Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Prima Secundae·Q78. That cause of sin which is malice
Source context
- Theme
- sin committed through deliberate malice — the will's direct election of evil as end
- Soul-faculty
- Consciousness Soul
Steiner
not engaged in the GA corpus
Cross-tradition
- Augustinian theology of the willAugustine's account of the will's perverse turning (aversio a bono) toward a lesser good as ultimate end offers structural cross-tradition congruence with Aquinas's category of sin per malitiam, in which the will freely overrides the ordering of reason toward the good.
- Aristotelian moral psychologyAristotle's distinction between akrasia (weakness overcoming reason) and vice properly so-called (in which the agent judges wrongly as a settled disposition) underlies Aquinas's differentiation of sin from passion or ignorance and sin from malice, establishing deliberate election of evil as the gravest moral failure.
Q78. That cause of sin which is malice
Article 1
[I-II.q.78.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that no one sins purposely, or through certain malice. Because ignorance is opposed to purpose or certain malice. Now "every evil man is ignorant," according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1); and it is written (Proverbs 14:22): "They err that work evil." Therefore no one sins through certain malice.
[I-II.q.78.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod nullus peccet ex industria, sive ex certa malitia. Ignorantia enim opponitur industriæ seu certæ malitiæ. Sed « omnis malus est ignorans, » secundum Philosophum, lib. III Ethic., cap. 1, a med.; et Prov., xiv, 22, dicitur: Errant qui operantur malum. Ergo nullus peccat ex certa malitia.
[I-II.q.78.a.1.arg.2] Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "no one works intending evil." Now to sin through malice seems to denote the intention of doing evil [Alluding to the derivation of "malitia" (malice) from "malum" (evil)] in sinning, because an act is not denominated from that which is unintentional and accidental. Therefore no one sins through malice.
[I-II.q.78.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Dionysius dicit, iv cap. De div. nom., § 31, col. 731, t. 1, quod « nullus intendens ad malum operatur. » Sed hoc videtur esse peccare ex malitia, intendere malum in peccando; quod enim est præter intentionem, est quasi per accidens, et non denominat actum. Ergo nullus ex malitia peccat.
[I-II.q.78.a.1.arg.3] Further, malice itself is a sin. If therefore malice is a cause of sin, it follows that sin goes on causing sin indefinitely, which is absurd. Therefore no one sins through malice.
[I-II.q.78.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, malitia ipsa peccatum est. Si igitur malitia sit causa peccati, sequetur quod peccatum sit causa peccati in infinitum, quod est inconveniens. Nullus igitur ex malitia peccat.
[I-II.q.78.a.1.sc] It is written (Job 34:27): "[Who] as it were on purpose have revolted from God [Vulgate: 'Him'], and would not understand all His ways." Now to revolt from God is to sin. Therefore some sin purposely or through certain malice.
[I-II.q.78.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Job, xxxiv, 27: Quasi de industria recesserunt a Deo, et omnes vias ejus intelligere noluerunt. Sed recedere a Deo est peccare. Ergo aliqui peccant ex industria seu ex certa malitia.
[I-II.q.78.a.1.co] Man like any other being has naturally an appetite for the good; and so if his appetite incline away to evil, this is due to corruption or disorder in some one of the principles of man: for it is thus that sin occurs in the actions of natural things. Now the principles of human acts are the intellect, and the appetite, both rational (i.e. the will) and sensitive. Therefore even as sin occurs in human acts, sometimes through a defect of the intellect, as when anyone sins through ignorance, and sometimes through a defect in the sensitive appetite, as when anyone sins through passion, so too does it occur through a defect consisting in a disorder of the will. Now the will is out of order when it loves more the lesser good. Again, the consequence of loving a thing less is that one chooses to suffer some hurt in its regard, in order to obtain a good that one loves more: as when a man, even knowingly, suffers the loss of a limb, that he may save his life which he loves more. Accordingly when an inordinate will loves some temporal good, e.g. riches or pleasure, more than the order of reason or Divine law, or Divine charity, or some such thing, it follows that it is willing to suffer the loss of some spiritual good, so that it may obtain possession of some temporal good. Now evil is merely the privation of some good; and so a man wishes knowingly a spiritual evil, which is evil simply, whereby he is deprived of a spiritual good, in order to possess a temporal good: wherefore he is said to sin through certain malice or on purpose, because he chooses evil knowingly.
[I-II.q.78.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod homo, sicut et quælibet alia res, naturaliter habet appetitum boni; unde quod ad malum ejus appetitus declinet, contingit ex aliqua corruptione seu inordinatione in aliquo principiorum hominis: sic enim in actionibus rerum naturalium peccatum inventur. Principia autem humanorum actuum sunt intellectus et appetitus tam rationalis, qui dicitur voluntas, quam sensitivus. Peccatum igitur in humanis actibus contingit quandoque sicut ex defectu intellectus, puta cum aliquis per ignorantiam peccat, et ex defectu appetitus sensitivi, sicut cum aliquis ex passione peccat; ita etiam ex defectu voluntatis, qui est inordinatio ipsius. Est autem voluntas inordinata, quando minus bonum magis amat. Consequens autem est ut aliquis eligat pati detrimentum in bono minus amato, ad hoc quod potiatur bono magis amato; sicut cum homo vult pati abscissionem membri etiam scienter, ut conservet vitam quam magis amat. Ita per hunc modum, quando aliqua inordinata voluntas aliquod bonum temporale plus amat, puta divitias vel voluptatem, quam ordinem rationis vel legis divinæ, vel charitatem Dei, vel aliquid hujusmodi, sequitur quod velit dispendinum pati in aliquo spiritualium bonorum, ut potiatur aliquo temporali bono. Nihil autem est aliud malum quam privatio alicujus boni; et secundum hoc aliquis scienter vult aliquod malum spirituale, quod est malum simpliciter, per quod bonum spirituale privatur, ut bono temporali potiatur. Unde dicitur ex certa malitia vel industria peccare, quasi scienter malum eligens.
[I-II.q.78.a.1.ad.1] Ignorance sometimes excludes the simple knowledge that a particular action is evil, and then man is said to sin through ignorance: sometimes it excludes the knowledge that a particular action is evil at this particular moment, as when he sins through passion: and sometimes it excludes the knowledge that a particular evil is not to be suffered for the sake of possessing a particular good, but not the simple knowledge that it is an evil: it is thus that a man is ignorant, when he sins through certain malice.
[I-II.q.78.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ignorantia quandoque quidem excludit scientiam qua aliquis simpliciter scit hoc esse malum quod agitur; et tunc dicitur ex ignorantia peccare; quandoque autem excludit scientiam qua homo scit hoc nunc esse malum, sicut cum ex passione peccatur; quandoque autem excludit scientiam qua aliquis scit hoc malum non sustinendum esse propter consecutionem illius boni, scit tamen simpliciter hoc esse malum; et sic dicitur ignorare qui ex certa malitia peccat.
[I-II.q.78.a.1.ad.2] Evil cannot be intended by anyone for its own sake; but it can be intended for the sake of avoiding another evil, or obtaining another good, as stated above: and in this case anyone would choose to obtain a good intended for its own sake, without suffering loss of the other good; even as a lustful man would wish to enjoy a pleasure without offending God; but with the two set before him to choose from, he prefers sinning and thereby incurring God's anger, to being deprived of the pleasure.
[I-II.q.78.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod malum non potest esse secundum se intentum ab aliquo; potest tamen esse intentum ad vitandum aliud malum, vel ad consequendum aliud bonum, ut dictum est; et in tali casu aliquis eligeret consequi bonum per se intentum, absque hoc quod pateretur detrimentum alterius boni; sicut aliquis lascivus vellet frui delectatione absque offensa Dei; sed duobus propositis, magis vult peccando incurrere offensam Dei, quam delectatione privari.
[I-II.q.78.a.1.ad.3] The malice through which anyone sins, may be taken to denote habitual malice, in the sense in which the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 1) calls an evil habit by the name of malice, just as a good habit is called virtue: and in this way anyone is said to sin through malice when he sins through the inclination of a habit. It may also denote actual malice, whether by malice we mean the choice itself of evil (and thus anyone is said to sin through malice, in so far as he sins through making a choice of evil), or whether by malice we mean some previous fault that gives rise to a subsequent fault, as when anyone impugns the grace of his brother through envy. Nor does this imply that a thing is its own cause: for the interior act is the cause of the exterior act, and one sin is the cause of another; not indefinitely, however, since we can trace it back to some previous sin, which is not caused by any previous sin, as was explained above (75, 4, ad 3).
[I-II.q.78.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod malitia ex qua aliquis dicitur peccare, potest intelligi malitia habitualis, secundum quod habitus malus a Philosopho, lib. V Ethic., cap. 1, a princ., nominatur « malitia, » sicut habitus bonus nominatur virtus; et secundum hoc aliquis dicitur ex malitia peccare, quia peccat ex inclinatione habitus. Potest etiam intelligi malitia actualis, sive ipsa mali electio malitia nominetur, et sic dicitur aliquis ex malitia peccare, inquantum ex mali electione peccat, sive etiam malitia dicatur aliqua præcedens culpa ex qua oritur subsequens culpa, sicut cum aliquis impugnat fraternam gratiam ex invidia; et tunc idem non est causa sui ipsius; sed actus interior est causa actus exterioris, et unum peccatum est causa alterius; non tamen in infinitum, quia est devenire ad aliquod primum peccatum, quod non causatur ex aliquo priori peccato, ut ex supradictis patet.
Article 2
[I-II.q.78.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that not every one who sins through habit, sins through certain malice. Because sin committed through certain malice, seems to be most grievous. Now it happens sometimes that a man commits a slight sin through habit, as when he utters an idle word. Therefore sin committed from habit is not always committed through certain malice.
[I-II.q.78.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod non omnis qui peccat ex habitu peccet ex certa malitia. Peccatum enim quod est ex certa malitia, videtur esse gravissimum. Sed quandoque homo aliquod leve peccatum committit ex habitu, sicut cum dicit verbum otiosum. Non ergo omne peccatum quod est ex habitu est ex certa malitia.
[I-II.q.78.a.2.arg.2] Further, "Acts proceeding from habits are like the acts by which those habits were formed" (Ethic. ii, 1,2). But the acts which precede a vicious habit are not committed through certain malice. Therefore the sins that arise from habit are not committed through certain malice.
[I-II.q.78.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, « actus ex habitu procedentes sunt similes actibus ex quibus habitus generantur, » ut dicitur in II Ethic., cap. 1 et 11. Sed actus præcedentes habitum vitiosum non sunt ex certa malitia. Ergo etiam peccata quæ sunt ex habitu non sunt ex certa malitia.
[I-II.q.78.a.2.arg.3] Further, when a man commits a sin through certain malice, he is glad after having done it, according to Proverbs 2:14: "Who are glad when they have done evil, and rejoice in most wicked things": and this, because it is pleasant to obtain what we desire, and to do those actions which are connatural to us by reason of habit. But those who sin through habit, are sorrowful after committing a sin: because "bad men," i.e. those who have a vicious habit, "are full of remorse" (Ethic. ix, 4). Therefore sins that arise from habit are not committed through certain malice.
[I-II.q.78.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, in his quæ aliquis ex certa malitia committit, gaudet postquam committit, secundum illud Proverb., 11, 14: Qui lætantur cum male fecerint, et exultant in rebus pessimis; et hoc ideo, quia unicuique est delectabile, cum consequitur id quod intendit, et qui operatur quod est ei quodammodo connaturale secundum habitum. Sed illi qui peccant ex habitu, post peccatum commissum dolent; « pœnitudine » enim « replentur pravi, » id est habentes habitum vitiosum, ut dicitur in IX Ethic., cap. 1v, sub fin. Ergo peccata quæ sunt ex habitu non sunt ex certa malitia.
[I-II.q.78.a.2.sc] A sin committed through certain malice is one that is done through choice of evil. Now we make choice of those things to which we are inclined by habit, as stated in Ethic. vi, 2 with regard to virtuous habits. Therefore a sin that arises from habit is committed through certain malice.
[I-II.q.78.a.2.sc] Sed contra, peccatum ex certa malitia dicitur esse quod est ex electione mali. Sed unicuique est eligibile id ad quod inclinatur per proprium habitum, ut dicitur in VI Ethic., cap. 11, de habitu virtuoso. Ergo peccatum quod est ex habitu, est ex certa malitia.
[I-II.q.78.a.2.co] There is a difference between a sin committed by one who has the habit, and a sin committed by habit: for it is not necessary to use a habit, since it is subject to the will of the person who has that habit. Hence habit is defined as being "something we use when we will," as stated above (Question 50, Article 1). And thus, even as it may happen that one who has a vicious habit may break forth into a virtuous act, because a bad habit does not corrupt reason altogether, something of which remains unimpaired, the result being that a sinner does some works which are generically good; so too it may happen sometimes that one who has a vicious habit, acts, not from that habit, but through the uprising of a passion, or again through ignorance. But whenever he uses the vicious habit he must needs sin through certain malice: because to anyone that has a habit, whatever is befitting to him in respect of that habit, has the aspect of something lovable, since it thereby becomes, in a way, connatural to him, according as custom and habit are a second nature. Now the very thing which befits a man in respect of a vicious habit, is something that excludes a spiritual good: the result being that a man chooses a spiritual evil, that he may obtain possession of what befits him in respect of that habit: and this is to sin through certain malice. Wherefore it is evident that whoever sins through habit, sins through certain malice.
[I-II.q.78.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod non est idem peccare habentem habitum, et peccare ex habitu. Uti enim habitu non est necessarium, sed subjacet voluntati habentis. Unde et habitus definitur esse « quo quis utitur cum voluerit. » Et ideo sicut potest contingere quod aliquis habens habitum vitiosum prorumpat in actum virtutis, eo quod ratio non totaliter corrumpitur per malum habitum, sed aliquid ejus integrum manet, ex quo provenit quod peccator aliqua operatur de genere bonorum; ita etiam potest contingere quod aliquis habens habitum vitiosum interdum non ex habitu operetur, sed ex passione insurgente, vel etiam ex ignorantia. Sed quandocumque utitur habitu vitioso, necesse est quod ex certa malitia peccet: quia unicuique habenti habitum est per se diligibile id quod est ei conveniens secundum proprium habitum; quia sic fit ei quodammodo connaturale, secundum quod consuetudo et habitus vertitur in naturam. Hoc autem quod est alicui conveniens secundum habitum vitiosum, est id quod excludit bonum spirituale: ex quo sequitur quod homo eligat malum spirituale, ut adipiscatur bonum quod est ei secundum habitum conveniens. Et hoc est ex certa malitia peccare. Unde manifestum est quod qui cumque peccat ex habitu, peccet ex certa malitia.
[I-II.q.78.a.2.ad.1] Venial sin does not exclude spiritual good, consisting in the grace of God or charity. Wherefore it is an evil, not simply, but in a relative sense: and for that reason the habit thereof is not a simple but a relative evil.
[I-II.q.78.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod peccata venialia non excludunt bonum spirituale, quod est gratia Dei vel charitas; unde non dicuntur mala simpliciter, sed secundum quid; et propter hoc nec habitus ipsorum possunt dici simpliciter mali, sed solum secundum quid.
[I-II.q.78.a.2.ad.2] Acts proceeding from habits are of like species as the acts from which those habits were formed: but they differ from them as perfect from imperfect. Such is the difference between sin committed through certain malice and sin committed through passion.
[I-II.q.78.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod actus qui procedunt ex habitibus, sunt similes secundum speciem actibus ex quibus habitus generantur; differunt tamen ab eis sicut perfectum ab imperfecto; et talis est differentia peccati quod committitur ex certa malitia ad peccatum quod committitur ex aliqua passione.
[I-II.q.78.a.2.ad.3] He that sins through habit is always glad for what he does through habit, as long as he uses the habit. But since he is able not to use the habit, and to think of something else, by means of his reason, which is not altogether corrupted, it may happen that while not using the habit he is sorry for what he has done through the habit. And so it often happens that such a man is sorry for his sin not because sin in itself is displeasing to him, but on account of his reaping some disadvantage from the sin.
[I-II.q.78.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod ille qui peccat ex habitu, semper gaudet de hoc quod ex habitu operatur quamdiu habitu utitur. Sed quia potest habitu non uti, sed per rationem, quæ non est totaliter corrupta, aliquid aliud meditari, potest contingere quod non utens habitu doleat de hoc quod per habitum commisit. Et sic plerumque tales penitent de peccato, non quia eis peccatum secundum se displiceat, sed propter aliquod incommodum quod ex peccato incurrunt.
Article 4
[I-II.q.78.a.4.arg.1] It would seem that it is not more grievous to sin through certain malice than through passion. Because ignorance excuses from sin either altogether or in part. Now ignorance is greater in one who sins through certain malice, than in one who sins through passion; since he that sins through certain malice suffers from the worst form of ignorance, which according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 8) is ignorance of principle, for he has a false estimation of the end, which is the principle in matters of action. Therefore there is more excuse for one who sins through certain malice, than for one who sins through passion.
[I-II.q.78.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod ille qui peccat ex certa malitia non peccet gravius quam ille qui peccat ex passione. Ignorantia enim excusat peccatum vel in toto vel in parte. Sed major est ignorantia in eo qui peccat ex certa malitia, quam in eo qui peccat ex passione; nam ille qui peccat ex certa malitia, patitur ignorantiam principii, quæ est maxima, ut Philosophus dicit in VII Ethic., cap. viii, a med.; habet enim malam existimationem de fine, qui est principium in operativis. Ergo magis excusatur a peccato qui peccat ex certa malitia, quam ille qui peccat ex passione.
[I-II.q.78.a.4.arg.2] Further, the more a man is impelled to sin, the less grievous his sin, as is clear with regard to a man who is thrown headlong into sin by a more impetuous passion. Now he that sins through certain malice, is impelled by habit, the impulse of which is stronger than that of passion. Therefore to sin through habit is less grievous than to sin through passion.
[I-II.q.78.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, quanto aliquis habet majus impellens ad peccandum, tanto minus peccat, sicut patet de eo qui majori impetu passionis dejicitur in peccatum. Sed ille qui peccat ex certa malitia, impellitur ab habitu, cujus est fortior impulsio quam passionis. Ergo ille qui peccat ex habitu, minus peccat quam ille qui peccat ex passione.
[I-II.q.78.a.4.arg.3] Further, to sin through certain malice is to sin through choosing evil. Now he that sins through passion, also chooses evil. Therefore he does not sin less than the man who sins through certain malice.
[I-II.q.78.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, peccare ex certa malitia est peccare ex electione mali. Sed ille qui peccat ex passione, etiam eligit malum. Ergo non minus peccat quam ille qui peccat ex certa malitia.
[I-II.q.78.a.4.sc] A sin that is committed on purpose, for this very reason deserves heavier punishment, according to Job 34:26: "He hath struck them as being wicked, in open sight, who, as it were, on purpose, have revolted from Him." Now punishment is not increased except for a graver fault. Therefore a sin is aggravated through being done on purpose, i.e. through certain malice.
[I-II.q.78.a.4.sc] Sed contra est, quod peccatum quod ex industria committitur, ex hoc ipso graviorem pœnam meretur, secundum illud Job, xxxiv, 26: Quasi impios percussit eos in loco videntium, qui quasi de industria recesserunt ab eo. Sed pœna non augetur nisi propter gravitatem peccati. Ergo peccatum ex hoc aggravatur quod est ex industria malitia.
[I-II.q.78.a.4.co] A sin committed through malice is more grievous than a sin committed through passion, for three reasons. First, because, as sin consists chiefly in an act of the will, it follows that, other things being equal, a sin is all the more grievous, according as the movement of the sin belongs more to the will. Now when a sin is committed through malice, the movement of sin belongs more to the will, which is then moved to evil of its own accord, than when a sin is committed through passion, when the will is impelled to sin by something extrinsic, as it were. Wherefore a sin is aggravated by the very fact that it is committed through certain malice, and so much the more, as the malice is greater; whereas it is diminished by being committed through passion, and so much the more, as the passion is stronger. Secondly, because the passion which incites the will to sin, soon passes away, so that man repents of his sin, and soon returns to his good intentions; whereas the habit, through which a man sins, is a permanent quality, so that he who sins through malice, abides longer in his sin. For this reason the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 8) compares the intemperate man, who sins through malice, to a sick man who suffers from a chronic disease, while he compares the incontinent man, who sins through passion, to one who suffers intermittently. Thirdly, because he who sins through certain malice is ill-disposed in respect of the end itself, which is the principle in matters of action; and so the defect is more dangerous than in the case of the man who sins through passion, whose purpose tends to a good end, although this purpose is interrupted on account of the passion, for the time being. Now the worst of all defects is defect of principle. Therefore it is evident that a sin committed through malice is more grievous than one committed through passion.
[I-II.q.78.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod peccatum quod est ex certa malitia, est gravius peccato quod est ex passione, triplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia cum peccatum principaliter in voluntate consistat, quanto motus peccati est magis proprius voluntati, tanto peccatum est gravius, cæteris paribus. Cum autem ex certa malitia peccatur, motus peccati est magis proprius voluntati, quæ ex seipsa in malum movetur, quam quando ex passione peccatur, quasi ex quodam extrinseco impulsa ad peccandum. Unde peccatum ex hoc ipso quod est ex malitia, aggravatur, et tanto magis quanto fuerit vehementior malitia; ex eo vero quod est ex passione, diminuitur tanto magis, quanto passio fuerit magis vehemens. Secundo, quia passio quæ inclinat voluntatem ad peccandum, cito transit; et sic homo cito redit ad bonum propositum, pœnitens de peccato: sed habitus, quo homo ex malitia peccat, est qualitas permanens; et ideo qui ex malitia peccat, diuturnius peccat. Unde Philosophus in VII Ethic., cap. ix vel vIII, in princ., comparat intemperatum qui peccat ex malitia, infirmo qui continue laborat; incontinentem autem qui peccat ex passione, ei qui laborat interpolate. Tertio, quia ille qui peccat ex certa malitia est male dispositus quantum ad ipsum finem, qui est principium in operabilibus; et sic ejus defectus est periculosior quam ejus qui ex passione peccat, cujus propositum tendit in bonum finem, licet hoc propositum interrumpatur ad horam propter passionem. Semper autem defectus principii est pessimus. Unde manifestum est quod gravius est peccatum quod est ex malitia, quam quod est ex passione.
[I-II.q.78.a.4.ad.1] Ignorance of choice, to which the objection refers, neither excuses nor diminishes a sin, as stated above (Question 76, Article 4). Therefore neither does a greater ignorance of the kind make a sin to be less grave.
[I-II.q.78.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ignorantia electionis, de qua objectio procedit, neque excusat neque diminuit peccatum, ut supra dictum est. Unde neque major ignorantia talis facit esse minus peccatum.
[I-II.q.78.a.4.ad.2] The impulse due to passion, is, as it were, due to a defect which is outside the will: whereas, by a habit, the will is inclined from within. Hence the comparison fails.
[I-II.q.78.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod impulsio quæ est ex passione, est quasi ex exteriori defectu, respectu voluntatis sed per habitum inclinatur voluntas quasi ab interiori. Unde non est similis ratio.
[I-II.q.78.a.4.ad.3] It is one thing to sin while choosing, and another to sin through choosing. For he that sins through passion, sins while choosing, but not through choosing, because his choosing is not for him the first principle of his sin; for he is induced through the passion, to choose what he would not choose, were it not for the passion. On the other hand, he that sins through certain malice, chooses evil of his own accord, in the way already explained (2,3), so that his choosing, of which he has full control, is the principle of his sin: and for this reason he is said to sin "through" choosing.
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.78.a.4.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod aliud est peccare eligentem, et aliud peccare ex electione. Ille enim qui peccat ex passione, peccat quidem eligens, non tamen ex electione; quia electio non est in eo primum peccati principium; sed inducitur ex passione ad eligendum id quod extra passionem existens non eligeret. Sed ille qui peccat ex certa malitia, secundum se eligit malum, eo modo quo dictum est, et ideo electio in ipso est principium peccati; et propter hoc dicitur ex electione peccare.
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/prima-secundae/q078.json