things. Praeterea, si circa exteriorem cultum esset virtus et vitium, oporteret quod superfluitas in talibus esset vitiosa, et etiam defectus vitiosus. Sed superfluitas in cultu exteriori non videtur esse vitiosa, quia etiam sacerdotes et ministri altaris in sacro ministerio pretiosissimis vestibus utuntur. Similiter etiam defectus in talibus non videtur esse vitiosus, quia in laudem quorundam dicitur, Heb. XI, circuierunt in melotis et in pellibus caprinis. Non ergo videtur quod in talibus possit esse virtus et vitium. Obj. 2: Further, if there were virtue and vice in connection with outward attire, excess in this matter would be sinful. Now excess in outward attire is not apparently sinful, since even the ministers of the altar use most precious vestments in the sacred ministry. Likewise it would seem not to be sinful to be lacking in this, for it is said in praise of certain people (Heb 11:37): They wandered about in sheepskins and in goatskins. Therefore it seems that there cannot be virtue and vice in this matter. Praeterea, omnis virtus aut est theologica, aut moralis, aut intellectualis. Sed circa huiusmodi non consistit virtus intellectualis, quae perficit in aliqua cognitione veritatis. Similiter etiam nec est ibi virtus theologica, quae habet Deum pro obiecto. Nec etiam est ibi aliqua virtutum moralium quas philosophus tangit. Ergo videtur quod circa huiusmodi cultum non possit esse virtus et vitium. Obj. 3: Further, every virtue is either theological, or moral, or intellectual. Now an intellectual virtue is not conversant with matter of this kind, since it is a perfection regarding the knowledge of truth. Nor is there a theological virtue connected therewith, since that has God for its object; nor are any of the moral virtues enumerated by the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 7), connected with it. Therefore it seems that there cannot be virtue and vice in connection with this kind of attire. Sed contra, honestas ad virtutem pertinet. Sed in exteriori cultu consideratur quaedam honestas, dicit enim Ambrosius, in I de Offic., decor corporis non sit affectatus, sed naturalis; simplex, neglectus magis quam expeditus; non pretiosis et albentibus adiutus vestimentis, sed communibus, ut honestati vel necessitati nihil desit, nihil accedat nitori. Ergo in exteriori cultu potest esse virtus et vitium. On the contrary, Honesty pertains to virtue. Now a certain honesty is observed in the outward apparel; for Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 19): The body should be bedecked naturally and without affectation, with simplicity, with negligence rather than nicety, not with costly and dazzling apparel, but with ordinary clothes, so that nothing be lacking to honesty and necessity, yet nothing be added to increase its beauty. Therefore there can be virtue and vice in the outward attire. Respondeo dicendum quod in ipsis rebus exterioribus quibus homo utitur, non est aliquod vitium, sed ex parte hominis qui immoderate utitur eis. Quae quidem immoderantia potest esse dupliciter. Uno quidem modo, per comparationem ad consuetudinem hominum cum quibus aliquis vivit. Unde dicit Augustinus, in III Confess., quae contra mores hominum sunt flagitia, pro morum diversitate vitanda sunt, ut pactum inter se civitatis et gentis consuetudine vel lege firmatum, nulla civis aut peregrini libidine violetur. Turpis enim est omnis pars universo suo non congruens. Alio modo potest esse immoderatio in usu talium rerum ex inordinato affectu utentis, ex quo quandoque contingit quod homo nimis libidinose talibus utatur, sive secundum consuetudinem eorum cum quibus vivit, sive etiam praeter eorum consuetudinem. Unde Augustinus dicit, in III de Doct. Christ., in usu rerum abesse oportet libidinem, quae non solum ipsa eorum inter quos vivit consuetudine nequiter abutitur; sed etiam saepe fines eius egressa, foeditatem suam, quae inter claustra morum solemnium latitabat, flagitiosissima eruptione manifestat. I answer that, It is not in the outward things themselves which man uses, that there is vice, but on the part of man who uses them immoderately. This lack of moderation occurs in two ways. First, in comparison with the customs of those among whom one lives; wherefore Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8): Those offenses which are contrary to the customs of men, are to be avoided according to the customs generally prevailing, so that a thing agreed upon and confirmed by custom or law of any city or nation may not be violated at the lawless pleasure of any, whether citizen or foreigner. For any part, which harmonizeth not with its whole, is offensive. Second, the lack of moderation in the use of these things may arise from the inordinate attachment of the user, the result being that a man sometimes takes too much pleasure in using them, either in accordance with the custom of those among whom he dwells or contrary to such custom. Hence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12): We must avoid excessive pleasure in the use of things, for it leads not only wickedly to abuse the customs of those among whom we dwell, but frequently to exceed their bounds, so that, whereas it lay hidden, while under the restraint of established morality, it displays its deformity in a most lawless outbreak. Contingit autem ista inordinatio affectus tripliciter, quantum ad superabundantiam. Uno modo, per hoc quod aliquis ex superfluo cultu vestium hominum gloriam quaerit, prout scilicet vestes et alia huiusmodi pertinent ad quendam ornatum. Unde Gregorius dicit, in quadam homilia, sunt nonnulli qui cultum subtilium pretiosarumque vestium non putant esse peccatum. Quod videlicet si culpa non esset nequaquam sermo Dei tam vigilanter exprimeret quod dives qui torquebatur apud Inferos, bysso et purpura indutus fuisset. Nemo quippe vestimenta pretiosa, scilicet excedentia proprium statum, nisi ad inanem gloriam quaerit. Alio modo, secundum quod homo per superfluum cultum vestium quaerit delicias, secundum quod vestis ordinatur ad corporis fomentum. Tertio modo, secundum quod nimiam sollicitudinem apponit ad exteriorem vestium cultum, etiam si non sit aliqua inordinatio ex parte finis. In point of excess, this inordinate attachment occurs in three ways. First, when a man seeks glory from excessive attention to dress; insofar as dress and such like things are a kind of ornament. Hence Gregory says (Hom. xl in Ev.): There are some who think that attention to finery and costly dress is no sin. Surely, if this were no fault, the word of God would not say so expressly that the rich man who was tortured in hell had been clothed in purple and fine linen. No one, forsooth, seeks costly apparel (such, namely, as exceeds his estate) save for vainglory. Second, when a man seeks sensuous pleasure from excessive attention to dress, insofar as dress is directed to the body’s comfort. Third, when a man is too solicitous in his attention to outward apparel, even if there be nothing inordinate on the part of the end. Et secundum hoc, Andronicus ponit tres virtutes circa exteriorem cultum. Scilicet, humilitatem, quae excludit intentionem gloriae. Unde dicit quod humilitas est habitus non superabundans in sumptibus et praeparationibus. Et per se sufficientiam, quae excludit intentionem deliciarum. Unde dicit quod per se sufficientia est habitus contentus quibus oportet, et determinativa eorum quae ad vivere convenit (secundum illud apostoli, I ad Tim. ult., habentes alimenta et quibus tegamur, his contenti simus). Et simplicitatem, quae excludit superfluam sollicitudinem talium. Unde dicit quod simplicitas est habitus contentus his quae contingunt. Accordingly Andronicus reckons three virtues in connection with outward attire; namely humility, which excludes the seeking of glory, wherefore he says that humility is the habit of avoiding excessive expenditure and parade; contentment, which excludes the seeking of sensuous pleasure, wherefore he says that contentedness is the habit that makes a man satisfied with what is suitable, and enables him to determine what is becoming in his manner of life (according to the saying of the Apostle, 1 Tim. 6:8): Having food and wherewith to be covered, with these let us be content;—and simplicity, which excludes excessive solicitude about such things, wherefore he says that simplicity is a habit that makes a man contented with what he has. Ex parte autem defectus similiter potest esse duplex inordinatio secundum affectum. Uno quidem modo, ex negligentia hominis qui non adhibet studium vel laborem ad hoc quod exteriori cultu utatur secundum quod oportet. Unde philosophus dicit, in VII Ethic., quod ad mollitiem pertinet quod aliquis trahat vestimentum per terram, ut non laboret elevando ipsum. Alio modo, ex eo quod ipsum defectum exterioris cultus ad gloriam ordinant. Unde dicit Augustinus, in libro de Serm. Dom. in monte, non in solo rerum corporearum nitore atque pompa, sed etiam in ipsis sordibus et luctuosis esse posse iactantiam, et eo periculosiorem quo sub nomine servitutis Dei decipit. Et philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod superabundantia et inordinatus defectus ad iactantiam pertinet. In the point of deficiency there may be inordinate attachment in two ways. First, through a man’s neglect to give the requisite study or trouble to the use of outward apparel. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7) that it is a mark of effeminacy to let one’s cloak trail on the ground to avoid the trouble of lifting it up. Second, by seeking glory from the very lack of attention to outward attire. Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12) that not only the glare and pomp of outward things, but even dirt and the weeds of mourning may be a subject of ostentation, all the more dangerous as being a decoy under the guise of God’s service; and the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 7) that both excess and inordinate defect are a subject of ostentation. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quamvis ipse cultus exterior non sit a natura, tamen ad naturalem rationem pertinet ut exteriorem cultum moderetur. Et secundum hoc, innati sumus hanc virtutem suscipere, quae exteriorem cultum moderatur. Reply Obj. 1: Although outward attire does not come from nature, it belongs to natural reason to moderate it; so that we are naturally inclined to be the recipients of the virtue that moderates outward raiment. Ad secundum dicendum quod illi qui in dignitatibus constituuntur, vel etiam ministri altaris, pretiosioribus vestibus quam ceteri induuntur, non propter sui gloriam, sed ad significandam excellentiam sui ministerii vel cultus divini. Et ideo in eis non est vitiosum. Unde Augustinus dicit, in III de Doct. Christ., quisquis sic utitur exterioribus rebus ut metas consuetudinis bonorum inter quos versatur excedat, aut aliquid significat, aut flagitiosus est, dum scilicet propter delicias vel ostentationem talibus utitur. Reply Obj. 2: Those who are placed in a position of dignity, or again the ministers of the altar, are attired in more costly apparel than others, not for the sake of their own glory, but to indicate the excellence of their office or of the Divine worship: wherefore this is not sinful in them. Hence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12): Whoever uses outward things in such a way as to exceed the bounds observed by the good people among whom he dwells, either signifies something by so doing, or is guilty of sin, inasmuch as he uses these things for sensual pleasure or ostentation. Similiter etiam ex parte defectus contingit esse peccatum, non tamen semper qui vilioribus quam ceteri vestibus utitur, peccat. Si enim hoc faciat propter iactantiam vel superbiam, ut se ceteris praeferat, vitium superstitionis est. Si autem hoc faciat propter macerationem carnis vel humiliationem spiritus, ad virtutem temperantiae pertinet. Unde Augustinus dicit, in III de Doct. Christ., quisquis restrictius rebus utitur quam se habeant mores eorum cum quibus vivit, aut temperans aut superstitiosus est. Praecipue autem competit vilibus vestimentis uti his qui alios verbo et exemplo ad poenitentiam hortantur, sicut fuerunt prophetae, de quibus apostolus ibi loquitur. Unde quaedam Glossa dicit, Matth. III, qui poenitentiam praedicat, habitum poenitentiae praetendit. Likewise there may be sin on the part of deficiency: although it is not always a sin to wear coarser clothes than other people. For, if this be done through ostentation or pride, in order to set oneself above others, it is a sin of superstition; whereas, if this be done to tame the flesh, or to humble the spirit, it belongs to the virtue of temperance. Hence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12): Whoever uses transitory things with greater restraint than is customary with those among whom he dwells, is either temperate or superstitious. Especially, however, is the use of coarse raiment befitting to those who by word and example urge others to repentance, as did the prophets of whom the Apostle is speaking in the passage quoted. Wherefore a gloss on Matt. 3:4, says: He who preaches penance, wears the garb of penance. Ad tertium dicendum quod huiusmodi exterior cultus indicium quoddam est conditionis humanae. Et ideo excessus et defectus et medium in talibus possunt reduci ad virtutem veritatis, quam philosophus ponit circa facta et dicta quibus aliquid de statu hominis significatur. Reply Obj. 3: This outward apparel is an indication of man’s estate; wherefore excess, deficiency, and mean therein, are referable to the virtue of truthfulness, which the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 7) assigns to deeds and words, which are indications of something connected with man’s estate. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum ornatus mulierum sit sine peccato mortali Whether the adornment of women is devoid of mortal sin? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ornatus mulierum non sit sine peccato mortali. Omne enim quod est contra praeceptum divinae legis, est peccatum mortale. Sed ornatus mulierum est contra praeceptum divinae legis, dicitur enim I Pet. III, quarum, scilicet mulierum sit non extrinsecus capillatura, aut circumdatio auri, aut indumenti vestimentorum cultus. Ubi dicit Glossa Cypriani, serico et purpura indutae Christum sincere induere non possunt, auro et margaritis adornatae et monilibus, ornamenta mentis et corporis perdiderunt. Sed hoc non fit nisi per peccatum mortale. Ergo ornatus mulierum non potest esse sine peccato mortali. Objection 1: It would seem that the adornment of women is not devoid of mortal sin. For whatever is contrary to a precept of the Divine law is a mortal sin. Now the adornment of women is contrary to a precept of the Divine law; for it is written (1 Pet 3:3): Whose, namely women’s, adorning, let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel. Wherefore a gloss of Cyprian says: Those who are clothed in silk and purple cannot sincerely put on Christ: those who are bedecked with gold and pearls and trinkets have forfeited the adornments of mind and body. Now this is not done without a mortal sin. Therefore the adornment of women cannot be devoid of mortal sin. Praeterea, Cyprianus dicit, in libro de habitu Virgin., non virgines tantum aut viduas, sed et nuptas puto et omnes omnino feminas admonendas, quod opus Dei et facturam eius et plasma adulterare nullo modo debeant, adhibito flavo colore vel nigro pulvere vel rubore, aut quolibet lineamenta nativa corrumpente medicamine. Et postea subdit, manus Deo inferunt, quando illud quod ille formavit, reformare contendunt. Impugnatio ista est divini operis, praevaricatio est veritatis. Deum videre non poteris, quando oculi tibi non sunt quos Deus fecit, sed quos Diabolus infecit, de inimico tuo compta, cum illo pariter arsura. Sed hoc non debetur nisi peccato mortali. Ergo ornatus mulieris non est sine peccato mortali. Obj. 2: Further, Cyprian says (De Habit. Virg.): I hold that not only virgins and widows, but also wives and all women without exception, should be admonished that nowise should they deface God’s work and fabric, the clay that He has fashioned, with the aid of yellow pigments, black powders or rouge, or by applying any dye that alters the natural features. And afterwards he adds: They lay hands on God, when they strive to reform what He has formed. This is an assault on the Divine handiwork, a distortion of the truth. Thou shalt not be able to see God, having no longer the eyes that God made, but those the devil has unmade; with him shalt thou burn on whose account thou art bedecked. But this is not due except to mortal sin. Therefore the adornment of women is not devoid of mortal sin. Praeterea, sicut non congruit mulieri quod veste virili utatur, ita etiam ei non competit quod inordinato ornatu utatur. Sed primum est peccatum, dicitur enim Deut. XXII, non induatur mulier veste virili, nec vir veste muliebri. Ergo videtur quod etiam superfluus ornatus mulierum sit peccatum mortale. Obj. 3: Further, just as it is unbecoming for a woman to wear man’s clothes, so is it unbecoming for her to adorn herself inordinately. Now the former is a sin, for it is written (Deut 22:5): A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel. Therefore it seems that also the excessive adornment of women is a mortal sin. Sed contra est quia secundum hoc videretur quod artifices huiusmodi ornamenta praeparantes mortaliter peccarent. Obj. 4: On the contrary, If this were true it would seem that the makers of these means of adornment sin mortally.