[II-II.q.38.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that contention is not a mortal sin. For there is no mortal sin in spiritual men: and yet contention is to be found in them, according to Luke 22:24: \"And there was also a strife amongst\" the disciples of Jesus, \"which of them should . . . be the greatest.\" Therefore contention is not a mortal sin.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod non fuerit conveniens Joannem baptizare. Omnis enim ritus sacramentalis ad aliquam pertinet legem. Sed Joannes non introduxit novam legem. Ergo inconveniens fuit quod novum ritum baptizandi introduceret.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.arg.2] Further, no well disposed man should be pleased that his neighbor commit a mortal sin. But the Apostle says (Philippians 1:17): \"Some out of contention preach Christ,\" and afterwards he says (Philippians 1:18): \"In this also I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.\" Therefore contention is not a mortal sin.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Joannes fuit missus a Deo in testimonium tamquam propheta, secundum illud Luc., i, 76: Tu puer propheta Altissimi vocaberis. Sed prophetæ qui fuerunt ante Christum non introduxerunt novum ritum, sed observantiam legalium rituum inducebant, ut patet Malach., ult., 4; Mementote legis Moysi, servi mei. Ergo nec Joannes novum ritum baptizandi introducere debuit.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.arg.3] Further, it happens that people contend either in the courts or in disputations, without any spiteful purpose, and with a good intention, as, for example, those who contend by disputing with heretics. Hence a gloss on 1 Samuel 14:1, \"It came to pass one day,\" etc. says: \"Catholics do not raise contentions with heretics, unless they are first challenged to dispute.\" Therefore contention is not a mortal sin.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, ubi est alicujus rei superfluitas, non est ad illud aliquid addendum. Sed Judæi excedebant in superfluitate baptismatum: dicitur enim Marci, vii, 3, quod Pharisæi et omnes Judæi nisi crebro laverint manus, non manducant..., et a foro venientes, nisi baptizenur, non comedunt; et alia multa sunt quæ tradita sunt illis servare, baptismata calicum, et urceorum, etæramentorum et lectorum. Ergo inconveniens fuit quod Joannes baptizaret.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.arg.4] Further, Job seems to have contended with God, according to Job 39:32: \"Shall he that contendeth with God be so easily silenced?\" And yet Job was not guilty of mortal sin, since the Lord said of him (Job 42:7): \"You have not spoken the thing that is right before me, as my servant Job hath.\" Therefore contention is not always a mortal sin.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.arg.4] 4. Præterea, Job videtur cum Deo contendisse, secundum illud Job, xxxix, 32: Numquid qui contendit cum Deo, tam facile conquiescit? Et tamen Job non peccavit mortaliter: quia Dominus de eo dicit: Non estis locuti coram me rectum, sicut servus meus Job, ut habetur Job, ult., 7. Ergo contentio non semper est peccatum mortale.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.sc] It is against the precept of the Apostle who says (2 Timothy 2:14): \"Contend not in words.\" Moreover (Galatians 5:20) contention is included among the works of the flesh, and as stated there (Galatians 5:21) \"they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.\" Now whatever excludes a man from the kingdom of God and is against a precept, is a mortal sin. Therefore contention is a mortal sin.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.sc] Sed contra est auctoritas Scripturæ Matth., iii, 6, ubi præmissa sanctitate Joannis, subditur, quod exibant ad eum multi, et baptizabantur ab eo in Jordane.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.co] To contend is to tend against some one. Wherefore just as discord denotes a contrariety of wills, so contention signifies contrariety of speech. For this reason when a man contrasts various contrary things in a speech, this is called \"contentio,\" which Tully calls one of the rhetorical colors (De Rhet. ad Heren. iv), where he says that \"it consists in developing a speech from contrary things,\" for instance: \"Adulation has a pleasant beginning, and a most bitter end.\"
\nNow contrariety of speech may be looked at in two ways: first with regard to the intention of the contentious party, secondly, with regard to the manner of contending. As to the intention, we must consider whether he contends against the truth, and then he is to be blamed, or against falsehood, and then he should be praised. As to the manner, we must consider whether his manner of contending is in keeping with the persons and the matter in dispute, for then it would be praiseworthy, hence Tully says (De Rhet. ad Heren. iii) that \"contention is a sharp speech suitable for proof and refutation\"--or whether it exceeds the demands of the persons and matter in dispute, in which case it is blameworthy.
\nAccordingly if we take contention as denoting a disclaimer of the truth and an inordinate manner, it is a mortal sin. Thus Ambrose [Cf. Gloss. Ord. in Rom. i, 29 defines contention: \"Contention is a disclaimer of the truth with clamorous confidence.\" If, however, contention denote a disavowal of what is false, with the proper measure of acrimony, it is praiseworthy: whereas, if it denote a disavowal of falsehood, together with an inordinate manner, it can be a venial sin, unless the contention be conducted so inordinately, as to give scandal to others. Hence the Apostle after saying (2 Timothy 2:14): \"Contend not in words,\" adds, \"for it is to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.\"
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod conveniens fuit Joannem baptizare, propter quatuor. Primo quidem quia oportebat Christum a Joanne baptizari, ut baptismum consecraret, ut Augustinus dicit 4 Super Joan.,
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.ad.1] The disciples of Christ contended together, not with the intention of disclaiming the truth, since each one stood up for what he thought was true. Yet there was inordinateness in their contention, because they contended about a matter which they ought not to have contended about, viz. the primacy of honor; for they were not spiritual men as yet, as a gloss says on the same passage; and for this reason Our Lord checked them.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod in discipulis Christi non erat contentio cum intentione impugnandi veritatem, quia unusquis- Sic cod.; in edit.: « contendentis. » Ita codd. Tarrac., Alcan. et Paris., cum editis passim; al.: « oratio alicujus. » Codices et editi habent Ambrosium: nil autem simile in Ambrosio legitur; in Aymone, vel in Anselmo, cujus nomini, ex errore Amanuensis, forte Ambrosius fuit substitutus, ad sunt similem sensum redolentia, sed non sub iisdem verbis. Vitium contentionis est abominabile propter que defendebat quod sibi verum videbatur; erat tamen in eorum contentione inordinatio, quia contendebant de quo non erat contendendum, scilicet de primatu honoris; nondum enim erant spirituales, sicut Glossa ordin. ibidem dicit, col. 338, t. 2; unde Dominus consequenter eos compescuit.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.ad.2] Those who preached Christ \"out of contention,\" were to be blamed, because, although they did not gainsay the truth of faith, but preached it, yet they did gainsay the truth, by the fact that they thought they would \"raise affliction\" to the Apostle who was preaching the truth of faith. Hence the Apostle rejoiced not in their contention, but in the fruit that would result therefrom, namely that Christ would be made known--since evil is sometimes the occasion of good results.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod illi qui ex contentione Christum prædicabant, reprehensibles erant: quia, quamvis non impugnant veritatem fidei, sed eam prædicarent, impugnabant tamen veritatem quantum ad hoc quod putabant se suscitare pressuram Apostolo veritatem fide prædicanti. Unde Apostolus non gaudebat de eorum contentione, sed de fructu qui ex hoc proveniebat, scilicet quod Christus annuntia-batur, quia ex malis etiam occasionaliter subsequuntur bona.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.ad.3] Contention is complete and is a mortal sin when, in contending before a judge, a man gainsays the truth of justice, or in a disputation, intends to impugn the true doctrine. On this sense Catholics do not contend against heretics, but the reverse. But when, whether in court or in a disputation, it is incomplete, i.e. in respect of the acrimony of speech, it is not always a mortal sin.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod secundum completam rationem contentionis, prout est peccatum mortale, ille in judicio contendit qui impugnat veritatem justitiæ; et in disputatione contendit, qui intendit impugnare veritatem doctrinæ. Et secundum hoc catholici non contendunt contra hæreticos, sed potius e converso. Si autem accipiatur contentio in judicio vel disputatione secundum imperfectam rationem, scilicet secundum quod importat quamdam acrimoniam locutionis, sic non semper est peccatum mortale.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.ad.4] Contention here denotes an ordinary dispute. For Job had said (13:3): \"I will speak to the Almighty, and I desire to reason with God\": yet he intended not to impugn the truth, but to defend it, and in seeking the truth thus, he had no wish to be inordinate in mind or in speech.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.1.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod contentio ibi sumitur communiter pro disputatione. Dixerat enim Job, cap. xiii, 3: Ad omnipotentem loquar, et disputare cum Deo cupio, non tamen intendens neque veritatem impugnare, sed inquirere; neque circa hanc inquisitionem aliqua inordinatione vel animi vel vocis uti.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that contention is not a daughter of vainglory. For contention is akin to zeal, wherefore it is written (1 Corinthians 3:3): \"Whereas there is among you zeal [Douay: 'envying'] and contention, are you not carnal, and walk according to men?\" Now zeal pertains to envy. Therefore contention arises rather from envy.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.2.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod baptismus Joannis non fuerit a Deo. Nihil enim sacramentale, quod est a Deo, denominatur ab homine puro; sicut baptismus novæ legis non dicitur Petri, vel Pauli, sed Christi. Sed ille baptismus denominatur a Joanne, secundum illud Matth., xxI, 25: Baptismus Joannis unde erat, a cælo an ex hominibus? Ergo baptismus Joannis non fuit a Deo.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.2.arg.2] Further, contention is accompanied by raising of the voice. But the voice is raised on account of anger, as Gregory declares (Moral. xxxi, 14). Therefore contention too arises from anger.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, omnis doctrina de novo a Deo procedens aliquibus signis confirmatur; unde et Dominus Exod., iv, dedit Moysi potestatem signa faciendi; et Hebr, II, 3, dicitur: Cum fides nostra principium accepisset enarrari a Deo per eos qui audierunt, in nos confirmata est, contestante Deo signis et prodigiis.* Sed de Joanne Baptista dicitur Joan., x, 41: Joannes signum fecit nullum. Ergo videtur quod baptismus, quo baptizavit, non esset a Deo.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.2.arg.3] Further, among other things knowledge seems to be the matter of pride and vainglory, according to 1 Corinthians 8:1: \"Knowledge puffeth up.\" Now contention is often due to lack of knowledge, and by knowledge we do not impugn the truth, we know it. Therefore contention is not a daughter of vainglory.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, sacramenta, quæ sunt divinitus instituta, aliquibus sacræ Scripturæ praceptis continentur. Sed baptismus Joannis non praecipitur aliquo pracepto sacræ Scripturæ. Ergo videtur quod non fuerit a Deo.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.2.sc] stands the authority of Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 14).
\n[II-II.q.38.a.2.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Joan., I, 33: Qui misit me baptizare in aqua, ille mihi dixit: Super quem videris Spiritum, etc.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.2.co] As stated above (Question 37, Article 2), discord is a daughter of vainglory, because each of the disaccording parties clings to his own opinion, rather than acquiesce with the other. Now it is proper to pride and vainglory to seek one's own glory. And just as people are discordant when they hold to their own opinion in their hearts, so are they contentious when each defends his own opinion by words. Consequently contention is reckoned a daughter of vainglory for the same reason as discord.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod in baptismo Joannis duo possunt considerari; scilicet ipse ritus baptizandi, et effectus baptismi. Ritus quidem baptizandi non fuit ab hominibus, sed a Deo, qui familiari Spiritus sancti revelatione Joannem ad baptizandum misit. Effectus autem illius baptismi fuit ab homine, quia nihil in illo baptismo efficiebatur quod homo facere non posset. Unde non fuit a solo Deo, nisi inquantum Deus in homine operatur.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.2.ad.1] Contention, like discord, is akin to envy in so far as a man severs himself from the one with whom he is discordant, or with whom he contends, but in so far as a contentious man holds to something, it is akin to pride and vainglory, because, to wit, he clings to his own opinion, as stated above (37, 2, ad 1).
\n[II-II.q.38.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod per baptismus novæ legis homines interius per Spiritum sanctum baptizantur; quod facit solus Deus. Per baptismus autem Joannis solum corpus mundabatur aqua. Unde dicitur Matth., III, 44: Ego baptizo vos in aqua; ille* vos baptizabit in Spiritus sancto. Et ideo baptismus Joannis denominatur ab ipso, quia scilicet nihil in eo agebatur quod ipse non ageret: baptismus utroque loco. autem novæ legis non denominatur a ministro, qui principalem baptismi effectum non agit, scilicet interiorem emundationem.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.2.ad.2] The contention of which we are speaking puts on a loud voice, for the purpose of impugning the truth, so that it is not the chief part of contention. Hence it does not follow that contention arises from the same source as the raising of the voice.
\n[II-II.q.38.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod tota doctrina et operatio Joannis ordinabatur ad Christum, qui multitudine signorum et suam et Joannis doctrinam confirmavit. Si autem Joannes signa fecisset, homines ex aequo Joanni et Christo accessissent. Et ideo ut homines principaliter Christo attenderent, non est datum Joanni ut faceret signum. Judæis tamen quærentibus, quare baptizaret, confirmavit suum officium auctoritate Scripturæ, dicens: Ego vox clamantis in deserto, etc., ut dicitur Joan., 1, 23. Ipsa etiam austeritas vitæ ejus officium commendabat, quia, ut Chrysostomus dicit Super Matth., hom. x, § 4, col. 420, t. 14, «mirabile erat in humano corpore tantam patientiam videre. »
\n[II-II.q.38.a.2.ad.3] Pride and vainglory are occasioned chiefly by goods even those that are contrary to them, for instance, when a man is proud of his humility: for when a thing arises in this way, it does so not directly but accidentally, in which way nothing hinders one contrary from arising out of another. Hence there is no reason why the \"per se\" and direct effects of pride or vainglory, should not result from the contraries of those things which are the occasion of pride.
\nThe Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
\n[II-II.q.38.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod baptismus Joannis non fuit ordinatus a Deo, nisi ut modico tempore duraret, propter causas prædictas: et ideo non fuit commendatus aliquo præcepto communiter tradito in sacra Scriptura, sed familiari quadam revelatione Spiritus sancti, ut dictum est.
\n