Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum seditio semper sit peccatum mortale Whether sedition is always a mortal sin? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod seditio non semper sit peccatum mortale. Seditio enim importat tumultum ad pugnam; ut patet per Glossam supra inductam. Sed pugna non semper est peccatum mortale, sed quandoque est iusta et licita, ut supra habitum est. Ergo multo magis seditio potest esse sine peccato mortali. Objection 1: It would seem that sedition is not always a mortal sin. For sedition denotes a tumult tending to fight, according to the gloss quoted above (A. 1). But fighting is not always a mortal sin, indeed it is sometimes just and lawful, as stated above (Q. 40, A. 1). Much more, therefore, can sedition be without a mortal sin. Praeterea, seditio est discordia quaedam, ut dictum est. Sed discordia potest esse sine peccato mortali, et quandoque etiam sine omni peccato. Ergo etiam seditio. Obj. 2: Further, sedition is a kind of discord, as stated above (A. 1, ad 3). Now discord can be without mortal sin, and sometimes without any sin at all. Therefore sedition can be also. Praeterea, laudantur qui multitudinem a potestate tyrannica liberant. Sed hoc non de facili potest fieri sine aliqua dissensione multitudinis, dum una pars multitudinis nititur retinere tyrannum, alia vero nititur eum abiicere. Ergo seditio potest fieri sine peccato. Obj. 3: Further, it is praiseworthy to deliver a multitude from a tyrannical rule. Yet this cannot easily be done without some dissension in the multitude, if one part of the multitude seeks to retain the tyrant, while the rest strive to dethrone him. Therefore there can be sedition without mortal sin. Sed contra est quod apostolus, II ad Cor. XII, prohibet seditiones inter alia quae sunt peccata mortalia. Ergo seditio est peccatum mortale. On the contrary, The Apostle forbids seditions together with other things that are mortal sins (2 Cor 12:20). Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, seditio opponitur unitati multitudinis, idest populi, civitatis vel regni. Dicit autem Augustinus, II de Civ. Dei, quod populum determinant sapientes non omnem coetum multitudinis, sed coetum iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatum. Unde manifestum est unitatem cui opponitur seditio esse unitatem iuris et communis utilitatis. Manifestum est ergo quod seditio opponitur et iustitiae et communi bono. Et ideo ex suo genere est peccatum mortale, et tanto gravius quanto bonum commune, quod impugnatur per seditionem, est maius quam bonum privatum, quod impugnatur per rixam. I answer that, As stated above (A. 1, ad 2), sedition is contrary to the unity of the multitude, viz. the people of a city or kingdom. Now Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21) that wise men understand the word people to designate not any crowd of persons, but the assembly of those who are united together in fellowship recognized by law and for the common good. Wherefore it is evident that the unity to which sedition is opposed is the unity of law and common good: whence it follows manifestly that sedition is opposed to justice and the common good. Therefore by reason of its genus it is a mortal sin, and its gravity will be all the greater according as the common good which it assails surpasses the private good which is assailed by strife. Peccatum autem seditionis primo quidem et principaliter pertinet ad eos qui seditionem procurant, qui gravissime peccant. Secundo autem, ad eos qui eos sequuntur, perturbantes bonum commune. Illi vero qui bonum commune defendunt, eis resistentes, non sunt dicendi seditiosi, sicut nec illi qui se defendunt dicuntur rixosi, ut supra dictum est. Accordingly the sin of sedition is first and chiefly in its authors, who sin most grievously; and second it is in those who are led by them to disturb the common good. Those, however, who defend the common good, and withstand the seditious party, are not themselves seditious, even as neither is a man to be called quarrelsome because he defends himself, as stated above (Q. 41, A. 1). Ad primum ergo dicendum quod pugna quae est licita fit pro communi utilitate, sicut supra dictum est. Sed seditio fit contra commune bonum multitudinis. Unde semper est peccatum mortale. Reply Obj. 1: It is lawful to fight, provided it be for the common good, as stated above (Q. 40, A. 1). But sedition runs counter to the common good of the multitude, so that it is always a mortal sin. Ad secundum dicendum quod discordia ab eo quod non est manifeste bonum potest esse sine peccato. Sed discordia ab eo quod est manifeste bonum non potest esse sine peccato. Et talis discordia est seditio, quae opponitur utilitati multitudinis, quae est manifeste bonum. Reply Obj. 2: Discord from what is not evidently good, may be without sin, but discord from what is evidently good, cannot be without sin: and sedition is discord of this kind, for it is contrary to the unity of the multitude, which is a manifest good. Ad tertium dicendum quod regimen tyrannicum non est iustum, quia non ordinatur ad bonum commune, sed ad bonum privatum regentis, ut patet per Philosophum, in III Polit. et in VIII Ethic. Et ideo perturbatio huius regiminis non habet rationem seditionis, nisi forte quando sic inordinate perturbatur tyranni regimen quod multitudo subiecta maius detrimentum patitur ex perturbatione consequenti quam ex tyranni regimine. Magis autem tyrannus seditiosus est, qui in populo sibi subiecto discordias et seditiones nutrit, ut tutius dominari possit. Hoc enim tyrannicum est, cum sit ordinatum ad bonum proprium praesidentis cum multitudinis nocumento. Reply Obj. 3: A tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5; Ethic. viii, 10). Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant’s rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant’s government. Indeed it is the tyrant rather that is guilty of sedition, since he encourages discord and sedition among his subjects, that he may lord over them more securely; for this is tyranny, being conducive to the private good of the ruler, and to the injury of the multitude. Quaestio 43 Question 43 De scandalo Scandal Deinde considerandum restat de vitiis quae beneficentiae opponuntur. Inter quae alia quidem pertinent ad rationem iustitiae, illa scilicet quibus aliquis iniuste proximum laedit, sed contra caritatem specialiter scandalum esse videtur. Et ideo considerandum est hic de scandalo. Circa quod quaeruntur octo. It remains for us to consider the vices which are opposed to beneficence, among which some come under the head of injustice, those, to wit, whereby one harms one’s neighbor unjustly. But scandal seems to be specially opposed to charity. Accordingly we must here consider scandal, under which head there are eight points of inquiry: Primo, quid sit scandalum. (1) What is scandal? Secundo, utrum scandalum sit peccatum. (2) Whether scandal is a sin? Tertio, utrum sit peccatum speciale. (3) Whether it is a special sin? Quarto, utrum sit peccatum mortale. (4) Whether it is a mortal sin? Quinto, utrum perfectorum sit scandalizari. (5) Whether the perfect can be scandalized? Sexto, utrum eorum sit scandalizare. (6) Whether they can give scandal? Septimo, utrum spiritualia bona sint dimittenda propter scandalum. (7) Whether spiritual goods are to be foregone on account of scandal? Octavo, utrum sint propter scandalum temporalia dimittenda. (8) Whether temporal things are to be foregone on account of scandal? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum scandalum convenienter definiatur esse dictum vel factum minus rectum praebens occasionem ruinae Whether scandal is fittingly defined as: “something less rightly said or done that occasions spiritual downfall”? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod scandalum inconvenienter definiatur esse dictum vel factum minus rectum praebens occasionem ruinae. Scandalum enim peccatum est, ut post dicetur. Sed secundum Augustinum, XXII contra Faust., peccatum est dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem Dei. Ergo praedicta definitio est insufficiens, quia praetermittitur cogitatum sive concupitum. Objection 1: It would seem that scandal is unfittingly defined as something less rightly said or done that occasions spiritual downfall. For scandal is a sin as we shall state further on (A. 2). Now, according to Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii, 27), a sin is a word, deed, or desire contrary to the law of God. Therefore the definition given above is insufficient, since it omits thought or desire. Praeterea, cum inter actus virtuosos vel rectos unus sit virtuosior vel rectior altero, illud solum videtur non esse minus rectum quod est rectissimum. Si igitur scandalum sit dictum vel factum minus rectum, sequetur quod omnis actus virtuosus praeter optimum sit scandalum. Obj. 2: Further, since among virtuous or right acts one is more virtuous or more right than another, that one alone which has perfect rectitude would not seem to be a less right one. If, therefore, scandal is something less rightly said or done, it follows that every virtuous act except the best of all, is a scandal. Praeterea, occasio nominat causam per accidens. Sed id quod est per accidens non debet poni in definitione, quia non dat speciem. Ergo inconvenienter in definitione scandali ponitur occasio. Obj. 3: Further, an occasion is an accidental cause. But nothing accidental should enter a definition, because it does not specify the thing defined. Therefore it is unfitting, in defining scandal, to say that it is an occasion. Praeterea, ex quolibet facto alterius potest aliquis sumere occasionem ruinae, quia causae per accidens sunt indeterminatae. Si igitur scandalum est quod praebet alteri occasionem ruinae, quodlibet factum vel dictum poterit esse scandalum. Quod videtur inconveniens. Obj. 4: Further, whatever a man does may be the occasion of another’s spiritual downfall, because accidental causes are indeterminate. Consequently, if scandal is something that occasions another’s spiritual downfall, any deed or word can be a scandal: and this seems unreasonable. Praeterea, occasio ruinae datur proximo quando offenditur aut infirmatur. Sed scandalum dividitur contra offensionem et infirmitatem, dicit enim apostolus, ad Rom. XIV, bonum est non manducare carnem et non bibere vinum, neque in quo frater tuus offenditur aut scandalizatur aut infirmatur. Ergo praedicta definitio scandali non est conveniens. Obj. 5: Further, a man occasions his neighbor’s spiritual downfall when he offends or weakens him. Now scandal is condivided with offense and weakness, for the Apostle says (Rom 14:21): It is good not to eat flesh, and not to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother is offended or scandalized, or weakened. Therefore the aforesaid definition of scandal is unfitting. Sed contra est quod Hieronymus, exponens illud quod habetur Matth. XV, scis quia Pharisaei, audito hoc verbo, etc., dicit, quando legimus, quicumque scandalizaverit, hoc intelligimus, qui dicto vel facto occasionem ruinae dederit. On the contrary, Jerome in expounding Matt. 15:12, Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, etc. says: When we read ‘Whosoever shall scandalize,’ the sense is ‘Whosoever shall, by deed or word, occasion another’s spiritual downfall.’ Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Hieronymus ibidem dicit, quod Graece scandalon dicitur, nos offensionem vel ruinam et impactionem pedis possumus dicere. Contingit enim quod quandoque aliquis obex ponitur alicui in via corporali, cui impingens disponitur ad ruinam, et talis obex dicitur scandalum. I answer that, As Jerome observes, the Greek skandalon may be rendered offense, downfall, or a stumbling against something. For when a body, while moving along a path, meets with an obstacle, it may happen to stumble against it, and be disposed to fall down: such an obstacle is a skandalon. Et similiter in processu viae spiritualis contingit aliquem disponi ad ruinam spiritualem per dictum vel factum alterius, inquantum scilicet aliquis sua admonitione vel inductione aut exemplo alterum trahit ad peccandum. Et hoc proprie dicitur scandalum. In like manner, while going along the spiritual way, a man may be disposed to a spiritual downfall by another’s word or deed, in so far, to wit, as one man by his injunction, inducement or example, moves another to sin; and this is scandal properly so called. Nihil autem secundum propriam rationem disponit ad spiritualem ruinam nisi quod habet aliquem defectum rectitudinis, quia id quod est perfecte rectum magis munit hominem contra casum quam ad ruinam inducat. Et ideo convenienter dicitur quod dictum vel factum minus rectum praebens occasionem ruinae sit scandalum. Now nothing by its very nature disposes a man to spiritual downfall, except that which has some lack of rectitude, since what is perfectly right, secures man against a fall, instead of conducing to his downfall. Scandal is, therefore, fittingly defined as something less rightly done or said, that occasions another’s spiritual downfall. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod cogitatio vel concupiscentia mali latet in corde, unde non proponitur alteri ut obex disponens ad ruinam. Et propter hoc non potest habere scandali rationem. Reply Obj. 1: The thought or desire of evil lies hidden in the heart, wherefore it does not suggest itself to another man as an obstacle conducing to his spiritual downfall: hence it cannot come under the head of scandal. Ad secundum dicendum quod minus rectum hic non dicitur quod ab aliquo alio superatur in rectitudine, sed quod habet aliquem rectitudinis defectum, vel quia est secundum se malum, sicut peccata; vel quia habet speciem mali, sicut cum aliquis recumbit in idolio. Quamvis enim hoc secundum se non sit peccatum, si aliquis hoc non corrupta intentione faciat; tamen quia habet quandam speciem vel similitudinem venerationis idoli, potest alteri praebere occasionem ruinae. Et ideo apostolus monet, I ad Thess. V, ab omni specie mala abstinete vos. Et ideo convenienter dicitur minus rectum, ut comprehendantur tam illa quae sunt secundum se peccata, quam illa quae habent speciem mali. Reply Obj. 2: A thing is said to be less right, not because something else surpasses it in rectitude, but because it has some lack of rectitude, either through being evil in itself, such as sin, or through having an appearance of evil. Thus, for instance, if a man were to sit at meat in the idol’s temple (1 Cor 8:10), though this is not sinful in itself, provided it be done with no evil intention, yet, since it has a certain appearance of evil, and a semblance of worshipping the idol, it might occasion another man’s spiritual downfall. Hence the Apostle says (1 Thess 5:22): From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves. Scandal is therefore fittingly described as something done less rightly, so as to comprise both whatever is sinful in itself, and all that has an appearance of evil. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra habitum est, nihil potest esse homini sufficiens causa peccati, quod est spiritualis ruina, nisi propria voluntas. Et ideo dicta vel facta alterius hominis possunt esse solum causa imperfecta, aliqualiter inducens ad ruinam. Et propter hoc non dicitur, dans causam ruinae, sed, dans occasionem, quod significat causam imperfectam, et non semper causam per accidens. Et tamen nihil prohibet in quibusdam definitionibus poni id quod est per accidens, quia id quod est secundum accidens uni potest per se alteri convenire, sicut in definitione fortunae ponitur causa per accidens, in II Physic. Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (I-II, Q. 75, AA. 2, 3; I-II, Q. 80, A. 1), nothing can be a sufficient cause of a man’s spiritual downfall, which is sin, save his own will. Wherefore another man’s words or deeds can only be an imperfect cause, conducing somewhat to that downfall. For this reason scandal is said to afford not a cause, but an occasion, which is an imperfect, and not always an accidental cause. Nor is there any reason why certain definitions should not make mention of things that are accidental, since what is accidental to one, may be proper to something else: thus the accidental cause is mentioned in the definition of chance (Phys. ii, 5).