[II-II.q.76.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that it is unlawful to curse an irrational creature. Cursing would seem to be lawful chiefly in its relation to punishment. Now irrational creatures are not competent subjects either of guilt or of punishment. Therefore it is unlawful to curse them.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod non sub utraque specie hujus sacramenti totus Christus continetur. Hoc enim sacramentum ad salutem fidelium ordinatur, non virtute specierum, sed virtute ejus quod sub speciebus continetur, quia species grant etiam ante consecrationem, ex qua est virtus hujus sacramenti. Si ergo nihil continetur sub una specie quod non continetur sub alia, sed totus Christus continetur sub utraque, videtur quod altera illarum superfluat in hoc sacramento.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.2.arg.2] Further, in an irrational creature there is nothing but the nature which God made. But it is unlawful to curse this even in the devil, as stated above (Article 1). Therefore it is nowise lawful to curse an irrational creature.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, dictum est, quod sub nomine carnis omnes aliæ partes corporis continentur, sicut ossa, nervi et alia hujusmodi. Sed sanguis est una partium humani corporis, sicut patet per Aristotelem in lib. III De animal., cap. 11, et lib. II De part. animal., cap. 11. Si ergo sanguis Christi continetur sub specie panis, sicut continentur ibi aliæ partes corporis, non deberet seorsum sanguis consecrari, sicut neque seorsum consecratur aliqua alia pars corporis.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.2.arg.3] Further, irrational creatures are either stable, as bodies, or transient, as the seasons. Now, according to Gregory (Moral. iv, 2), \"it is useless to curse what does not exist, and wicked to curse what exists.\" Therefore it is nowise lawful to curse an irrational creature.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, quod jam factum est, iterum fieri non potest. Sed corpus Christi jam incæpit esse in hoc sacramento per consecrationem panis. Ergo non potest esse quod de novo incipiat esse per consecrationem vini; et ita sub specie vini non continebitur corpus Christi, et per consequens nec totus Christus. Non ergo sub utraque specie corpus 4 Christi continetur.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.2.sc] our Lord cursed the fig tree, as related in Matthew 21:19; and Job cursed his day, according to Job 3:1.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.2.sc] Sed contra est quod I Corinth., xi, super illud: Et calicem, dicit Glossa quod « sub utraque specie » scilicet panis et vini, « idem sumitur » et ita videtur sub utraque specie totus Christus esse.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.2.co] Benediction and malediction, properly speaking, regard things to which good or evil may happen, viz. rational creatures: while good and evil are said to happen to irrational creatures in relation to the rational creature for whose sake they are. Now they are related to the rational creature in several ways. First by way of ministration, in so far as irrational creatures minister to the needs of man. On this sense the Lord said to man (Genesis 3:17): \"Cursed is the earth in thy work,\" so that its barrenness would be a punishment to man. Thus also David cursed the mountains of Gelboe, according to Gregory's expounding (Moral. iv, 3). Again the irrational creature is related to the rational creature by way of signification: and thus our Lord cursed the fig tree in signification of Judea. Thirdly, the irrational creature is related to rational creatures as something containing them, namely by way of time or place: and thus Job cursed the day of his birth, on account of the original sin which he contracted in birth, and on account of the consequent penalties. On this sense also we may understand David to have cursed the mountains of Gelboe, as we read in 2 Samuel 1:21, namely on account of the people slaughtered there.
\nBut to curse irrational beings, considered as creatures of God, is a sin of blasphemy; while to curse them considered in themselves is idle and vain and consequently unlawful.
\nFrom this the Replies to the objections may easily be gathered.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, certissime tenendum esse quod sub utraque specie sacramenti totus est Christus; aliter tamen et aliter. Nam sub speciebus panis est quidem corpus Christi ex vi sacramenti, sanguis autem ex reali concomitantia, sicut supra dictum est de anima et divinitate Christi; sub speciebus vero vini est quidem sanguis Christi ex vi sacramenti, corpus autem Christi ex reali concomitantia, sicut anima et divinitas; eo quod nunc sanguis Christi non est ab ejus corpore separatus, sicut fuit tempore passionis et mortis; unde si tunc fuisset hoc sacramentum celebratum, sub speciebus panis fuisset corpus Christi sine sanguine, et sub speciebus vini sanguis sine corpore, sicut erat in rei veritate.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that cursing is not a mortal sin. For Augustine in a homily On the Fire of Purgatory [Serm. civ in the appendix of St. Augustine's works] reckons cursing among slight sins. But such sins are venial. Therefore cursing is not a mortal but a venial Sin.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod non sit totus Christus sub qualibet parte specierum panis vel vini. Species enim illæ dividi possunt in infinitum. Si ergo Christus totus est sub qualibet parte specierum prædictarum, sequeretur quod infinities esset in hoc sacramento, quod est inconveniens: nam infinitum repugnat non solum naturæ, sed etiam gratiæ.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.3.arg.2] Further, that which proceeds from a slight movement of the mind does not seem to be generically a mortal sin. But cursing sometimes arises from a slight movement. Therefore cursing is not a mortal sin.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, corpus Christi, cum sit organicum, habet partes determinate distantes; est enim de ratione organici corporis determinata distantia singularium partium ab invicem, sicut oculi ab oculo, et oculi ab aure. Sed hoc non poset esse, si sub qualibet 5 specierum esset totus Christus: oporteret enim quod sub qualibet parte esset quælibet pars; et ita ubi esset una pars, esset et alia. Non ergo potest esse quod totus Christus sit sub qualibet parte hostiæ vel vini contenti in calice.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.3.arg.3] Further, evil deeds are worse than evil words. But evil deeds are not always mortal sins. Much less therefore is cursing a mortal sin.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, corpus Christi semper veram retinet corporis naturam, nec unquam mutatur in spiritum. Sed de ratione corporis est ut sit quantitas 4 positionem habens, ut patet in Prædicamentis cap. « De quantit. » Sed ad rationem hujus quantitatis pertinet quod diversæ partes in diversis partibus loci existant. Non ergo potest esse, ut videtur, quod totus Christus sit sub qualibet parte specie-rum.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.3.sc] Nothing save mortal sin excludes one from the kingdom of God. But cursing excludes from the kingdom of God, according to 1 Corinthians 6:10, \"Nor cursers [Douay: 'railers'], nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.\" Therefore cursing is a mortal sin.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.3.sc] Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, Decr., dist. 11, De consecr., c. Lxxvii, col. 1772: « Singuli accipiunt Christum Dominum, et in singulis portionibus totus est; nec per singulas minuitur, sed integrum se praebet in singulis. »
\n[II-II.q.76.a.3.co] The evil words of which we are speaking now are those whereby evil is uttered against someone by way of command or desire. Now to wish evil to another man, or to conduce to that evil by commanding it, is, of its very nature, contrary to charity whereby we love our neighbor by desiring his good. Consequently it is a mortal sin, according to its genus, and so much the graver, as the person whom we curse has a greater claim on our love and respect. Hence it is written (Leviticus 20:9): \"He that curseth his father, or mother, dying let him die.\"
\nIt may happen however that the word uttered in cursing is a venial sin either through the slightness of the evil invoked on another in cursing him, or on account of the sentiments of the person who utters the curse; because he may say such words through some slight movement, or in jest, or without deliberation, and sins of word should be weighed chiefly with regard to the speaker's intention, as stated above (Question 72, Article 2).
\nFrom this the Replies to the Objections may be easily gathered.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut ex supra dictis patet, quia in hoc sacra-mento substantia corporis Christi est ex vi sacramenti, quantitas autem dimensiva ex vi realis concomitantiæ, ideo corpus Christi est in hoc sacramento per modum substantiae, id est, per modum quo substantia est sub dimensionibus; non autem per modum dimensionum, id est, non per modum illum quo quantitas dimensiva alicujus corporis est sub quantitate dimensiva loci. Manifestum est autem quod natura substantiae tota est sub qualibet parte dimensionum sub quibus continetur; sicut sub qualibet parte aeris est tota natura aeris, et sub qualibet parte panis est tota natura panis; et hoc indifferenter sive sint dimensiones actu divisæ, sicut cum aer dividitur vel panis secatur, vel etiam sint actu indivisæ, divisibles vero potentia.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.4.arg.1] It would seem that cursing is a graver sin than backbiting. Cursing would seem to be a kind of blasphemy, as implied in the canonical epistle of Jude (verse 9) where it is said that \"when Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of blasphemy [Douay: 'railing speech'],\" where blasphemy stands for cursing, according to a gloss. Now blasphemy is a graver sin than backbiting. Therefore cursing is a graver sin than backbiting.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod non tota quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi sit in hoc sacramento. Dictum est enim, quod totum corpus Christi continetur sub qualibet parte hostiæ consecratæ. Sed nulla quantitas dimensiva tota continetur in aliquo toto, et in qualibet parte ejus. Ergo est imposibile quod tota quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi contineatur in hoc sacramento.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.4.arg.2] Further, murder is more grievous than backbiting, as stated above (Question 73, Article 3). But cursing is on a par with the sin of murder; for Chrysostom says (Hom. xix, super Matth.): \"When thou sayest: 'Curse him down with his house, away with everything,' you are no better than a murderer.\" Therefore cursing is graver than backbiting.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, imposibile est duas quantitates dimensivas esse simul, etiamsi una sit separata, et alia in corpore naturali, ut patet per Philosophum in III Metaphys., text. 9. Sed in hoc sacramento remanet quantitas dimensiva panis, ut sensu apparet. Non ergo est ibi quantitas corporis Christi. Melius videtur locum Decr. afferre, ex quo D. Thomas hanc auctoritatem desumpsit. In Scotus et Aureolus docent quod idem corpus possit esse localiter simul in diversis locis.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.4.arg.3] Further, to cause a thing is more than to signify it. But the curser causes evil by commanding it, whereas the backbiter merely signifies an evil already existing. Therefore the curser sins more grievously than the backbiter.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, si duæ quantitates dimensivæ inæquales juxta se ponantur, major extenditur ultra minorem. Sed quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi est multo major quam quantitas dimensiva hostiæ consecratæ secundum omnem dimensio-nem. Si ergo in hoc sacramento sit quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi cum quantitate dimensiva hostiæ, quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi extendetur ultra quantitatem hostiæ, quæ tamen non est sine substantia corporis Christi. Ergo substantia corporis Christi erit in hoc sacramento, etiam præter species panis: quod est inconveniens, cum substantia corporis Christi non sit in hoc sacramento nisi per consecrationem panis, ut dictum est. Impossibile ergo videtur quod tota quantitas corporis Christi sit in hoc sacramento.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.4.sc] It is impossible to do well in backbiting, whereas cursing may be either a good or an evil deed, as appears from what has been said (1). Therefore backbiting is graver than cursing.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.4.sc] Sed contra est quod quantitas dimensiva corporis alicujus non separatur secundum esse a substantia ejus. Sed in hoc sacramento est tota substantia corporis Christi, ut supra habitum est. Ergo tota quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi est in hoc sacramento.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.4.co] As stated in I, 48, 5, evil is twofold, evil of fault, and evil of punishment; and of the two, evil of fault is the worse (I, 48, 6). Hence to speak evil of fault is worse than to speak evil of punishment, provided the mode of speaking be the same. Accordingly it belongs to the reviler, the tale-bearer, the backbiter and the derider to speak evil of fault, whereas it belongs to the evil-speaker, as we understand it here, to speak evil of punishment, and not evil of fault except under the aspect of punishment. But the mode of speaking is not the same, for in the case of the four vices mentioned above, evil of fault is spoken by way of assertion, whereas in the case of cursing evil of punishment is spoken, either by causing it in the form of a command, or by wishing it. Now the utterance itself of a person's fault is a sin, in as much as it inflicts an injury on one's neighbor, and it is more grievous to inflict an injury, than to wish to inflict it, other things being equal.
\nHence backbiting considered in its generic aspect is a graver sin than the cursing which expresses a mere desire; while the cursing which is expressed by way of command, since it has the aspect of a cause, will be more or less grievous than backbiting, according as it inflicts an injury more or less grave than the blackening of a man's good name. Moreover this must be taken as applying to these vices considered in their essential aspects: for other accidental points might be taken into consideration, which would aggravate or extenuate the aforesaid vices.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut supra dictum est, dupliciter aliquid Christi est in hoc sacramento: uno modo ex vi sacramenti: alio modo ex reali concomitantia. Ex vi quidem sacramenti quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi non est in hoc sacramento; ex vi enim sacramenti est in hoc sacramento illud in quod directe conversio terminatur. Conversio autem quæ fit in hoc sacramento, directe terminatur ad substantiam corporis Christi, non autem ad dimensions ejus: quod patet ex hoc quod quantitas dimensiva remanet, facta consecratione, sola substantia panis transeunte. Quia tamen substantia corporis Christi realiter non dividitur a sua quantitate dimensiva et ab aliis accidentibus, inde est quod ex vi realis concomitantiae est in hoc sacramento tota quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi, et omnia accidentia ejus.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.4.ad.1] To curse a creature, as such, reflects on God, and thus accidentally it has the character of blasphemy; not so if one curse a creature on account of its fault: and the same applies to backbiting.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod modus essendi cujuslibet rei determinatur secundum id quod est ei per se, non autem secundum id quod est ei per accidens: sicut corpus est in visu, secundum quod est album, non autem secundum quod est dulce, licet idem corpus sit album et dulce: unde et dulcedo est in visu secundum modum albedinis, non secundum modum dulcedinis. Quia igitur ex vi hujus sacramenti est in altari substantia corporis Christi, quantitas autem dimensiva ejus est ibi concomitanter et quasi per accidens, ideo quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi est in hoc sacramento, non secundum proprium modum, ut scilicet sit tota in toto, et singulæ partes in singulis partibus, sed per modum substantiæ, cujus natura est tota in toto, et tota in qualibet parte.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.4.ad.2] As stated above (Article 3), cursing, in one way, includes the desire for evil, where if the curser desire the evil of another's violent death, he does not differ, in desire, from a murderer, but he differs from him in so far as the external act adds something to the act of the will.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod duæ quantitates dimensivæ non possunt naturaliter simul esse in eodem, ita quod utraque sit ibi secundum proprium modum quantitatis dimensivæ. In hoc autem sacramento quantitas dimensiva panis est secundum proprium modum, scilicet secundum commensurationem quamdam; non autem quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi, sed est ibi per modum substantiæ, ut dictum est.
\n[II-II.q.76.a.4.ad.3] This argument considers cursing by way of command.
\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.76.a.4.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi non est in hoc sacramento secundum modum commensurationis, qui est proprius quantitati, ad quem pertinet quod major quantitas extendatur ultra minorem; sed est ibi per modum jam dictum.
\n