Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Prima Secundae·Q72. The distinction of sins
Source context
- Theme
- taxonomic differentiation of sins by species, gravity, and formal object
- Soul-faculty
- Consciousness Soul
Steiner
- GA 155, 1914-07-15Steiner distinguishes between the consequences of a sin for the individual soul and the consequences of a sin for the objective course of the world, a structural parallel to Aquinas's distinction between sins ordered to oneself and sins ordered to the common good.
- GA 97, 1907-02-04Steiner differentiates personal sins as failings of the astral body from social disharmony as a distinct category of moral deficiency, an anthroposophical analogue to Aquinas's species-differentiation of sins by object and relation.
- GA 114, 1909-09-24Steiner identifies a category of 'deeper sin' that reaches into the etheric body, distinguishing it from more superficial moral failures, which parallels Aquinas's graduated distinction between venial and mortal sin by depth of disorder.
Cross-tradition
- Jewish halakhic traditionRabbinic categories of transgression distinguish between sins against God (bein adam la-Makom) and sins against fellow persons (bein adam la-chavero), a structural parallel to Aquinas's classification of sins by the order of justice they violate.
- Eastern Orthodox moral theologyOrthodox ascetic theology (e.g., Evagrius Ponticus's eight logismoi) classifies sins by the part of the soul they primarily disorder, offering cross-tradition congruence with Aquinas's species-differentiation by formal object and faculty.
Q72. The distinction of sins
Article 1
[I-II.q.72.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that sins do not differ in species, according to their objects. For acts are said to be good or evil, in relation, chiefly, to their end, as shown above (1, 3; 18, A4,6). Since then sin is nothing else than a bad human act, as stated above (Question 71, Article 1), it seems that sins should differ specifically according to their ends rather than according to their objects.
[I-II.q.72.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod peccata non differant specie secundum objecta. Actus enim humani præcipue dicuntur boni vel mali per comparationem ad finem, ut supra ostensum est. Cum igitur peccatum nihil aliud sit quam actus hominis malus, sicut dictum est, videtur quod secundum fines peccata debeant distingui specie magis quam secundum objecta.
[I-II.q.72.a.1.arg.2] Further, evil, being a privation, differs specifically according to the different species of opposites. Now sin is an evil in the genus of human acts. Therefore sins differ specifically according to their opposites rather than according to their objects.
[I-II.q.72.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, malum, cum sit privatio, distinguitur specie secundum diversas species oppositorum. Sed peccatum est quoddam malum in genere humanorum actium. Ergo peccata magis distinguuntur specie secundum opposita quam secundum objecta.
[I-II.q.72.a.1.arg.3] Further, if sins differed specifically according to their objects, it would be impossible to find the same specific sin with diverse objects: and yet such sins are to be found. For pride is about things spiritual and material as Gregory says (Moral. xxxiv, 18); and avarice is about different kinds of things. Therefore sins do not differ in species according to their objects.
[I-II.q.72.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, si peccata specie different secundum objecta, impossibile esset idem peccatum specie circa diversa objecta inveniri. Sed inveniuntur aliqua hujusmodi peccata; nam superbia est in rebus spiritua- Hic quæstio magna est, S. Ligorio si credas, inter S. Thomam et Scotum. Nam S. Thomas peccatorum distinctionem tenet specificam ab objectis specie diversis proxime desumi, dum hanc Scotus a virtutibus quibus opponuntur peccata. Scoto Busembaum, Becanus, Valentia et Bonacina subscribunt. S. Ligorius Scoti sententiam planiorem reputans, utramque tamen probabilem assertit. Sed quid ipse S. Thomas dicit: « Si distinguantur (peccata) secundum oppositas virtutes in idem rediret. » Fere omnes Thomistæ docent specie distinguui peccata libus et in corporalibus, ut Gregorius dicit in lib. XXXIV Moral., c. xxiii, § 49, col. 745, t. 2; avaritia etiam est circa diversa genera rerum. Ergo peccata non distinguuntur specie secundum objecta.
[I-II.q.72.a.1.sc] "Sin is a word, deed, or desire against God's law." Now words, deeds, and desires differ in species according to their various objects: since acts differ by their objects, as stated above (Question 18, Article 2). Therefore sins, also differ in species according to their objects.
[I-II.q.72.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod peccatum est « dictum vel factum, vel concupitum contra legem Dei. » Sed dicta, vel facta, vel concupita distinguuntur specie secundum diversa objecta; quia actus per objecta distinguuntur, ut supra dictum est. Ergo etiam peccata secundum objecta specie distinguuntur.
[I-II.q.72.a.1.co] As stated above (Question 71, Article 6), two things concur in the nature of sin, viz. the voluntary act, and its inordinateness, which consists in departing from God's law. Of these two, one is referred essentially to the sinner, who intends such and such an act in such and such matter; while the other, viz. the inordinateness of the act, is referred accidentally to the intention of the sinner, for "no one acts intending evil," as Dionysius declares (Div. Nom. iv). Now it is evident that a thing derives its species from that which is essential and not from that which is accidental: because what is accidental is outside the specific nature. Consequently sins differ specifically on the part of the voluntary acts rather than of the inordinateness inherent to sin. Now voluntary acts differ in species according to their objects, as was proved above (Question 18, Article 2). Therefore it follows that sins are properly distinguished in species by their objects.
[I-II.q.72.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est, ad rationem peccati duo concurrunt, scilicet actus voluntarius, et inordinatio ejus, quæ est per recessum a lege Dei. Horum autem duorum unum per se comparatur ad peccantem, qui intendit talem actum voluntarium exercere in tali materia; aliud autem, scilicet inordinatio actus, per accidens se habet ad intentionem peccantis. « Nullus » enim « intendens ad malum operatur, » ut Dionysius dicit iv cap. De div. nom., § 31, col. 731, t. 1. Manifestum est autem, quod unumquodque consequitur speciem secundum illud quod est per se, non autem secundum id quod est per accidens: quia ea quæ sunt per accidens, sunt extra rationem speciei. Et ideo peccata specie distinguuntur ex parte actuum voluntariorum magis quam ex parte inordinationis in peccato existentis. Actus autem voluntarii distinguuntur specie secundum objecta, ut in superioribus ostensum est. Unde sequitur quod peccata proprie distinguuntur specie secundum objecta.
[I-II.q.72.a.1.ad.1] The aspect of good is found chiefly in the end: and therefore the end stands in the relation of object to the act of the will which is at the root of every sin. Consequently it amounts to the same whether sins differ by their objects or by their ends.
[I-II.q.72.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod finis principaliter habet rationem boni; et ideo comparatur ad actum voluntatis, qui est primordialis in omni peccato, sicut objectum; unde in idem redit quod peccata different secundum objecta vel secundum fines.
[I-II.q.72.a.1.ad.2] Sin is not a pure privation but an act deprived of its due order: hence sins differ specifically according to their objects of their acts rather than according to their opposites, although, even if they were distinguished in reference to their opposite virtues, it would come to the same: since virtues differ specifically according to their objects, as stated above (Question 60, Article 5).
[I-II.q.72.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod peccatum non est pura privatio, sed est actus debito ordine privatus. Et ideo peccata magis disper ordinem ad objecta specie distincta in esse moris, id est opposita diversis virtutibus, vel eidem virtuti modo diverso, vel præceptis diversis forma-liter ex parte rei præceptæ, seu motivi intrinseci. Henno vult quod peccata, ut peccata, specificentur ex diversis specie rectitudinibus quibus privant, Navarrus, Tannerus et alii admittunt absque ulla restrictione (quod videtur esse falsum) ex diversis præceptis peccata specie distinguui. — Vide S. Lig., lib. II, n. 33. tinguuntur specie secundum objecta actuum quam secundum opposita; quamvis, etiamsi distinguantur secundum oppositas virtutes, in idem rediret; virtutes enim distinguuntur specie secundum objecta, ut supra habitum est.
[I-II.q.72.a.1.ad.3] In various things, differing in species or genus, nothing hinders our finding one formal aspect of the object, from which aspect sin receives its species. It is thus that pride seeks excellence in reference to various things; and avarice seeks abundance of things adapted to human use.
[I-II.q.72.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod nihil prohibet in diversis rebus specie vel genere differentibus invenire unam formalem rationem objecti, a qua peccatum speciem recipit. Et hoc modo superbia circa diversas res excelentiam quærit; avaritia vero abundantiam eorum quæ usui humano accommodantur.
Article 3
[I-II.q.72.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that sins differ specifically in reference to their causes. For a thing takes its species from that whence it derives its being. Now sins derive their being from their causes. Therefore they take their species from them also. Therefore they differ specifically in reference to their causes.
[I-II.q.72.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod peccata distinguantur specie secundum causas. Ab eodem enim habet res speciem a quo habet esse. Sed peccata habent esse ex suis causis. Ergo ab eis etiam speciem sortiuntur. Differunt ergo specie secundum diversitatem causarum.
[I-II.q.72.a.3.arg.2] Further, of all the causes the material cause seems to have least reference to the species. Now the object in a sin is like its material cause. Since, therefore, sins differ specifically according to their objects, it seems that much more do they differ in reference to their other causes.
[I-II.q.72.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, inter alias causas minus videtur pertinere ad speciem causa materialis. Sed objectum in peccato est sicut causa materialis. Cum ergo secundum objecta peccata specie distinguantur, videtur quod peccata multo magis secundum alias causas distinguantur specie.
[I-II.q.72.a.3.arg.3] Further, Augustine, commenting on Psalm 79:17, "Things set on fire and dug down," says that "every sin is due either to fear inducing false humility, or to love enkindling us to undue ardor." For it is written (1 John 2:16) that "all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, or [Vulgate: 'and'] the concupiscence of the eyes, or [Vulgate: 'and'] the pride of life." Now a thing is said to be in the world on account of sin, in as much as the world denotes lovers of the world, as Augustine observes (Tract. ii in Joan.). Gregory, too (Moral. xxxi, 17), distinguishes all sins according to the seven capital vices. Now all these divisions refer to the causes of sins. Therefore, seemingly, sins differ specifically according to the diversity of their causes.
[I-II.q.72.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, Augustinus, super illud ps. Lxxix: Incensa igni et suffossa, col. 1026, t. 4, dicit quod « omne peccatum est ex timore male humiliante, vel ex amore male inflammante; » dicitur enim I Joan., ii, 16, quod omne quod est in mundo, aut est concupiscentia carnis, aut est concupiscentia oculorum, aut superbia vitæ. Dicitur autem aliquid esse in mundo propter peccatum, secundum quod mundi nomine amatores mundi significantur, ut Augustinus dicit Super Joan., tract. ii, § 11, col. 1393, t. 3. Gregorius etiam, XXXI Moral., c. xlv, § 87, col. 620, t. 2, distinguit omnia peccata secundum septem vitia capitalia. Omnes autem quam delectationis, et sunt majoris infamiæ, minoris vero culpæ, at peccata spiritualia e converso. hujusmodi divisiones respiciunt causas pec-catorum. Ergo videtur quod peccata differant specie secundum diversitatem causarum.
[I-II.q.72.a.3.sc] If this were the case all sins would belong to one species, since they are due to one cause. For it is written (Sirach 10:15) that "pride is the beginning of all sin," and (1 Timothy 6:10) that "the desire of money is the root of all evils." Now it is evident that there are various species of sins. Therefore sins do not differ specifically according to their different causes.
[I-II.q.72.a.3.sc] Sed contra est, quia secundum hoc omnia peccata essent unius speciei, cum ex una causa causentur. Dicitur enim Eccli., x, 15, quod initium omnis peccati est superbia; et I ad Timoth., ult., 10, quod radix omnium malorum est cupiditas. Manifestum est autem esse diversas species peccatorum. Non ergo peccata distinguuntur specie secundum diversitates causarum.
[I-II.q.72.a.3.co] Since there are four kinds of causes, they are attributed to various things in various ways. Because the "formal" and the "material" cause regard properly the substance of a thing; and consequently substances differ in respect of their matter and form, both in species and in genus. The "agent" and the "end" regard directly movement and operation: wherefore movements and operations differ specifically in respect of these causes; in different ways, however, because the natural active principles are always determined to the same acts; so that the different species of natural acts are taken not only from the objects, which are the ends or terms of those acts, but also from their active principles: thus heating and cooling are specifically distinct with reference to hot and cold. On the other hand, the active principles in voluntary acts, such as the acts of sins, are not determined, of necessity, to one act, and consequently from one active or motive principle, diverse species of sins can proceed: thus from fear engendering false humility man may proceed to theft, or murder, or to neglect the flock committed to his care; and these same things may proceed from love enkindling to undue ardor. Hence it is evident that sins do not differ specifically according to their various active or motive causes, but only in respect of diversity in the final cause, which is the end and object of the will. For it has been shown above (1, 3; 18, A4,6) that human acts take their species from the end.
[I-II.q.72.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod cum quatuor sint causarum genera, diversimode diversis attribuuntur. Causa enim formalis et materialis respiciunt proprie substantiam rei; et ideo substantiæ secundum formam et materiam, specie et genere distinguuntur. Agens autem et finis respiciunt directe motum et operationem; et ideo motus et operationes secundum hujusmodi causas specie distinguuntur. Diversimode tamen; nam principia activa naturalia sunt determinata semper ad eos-dem actus; et ideo diversæ species in actibus naturalibus attenduntur non solum secundum objecta, quæ sunt fines vel termini, sed etiam secundum principia activa; sicut calefacere et infrigidare distinguuntur specie secundum calidum et frigidum. Sed principia activa in actibus voluntariis, cujusmodi sunt actus peccatorum, non se habent ex necessitate ad unum; et ideo ex uno principio activo vel motivo possunt diversæ species peccatorum procedere; sicut ex timore male humiliante potest procedere quod homo furetur, quod occidat, et quod deserat gregem sibi commissum; et hæc eadem possunt procedere ex amore. Unde manifestum est, quod peccata non differant specie secundum diversas causas activas vel motivas, sed solum secundum diversitatem causæ finalis; finis autem est objectum voluntatis. Ostensum est enim supra, quod actus humani habent speciem ex fine.
[I-II.q.72.a.3.ad.1] The active principles in voluntary acts, not being determined to one act, do not suffice for the production of human acts, unless the will be determined to one by the intention of the end, as the Philosopher proves (Metaph. ix, text. 15,16), and consequently sin derives both its being and its species from the end.
[I-II.q.72.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod principia activa in actibus voluntariis, cum non sint determinata ad unum, non sufficiunt ad producendum humanos actus, nisi determinatur voluntas ad unum per intentionem finis, ut patet per Philosophum in IX Metaph., text. 15 et 16; et ideo a fine perficitur esse et species peccati.
[I-II.q.72.a.3.ad.2] Objects, in relation to external acts, have the character of matter "about which"; but, in relation to the interior act of the will, they have the character of end; and it is owing to this that they give the act its species. Nevertheless, even considered as the matter "about which," they have the character of term, from which movement takes its species (Phys. v, text. 4; Ethic. x, 4); yet even terms of movement specify movements, in so far as term has the character of end.
[I-II.q.72.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod objecta, secundum quod comparantur ad actus exteriores, habent rationem materiæ circa quam: sed secundum quod comparantur ad actum interiorem voluntatis, habent rationem finium; et ex hoc habent quod dent speciem actui. Quamvis etiam secundum quod sunt materia circa quam, habeant rationem terminorum, a quibus motus specificantur, ut dicitur in V Physic., text. 4, et in X Ethic., cap. iv; sed tamen etiam termini motus dant speciem motibus, inquantum habent rationem finis.
[I-II.q.72.a.3.ad.3] These distinctions of sins are given, not as distinct species of sins, but to show their various causes.
[I-II.q.72.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod illæ divisiones peccatorum non dantur ad distinguendas species peccatorum, sed ad manifestandas diversas causas eorum.
Article 4
[I-II.q.72.a.4.arg.1] It would seem that sin is unfittingly divided into sin against God, against one's neighbor, and against oneself. For that which is common to all sins should not be reckoned as a part in the division of sin. But it is common to all sins to be against God: for it is stated in the definition of sin that it is "against God's law," as stated above (Question 66, Article 6). Therefore sin against God should not be reckoned a part of the division of sin.
[I-II.q.72.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod inconvenienter peccatum distinguatur per peccatum quod est in Deum, in proximum et in seipsum. Illud enim quod est commune omni peccato, non debet poni quasi pars in divisione peccati. Sed commune est omni peccato quod sit contra Deum; ponitur enim in definitione peccati quod « sit contra legem Dei, » ut supra dictum est. Non ergo peccatum in Deum debet poni quasi pars in divisione peccatorum.
[I-II.q.72.a.4.arg.2] Further, every division should consist of things in opposition to one another. But these three kinds of sin are not opposed to one another: for whoever sins against his neighbor, sins against himself and against God. Therefore sin is not fittingly divided into these three.
[I-II.q.72.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, omnis divisio debet fieri per opposita. Sed ista tria genera peccatorum non sunt opposita; quicumque enim peccat in proximum, peccat in seipsum et in Deum. Non ergo peccatum convenienter dividitur secundum hæc-tria.
[I-II.q.72.a.4.arg.3] Further, specification is not taken from things external. But God and our neighbor are external to us. Therefore sins are not distinguished specifically with regard to them: and consequently sin is unfittingly divided according to these three.
[I-II.q.72.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, ea quæ sunt extrinsecus, non conferunt speciem. Sed Deus et proximus sunt extra nos. Ergo per hæc non distinguentur peccata secundum speciem. Inconvenienter igitur secundum hæc tria peccatum dividitur.
[I-II.q.72.a.4.sc] Isidore (De Summo Bono), in giving the division of sins, says that "man is said to sin against himself, against God, and against his neighbor."
[I-II.q.72.a.4.sc] Sed contra est quod Isodorus, in lib. De summo bono, distinguens peccata, dicit, quod « homo dicitur peccare in se, in Deum et in proximum. »
[I-II.q.72.a.4.co] As stated above (71, A1,6), sin is an inordinate act. Now there should be a threefold order in man: one in relation to the rule of reason, in so far as all our actions and passions should be commensurate with the rule of reason: another order is in relation to the rule of the Divine Law, whereby man should be directed in all things: and if man were by nature a solitary animal, this twofold order would suffice. But since man is naturally a civic and social animal, as is proved in Polit. i, 2, hence a third order is necessary, whereby man is directed in relation to other men among whom he has to dwell. Of these orders the second contains the first and surpasses it. For whatever things are comprised under the order of reason, are comprised under the order of God Himself. Yet some things are comprised under the order of God, which surpass the human reason, such as matters of faith, and things due to God alone. Hence he that sins in such matters, for instance, by heresy, sacrilege, or blasphemy, is said to sin against God. In like manner, the first order includes the third and surpasses it, because in all things wherein we are directed in reference to our neighbor, we need to be directed according to the order of reason. Yet in some things we are directed according to reason, in relation to ourselves only, and not in reference to our neighbor; and when man sins in these matters, he is said to sin against himself, as is seen in the glutton, the lustful, and the prodigal. But when man sins in matters concerning his neighbor, he is said to sin against his neighbor, as appears in the thief and murderer. Now the things whereby man is directed to God, his neighbor, and himself are diverse. Wherefore this distinction of sins is in respect of their objects, according to which the species of sins are diversified: and consequently this distinction of sins is properly one of different species of sins: because the virtues also, to which sins are opposed, differ specifically in respect of these three. For it is evident from what has been said (62, A1,2,3) that by the theological virtues man is directed to God; by temperance and fortitude, to himself; and by justice to his neighbor.
[I-II.q.72.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut supra dictum est, peccatum est actus inordinatus. Triplex autem ordo in homine debet esse: unus quidem secundum comparisonem ad regulam rationis, prout scilicet omnes actiones et passiones nostræ debent secundum regulam rationis commensurari; alius autem ordo est per comparisonem ad regulam divinæ legis, per quam homo in omnibus dirigi debet. Et si quidem homo naturaliter esset animal solitarium, hic duplex ordo sufficeret. Sed quia homo est naturaliter animal politicum et sociale, ut probatur in I Polit., cap. 11, a princ., ideo necesse est quod sit tertius ordo, quo homo ordinetur hic ad alios homines, quibus convivere debet. Horum autem ordinum primus continet secundum et excedit ipsum. Quæcumque enim continentur sub ordine rationis, continentur sub ordine ipsius Dei. Sed quædam continentur sub ordine ipsius Dei, quæ excedunt rationem humanam; sicut ea quæ sunt fidei, et quæ debentur soli Deo. Unde qui in talibus peccat, dicitur in Deum peccare, sicut hæreticus, et sacrilegus, et blasphemus. Similiter etiam secundus ordo includit tertium, et excedit ipsum; quia in omnibns in quibus ordinamur ad proximum, oportet nos dirigi secundum regulam rationis. Sed in quibusdam dirigimur secundum rationem, quantum ad nos tantum, non autem quantum ad proximum; et quando in his peccatur, dicitur homo peccare in seipsum, sicut patet de guloso, luxurioso et prodigo; quando vero peccat homo in his quibus ad proximum ordinator, dicitur peccare in proximum, sicut patet de fure et homicida. Sunt autem diversa quibus homo ordinator ad Deum, ad proximum et ad seipsum. Unde hæc distinctio peccatorum est secundum objecta, secundum quæ diversificantur species peccatorum; unde hæc distinctio peccatorum proprie est secundum diversas peccatorum species; nam et virtutes, quibus peccata opponuntur, secundum hanc differentiam specie distinguuntur. Manifestum est enim ex dictis, quod virtutibus theologicis homo ordinator ad Deum; temperantia vero et fortitudine ad seipsum, justitia autem ad proximum. « Hic » in edit. deest. Ita cum cod. Alcan. aliisque Nicolaï, et edit. Patav. Roman.: « Nec dum quod sint unius spe-
[I-II.q.72.a.4.ad.1] To sin against God is common to all sins, in so far as the order to God includes every human order; but in so far as order to God surpasses the other two orders, sin against God is a special kind of sin.
[I-II.q.72.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod peccare in Deum, secundum quod ordo qui est ad Deum includit omnem humanum ordinem, commune est omni peccato; sed quantum ad id quod ordo Dei excedit alios duos ordines, sic peccatum in Deum est speciale genus peccati.
[I-II.q.72.a.4.ad.2] When several things, of which one includes another, are distinct from one another, this distinction is understood to refer, not to the part contained in another, but to that in which one goes beyond another. This may be seen in the division of numbers and figures: for a triangle is distinguished from a four-sided figure not in respect of its being contained thereby, but in respect of that in which it is surpassed thereby: and the same applies to the numbers three and four.
[I-II.q.72.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod quando aliqua quorum unum includit alterum, ab invicem distinguuntur, intelligitur fieri distinctio, non secundum illud quod unum continetur in altero, sed secundum id quod unum excedit alterum, sicut patet in divisione numerorum et figurarum; non enim triangulus dividitur contra quadratum, secundum quod continetur in eo, sed secundum quod exceditur ab eo; et similiter est dicendum de ternario et quaternario.
[I-II.q.72.a.4.ad.3] Although God and our neighbor are external to the sinner himself, they are not external to the act of sin, but are related to it as to its object.
[I-II.q.72.a.4.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod Deus et proximus, quamvis sint exteriora respectu ipsius peccantis, non tamen sunt extranea respectu actus peccati; sed comparantur ad ipsum sicut propria objecta ipsius.
Article 5
[I-II.q.72.a.5.arg.1] It would seem that the division of sins according to their debt of punishment diversifies their species; for instance, when sin is divided into "mortal" and "venial." For things which are infinitely apart, cannot belong to the same species, nor even to the same genus. But venial and mortal sin are infinitely apart, since temporal punishment is due to venial sin, and eternal punishment to mortal sin; and the measure of the punishment corresponds to the gravity of the fault, according to Deuteronomy 25:2: "According to the measure of the sin shall the measure be also of the stripes be." Therefore venial and mortal sins are not of the same genus, nor can they be said to belong to the same species.
[I-II.q.72.a.5.arg.1] Ad quintum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod divisio peccatorum quæ est secundum reatum, diversificet speciem, puta cum dividitur secundum veniale et mortale. Ea enim quæ in infinitum differunt, non possunt esse unius speciei, nec etiam unius generis. Sed veniale et mortale peccatum differunt in infinitum; veniali enim debetur pœna temporalis, mortali pœna æterna: mensura autem pœna respondet quantitati culpæ, secundum illud Deuter., xxv, 2: Pro mensura delicti* erit et plagarum modus. Ergo veniale et mortale non sunt unius generis, nec dicendum, quod sint unius speciei.
[I-II.q.72.a.5.arg.2] Further, some sins are mortal in virtue of their species ["Ex genere," genus in this case denoting the species], as murder and adultery; and some are venial in virtue of their species, as in an idle word, and excessive laughter. Therefore venial and mortal sins differ specifically.
[I-II.q.72.a.5.arg.2] 2. Præterea, quædam peccata sunt mortalia ex suo genere, sicut homicidium et adulterium; quædam vero ex suo genere sunt peccata venialia, sicut verbum otiosum, et ciei. » Theologi legendum moment: « Nedum unius speciei. » risus superfluus. Ergo peccatum veniale et mortale specie differunt.
[I-II.q.72.a.5.arg.3] Further, just as a virtuous act stands in relation to its reward, so does sin stand in relation to punishment. But the reward is the end of the virtuous act. Therefore punishment is the end of sin. Now sins differ specifically in relation to their ends, as stated above (1, ad 1). Therefore they are also specifically distinct according to the debt of punishment.
[I-II.q.72.a.5.arg.3] 3. Præterea, sicut se habet actus virtuosus ad præmium, ita se habet peccatum ad pænam. Sed præmium est finis virtuosi actus. Ergo et pæna est finis peccati. Sed peccata distinguuntur specie secundum fines, ut dictum est. Ergo etiam distinguuntur specie secundum reatum pænæ.
[I-II.q.72.a.5.sc] Those things that constitute a species are prior to the species, e.g. specific differences. But punishment follows sin as the effect thereof. Therefore sins do not differ specifically according to the debt of punishment.
[I-II.q.72.a.5.sc] Sed contra, ea quæ constituunt speciem, sunt priora, sicut differentiæ specificæ. Sed pæna sequitur culpam, sicut effectus ejus. Ergo peccata non differunt specie secundum reatum pænæ.
[I-II.q.72.a.5.co] In things that differ specifically we find a twofold difference: the first causes the diversity of species, and is not to be found save in different species, e.g. "rational" and "irrational," "animate," and "inanimate": the other difference is consequent to specific diversity; and though, in some cases, it may be consequent to specific diversity, yet, in others, it may be found within the same species; thus "white" and "black" are consequent to the specific diversity of crow and swan, and yet this difference is found within the one species of man.
We must therefore say that the difference between venial and mortal sin, or any other difference is respect of the debt of punishment, cannot be a difference constituting specific diversity. For what is accidental never constitutes a species; and what is outside the agent's intention is accidental (Phys. ii, text. 50). Now it is evident that punishment is outside the intention of the sinner, wherefore it is accidentally referred to sin on the part of the sinner. Nevertheless it is referred to sin by an extrinsic principle, viz. the justice of the judge, who imposes various punishments according to the various manners of sin. Therefore the difference derived from the debt of punishment, may be consequent to the specific diversity of sins, but cannot constitute it.
Now the difference between venial and mortal sin is consequent to the diversity of that inordinateness which constitutes the notion of sin. For inordinateness is twofold, one that destroys the principle of order, and another which, without destroying the principle of order, implies inordinateness in the things which follow the principle: thus, in an animal's body, the frame may be so out of order that the vital principle is destroyed; this is the inordinateness of death; while, on the other hand, saving the vital principle, there may be disorder in the bodily humors; and then there is sickness. Now the principle of the entire moral order is the last end, which stands in the same relation to matters of action, as the indemonstrable principle does to matters of speculation (Ethic. vii, 8). Therefore when the soul is so disordered by sin as to turn away from its last end, viz. God, to Whom it is united by charity, there is mortal sin; but when it is disordered without turning away from God, there is venial sin. For even as in the body, the disorder of death which results from the destruction of the principle of life, is irreparable according to nature, while the disorder of sickness can be repaired by reason of the vital principle being preserved, so it is in matters concerning the soul. Because, in speculative matters, it is impossible to convince one who errs in the principles, whereas one who errs, but retains the principles, can be brought back to the truth by means of the principles. Likewise in practical matters, he who, by sinning, turns away from his last end, if we consider the nature of his sin, falls irreparably, and therefore is said to sin mortally and to deserve eternal punishment: whereas when a man sins without turning away from God, by the very nature of his sin, his disorder can be repaired, because the principle of the order is not destroyed; wherefore he is said to sin venially, because, to wit, he does not sin so as to deserve to be punished eternally.
[I-II.q.72.a.5.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod eorum quæ specie differunt, duplex differentia inventur: una quidem quæ constituit diversitatem specierum, et talis differentia nunquam inventur nisi in speciebus diversis, sicut rationale et irrationale, animatum et inanimatum; alia autem differentia est consequens diversitatem speciei; et talis differentia, etsi in aliquibus consequatur diversitatem speciei, in aliis tamen potest inveniri in alia specie; sicut album et nigrum consequuntur diversitatem speciei corvi et cycni, tamen inventur hujusmodi differentia in eadem hominis specie. Dicendum est ergo, quod differentia venialis et mortalis peccati, vel quæcumque alia differentia quæ sumitur penes reatum, non potest esse differentia constituens diversitatem speciei. Nunquam enim id quod est per accidens, constituit speciem. Id autem quod est præter intentionem agentis, est per accidens, ut patet in II Phys., text. 50. Manifestum est autem, quod pæna est præter intentionem peccantis: unde per accidens se habet ad peccatum ex parte ipsius peccantis. Ordinatur tamen ad peccatum ab exteriori, scilicet ex justitia judicantis, qui secundum diversas conditiones peccatorum diversas pænas infligit. Unde differentia quæ est ex reatu pænæ, potest consequui diversam speciem peccatorum; non autem constituit diversitatem speciei. Differentia autem peccati venialis et mortalis consequitur diversitatem inordinationis quæ complet rationem peccati. Duplex enim est inordinatio: una per subtractionem prin- Erronee notant Nicolaï et Parm. omnes codices habere: « In eadem specie; » omnes enim codices quos vidimus habent: « in alia specie; » et sensus est: differentia quæ non constituit diversitatemcipii ordinis; alia, qua etiam salvato principio ordinis, fit inordinatio circa ea quæ sunt post principium; sicut in corpore animalis quandoque quidem inordinatio complexionis procedit usque ad destructionem principii vitalis, et hæc est mors; quando vero, salvo principio vitæ, fit deordinatio quædam in humoribus, et tunc est ægritudo. Principium autem totius ordinis in moralibus est finis ultimus, qui ita se habet in operativis, sicut principium indemonstrabile in speculativis, ut dicitur in VII Ethic., cap. viii, circa med. Unde quando anima deordinatur per peccatum usque ad aversionem ab ultimo fine, scilicet Deo, cui unitur per charitatem, tunc est peccatum mortale; quando vero fit deordinatio citra aversionem a Deo, tunc est peccatum veniale. Sicut enim in corporibus deordinatio mortis, quæ est per remotionem principii vitæ, est irreparabilis secundum naturam, inordinatio autem ægritinis reparari potest propter id quod salvatur principium vitæ, similiter est in his quæ pertinent ad animam; nam in speculativis, qui errat circa principia, impersuasiabilis est; qui autem errat salvatis principiis, per ipsa principia revocari potest. Et similiter in operativis, qui peccando avertitur ab ultimo fine, quantum est ex natura peccati, habet lapsum irreparabilem, et ideo dicitur peccare mortaliter, æternaliter puniendus. Qui vero peccat citra aversionem a Deo, ex ipsa ratione peccati reparabiliter deordinatur, quia salvatur principium; et ideo dicitur peccare venialiter, quia scilicet non ita peccat, ut mereatur interminabilem pænam.
[I-II.q.72.a.5.ad.1] Mortal and venial sins are infinitely apart as regards what they "turn away from," not as regards what they "turn to," viz. the object which specifies them. Hence nothing hinders the same species from including mortal and venial sins; for instance, in the species "adultery" the first movement is a venial sin; while an idle word, which is, generally speaking, venial, may even be a mortal sin.
[I-II.q.72.a.5.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod peccatum mortale et veniale differunt in infinitum ex parte aversionis, non autem ex parte conversionis, per quam respiciunt objectum, unde peccatum speciem habet. Unde nihil prohibet in eadem specie inveniri aliquod peccatum mortale et veniale, sicut primus motus in genere adulterii est peccatum veniale; et verbum otiosum, quod plerumque est veniale, potest etiam esse mortale.
[I-II.q.72.a.5.ad.2] From the fact that one sin is mortal by reason of its species, and another venial by reason of its species, it follows that this difference is consequent to the specific difference of sins, not that it is the cause thereof. And this difference may be found even in things of the same species, as stated above.
[I-II.q.72.a.5.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod ex hoc quod inventur aliquod peccatum mortale ex genere, et aliquod peccatum veniale ex genere, sequitur quod talis differentia conspeciei, potest in aliquibus hanc diversitatem consequui, ita ut inveniatur in iis specie diversis, sed in aliis specie non diversis, in alia scilicet specie, inveniri potest. sequatur diversitatem peccatorum secundum speciem, non autem quod causet eam. Talis autem differentia potest inveniri etiam in his quæ sunt ejusdem speciei, ut dictum est.
[I-II.q.72.a.5.ad.3] The reward is intended by him that merits or acts virtually; whereas the punishment is not intended by the sinner, but, on the contrary, is against his will. Hence the comparison fails.
[I-II.q.72.a.5.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod præmium est de intentione merentis vel virtuose agentis; sed pœna non est de intentione peccantis, sed magis est contra voluntatem ipsius. Unde non est similis ratio.
Article 6
[I-II.q.72.a.6.arg.1] It would seem that sins of commission and omission differ specifically. For "offense" and "sin" are condivided with one another (Ephesians 2:1), where it is written: "When you were dead in your offenses and sins," which words a gloss explains, saying: "'Offenses,' by omitting to do what was commanded, and 'sins,' by doing what was forbidden." Whence it is evident that "offenses" here denotes sins of omission; while "sin" denotes sins of commission. Therefore they differ specifically, since they are contrasted with one another as different species.
[I-II.q.72.a.6.arg.1] Ad sextum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod peccatum commissionis et omissionis specie differant. Delictum enim contra peccatum dividitur Eph., 11, 1, ubi dicitur: Cum essetis mortui delictis et peccatis vestris, et exponit ibi Glossa: « Delictis, id est, dimittendo quæ jubentur; et peccatis, scilicet agendo prohibita. » Ex quo patet, quod per delictum, intelligitur peccatum omissionis; per peccatum, peccatum commissionis. Differunt igitur specie, cum ex opposito dividantur tanquam diversæ species.
[I-II.q.72.a.6.arg.2] Further, it is essential to sin to be against God's law, for this is part of its definition, as is clear from what has been said (71, 6). Now in God's law, the affirmative precepts, against which is the sin of omission, are different from the negative precepts, against which is the sin of omission. Therefore sins of omission and commission differ specifically.
[I-II.q.72.a.6.arg.2] 2. Præterea, peccato per se convenit quod sit contra legem Dei; ponitur enim in ejus definitione, ut ex supra dictis patet. Sed in lege Dei alia sunt præcepta affirmativa, contra quæ est peccatum omissionis; et alia præcepta negativa, contra quæ est peccatum commissionis. Ergo peccatum omissionis et peccatum commissionis differunt specie.
[I-II.q.72.a.6.arg.3] Further, omission and commission differ as affirmation and negation. Now affirmation and negation cannot be in the same species, since negation has no species; for "there is neither species nor difference of non-being," as the Philosopher states (Phys. iv, text. 67). Therefore omission and commission cannot belong to the same species.
[I-II.q.72.a.6.arg.3] 3. Præterea, omissio et commissionis different, sicut affirmatio et negatio. Sed affirmatio et negatio non possunt esse unius speciei, quia negatio non habet speciem; « non entis enim non sunt species, neque differentiæ, » ut Philosophus dicit, lib. IV Physic., text. 67. Ergo omissio et commission non possunt esse unius speciei.
[I-II.q.72.a.6.sc] Omission and commission are found in the same species of sin. For the covetous man both takes what belongs to others, which is a sin of commission; and gives not of his own to whom he should give, which is a sin of omission. Therefore omission and commission do not differ specifically.
[I-II.q.72.a.6.sc] Sed contra, in eadem specie peccati inventur omissio et commissio. Avarus enim et aliena rapit, quod est peccatum commissio-nis; et sua non dat quibus dare debet, quod est peccatum omissionis. Ergo omissio et commissio non differunt specie.
[I-II.q.72.a.6.co] There is a twofold difference in sins; a material difference and a formal difference: the material difference is to be observed in the natural species of the sinful act; while the formal difference is gathered from their relation to one proper end, which is also their proper object. Hence we find certain acts differing from one another in the material specific difference, which are nevertheless formally in the same species of sin, because they are directed to the one same end: thus strangling, stoning, and stabbing come under the one species of murder, although the actions themselves differ specifically according to the natural species. Accordingly, if we refer to the material species in sins of omission and commission, they differ specifically, using species in a broad sense, in so far as negation and privation may have a species. But if we refer to the formal species of sins of omission and commission, they do not differ specifically, because they are directed to the same end, and proceed from the same motive. For the covetous man, in order to hoard money, both robs, and omits to give what he ought, and in like manner, the glutton, to satiate his appetite, both eats too much and omits the prescribed fasts. The same applies to other sins: for in things, negation is always founded on affirmation, which, in a manner, is its cause. Hence in the physical order it comes under the same head, that fire gives forth heat, and that it does not give forth cold.
[I-II.q.72.a.6.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod in peccatis inventur duplex differentia, una materialis et alia formalis; materialis quidem attenditur secundum naturalem speciem actuum peccati; formalis autem secundum ordinem ad unum finem proprium quod est objectum proprium. Unde inveniuntur aliqui actus materialiter specie differentes, qui tamen formaliter sunt in eadem specie peccati quia ad idem ordinantur; sicut ad eamdem speciem homicidii pertinet jugulatio, lapidatio et perforatio, quamvis actus sint specie differentes secundum speciem naturæ. Sic ergo, si loquamur de specie peccati omissionis et commissionis materialiter, differunt specie; large tamen loquendo de specie, secundum quod negatio vel privatio speciem habere potest. Si autem loquamur de specie peccati omissionis et commissionis formaliter, sic non differunt specie, quia ad idem ordinantur, et ex eodem motivo procedunt. Avarus enim ad congregandum pecuniam et rapit, et non dat ea quæ dare debet; et similiter gulosus ad satisfaciendum gulæ et superflua comedit, et jejunia debita prætermittit; et idem est videre in cæteris. Semper enim in rebus negatio fundatur super aliqua affirmatione, quæ est quodammodo causa ejus. Unde etiam in rebus naturalibus ejusdem rationis est quod ignis calefaciat, et quod non infrigidet.
[I-II.q.72.a.6.ad.1] This division in respect of commission and omission, is not according to different formal species, but only according to material species, as stated.
[I-II.q.72.a.6.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod illa divisio quæ est per commissionem et omissionem, non est secundum diversas species formales, sed materiales tantum, ut dictum est.
[I-II.q.72.a.6.ad.2] In God's law, the necessity for various affirmative and negative precepts, was that men might be gradually led to virtue, first by abstaining from evil, being induced to this by the negative precepts, and afterwards by doing good, to which we are induced by the affirmative precepts. Wherefore the affirmative and negative precepts do not belong to different virtues, but to different degrees of virtue; and consequently they are not of necessity, opposed to sins of different species. Moreover sin is not specified by that from which it turns away, because in this respect it is a negation or privation, but by that to which it turns, in so far as sin is an act. Consequently sins do not differ specifically according to the various precepts of the Law.
[I-II.q.72.a.6.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod necesse fuit in lege Dei proponi diversa præcepta affirmativa et negativa, ut gradatim homines introducerentur ad virtutem, prius quidem abstinendo a malo, ad quod inducimur per præcepta negativa, et postmodum faciendo bonum, ad quod inducimur per præcepta affirmativa. Et sic præcepta affirmativa et negativa non pertinent ad diversas virtutes, sed ad diversos gradus virtutis; et per consequens non oportet quod contrarientur diversis peccatis secundum speciem. Peccatum enim non habet speciem ex parte aversionis, quia secundum hoc est negatio vel privatio; sed ex parte conversionis, secundum quod est actus quidam. Unde secundum diversa præcepta legis non diversificantur peccata secundum speciem.
[I-II.q.72.a.6.ad.3] This objection considers the material diversity of sins. It must be observed, however, that although, properly speaking, negation is not in a species, yet it is allotted to a species by reduction to the affirmation on which it is based.
[I-II.q.72.a.6.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod objectio illa procedit de materiali diversitate speciei. Sciendum est tamen quod negatio, etsi proprie non sit in specie, constituitur tamen in specie per reductionem ad aliquam affirmationem quam consequitur.
Article 7
[I-II.q.72.a.7.arg.1] It would seem that sins are unfittingly divided into sins of thought, word, and deed. For Augustine (De Trin. xii, 12) describes three stages of sin, of which the first is "when the carnal sense offers a bait," which is the sin of thought; the second stage is reached "when one is satisfied with the mere pleasure of thought"; and the third stage, "when consent is given to the deed." Now these three belong to the sin of thought. Therefore it is unfitting to reckon sin of thought as one kind of sin.
[I-II.q.72.a.7.arg.1] Ad septimum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod inconvenienter dividatur peccatum in peccatum cordis, oris et operis. Augustinus enim, in XII De Trinit., cap. xii, col. 1007, t. 8, ponit tres gradus peccati, quorum primus est, « cum carnalis sensus illecebram quamdam ingerit, » quod est peccatum co-gitationis; secundus gradus est, « quando sola cogitationis delectatione aliquis contentus est; » tertius gradus est, « quando faciendum decernitur per consensum. » Sed tria hæc pertinent ad peccatum cordis. Ergo inconvenienter peccatum cordis ponitur quasi unum genus peccati.
[I-II.q.72.a.7.arg.2] Further, Gregory (Moral. iv, 25) reckons four degrees of sin; the first of which is "a fault hidden in the heart"; the second, "when it is done openly"; the third, "when it is formed into a habit"; and the fourth, "when man goes so far as to presume on God's mercy or to give himself up to despair": where no distinction is made between sins of deed and sins of word, and two other degrees of sin are added. Therefore the first division was unfitting.
[I-II.q.72.a.7.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Gregorius, in IV Moral., cap. xxvii, § 51, col. 662, t. 1, ponit quatuor gradus peccati, quorum primus est « culpa latens in corde; » secundus, « cum exterius publicatur; » tertius est, « cum consuetudine roboratur; » quartus est, « cum usque ad præsumptionem divinæ misericordiæ, vel ad desperationem homo procedit; » ubi non distinguitur peccatum operis a peccato oris, et adduntur duo alii peccatorum gradus. Ergo inconveniens fuit prima divisio.
[I-II.q.72.a.7.arg.3] Further, there can be no sin of word or deed unless there precede sin of thought. Therefore these sins do not differ specifically. Therefore they should not be condivided with one another.
[I-II.q.72.a.7.arg.3] 3. Præterea, non potest esse peccatum in ore vel in opere, nisi fiat prius in corde. Ergo ista peccata specie non differunt. Non ergo debent contra se invicem dividi.
[I-II.q.72.a.7.sc] Jerome in commenting on Ezekiel 43:23: "The human race is subject to three kinds of sin, for when we sin, it is either by thought, or word, or deed."
[I-II.q.72.a.7.sc] Sed contra est quod Hieronymus dicit Super xliii Ezech., col. 427, t. 5: « Tria sunt generalia delicta, quibus humanum subjacet genus: aut enim cogitationibus, aut sermone, aut opere peccamus. »
[I-II.q.72.a.7.co] Things differ specifically in two ways: first, when each has the complete species; thus a horse and an ox differ specifically: secondly, when the diversity of species is derived from diversity of degree in generation or movement: thus the building is the complete generation of a house, while the laying of the foundations, and the setting up of the walls are incomplete species, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. x, 4); and the same can apply to the generation of animals. Accordingly sins are divided into these three, viz. sins of thought, word, and deed, not as into various complete species: for the consummation of sin is in the deed, wherefore sins of deed have the complete species; but the first beginning of sin is its foundation, as it were, in the sin of thought; the second degree is the sin of word, in so far as man is ready to break out into a declaration of his thought; while the third degree consists in the consummation of the deed. Consequently these three differ in respect of the various degrees of sin. Nevertheless it is evident that these three belong to the one complete species of sin, since they proceed from the same motive. For the angry man, through desire of vengeance, is at first disturbed in thought, then he breaks out into words of abuse, and lastly he goes on to wrongful deeds; and the same applies to lust and to any other sin.
[I-II.q.72.a.7.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod aliqua inveniuntur differre specie dupliciter: uno modo ex eo quod utrumque habet speciem completam, sicut equus et bos differunt specie; alio modo prout secundum diversos gradus in aliqua generatione vel motu accipiuntur diversæ species; sicut aedificatio est completa generatio domus; collocatio autem fundamenti, et erectio parietis sunt species incompletæ, ut patet per Philosophum in X Ethic., cap. iv; et idem etiam potest dici in generationibus animalium. Sic igitur peccatum dividitur per hæc tria, scilicet peccatum cordis, oris et operis, non sicut per diversas species completas; nam consummatio peccati est in opere, unde peccatum operis habet speciem completam; sed prima inchoatio ejus est quasi fundatio in corde; secundus autem gradus ejus est in ore, secundum quod homo prorumpit facile ad manifestandum conceptum cordis; tertius autem gradus jam est in consummatione operis. Et sic hæc tria differunt secundum diversos gradus peccati. Patet tamen, quod hæc tria pertinent ad unam perfectam peccati speciem, cum ab eodem motivo procedant. Iracundus enim ex hoc quod appetit vindictam, primo quidem perturbatur in corde; secundo in verba contumeliosa prorumpit; tertio vero procedit usque ad facta injuriosa; et idem patet in luxuria et in quolibet alio peccato.
[I-II.q.72.a.7.ad.1] All sins of thought have the common note of secrecy, in respect of which they form one degree, which is, however, divided into three stages, viz. of cogitation, pleasure, and consent.
[I-II.q.72.a.7.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod omne peccatum cordis convenit in ratione occulti; et secundum hoc ponitur unus gradus, qui tamen per tres gradus distinguitur, scilicet cogitationis, delectationis et consensus.
[I-II.q.72.a.7.ad.2] Sins of words and deed are both done openly, and for this reason Gregory (Moral. iv, 25) reckons them under one head: whereas Jerome (in commenting on Ezekiel 43:23) distinguishes between them, because in sins of word there is nothing but manifestation which is intended principally; while in sins of deed, it is the consummation of the inward thought which is principally intended, and the outward manifestation is by way of sequel. Habit and despair are stages following the complete species of sin, even as boyhood and youth follow the complete generation of a man.
[I-II.q.72.a.7.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod peccatum oris et operis conveniunt in manifestatione; et propter hoc ea a Gregorio sub uno computantur; Hieronymus autem distinguuit ea, quia in peccato oris est manifestatio tantum, et principaliter intenta; in peccato vero operis est principaliter completio interioris conceptus cordis, sed manifestatio est ex consequenti; consuetudo vero et desperatio sunt gradus consequentes post speciem perfectam peccati, sicut adolescentia et juvenitus post perfectam hominis generationem.
[I-II.q.72.a.7.ad.3] Sin of thought and sin of word are not distinct from the sin of deed when they are united together with it, but when each is found by itself: even as one part of a movement is not distinct from the whole movement, when the movement is continuous, but only when there is a break in the movement.
[I-II.q.72.a.7.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod peccatum cordis et oris non distinguuntur a peccato operis, quando simul cum eo conjunguntur; sed prout quodlibet horum per se inventur; sicut etiam pars motus non distinguitur a toto motu, quando motus est continuus, sed solum quando motus sistit in medio.
Article 8
[I-II.q.72.a.8.arg.1] It would seem that excess and deficiency do not diversify the species of sins. For excess and deficiency differ in respect of more and less. Now "more" and "less" do not diversify a species. Therefore excess and deficiency do not diversify the species of sins.
[I-II.q.72.a.8.arg.1] Ad octavum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod superabundantia et defectus non diversificent species peccatorum. Superabundantia enim et defectus differunt secundum magis et minus. Sed magis et minus non diversificant speciem. Ergo superabundantia et defectus non diversificant speciem peccatorum.
[I-II.q.72.a.8.arg.2] Further, just as sin, in matters of action, is due to straying from the rectitude of reason, so falsehood, in speculative matters, is due to straying from the truth of the reality. Now the species of falsehood is not diversified by saying more or less than the reality. Therefore neither is the species of sin diversified by straying more or less from the rectitude of reason.
[I-II.q.72.a.8.arg.2] 2. Præterea, sicut peccatum in agibilibus est ex hoc quod receditur a rectitudine rationis, ita falsitas in speculativis est ex hoc quod receditur a veritate rei. Sed non diversificatur species falsitatis ex hoc quod aliquis dicit plus vel minus esse quam sit in re. Ergo etiam non diversificatur species peccati ex hoc quod recedit a rectitudine rationis in plus vel minus.
[I-II.q.72.a.8.arg.3] Further, "one species cannot be made out of two," as Porphyry declares [Isagog.; cf. Arist. Metaph. i]. Now excess and deficiency are united in one sin; for some are at once illiberal and wasteful--illiberality being a sin of deficiency, and prodigality, by excess. Therefore excess and deficiency do not diversify the species of sins.
[I-II.q.72.a.8.arg.3] 3. Præterea, « ex duabus speciebus non constituitur una species, » ut Porphyrius 1 dicit in Isagog., cap. ult. Sed superabundantia et defectus uniuntur in uno peccato; sunt enim simul quidam illiberales et prodigi; quorum duorum illiberalitas est peccatum secundum defectum; prodigalitas autem secundum superabundantiam. Ergo superabundantia et defectus non diversificant speciem peccatorum.
[I-II.q.72.a.8.sc] Contraries differ specifically, for "contrariety is a difference of form," as stated in Metaph. x, text. 13,14. Now vices that differ according to excess and deficiency are contrary to one another, as illiberality to wastefulness. Therefore they differ specifically.
[I-II.q.72.a.8.sc] Sed contra, « contraria differunt secundum speciem; » nam « contrarietas est differentia secundum formam, » ut dicitur in X Metaph., text. 13 et 14. Sed vitia quæ differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitas prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis prodigalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalitatis. Ergo differunt secundum superabundantiam et defectum, sunt contraria, sicut illiberalataris. Ergo differunt secundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabdum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabdum superaname to be supermabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superbundum superabundum superabundum superbundum superbundum unce to be superundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabunt superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superbundum superabundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superabundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superbundum superabundum superabundum superbundum superbunted unce to be supermabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superabundum superabundum superbundum superabundum superabundum superabundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum sultem to be supermastive to be supermabundum superbundum superbaute to be supermabundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum sultem to be supermastive to be superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbundum superbienienienienienienienienienieniumienienieniumieniumieniumieniumieniumieniumieniumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumiumium aliquis movetur ad dicendum plus vel minus; et secundum hoc diversa est ratio falsitatis: sicut patet de jactatore, qui super-excedit dicendo falsum, quærens gloriam; et de deceptore, qui diminuit evadens debiti solutionem; unde et quædam falsæ opiniones sunt sibi invicem contrariæ.
[I-II.q.72.a.8.co] While there are two things in sin, viz. the act itself and its inordinateness, in so far as sin is a departure from the order of reason and the Divine law, the species of sin is gathered, not from its inordinateness, which is outside the sinner's intention, as stated above (Article 1), but on the contrary, from the act itself as terminating in the object to which the sinner's intention is directed. Consequently wherever we find a different motive inclining the intention to sin, there will be a different species of sin. Now it is evident that the motive for sinning, in sins by excess, is not the same as the motive for sinning, in sins of deficiency; in fact, they are contrary to one another, just as the motive in the sin of intemperance is love for bodily pleasures, while the motive in the sin of insensibility is hatred of the same. Therefore these sins not only differ specifically, but are contrary to one another.
[I-II.q.72.a.8.ad.1] Although "more" and "less" do not cause diversity of species, yet they are sometimes consequent to specific difference, in so far as they are the result of diversity of form; thus we may say that fire is lighter than air. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 1) that "those who held that there are no different species of friendship, by reason of its admitting of degree, were led by insufficient proof." In this way to exceed reason or to fall short thereof belongs to sins specifically different, in so far as they result from different motives.
[I-II.q.72.a.8.ad.2] It is not the sinner's intention to depart from reason; and so sins of excess and deficiency do not become of one kind through departing from the one rectitude of reason. On the other hand, sometimes he who utters a falsehood, intends to hide the truth, wherefore in this respect, it matters not whether he tells more or less. If, however, departure from the truth be not outside the intention, it is evident that then one is moved by different causes to tell more or less; and in this respect there are different kinds of falsehood, as is evident of the "boaster," who exceeds in telling untruths for the sake of fame, and the "cheat," who tells less than the truth, in order to escape from paying his debts. This also explains how some false opinions are contrary to one another.
[I-II.q.72.a.8.ad.3] One may be prodigal and illiberal with regard to different objects: for instance one may be illiberal [Cf. II-II, 119, 1, ad 1 in taking what one ought not: and nothing hinders contraries from being in the same subject, in different respects.
[I-II.q.72.a.8.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod prodigus et illiberalis potest esse aliquis secundum diversa; ut scilicet sit aliquis illiberalis in accipiendo quæ non debet, et prodigus in dando quæ non debet. Nihil autem prohibet, contraria inesse eidem secundum diversa.
Article 9
[I-II.q.72.a.9.arg.1] It would seem that vices and sins differ in respect of different circumstances. For, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), "evil results from each single defect." Now individual defects are corruptions of individual circumstances. Therefore from the corruption of each circumstance there results a corresponding species of sin.
[I-II.q.72.a.9.arg.1] Ad nonum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod vitia et peccata diversificentur specie secundum diversas circumstantias; quia, ut dicit Dionysius, iv cap. De divin. nomin., § 30, col. 730, t. 1, « malum contingit ex singularibus defectibus. » Singulares autem defectus sunt corruptiones singularum circumstantiarum. Ergo ex singulis circumstantiis corruptis singulæ species peccatorum consequuntur.
[I-II.q.72.a.9.arg.2] Further, sins are human acts. But human acts sometimes take their species from circumstances, as stated above (Question 18, Article 10). Therefore sins differ specifically according as different circumstances are corrupted.
[I-II.q.72.a.9.arg.2] 2. Præterea, peccata sunt quidam actus humani. Sed actus humani interdum accipiunt speciem a circumstantiis, ut supra habitum est. Ergo peccata differunt specie, secundum quod diversæ circumstantiæ corrumpuntur.
[I-II.q.72.a.9.arg.3] Further, diverse species are assigned to gluttony, according to the words contained in the following verse: 'Hastily, sumptuously, too much, greedily, daintily.' Now these pertain to various circumstances, for "hastily" means sooner than is right; "too much," more than is right, and so on with the others. Therefore the species of sin is diversified according to the various circumstances.
[I-II.q.72.a.9.arg.3] 3. Præterea, diversæ species gulæ assignur secundum particulas quæ in hoc versiculo continentur: « Præpropere, laute, nimis, ardenter, studiose. » Hæc autem pertinent ad diversas circumstantias: nam præpropere, est antequam oportet; nimis, plus quam oportet; et idem patet in aliis. Ergo species peccati diversificantur secundum diversas circumstantias.
[I-II.q.72.a.9.sc] The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 7; iv, 1) that "every vice sins by doing more than one ought, and when one ought not"; and in like manner as to the other circumstances. Therefore the species of sins are not diversified in this respect.
[I-II.q.72.a.9.sc] Sed contra est quod Philosophus dicit in Concilium tridentinum declaravit unum quemque teneri ad confessionem peccatorum suorum cum numero ipsorum. Intellige de peccatis quorum confessio exigitur, id est de peccatis per- III Ethic., cap. vii, in princ., et in IV, cap. 1, quod singula vitia peccant agendo « plus quam oportet et quando non oportet; » et similiter secundum omnes alias circumstantias. Non ergo secundum hoc diversificantur peccatorum species.
[I-II.q.72.a.9.co] As stated above (Article 8), wherever there is a special motive for sinning, there is a different species of sin, because the motive for sinning is the end and object of sin. Now it happens sometimes that although different circumstances are corrupted, there is but one motive: thus the illiberal man, for the same motive, takes when he ought not, where he ought not, and more than he ought, and so on with the circumstances, since he does this through an inordinate desire of hoarding money: and in such cases the corruption of different circumstances does not diversify the species of sins, but belongs to one and the same species.
Sometimes, however, the corruption of different circumstances arises from different motives: for instance that a man eat hastily, may be due to the fact that he cannot brook the delay in taking food, on account of a rapid exhaustion of the digestive humors; and that he desire too much food, may be due to a naturally strong digestion; that he desire choice meats, is due to his desire for pleasure in taking food. Hence in such matters, the corruption of different circumstances entails different species of sins.
[I-II.q.72.a.9.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est, ubi occurrit aliud motivum ad peccandum, ibi est alia peccati species; quia motivum ad peccandum est finis et objectum. Contingit autem quandoque quod in corruptionibus diversarum circumstantiarum est idem motivum; sicut illiberalis ab eodem motivo habet quod accipiat quando non oportet, et ubi non oportet, et plus quam oportet, et similiter de aliis circumstantiis: hoc enim facit propter inordinatum appetitum pecuniæ congregandæ. Et in talibus diversarum circumstantiarum corruptiones non diversificant species peccatorum, sed pertinent ad unam et eamdem peccati speciem. Quandoque vero contingit quod corruptiones diversarum circumstantiarum provenient a diversis motivis: puta quod aliquis præpropere comedat, potest provenire ex hoc quod homo non potest ferre dilationem cibi propter facilem consumptionem humiditatis; quod vero appetat immoderatum cibum, potest contingere propter virtutem naturæ potentem ad convertendum multum cibum; quod autem aliquis appetat cibos deliciosos, contingit propter appetitum delectationis quæ est in cibo. Unde in talibus diversarum circumstantiarum corruptiones inducunt diversas peccati species.
[I-II.q.72.a.9.ad.1] Evil, as such, is a privation, and so it has different species in respect of the thing which the subject is deprived, even as other privations. But sin does not take its species from the privation or aversion, as stated above (Article 1), but from turning to the object of the act.
[I-II.q.72.a.9.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod malum, inquantum hujusmodi, privatio est; et ideo diversificatur specie secundum ea quæ privantur, sicut et cæteræ privationes. Sed peccatum non sortitur speciem ex parte privationis vel aversionis, ut supra dictum est, sed ex conversione ad objectum actus.
[I-II.q.72.a.9.ad.2] A circumstance never transfers an act from one species to another, save when there is another motive.
[I-II.q.72.a.9.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod circumstantia nunquam transfert actum in aliam speciem, nisi quando est aliud motivum.
[I-II.q.72.a.9.ad.3] In the various species of gluttony there are various motives, as stated.
The 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
[I-II.q.72.a.9.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod in diversis speciebus gulæ diversa sunt motiva, sicut dictum est.
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/prima-secundae/q072.json