[III.q.65.a.2.arg.1] It seems that the order of the sacraments as given above is unbecoming. For according to the Apostle (1 Corinthians 15:46), \"that was . . . first . . . which is natural, afterwards that which is spiritual.\" But man is begotten through Matrimony by a first and natural generation; while in Baptism he is regenerated as by a second and spiritual generation. Therefore Matrimony should precede Baptism.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.arg.2] Further, through the sacrament of order man receives the power of agent in sacramental actions. But the agent precedes his action. Therefore order should precede Baptism and the other sacraments.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, si aliquando licitum, hoc non fuit nisi quia vel per se licitum erat, vel per aliquam dispensationem: si primo modo, sic etiam nunc licitum esset; si secundo modo, hoc esse non potest, quia, secundum Augustinum, lib. XXVI Contra Faust., cap. Ⅲ, col. 480, t. 8, « Deus cum sit naturæ conditor, non facit aliquid contra rationes quas naturæ inseruit. » Cum ergo naturæ nostræ Deus inseruerit quod sit una unius, videtur quod ipse contra hoc nunquam dispensaverit.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.arg.3] Further, the Eucharist is a spiritual food; while Confirmation is compared to growth. But food causes, and consequently precedes, growth. Therefore the Eucharist precedes Confirmation.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, si aliquid est licitum ex dispensatione, hoc non licet nisi illis quibus dispensatio fit. Non autem legitur aliqua dispensatio communis in lege cum omnibus facta. Cum ergo omnes communiter qui volebant plures uxores accipient in veteri Testamento, nec ex hoc reprehendantur a lege, vel a prophetis, Brevius in Augustini textu. Vide etiam vi De Genesi ad litteram, c. xv, etc., col. 349, t. 3. non videtur quod fuerit ex dispensatione licitum.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.arg.4] Further, Penance prepares man for the Eucharist. But a disposition precedes perfection. Therefore Penance should precede the Eucharist.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.arg.4] 4. Præterea, ubi est eadem causa dispensationis, debet eadem dispensatio fieri. Sed causa dispensationis non potest alia poni quam multiplicatio prolis ad cultum Dei, quæ etiam nunc necessaria est. Ergo adhuc talis dispensatio duraret, præcipue cum non legatur revocata.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.arg.5] Further, that which is nearer the last end comes after other things. But, of all the sacraments, Extreme Unction is nearest to the last end which is Happiness. Therefore it should be placed last among the sacraments.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.arg.5] 5. Præterea, in dispensatione non debet prætermitti majus bonum propter minus bonum. Sed fides et sacramentum, quæ non videntur posse servari in matrimonio quo unus pluribus uxoribus conjungitur, sunt meliora quam prolis multiplicatio. Ergo intuitu hujus multiplicationis dispensatio prædicta fieri non debuisset.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.sc] The order of the sacraments, as given above, is commonly adopted by all.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.sc] Sed contra, ad Galat., 111, 19, dicitur quod lex propter prævaricatores posita est, ut scilicet eos prohiberet. Sed lex vetus facit mentionem de pluralitate uxorum sine aliqua ejus prohibitione, ut patet Deuter., xx1, 15: Si habuerit homo duas uxores, etc. Ergo habendo duas uxores non erant prævaricatores, et ita erat licitum. Præterea, hoc idem videtur exemplo ex sanctis patribus, qui plures leguntur habuisse uxores, cum Deo essent acceptissimi, sicut Jacob, et David, et plures alii. Ergo aliquando fuit licitum.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.co] The reason of the order among the sacraments appears from what has been said above (Article 1). For just as unity precedes multitude, so those sacraments which are intended for the perfection of the individual, naturally precede those which are intended for the perfection of the multitude; and consequently the last place among the sacraments is given to order and Matrimony, which are intended for the perfection of the multitude: while Matrimony is placed after order, because it has less participation in the nature of the spiritual life, to which the sacraments are ordained. Moreover, among things ordained to the perfection of the individual, those naturally come first which are ordained directly to the perfection of the spiritual life, and afterwards, those which are ordained thereto indirectly, viz. by removing some supervening accidental cause of harm; such are Penance and Extreme Unction: while, of these, Extreme Unction is naturally placed last, for it preserves the healing which was begun by Penance.
\nOf the remaining three, it is clear that Baptism which is a spiritual regeneration, comes first; then Confirmation, which is ordained to the formal perfection of power; and after these the Eucharist which is ordained to final perfection.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut ex dictis patet, pluralitas uxorum esse dictur contra legem naturæ, non quantum ad prima præcepta ejus, sed quantum ad secunda, quæ quasi conclusiones a primis præceptis derivantur. Sed quia actus humanos variari oportet secundum diversas conditiones personarum, et temporum, et aliarum circumstantiarum, ideo conclusiones prædictæ a primis legis naturæ præceptis non procedunt, ut semper efficaciam habentes, sed in majori parte; talis est enim tota materia moralis, ut patet per Philosophum, in lib. I Ethic., cap. 111, in princ., et cap. VII, ad fin. Et ideo ubi eorum efficacia deficit, licite ea prætermitti possunt. Sed quia non est facile determinare hujusmodi varietates, ideo illi ex cujus auctoritate lex efficaciam habet, reservatur ut licentiam præbeat legem prætermittendi in illis casibus ad quos legis efficacia non extendere se debet, et talis licentia dispensatio dicitur. Lex autem de unitate uxoris non est humanitus, sed divinitus instituta; nec unquam verbo aut litteris tradita, sed cordi impressa, sicut et alia quæ ad legem naturæ qualitercumque pertinent. Et ideo in hoc a solo Deo dispensatio fieri potuit per inspirationem internam, quæ quidem principaliter patribus sanctis facta est, et per eorum exemplum ad alios derivata est eo tempore quo oportebat prædictum naturæ præceptum prætermitti, ut major esset multiplicatio prolis ad cultum Dei educandæ. Semper enim principalior finis magis observandus est quam secundarius. Unde cum bonum prolis sit principalis matrimonii finis, ubi prolis multiplicatio necessaria erat, debuit negligi ad tempus impedimentum quod posset in secundariis finibus evenire: ad quod removendum præceptum prohibens pluralitatem uxorum ordinatur, ut ex dictis patet.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.ad.1] Matrimony as ordained to natural life is a function of nature. But in so far as it has something spiritual it is a sacrament. And because it has the least amount of spirituality it is placed last.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod jus naturale semper et ubique, quantum est de se, habet eamdem potentiam; sed per accidens, propter aliquod impedimentum, quandoque et alicubi potest variari, sicut ibidem Philosophus exemplum ponit de aliis rebus naturalibus. Semper enim et ubique dextra est mélior quam sinistra secundum naturam, sed per aliquod accidens contingit aliquem esse ambidextrum, quia natura nostra variabilis est; et similiter est etiam de naturali justo, ut ibidem Philosophus dicit.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.ad.2] For a thing to be an agent it must first of all be perfect in itself. Wherefore those sacraments by which a man is perfected in himself, are placed before the sacrament of order, in which a man is made a perfecter of others.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod in Decretali quadam De divortiis, cap. «Gaudemus,» dicitur quod nunquam licuit plures habere uxores sine dispensatione per divinam inspirationem habita. Nec tamen talis dispensatio datur contra rationes quas Deus naturæ inseruit, sed præter eas, quia rationes illæ non sunt ordinatæ ad semper, sed ut in pluribus, ut dictum est. Sicut etiam non est contra naturam quando aliqua accidunt in rebus naturalibus miraculose præter ea quæ frequenter solent evenire.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.ad.3] Nourishment both precedes growth, as its cause; and follows it, as maintaining the perfection of size and power in man. Consequently, the Eucharist can be placed before Confirmation, as Dionysius places it (Eccl. Hier. iii, iv), and can be placed after it, as the Master does (iv, 2,8).
\n[III.q.65.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod qualis est lex, talis esse debet dispensatio legis. Unde quia lex naturæ est cordibus impressa, non oportuit dispensationem eorum quæ ad legem naturæ pertinent lege scripta dari, sed per internam inspirationem fieri.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.ad.4] This argument would hold if Penance were required of necessity as a preparation to the Eucharist. But this is not true: for if anyone be without mortal sin, he does not need Penance in order to receive the Eucharist. Thus it is clear that Penance is an accidental preparation to the Eucharist, that is to say, sin being supposed. Wherefore it is written in the last chapter of the second Book of Paralipomenon (cf. 2 Chronicles 33:18): \"Thou, O Lord of the righteous, didst not impose penance on righteous men.\" [The words quoted are from the apocryphal Prayer of Manasses, which, before the Council of Trent, was to be found inserted in some Latin copies of the Bible.]
\n[III.q.65.a.2.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod veniente Christo fuit tempus plenitudinis gratia Christi, per quam cultus Dei in omnes gentes spirituali propagatione diffusus est. Et ideo non est eadem ratio dispensationis quæ erat ante Christi adventum, quando cultus Dei carnali propagatione multiplicabatur et conservabatur.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.ad.5] Extreme Unction, for this very reason, is given the last place among those sacraments which are ordained to the perfection of the individual.
\n[III.q.65.a.2.ad.5] Ad quintum dicendum, quod proles, secundum quod est bonum matrimonii, includit fidem ad Deum servandam, quia secundum quod proles expectatur ad cultum Dei educanda, ponitur matrimonii bonum. Fides autem ad Deum servanda est potior quam fides uxori servanda, quæ ponitur bonum matrimonii, et quam significatio, quæ pertinet ad sacramentum, quia significatio ad fidei cognitionem ordinatur. Et ideo non est inconveniens, si propter bonum prolis aliquid detrahitur aliis duobus bonis. Nec tamen omnino tolluntur, quia et fides manet ad plures, et sacramentum aliquo modo; quia quamvis non significaretur conjunctio Christi ad Ecclesiam, in quantum estuna, significabatur tamen per pluralitatem uxorum distinctio graduum in Ecclesia; quæ quidem non solum est in Ecclesia militante, sed etiam in triumphante. Et ideo illorum matrimonia aliquo modo significabant conjunctionem Christi ad Ecclesiam, non solum militantem, ut quidam dicunt, sed etiam triumphantem, in qua sunt diversæ mansiones.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.arg.1] It seems that the Eucharist is not the principal of the sacraments. For the common good is of more account than the good of the individual (1 Ethic. ii). But Matrimony is ordained to the common good of the human race by means of generation: whereas the sacrament of the Eucharist is ordained to the private good of the recipient. Therefore it is not the greatest of the sacraments.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod habere concubinam non sit contra legem naturæ. Legis enim cæremonialia non sunt de lege naturæ. Sed fornicatio prohibetur, Actuum XV, inter alia cæremonialia legis, quæ ad tempus credentibus ex gentibus imponebatur. Ergo fornicatio simplex, quæ est accessus ad concubinam non est contra legem naturæ.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.arg.2] Further, those sacraments, seemingly, are greater, which are conferred by a greater minister. But the sacraments of Confirmation and order are conferred by a bishop only, who is a greater minister than a mere minister such as a priest, by whom the sacraments of the Eucharist is conferred. Therefore those sacraments are greater.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, jus positivum a naturali jure profectum est, ut Tullius dicit, lib. II De invent., ante fin. Sed secundum jus positivum fornicatio simplex non prohibebatur; imo potius in pœnam secundum antiquas leges mulieres lupanaribus tradendæ condemnabantur. Ergo habere 1 Editiones et Codices « Constantinus, » absque ullo loci indice. Nicolaï restituendum « Augustinum » existimavit, ex quo tamen valde impli-concubinam non est contra legem naturæ.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.arg.3] Further, those sacraments are greater that have the greater power. But some of the sacraments imprint a character, viz. Baptism, Confirmation and Order; whereas the Eucharist does not. Therefore those sacraments are greater.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, naturalis lex non prohibuit quin illud quod datur simpliciter, possit dari ad tempus, et secundum quid. Sed una mulier soluta potest dare viro soluto in perpetuum sui corporis potestatem, ut ea utatur licite cum voluerit. Ergo non est contra legem naturæ, si dederit ei potestatem sui corporis ad horam.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.arg.4] Further, that seems to be greater, on which others depend without its depending on them. But the Eucharist depends on Baptism: since no one can receive the Eucharist except he has been baptized. Therefore Baptism is greater than the Eucharist.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.arg.4] 4. Præterea, quicumque re sua utitur ut vult, nemini facit injuriam. Sed ancilla est res domini. Ergo si dominus ea utatur ad libitum, nulli facit injuriam; et ita habere concubinam non est contra legem naturæ.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.sc] Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii) that \"No one receives hierarchical perfection save by the most God-like Eucharist.\" Therefore this sacrament is greater than all the others and perfects them.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.sc] Sed contra, secundum omnes leges, filii qui de concubina nascuntur, sunt vituperabiles. Sed hoc non esset, nisi concubitus ex quo oriuntur, esset naturaliter turpis. Ergo habere concubinam est contra legem naturæ. Præterea, matrimonium est naturale, sicut dictum est. Sed hoc non esset, si sine præjudicio legis naturæ homo posset conjungi mulieri præter matrimonium. Ergo contra legem naturæ est concubinam habere.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.co] Absolutely speaking, the sacrament of the Eucharist is the greatest of all the sacraments: and this may be shown in three ways. First of all because it contains Christ Himself substantially: whereas the other sacraments contain a certain instrumental power which is a share of Christ's power, as we have shown above (62, 4, ad 3, 5). Now that which is essentially such is always of more account than that which is such by participation.
\nSecondly, this is made clear by considering the relation of the sacraments to one another. For all the other sacraments seem to be ordained to this one as to their end. For it is manifest that the sacrament of order is ordained to the consecration of the Eucharist: and the sacrament of Baptism to the reception of the Eucharist: while a man is perfected by Confirmation, so as not to fear to abstain from this sacrament. By Penance and Extreme Unction man is prepared to receive the Body of Christ worthily. And Matrimony at least in its signification, touches this sacrament; in so far as it signifies the union of Christ with the Church, of which union the Eucharist is a figure: hence the Apostle says (Ephesians 5:32): \"This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the Church.\"
\nThirdly, this is made clear by considering the rites of the sacraments. For nearly all the sacraments terminate in the Eucharist, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): thus those who have been ordained receive Holy Communion, as also do those who have been baptized, if they be adults.
\nThe remaining sacraments may be compared to one another in several ways. For on the ground of necessity, Baptism is the greatest of the sacraments; while from the point of view of perfection, order comes first; while Confirmation holds a middle place. The sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction are on a degree inferior to those mentioned above; because, as stated above (Article 2), they are ordained to the Christian life, not directly, but accidentally, as it were, that is to say, as remedies against supervening defects. And among these, Extreme Unction is compared to Penance, as Confirmation to Baptism; in such a way, that Penance is more necessary, whereas Extreme Unction is more perfect.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut ex dictis patet, illa actio dicitur esse contra legem naturæ, quæ non est conveniens fini debito quem natura intendit, sive quia non ordinatur in ipsum per actionem agentis, sive quia de se est improportionata illi fini. Finis autem quem natura ex concubitu intendit, est proles procreanda et educanda; et ut hoc bonum quæreretur, posuit delectationem in concubitu, ut Constantinus dicit. Quicumque ergo concubitu utitur propter delectationem quæ in ipso est, non referendo in finem a natura intentum, contra naturam facit; et similiter etiam nisi sit talis concubitus qui ad illum finem convenienter ordinari possit. Et quia res a fine ut plurimum nominantur tamquam a potiori, sicut conjunctio matrimonii a prolis bono nomen acceptit quod per matrimonium principaliter quæritur, ita concubinæ nomen illam conjunctionem exprimit cite colligitur in lib. I De nuptiis et concup., cap. xiii, etc., col. 418, t. 10. qua solus concubitus propter seipsum quæritur. Et si etiam aliquis quando ex tali concubitus prolem quærat, non tamen est conveniens ad prolis bonum, in quo non solum intelligitur ipsius procreatio, per quam proles esse accipit, sed etiam educatio et instructio, per quam accipit nutrimentum et disciplinam a parentibus; in quibus tribus parentes proli tenentur, secundum Philosophum VIII Ethic., cap. xi, et xii. Cum autem educatio et instructio prolis a parentibus debeantur per longum tempus, exigit lex naturæ ut pater et mater in longum tempus commaneant, ad subveniendum communiter proli. Unde et aves, quæ communiter pullos nutriunt, ante completam nutritionem non separantur a mutua societate, quæ incipit in concumbendo. Hæc autem obligatio ad commanendum feminam marito matrimonium facit. Et ideo patet quod accedere ad mulierem non junctam sibi matrimonio, quæ concubina vocatur, est contra legem naturæ.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.ad.1] Matrimony is ordained to the common good as regards the body. But the common spiritual good of the whole Church is contained substantially in the sacrament itself of the Eucharist.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod in gentibus, quantum ad multa, lex naturæ offuscata erat: unde accedere ad concubinam malum non reputabant; sed passim fornicatione, quasi re licita, utebantur, sicut et aliis quæ erant contra cæremonias Judæorum, quamvis non essent contra legem naturæ. Et ideo apostoli immiscuerunt prohibitionem fornicationis cæremonialibus, propter discretionem quæ erat in utroque inter Judæos et gentiles.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.ad.2] By order and Confirmation the faithful of Christ are deputed to certain special duties; and this can be done by the prince alone. Consequently the conferring of these sacraments belongs exclusively to a bishop, who is, as it were, a prince in the Church. But a man is not deputed to any duty by the sacrament of the Eucharist, rather is this sacrament the end of all duties, as stated above.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod ex prædicta obscuritate scilicet in quam ceciderunt gentiles, Deo debitam gloriam non reddentes, ut dicitur Rom., i, lex illa processit, et non exinstinctulegis naturæ. Unde prævalente christiana religione, lex illa extirpata est.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.ad.3] The sacramental character, as stated above (Question 63, Article 3), is a kind of participation in Christ's priesthood. Wherefore the sacrament that unites man to Christ Himself, is greater than a sacrament that imprints Christ's character.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod in aliquibus sicut nullum inconveniens sequitur, si rem aliquam quam quis in potestate habet, alteri simpliciter tradat, ita etiam nec si tradat ad tempus: et sic neutrum est contra legem naturæ. Ita autem non est in proposito, et ideo ratio non sequitur.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.ad.4] This argument proceeds on the ground of necessity. For thus Baptism, being of the greatest necessity, is the greatest of the sacraments, just as order and Confirmation have a certain excellence considered in their administration; and Matrimony by reason of its signification. For there is no reason why a thing should not be greater from a certain point of view which is not greater absolutely speaking.
\n[III.q.65.a.3.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod injuria justitiæ opponitur. Lex autem naturalis non solum prohibet injustitiam, sed etiam opposita omnium virtutum; sicut contra legem naturæ est quod aliquis immoderate comedat, quamvis talis rebus utens suis nulli injuriam faciat. Et præterea ancilla, quamvis sit res domini ad obsequium, non est tamen res ipsius ad concubitum. Et iterum interest qualiter quisque re sua utatur. Facit enim talis injuriam proli procreandæ, ad cujus bonum non sufficienter talis conjunctio ordinatur, ut dictum est.
\n[III.q.65.a.4.arg.1] It seems that all the sacraments are necessary for salvation. For what is not necessary seems to be superfluous. But no sacrament is superfluous, because \"God does nothing without a purpose\" (De Coelo et Mundo i). Therefore all the sacraments are necessary for salvation.
\n[III.q.65.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod accedere ad concubinam non sit peccatum mortale. Majus enim peccatum est mendacium quam fornicatio simplex, quod patet ex hoc quod Judas, qui fornicationem non horruit cum Thamar committere, recusavit mendacium, dicens: Certe mendacii arguere nos non poterit *, Gen., xxxviii, 23. Sed mendacium non est semper peccatum mortale. Ergo neque fornicatio simplex.
\n[III.q.65.a.4.arg.2] Further, just as it is said of Baptism (John 3:5): \"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter in to the kingdom of God,\" so of the Eucharist is it said (John 6:54): \"Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink of His blood, you shall not have life in you.\" Therefore, just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, so is the Eucharist.
\n[III.q.65.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, peccatum mortale morte puniri debet. Sed lex vetus non puniebat concubitum concubinæ morte nisi in aliquo casu, ut patet Deuteron., xxii. Ergo non est peccatum mortale.
\n[III.q.65.a.4.arg.3] Further, a man can be saved without the sacrament of Baptism, provided that some unavoidable obstacle, and not his contempt for religion, debar him from the sacrament, as we shall state further on (68, 2). But contempt of religion in any sacrament is a hindrance to salvation. Therefore, in like manner, all the sacraments are necessary for salvation.
\n[III.q.65.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, secundum Gregorium, lib. XXXIII Moral., cap. xii, § 25, col. 688, t. 2, peccata carnalia sunt minoris culpæ quam spiritualia. Sed non omnis superbia, aut avaritia, quæ sunt spiritualia peccata, est peccatum mortale. Ergo non omnis fornicatio, quæ est peccatum carnale, est mortale peccatum.
\n[III.q.65.a.4.sc] Children are saved by Baptism alone without the other sacraments.
\n[III.q.65.a.4.sc] Sed contra, nihil excludit a regno Dei nisi peccatum mortale. Sed fornicarii excluduntur a regno Dei, ut patet I ad Cor., vi. Ergo fornicatio simplex est peccatum mortale. Præterea, sola peccata mortalia crimina dicuntur. Sed omnis fornicatio est crimen, ut patet Tob., iv, 13: Attende tibi ab omni fornicatione, et præter uxorem tuam nunquam patiaris crimen scire. Ergo, etc.
\n[III.q.65.a.4.co] Necessity of end, of which we speak now, is twofold. First, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be attained; thus food is necessary for human life. And this is simple necessity of end. Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary, if, without it, the end cannot be attained so becomingly: thus a horse is necessary for a journey. But this is not simple necessity of end.
\nIn the first way, three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two of them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply and absolutely; Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the sacrament of order is necessary to the Church, since \"where there is no governor the people shall fall\" (Proverbs 11:14).
\nBut in the second way the other sacraments are necessary. For in a sense Confirmation perfects Baptism; Extreme Unction perfects Penance; while Matrimony, by multiplying them, preserves the numbers in the Church.
\n[III.q.65.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut in II lib., dist. xLII, dictum est, illi actus ex suo genere sunt peccata mortalia per quos fædus amicitiæ hominis ad Deum, et hominis ad hominem violatur. Hæc enim sunt contra duo præcepta charitatis, quæ est animæ vita. Et ideo cum concubitus fornicarius tollat debitam ordinationem parentis ad prolem, quam natura ex concubitu intendit, non est dubium quin fornicatio simplex de sui ratione est peccatum mortale, etiamsi lex scripta non esset.
\n[III.q.65.a.4.ad.1] For a thing not to be superfluous it is enough if it be necessary either in the first or the second way. It is thus that the sacraments are necessary, as stated above.
\n[III.q.65.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod frequenter homo qui non vitat peccatum mortale, vitat aliquod peccatum veniale, ad quod non habet tantum incitamentum; et ita etiam Judas mendacium vitavit, fornicationem non vitans; quamvis illud mendacium perniciosum fuisset, injuriam habens annexam, si promissum non reddidisset.
\n[III.q.65.a.4.ad.2] These words of our Lord are to be understood of spiritual, and not of merely sacramental, eating, as Augustine explains (Tract. xxvi super Joan.).
\n[III.q.65.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod peccatum non dicitur mortale, quia morte temporali puniatur, sed quia punitur morte æterna. Unde etiam furtum, quod est peccatum mortale, et multa alia interdum non puniuntur per leges temporali morte. Et similiter etiam est de fornicatione.
\n[III.q.65.a.4.ad.3] Although contempt of any of the sacraments is a hindrance to salvation, yet it does not amount to contempt of the sacrament, if anyone does not trouble to receive a sacrament that is not necessary for salvation. Else those who do not receive orders, and those who do not contract Matrimony, would be guilty of contempt of those sacraments.
\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[III.q.65.a.4.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod sicut non quilibet motus superbiæ est peccatum mortale, ita nec quilibet motus luxuriæ, quia primi motus luxuriæ et hujusmodi sunt peccata venialia, et etiam concubitus matrimonialis interdum. Sed tamen aliqui luxuriæ actus sunt peccata mortalia, aliquibus motibus superbiæ venialibus existentibus, quia in verbis Gregorii inductis intelligitur comparatio vitiorum secundum genus, non quantum ad singulos actus.
\n