Quaestio 85 Question 85 De poenitentia secundum quod est virtus Penance as a Virtue Deinde considerandum est de poenitentia secundum quod est virtus. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex. We must now consider penance as a virtue, under which head there are six points of inquiry: Primo, utrum poenitentia sit virtus. (1) Whether penance is a virtue? Secundo, utrum sit virtus specialis. (2) Whether it is a special virtue? Tertio, sub qua specie virtutis contineatur. (3) To what species of virtue does it belong? Quarto, de subiecto eius. (4) Of its subject; Quinto, de causa ipsius. (5) Of its cause; Sexto, de ordine eius ad alias virtutes. (6) Of its relation to the other virtues. Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum poenitentia sit virtus Whether penance is a virtue? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod poenitentia non sit virtus. Poenitentia enim est quoddam sacramentum aliis sacramentis connumeratum, ut ex supra dictis patet. Sed nullum aliud sacramentorum est virtus. Ergo neque poenitentia est virtus. Objection 1: It would seem that penance is not a virtue. For penance is a sacrament numbered among the other sacraments, as was shown above (Q. 84, A. 1; Q. 65, A. 1). Now no other sacrament is a virtue. Therefore neither is penance a virtue. Praeterea, secundum philosophum, in IV Ethic., verecundia non est virtus, tum quia est passio habens corporalem immutationem; tum etiam quia non est dispositio perfecti, cum sit de turpi acto, quod non habet locum in homine virtuoso. Sed similiter poenitentia est quaedam passio habens corporalem immutationem, scilicet ploratum, sicut Gregorius dicit quod poenitere est peccata praeterita plangere. Est etiam de turpibus factis, scilicet de peccatis, quae non habent locum in homine virtuoso. Ergo poenitentia non est virtus. Obj. 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 9), shame is not a virtue, both because it is a passion accompanied by a bodily alteration, and because it is not the disposition of a perfect thing, since it is about an evil act, so that it has no place in a virtuous man. Now, in like manner, penance is a passion accompanied by a bodily alteration, viz. tears, according to Gregory, who says (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.) that penance consists in deploring past sins: moreover it is about evil deeds, viz. sins, which have no place in a virtuous man. Therefore penance is not a virtue. Praeterea, secundum philosophum, in IV Ethic., nullus est stultus eorum qui sunt secundum virtutem. Sed stultum videtur dolere de commisso praeterito, quod non potest non esse, quod tamen pertinet ad poenitentiam. Ergo poenitentia non est virtus. Obj. 3: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 3), no virtuous man is foolish. But it seems foolish to deplore what has been done in the past, since it cannot be otherwise, and yet this is what we understand by penance. Therefore penance is not a virtue. Sed contra est quod praecepta legis dantur de actibus virtutum, quia legislator intendit cives facere virtuosos, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed praeceptum divinae legis est de poenitentia, secundum illud Matth. III, poenitentiam agite, et cetera. Ergo poenitentia est virtus. On the contrary, The precepts of the Law are about acts of virtue, because a lawgiver intends to make the citizens virtuous (Ethic. ii, 1). But there is a precept about penance in the Divine law, according to Matt. 4:17: Do penance, etc. Therefore penance is a virtue. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex dictis patet, poenitere est de aliquo a se prius facto dolere. Dictum est autem supra quod dolor vel tristitia dupliciter dicitur. Uno modo, secundum quod est passio quaedam appetitus sensitivi. Et quantum ad hoc, poenitentia non est virtus, sed passio alio modo, secundum quod consistit in voluntate. Et hoc modo est cum quadam electione. Quae quidem si sit recta, necesse est quod sit actus virtutis, dicitur enim in II Ethic. quod virtus est habitus electivus secundum rationem rectam. Pertinet autem ad rationem rectam quod aliquis doleat de quo dolendum est. Quod quidem observatur in poenitentia de qua nunc loquimur, nam poenitens assumit moderatum dolorem de peccatis praeteritis, cum intentione removendi ea. Unde manifestum est quod poenitentia de qua nunc loquimur, vel est virtus, vel actus virtutis. I answer that, As stated above (Obj. 2; Q. 84, A. 10, ad 4), to repent is to deplore something one has done. Now it has been stated above (Q. 84, A. 9) that sorrow or sadness is twofold. First, it denotes a passion of the sensitive appetite, and in this sense penance is not a virtue, but a passion. Second, it denotes an act of the will, and in this way it implies choice, and if this be right, it must, of necessity, be an act of virtue. For it is stated in Ethic. ii, 6 that virtue is a habit of choosing according to right reason. Now it belongs to right reason than one should grieve for a proper object of grief as one ought to grieve, and for an end for which one ought to grieve. And this is observed in the penance of which we are speaking now; since the penitent assumes a moderated grief for his past sins, with the intention of removing them. Hence it is evident that the penance of which we are speaking now, is either a virtue or the act of a virtue. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, in sacramento poenitentiae materialiter se habent actus humani, quod non contingit in Baptismo vel confirmatione. Et ideo, cum virtus sit principium alicuius actus, potius poenitentia est virtus, vel cum virtute, quam Baptismus vel confirmatio. Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (Q. 84, A. 1, ad 1; AA. 2, 3), in the sacrament of penance, human acts take the place of matter, which is not the case in Baptism and Confirmation. Wherefore, since virtue is a principle of an act, penance is either a virtue or accompanies a virtue, rather than Baptism or Confirmation. Ad secundum dicendum quod poenitentia, secundum quod est passio, non est virtus, ut dictum est. Sic autem habet corporalem transmutationem adiunctam. Est autem virtus secundum quod habet ex parte voluntatis electionem rectam. Quod tamen magis potest dici de poenitentia quam de verecundia. Nam verecundia respicit turpe factum ut praesens, poenitentia vero respicit turpe factum ut praeteritum. Est autem contra perfectionem virtutis quod aliquis in praesenti habeat turpe factum, de quo oporteat eum verecundari. Non autem est contra perfectionem virtutis quod aliquis prius commiserit turpia facta, de quibus oporteat eum poenitere, cum ex vitioso fiat aliquis virtuosus. Reply Obj. 2: penance, considered as a passion, is not a virtue, as stated above, and it is thus that it is accompanied by a bodily alteration. On the other hand, it is a virtue, according as it includes a right choice on the part of the will; which, however, applies to penance rather than to shame. Because shame regards the evil deed as present, whereas penance regards the evil deed as past. Now it is contrary to the perfection of virtue that one should have an evil deed actually present, of which one ought to be ashamed; whereas it is not contrary to the perfection of virtue that we should have previously committed evil deeds, of which it behooves us to repent, since a man from being wicked becomes virtuous. Ad tertium dicendum quod dolere de eo quod prius factum est cum hac intentione conandi ad hoc quod factum non fuerit, esset stultum. Hoc autem non intendit poenitens, sed dolor eius est displicentia seu reprobatio facti praeteriti cum intentione removendi sequelam ipsius, scilicet offensam Dei et reatum poenae. Et hoc non est stultum. Reply Obj. 3: It would indeed be foolish to grieve for what has already been done, with the intention of trying to make it not done. But the penitent does not intend this: for his sorrow is displeasure or disapproval with regard to the past deed, with the intention of removing its result, viz. the anger of God and the debt of punishment: and this is not foolish. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum poenitentia sit specialis virtus Whether penance is a special virtue? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod poenitentia non sit specialis virtus. Eiusdem enim rationis videtur esse gaudere de bonis prius actis, et dolere de malis perpetratis. Sed gaudium de bono prius facto non est specialis virtus, sed est quidam affectus laudabilis ex caritate proveniens, ut patet per Augustinum, XIV de Civ. Dei, unde et apostolus, I Cor. XIII, dicit quod caritas non gaudet super iniquitate, congaudet autem veritati. Ergo pari ratione poenitentia, quae est dolor de peccatis praeteritis, non est specialis virtus, sed est quidam affectus ex caritate proveniens. Objection 1: It would seem that penance is not a special virtue. For it seems that to rejoice at the good one has done, and to grieve for the evil one has done are acts of the same nature. But joy for the good one has done is not a special virtue, but is a praiseworthy emotion proceeding from charity, as Augustine states (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7, 8, 9): wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor 13:6) that charity rejoiceth not at iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth. Therefore, in like manner, neither is penance, which is sorrow for past sins, a special virtue, but an emotion resulting from charity. Praeterea, quaelibet virtus specialis habet materiam specialem, quia habitus distinguuntur per actus, et actus per obiecta. Sed poenitentia non habet materiam specialem, sunt enim eius materia peccata praeterita circa quamcumque materiam. Ergo poenitentia non est specialis virtus. Obj. 2: Further, every special virtue has its special matter, because habits are distinguished by their acts, and acts by their objects. But penance has no special matter, because its matter is past sins in any matter whatever. Therefore penance is not a special virtue. Praeterea, nihil expellitur nisi a suo contrario. Sed poenitentia expellit omnia peccata. Ergo contrariatur omnibus peccatis. Non est ergo specialis virtus. Obj. 3: Further, nothing is removed except by its contrary. But penance removes all sins. Therefore it is contrary to all sins, and consequently is not a special virtue. Sed contra est quod de ea datur speciale legis praeceptum, ut supra habitum est. On the contrary, The Law has a special precept about penance, as stated above (Q. 84, AA. 5, 7). Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in secunda parte habitum est, species habituum distinguuntur secundum species actuum, et ideo ubi occurrit specialis actus laudabilis, ibi necesse est ponere specialem habitum virtutis. Manifestum est autem quod in poenitentia invenitur specialis ratio actus laudabilis, scilicet operari ad destructionem peccati praeteriti inquantum est Dei offensa, quod non pertinet ad rationem alterius virtutis. Unde necesse est ponere quod poenitentia sit specialis virtus. I answer that, As stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 54, A. 1, ad 1, A. 2), habits are specifically distinguished according to the species of their acts, so that whenever an act has a special reason for being praiseworthy, there must needs be a special habit. Now it is evident that there is a special reason for praising the act of penance, because it aims at the destruction of past sin, considered as an offense against God, which does not apply to any other virtue. We must therefore conclude that penance is a special virtue. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod a caritate derivatur aliquis actus dupliciter. Uno modo, sicut ab ea elicitus. Et talis actus virtuosus non requirit aliam virtutem praeter caritatem, sicut diligere bonum et gaudere de eo, et tristari de opposito. Alio modo aliquis actus a caritate procedit quasi a caritate imperatus. Et sic, quia ipsa imperat omnibus virtutibus, utpote ordinans eas ad finem suum, actus a caritate procedens potest etiam ad aliam virtutem specialem pertinere. Si ergo in actu poenitentis consideretur sola displicentia peccati praeteriti, hoc immediate ad caritatem pertinet, sicut et gaudere de bonis praeteritis. Sed intentio operandi ad deletionem peccati praeteriti requirit specialem virtutem sub caritate. Reply Obj. 1: An act springs from charity in two ways: first as being elicited by charity, and a like virtuous act requires no other virtue than charity, e.g., to love the good, to rejoice therein, and to grieve for what is opposed to it. Second, an act springs from charity, being, so to speak, commanded by charity; and thus, since charity commands all the virtues, inasmuch as it directs them to its own end, an act springing from charity may belong even to another special virtue. Accordingly, if in the act of the penitent we consider the mere displeasure in the past sin, it belongs to charity immediately, in the same way as joy for past good acts; but the intention to aim at the destruction of past sin requires a special virtue subordinate to charity. Ad secundum dicendum quod poenitentia habet quidem realiter generalem materiam, inquantum respicit omnia peccata, sed tamen sub ratione speciali, inquantum sunt emendabilia per actum hominis cooperantis Deo ad suam iustificationem. Reply Obj. 2: In point of fact, penance has indeed a general matter, inasmuch as it regards all sins; but it does so under a special aspect, inasmuch as they can be remedied by an act of man in co-operating with God for his justification. Ad tertium dicendum quod quaelibet virtus specialis expellit habitum vitii oppositi, sicut albedo expellit nigredinem ab eodem subiecto. Sed poenitentia expellit omne peccatum effective, inquantum operatur ad destructionem peccati, prout est remissibile ex divina gratia homine cooperante. Unde non sequitur quod sit virtus generalis. Reply Obj. 3: Every special virtue removes formally the habit of the opposite vice, just as whiteness removes blackness from the same subject: but penance removes every sin effectively, inasmuch as it works for the destruction of sins, according as they are pardonable through the grace of God if man co-operate therewith. Wherefore it does not follow that it is a general virtue. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum virtus poenitentiae sit species iustitiae Whether the virtue of penance is a species of justice? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtus poenitentiae non sit species iustitiae. Iustitia enim non est virtus theologica sed moralis, ut in secunda parte patet. Poenitentia autem videtur virtus esse theologica, quia habet Deum pro obiecto, satisfacit enim Deo, cui etiam reconciliat peccatorem. Ergo videtur quod poenitentia non sit pars iustitiae. Objection 1: It would seem that the virtue of penance is not a species of justice. For justice is not a theological but a moral virtue, as was shown in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 62, A. 3). But penance seems to be a theological virtue, since God is its object, for it makes satisfaction to God, to Whom, moreover, it reconciles the sinner. Therefore it seems that penance is not a species of justice. Praeterea, iustitia, cum sit virtus moralis, consistit in medio. Sed poenitentia non consistit in medio, sed in quodam excessu, secundum illud Ierem. VI, luctum unigeniti fac tibi, planctum amarum. Ergo poenitentia non est species iustitiae. Obj. 2: Further, since justice is a moral virtue it observes the mean. Now penance does not observe the mean, but rather goes to the extreme, according to Jer. 6:26: Make thee mourning as for an only son, a bitter lamentation. Therefore penance is not a species of justice. Praeterea, duae sunt species iustitiae, ut dicitur in V Ethic., scilicet distributiva et commutativa. Sed sub neutra videtur poenitentia contineri. Ergo videtur quod poenitentia non sit species iustitiae. Obj. 3: Further, there are two species of justice, as stated in Ethic. v, 4, viz. distributive and commutative. But penance does not seem to be contained under either of them. Therefore it seems that penance is not a species of justice. Praeterea, super illud Luc. VI, beati qui nunc fletis, dicit Glossa, ecce prudentia, per quam ostenditur quam haec terrena sint misera, et quam beata caelestia. Sed flere est actus poenitentiae. Ergo poenitentia magis est prudentiae quam iustitiae. Obj. 4: Further, a gloss on Luke 6:21, Blessed are ye that weep now, says: It is prudence that teaches us the unhappiness of earthly things and the happiness of heavenly things. But weeping is an act of penance. Therefore penance is a species of prudence rather than of justice. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de poenitentia, poenitentia est quaedam dolentis vindicta, semper puniens in se quod dolet se commisisse. Sed facere vindictam pertinet ad iustitiam, unde Tullius, in sua rhetorica, ponit vindicativam unam speciem iustitiae. Ergo videtur quod poenitentia sit species iustitiae. On the contrary, Augustine says in De Poenitentia: penance is the vengeance of the sorrowful, ever punishing in them what they are sorry for having done. But to take vengeance is an act of justice, wherefore Tully says (De Inv. Rhet. ii) that one kind of justice is called vindictive. Therefore it seems that penance is a species of justice.