Prima Secundae · chapter 87 of 114 · ▶ Speed Read

Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Prima Secundae·Q87. The debt of punishment

Source context
Theme
debt of punishment incurred by sin and its persistence through satisfaction or remission
Soul-faculty
Consciousness Soul

Steiner

not engaged in the GA corpus

Cross-tradition

  • Vedantic karma doctrineCross-tradition congruence exists between Aquinas's 'debt of punishment' as the residual consequence of disordered act and the Vedantic concept of karma as accumulated causal debt requiring exhaustion through experience or grace-dissolution.
  • Jewish rabbinic concept of chov (obligation/debt)Cross-tradition congruence appears in the rabbinic category of chov, a moral-legal debt to divine justice requiring either restitution or divine pardon, structurally paralleling Aquinas's poena debita framework.

Q87. The debt of punishment

Article 1

[I-II.q.87.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that the debt of punishment is not an effect of sin. For that which is accidentally related to a thing, does not seem to be its proper effect. Now the debt of punishment is accidentally related to sin, for it is beside the intention of the sinner. Therefore the debt of punishment is not an effect of sin.

[I-II.q.87.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod reatus pœnæ non sit effectus peccati. Quod enim per accidens se habet ad aliquid, non videtur esse proprius effectus ejus. Sed reatus pœnæ per accidens se habet ad peccatum, cum sit praeter intentionem peccantis. Ergo reatus pœnæ non est effectus peccati.

[I-II.q.87.a.1.arg.2] Further, evil is not the cause of good. But punishment is good, since it is just, and is from God. Therefore it is not an effect of sin, which is evil.

[I-II.q.87.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, malum non est causa boni. Sed pœna bona est, cum sit justa, et a Deo. Ergo non est effectus peccati, quod est malum.

[I-II.q.87.a.1.arg.3] Further, Augustine says (Confess. i) that "every inordinate affection is its own punishment." But punishment does not incur a further debt of punishment, because then it would go on indefinitely. Therefore sin does not incur the debt of punishment.

[I-II.q.87.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, Augustinus dicit in I Conf., cap. xii, col. 670, t. 1, quod « omnis inordinatus animus sibi ipsi est pœna. » Sed pœna non causat reatum alterius pœnæ, quia sic iretur in infinitum. Ergo peccatum non causat reatum pœnæ.

[I-II.q.87.a.1.sc] It is written (Romans 2:9): "Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil." But to work evil is to sin. Therefore sin incurs a punishment which is signified by the words "tribulation and anguish."

[I-II.q.87.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom., ii, 9: Tribulatio et angustia in omnem animam operantis malum. Sed operari malum est peccare. Ergo peccatum inducit pœnam quæ nomine tribulationis et angustiæ designatur.

[I-II.q.87.a.1.co] It has passed from natural things to human affairs that whenever one thing rises up against another, it suffers some detriment therefrom. For we observe in natural things that when one contrary supervenes, the other acts with greater energy, for which reason "hot water freezes more rapidly," as stated in Meteor. i, 12. Wherefore we find that the natural inclination of man is to repress those who rise up against him. Now it is evident that all things contained in an order, are, in a manner, one, in relation to the principle of that order. Consequently, whatever rises up against an order, is put down by that order or by the principle thereof. And because sin is an inordinate act, it is evident that whoever sins, commits an offense against an order: wherefore he is put down, in consequence, by that same order, which repression is punishment.

Accordingly, man can be punished with a threefold punishment corresponding to the three orders to which the human will is subject. In the first place a man's nature is subjected to the order of his own reason; secondly, it is subjected to the order of another man who governs him either in spiritual or in temporal matters, as a member either of the state or of the household; thirdly, it is subjected to the universal order of the Divine government. Now each of these orders is disturbed by sin, for the sinner acts against his reason, and against human and Divine law. Wherefore he incurs a threefold punishment; one, inflicted by himself, viz. remorse of conscience; another, inflicted by man; and a third, inflicted by God.

[I-II.q.87.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod ex rebus naturalibus ad res humanas derivatur ut id quod contra aliquid insurgit, ab eo detrimentum patiatur. Videmus enim in rebus naturalibus quod unum contrarium vehementius agit altero contrario superveniente, propter quod « aquæ calefactæ magis congelantur, » ut dicitur in I Meteor., cap. xii, circa fin. Unde in hominibus hoc ex naturali inclinatione inventur, ut unusquisque de primat eum qui contra ipsum insurgit. Manifestum est autem, quod quæcumque continentur sub aliquo ordine, sunt quodammodo unum in ordine ad principium ordinis: unde quidquid contra ordinem aliquem insurgit, consequens est ut ab ipso ordine et a principe ordinis deprimatur. Cum autem peccatum sit actus inordinatus, manifestum est quod quicumque peccat, contra aliquem ordinem agit; et ideo ab ipso ordine consequens est quod deprimatur; quæ quidem depressio pœna est. Unde secundum tres ordines quibus subditur humana voluntas triplici pœna potest homo puniri: primo quidem enim subditur humana natura ordini propriæ rationis; secundo ordini exterioris hominis gubernan- 1 Ita cod.; tis, vel spiritualiter vel temporaliter, politice seu œconomice; tertio subditur universali ordini divini regiminis. Quilibet autem horum ordinum per peccatum pervertitur, dum ille qui peccat, agit et contra rationem, et contra legem humanam, et contra legem divinam. Unde triplicem pœnam incurrit: unam quidem a seipso, quæ est conscientiæ remorsus; aliam vero ab homine; tertiam vero a Deo.

[I-II.q.87.a.1.ad.1] Punishment follows sin, inasmuch as this is an evil by reason of its being inordinate. Wherefore just as evil is accidental to the sinner's act, being beside his intention, so also is the debt of punishment.

[I-II.q.87.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod pœna consequitur peccatum, inquantum malum est ratione suæ inordinationis. Unde sicut malum est per accidens in actu peccantis præter intentionem ipsius, ita et reatus pœna.

[I-II.q.87.a.1.ad.2] Further, a just punishment may be inflicted either by God or by man: wherefore the punishment itself is the effect of sin, not directly but dispositively. Sin, however, makes man deserving of punishment, and that is an evil: for Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "punishment is not an evil, but to deserve punishment is." Consequently the debt of punishment is considered to be directly the effect of sin.

[I-II.q.87.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod pœna qui dem justa esse potest et a Deo, et ab homine inflicta; unde ipsa pœna non est effectus peccati directe, sed solum dispositive. Sed peccatum facit hominem esse reum pœna, quod est malum; dicit enim Dionysius iv cap. De divin. nomin., § 22, col. 723, t. 1, quod « puniri non est malum, sed fieri pœna dignum. » Unde reatus pœna directe poni-tur effectus peccati.

[I-II.q.87.a.1.ad.3] This punishment of the "inordinate affection" is due to sin as overturning the order of reason. Nevertheless sin incurs a further punishment, through disturbing the order of the Divine or human law.

[I-II.q.87.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod pœna illa inordinati animi debetur peccato ex hoc quod ordinem rationis pervertit. Fit autem reus alterius pœna per hoc quod pervertit ordinem legis divinæ vel humanæ.

Article 3

[I-II.q.87.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that no sin incurs a debt of eternal punishment. For a just punishment is equal to the fault, since justice is equality: wherefore it is written (Isaiah 27:8): "In measure against measure, when it shall be cast off, thou shalt judge it." Now sin is temporal. Therefore it does not incur a debt of eternal punishment.

[I-II.q.87.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod nullum peccatum inducat reatum æternæ pœnæ. Pœna enim justa adæquatur culpæ, justitia enim æqualitas est; unde dicitur Isa., xxvii, 8: In mensura contra mensuram, cum abjecta fuerit, judicabis eam. Sed peccatum est temporale. Ergo non inducit reatum pœnæ æternæ.

[I-II.q.87.a.3.arg.2] Further, "punishments are a kind of medicine" (Ethic. ii, 3). But no medicine should be infinite, because it is directed to an end, and "what is directed to an end, is not infinite," as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 6). Therefore no punishment should be infinite.

[I-II.q.87.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, pœnæ medicinæ quædam sunt, ut dicitur in II Ethic., cap. iii, ante med. Sed nulla medicina debet esse infinita, quia ordinatur ad finem; quod autem ordinatur ad finem non est infinitum, ut Philosophus dicit in I Polit., cap. vi, circa med. Ergo nulla pœnæ debet esse infinita.

[I-II.q.87.a.3.arg.3] Further, no one does a thing always unless he delights in it for its own sake. But "God hath not pleasure in the destruction of men" [Vulgate: 'of the living']. Therefore He will not inflict eternal punishment on man.

[I-II.q.87.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, nullus semper facit aliquid, nisi propter se in ipso delectetur. Sed Deus... non delectatur* in perditione hominum, ut dicitur Sap., i, 13. Ergo non puniet homines pœnæ sempiterna.

[I-II.q.87.a.3.arg.4] Further, nothing accidental is infinite. But punishment is accidental, for it is not natural to the one who is punished. Therefore it cannot be of infinite duration.

[I-II.q.87.a.3.arg.4] 4. Præterea, nihil quod est per accidens, est infinitum. Sed pœnæ est per accidens; non est enim secundum naturam ejus qui punitur. Ergo non potest in infinitum durare.

[I-II.q.87.a.3.sc] It is written (Matthew 25:46): "These shall go into everlasting punishment"; and (Mark 3:29): "He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin."

[I-II.q.87.a.3.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth., xxv, 46: Ibunt hi in supplicium æternum; et Marc., iii, 29, dicitur: Qui autem blasphemaverit in Spiritum sanctum, non habebit remissionem in æternum, sed erit reus* æterni delicti.

[I-II.q.87.a.3.co] As stated above (Article 1), sin incurs a debt of punishment through disturbing an order. But the effect remains so long as the cause remains. Wherefore so long as the disturbance of the order remains the debt of punishment must needs remain also. Now disturbance of an order is sometimes reparable, sometimes irreparable: because a defect which destroys the principle is irreparable, whereas if the principle be saved, defects can be repaired by virtue of that principle. For instance, if the principle of sight be destroyed, sight cannot be restored except by Divine power; whereas, if the principle of sight be preserved, while there arise certain impediments to the use of sight, these can be remedied by nature or by art. Now in every order there is a principle whereby one takes part in that order. Consequently if a sin destroys the principle of the order whereby man's will is subject to God, the disorder will be such as to be considered in itself, irreparable, although it is possible to repair it by the power of God. Now the principle of this order is the last end, to which man adheres by charity. Therefore whatever sins turn man away from God, so as to destroy charity, considered in themselves, incur a debt of eternal punishment.

[I-II.q.87.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut supra dictum est, peccatum ex hoc inducit reatum pœnæ, quod pervertit aliquem ordinem. Manente autem causa, manet effectus: unde quamdiu perversitas ordinis remanet, necesse est quod remaneat reatus pœnæ. SUMMA THEOLOGICA. Perverit autem aliquis ordinem quandoque quidem reparabiliter, quandoque autem irreparabiliter. Semper enim defectus, quo subtrahitur principium, irreparabilis est; si autem salvetur principium, ejus virtute defectus reparari possunt; sicut si corrum-patur principium visivum, non potest fieri visionis reparatio nisi sola virtute divina; si vero, salvo principio visivo, aliqua impedimenta adveniant visionis, reparari possunt per naturam vel per artem. Cujuslibet autem ordinis est aliquod principium, per quod aliquis fit particeps illius ordinis. Et ideo si per peccatum corrumpatur principium ordinis quo voluntas hominis subditur Deo, erit inordinatio, quantum est de se, irreparabilis, etsi reparari possit virtute divina. Principium autem hujus ordinis est ultimus finis, cui homo inhæret per charitatem. Et ideo quæcumque peccata avertunt a Deo, charitatem auferentia, quantum est de se, inducunt reatum æternæ pœnæ.

[I-II.q.87.a.3.ad.1] Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. In no judgment, however, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 11) is it requisite for punishment to equal fault in point of duration. For the fact that adultery or murder is committed in a moment does not call for a momentary punishment: in fact they are punished sometimes by imprisonment or banishment for life--sometimes even by death; wherein account is not taken of the time occupied in killing, but rather of the expediency of removing the murderer from the fellowship of the living, so that this punishment, in its own way, represents the eternity of punishment inflicted by God. Now according to Gregory (Dial. iv, 44) it is just that he who has sinned against God in his own eternity should be punished in God's eternity. A man is said to have sinned in his own eternity, not only as regards continual sinning throughout his whole life, but also because, from the very fact that he fixes his end in sin, he has the will to sin, everlastingly. Wherefore Gregory says (Dial. iv, 44) that the "wicked would wish to live without end, that they might abide in their sins for ever."

[I-II.q.87.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod pœna peccato proportionatur secundum acerbitatem tam in judicio divino quam in humano. Sed, sicut Augustinus dicit, XXI De civit. Dei, cap. xi, col. 725, t. 7, in nullo judicio requiritur ut pœna adæquetur culpæ secundum durationem. Non enim quia adulterium vel homicidium in momento committitur, propter hoc momentanea pœna punitur, sed quandoque quidem perpetuo carcere vel exilio, quando etiam morte; in qua non consideratur occisionis mora, sed potius quod in perpetuum auferatur a societate viventium: et sic repræsentat suo modo æternitatem pœnæ inflictæ divinitus. Justum tamen est secundum Gregorium, quod « qui in suo æternno peccavit contra Deum, in æternno Dei puniatur. » Dicitur autem aliquis « in suo æternno » peccasse, non solum secundum continuationem actus in tota hominis vita durantis; sed quia ex hoc ipso quod finem in peccato constituit, voluntatem habet in æternum peccandi. Unde dicit Gregorius, XXXIV Moralium, cap. xix, § 36, col. 738, t. 2, quod « iniqui voluissent sine fine vivere, ut sine fine potuissent in iniquitatibus permanere. »

[I-II.q.87.a.3.ad.2] Even the punishment that is inflicted according to human laws, is not always intended as a medicine for the one who is punished, but sometimes only for others: thus when a thief is hanged, this is not for his own amendment, but for the sake of others, that at least they may be deterred from crime through fear of the punishment, according to Proverbs 19:25: "The wicked man being scourged, the fool shall be wiser." Accordingly the eternal punishments inflicted by God on the reprobate, are medicinal punishments for those who refrain from sin through the thought of those punishments, according to Psalm 59:6: "Thou hast given a warning to them that fear Thee, that they may flee from before the bow, that Thy beloved may be delivered."

[I-II.q.87.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod pœna quæ etiam secundum leges humanas infligitur, non semper est medicinalis ei qui punitur, sed solum aliis; sicut cum latro suspenditur, non ut ipse emendetur, sed propter alios, ut saltem metu pœnæ peccare desistant, secun-dum illud Prov., xix, 25: Pestilente flagellato, stultus sapientior erit. Sic igitur et æternæ pœnæ reproborum a Deo inflictæ, sunt medicinales his qui consideratione pœnarum abstinent a peccatis, secundum illud psal. Lix, 6: Dedisti metuentibus te significationem, ut fugiant a facie arcus, ut liberentur dilecti tui.

[I-II.q.87.a.3.ad.3] God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them.

[I-II.q.87.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod Deus non delectatur in pœnis propter ipsas, sed delectatur in ordine suæ justitiæ, quæ hoc requirit.

[I-II.q.87.a.3.ad.4] Although punishment is related indirectly to nature, nevertheless it is essentially related to the disturbance of the order, and to God's justice. Wherefore, so long as the disturbance lasts, the punishment endures.

[I-II.q.87.a.3.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod pœna, etsi per accidens ordinetur ad naturam, per se tamen ordinator ad privationem ordinis, et ad Dei justitiam; et ideo, durante inordinatione, semper durat pœna.

Article 4

[I-II.q.87.a.4.arg.1] It would seem that sin incurs a debt of punishment infinite in quantity. For it is written (Jeremiah 10:24): "Correct me, O Lord, but yet with judgment: and not in Thy fury, lest Thou bring me to nothing." Now God's anger or fury signifies metaphorically the vengeance of Divine justice: and to be brought to nothing is an infinite punishment, even as to make a thing out of nothing denotes infinite power. Therefore according to God's vengeance, sin is awarded a punishment infinite in quantity.

[I-II.q.87.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod peccato debeatur pœna infinita secundum quantitatem. Dicitur enim Jerem., x, 24: Corripe me, Domine, verumtamen in judicio, et non in furore tuo, ne forte ad nihilum redigas me. Ira autem Dei vel furor metaphorice significat vindictam divinæ justitiæ; redigi autem in nihilum est pœna infinita; sicut et ex nihilo aliquid facere est virtutis infinitæ. Ergo secundum vindictam divinam peccatum punitur pœna infinita secundum quantitatem.

[I-II.q.87.a.4.arg.2] Further, quantity of punishment corresponds to quantity of fault, according to Deuteronomy 25:2: "According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be." Now a sin which is committed against God, is infinite: because the gravity of a sin increases according to the greatness of the person sinned against (thus it is a more grievous sin to strike the sovereign than a private individual), and God's greatness is infinite. Therefore an infinite punishment is due for a sin committed against God.

[I-II.q.87.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, quantitati culpæ respondet quantitas pœnæ, secundum illud Deut., xxv, 2: Pro mensura peccati erit et plagarum modus. Sed peccatum quod contra Deum committitur, est infinitum; tanto enim gravius est peccatum, quanto major est persona contra quam peccatur; sicut gravius peccatum est percutere principem, quam percutere hominem privatum. Dei autem magnitudo est infinita. Ergo pœna infinita debetur pro peccato quod contra Deum committitur.

[I-II.q.87.a.4.arg.3] Further, a thing may be infinite in two ways, in duration, and in quantity. Now the punishment is infinite in duration. Therefore it is infinite in quantity also.

[I-II.q.87.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, dupliciter est aliquid infinitum, duratione scilicet, et quantitate. Sed duratione est pœna infinita. Ergo et quantitate.

[I-II.q.87.a.4.sc] If this were the case, the punishments of all mortal sins would be equal; because one infinite is not greater than another.

[I-II.q.87.a.4.sc] Sed contra est, quod secundum hoc omnium peccatorum mortalium pœnæ essent aequales; non enim est infinitum infinito majus.

[I-II.q.87.a.4.co] Punishment is proportionate to sin. Now sin comprises two things. First, there is the turning away from the immutable good, which is infinite, wherefore, in this respect, sin is infinite. Secondly, there is the inordinate turning to mutable good. In this respect sin is finite, both because the mutable good itself is finite, and because the movement of turning towards it is finite, since the acts of a creature cannot be infinite. Accordingly, in so far as sin consists in turning away from something, its corresponding punishment is the "pain of loss," which also is infinite, because it is the loss of the infinite good, i.e. God. But in so far as sin turns inordinately to something, its corresponding punishment is the "pain of sense," which is also finite.

[I-II.q.87.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod pœna proportionatur peccato. In peccato autem duo sunt: quorum unum est aversio ab incommutabili bono quod est infinitum, unde ex hac parte peccatum est infinitum; aliud quod est in peccato, est inordinata conversio ad commutabile bonum; et ex hac parte peccatum est finitum, tum quia ipsum bonum commutabile est finitum, tum etiam quia ipsa conversio est finita; non enim possunt esse actus creaturæ infiniti. Ex parte igitur aversionis respondet peccato pœna damni, quæ etiam est infinita; est enim amissio infiniti boni, scilicet Dei. Ex parte autem inordinatæ conversionis respondet ei pœna sensus, quæ etiam est finita.

[I-II.q.87.a.4.ad.1] It would be inconsistent with Divine justice for the sinner to be brought to nothing absolutely, because this would be incompatible with the perpetuity of punishment that Divine justice requires, as stated above (Article 3). The expression "to be brought to nothing" is applied to one who is deprived of spiritual goods, according to 1 Corinthians 13:2: "If I . . . have not charity, I am nothing."

[I-II.q.87.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod omnino redigi in nihilum eum qui peccat, non convenit divinæ justitiæ, quia repugnat perpetuitati pœnæ, quæ est secundum divinam justitiam, ut dictum est. Sed in nihilum redigi dicitur, qui spiritualibus bonis privatur, secundum illud I Cor., xiii, 2: Si charitatem non habuero, nihil sum.

[I-II.q.87.a.4.ad.2] This argument considers sin as turning away from something, for it is thus that man sins against God.

[I-II.q.87.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod ratio illa procedit de peccato ex parte aversionis; sic enim homo contra Deum peccat.

[I-II.q.87.a.4.ad.3] Duration of punishment corresponds to duration of fault, not indeed as regards the act, but on the part of the stain, for as long as this remains, the debt of punishment remains. But punishment corresponds to fault in the point of severity. And a fault which is irreparable, is such that, of itself, it lasts for ever; wherefore it incurs an everlasting punishment. But it is not infinite as regards the thing it turns to; wherefore, in this respect, it does not incur punishment of infinite quantity.

[I-II.q.87.a.4.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod duratio pœnæ respondet durationi culpæ, non quidem ex parte actus, sed ex parte maculæ, qua durante manet reatus pœnæ; sed acerbitas pœnæ respondet gravitati culpæ. Culpa autem quæ est irreparabilis, de se habet quod perpetuo duret; et ideo debetur ei pœna aeterna. Non autem ex parte conversionis habet infinitatem; et ideo non debetur ei ex hac parte pœna infinita secundum quantitatem.

Article 6

[I-II.q.87.a.6.arg.1] It would seem that there remains no debt of punishment after sin. For if the cause be removed the effect is removed. But sin is the cause of the debt of punishment. Therefore, when the sin is removed, the debt of punishment ceases also.

[I-II.q.87.a.6.arg.1] Ad sextum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod reatus pœnæ non remaneat post peccatum. Remota enim causa, removetur effectus. Sed peccatum est causa reatus pœnæ. Ergo, remoto peccato, cessat reatus pœnæ.

[I-II.q.87.a.6.arg.2] Further, sin is removed by man returning to virtue. Now a virtuous man deserves, not punishment, but reward. Therefore, when sin is removed, the debt of punishment no longer remains.

[I-II.q.87.a.6.arg.2] 2. Præterea, peccatum removetur per hoc quod homo ad virtutem redit. Sed virtuoso non debetur pœna, sed magis præmium. Ergo, remoto peccato, non remanet reatus pœnæ.

[I-II.q.87.a.6.arg.3] Further, "Punishments are a kind of medicine" (Ethic. ii, 3). But a man is not given medicine after being cured of his disease. Therefore, when sin is removed the debt of punishment does not remain.

[I-II.q.87.a.6.arg.3] 3. Præterea, « pœnæ sunt medicinæ, » ut dicitur in II Ethic., cap. 11, a princ. Sed postquam aliquis jam est ab infirmitate curatus, non adhibetur ipsi medicina. Ergo, remoto peccato, non remanet debitum pœnæ.

[I-II.q.87.a.6.sc] It is written (2 Samuel 12:13-14): "David said to Nathan: I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David: The Lord also hath taken away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Nevertheless because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme . . . the child that is born to thee shall die." Therefore a man is punished by God even after his sin is forgiven: and so the debt of punishment remains, when the sin has been removed.

[I-II.q.87.a.6.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur II Regum, xii, 13, quod David dixit ad Nathan: Pecavi Domino. Dixitque Nathan ad David: Dominus quoque transtulit peccatum tuum, non morieris. Verumtamen*, quia blasphe-mare fecisti inimicos nomen Domini, filius tino, hoc de solis hominibus damnatis tenuerunt. Alii tandem de solis christianis qui per vitæ suæ mortalis decursum operibus misericordiæ generose vacarunt. qui natus est tibi, morte morietur. Punitur ergo aliquis a Deo etiam postquam ei peccatum dimittitur; et sic reatus pœnæ remanet, peccato remoto.

[I-II.q.87.a.6.co] Two things may be considered in sin: the guilty act, and the consequent stain. Now it is evident that in all actual sins, when the act of sin has ceased, the guilt remains; because the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice; so that, according to the order of Divine justice, he who has been too indulgent to his will, by transgressing God's commandments, suffers, either willingly or unwillingly, something contrary to what he would wish. This restoration of the equality of justice by penal compensation is also to be observed in injuries done to one's fellow men. Consequently it is evident that when the sinful or injurious act has ceased there still remains the debt of punishment.

But if we speak of the removal of sin as to the stain, it is evident that the stain of sin cannot be removed from the soul, without the soul being united to God, since it was through being separated from Him that it suffered the loss of its brightness, in which the stain consists, as stated above (Question 86, Article 1). Now man is united to God by his will. Wherefore the stain of sin cannot be removed from man, unless his will accept the order of Divine justice, that is to say, unless either of his own accord he take upon himself the punishment of his past sin, or bear patiently the punishment which God inflicts on him; and in both ways punishment avails for satisfaction. Now when punishment is satisfactory, it loses somewhat of the nature of punishment: for the nature of punishment is to be against the will; and although satisfactory punishment, absolutely speaking, is against the will, nevertheless in this particular case and for this particular purpose, it is voluntary. Consequently it is voluntary simply, but involuntary in a certain respect, as we have explained when speaking of the voluntary and the involuntary (6, 6). We must, therefore, say that, when the stain of sin has been removed, there may remain a debt of punishment, not indeed of punishment simply, but of satisfactory punishment.

[I-II.q.87.a.6.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod in peccato duo possunt considerari, scilicet actus culpæ, et macula sequens. Planum est autem, quod, cessante actu peccati, remanet reatus in omnibus peccatis actualibus. Actus enim peccati facit hominem reum pœnæ, inquantum transgreditur ordinem divinæ justitiæ, ad quem non redit nisi per quamdam recompensationem pœnæ, quæ ad æqualitatem justitiæ reducit, ut scilicet qui plus voluntati suæ indulsit quam debuit, contra mandatum Dei agens, secundum ordinem divinæ justitiæ aliquid contra illud quod vellet, spontaneus vel invitus patiatur. Quod etiam in injuriis hominibus factis observatur, ut per recompensationem pœnæ reintegretur æqualitas justitiæ. Unde patet quod, cessante actu peccati vel injuriæ illatæ, adhuc remanet debitum pœnæ. Sed si loquamur de ablatione peccati quantum ad maculam, sic manifestum est quod macula peccati ab anima auferri non potest, nisi per hoc quod anima Deo conjungitur; per cujus distantiam detrimentum proprii nitoris incurrebat, quod est macula, ut supra dictum est. Conjungitur autem Deo homo per voluntatem. Unde macula peccati ab homine tolli non potest, nisi voluntas hominis ordinem divinæ justitiæ acceptet, ut scilicet vel ipse sibi pœnam spontaneus assumat in recompensationem culpæ præteritæ, vel etiam a Deo illatam patienter sustineat; utroque enim modo pœnæ rationem satisfactionis habet. Pœnaut satisfactoria, diminuit aliquid de ratione pœnæ. Est enim de ratione pœnæ quod sit contra voluntatem. Pœnaut satisfactoria, etsi secundum absolutam considerationem sit contra voluntatem, non tamen ut nunc; et per hoc est voluntaria; unde simpliciter est voluntaria, secundum quid autem involuntaria, sicut patet ex his quæ supra de voluntario et involuntario dicta sunt. Dicendum est ergo, quod remota macula culpæ, potest quidem remanere reatus, non pœnæ simpliciter, sed satisfactoria. Lutherani et Calvinistæ indulgentias et satisfactiones tollunt, dogmatizantque semper cum culpa totam remitti pœnam.

[I-II.q.87.a.6.ad.1] Just as after the act of sin has ceased, the stain remains, as stated above (Question 86, Article 2), so the debt of punishment also can remain. But when the stain has been removed, the debt of punishment does not remain in the same way, as stated.

[I-II.q.87.a.6.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod, sicut, cessante actu peccati, remanet macula, ut supra dictum est, ita etiam potest remanere reatus; cessante vero macula, non remanet reatus secundum eamdem rationem, ut dictum est.

[I-II.q.87.a.6.ad.2] The virtuous man does not deserve punishment simply, but he may deserve it as satisfactory: because his very virtue demands that he should do satisfaction for his offenses against God or man.

[I-II.q.87.a.6.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod virtuoso non debetur pœna simpliciter; potest tamen ei deberi pœna ut satisfactoria; quia hoc ipsum ad virtutem pertinet ut satisfaciat pro his in quibus offendit vel Deum vel hominem.

[I-II.q.87.a.6.ad.3] When the stain is removed, the wound of sin is healed as regards the will. But punishment is still requisite in order that the other powers of the soul be healed, since they were so disordered by the sin committed, so that, to wit, the disorder may be remedied by the contrary of that which caused it. Moreover punishment is requisite in order to restore the equality of justice, and to remove the scandal given to others, so that those who were scandalized at the sin many be edified by the punishment, as may be seen in the example of David quoted above.

[I-II.q.87.a.6.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod, remota macula, sanatum est vulnus peccati quantum ad voluntatem. Requiritur autem adhuc pœna ad sanationem aliarum virium animæ, quæ per peccatum præcedens deordinatæ fuerunt, ut scilicet per contraria curentur. Requiritur etiam ad restituendum æqualitatem justitiae, et ad amovendum scandalum aliorum, ut ædificentur in pœna qui sunt scandalizati in culpa, ut patet ex exemplo de David inducto.

Article 8

[I-II.q.87.a.8.arg.1] It would seem that one may be punished for another's sin. For it is written (Exodus 20:5): "I am . . . God . . . jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me"; and (Matthew 23:35): "That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth."

[I-II.q.87.a.8.arg.1] Ad octavum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod aliquis puniatur pro peccato alterius. Dicitur enim Exodi, xx, 5: Ego sum Deus zelotes, visitans iniquitatem patrum in filios in tertiam et quartam generationem his* qui oderunt me; et Matth., xxIII, 35, dicitur: Ut veniat super vos omnis sanguis justus qui effusus est super terram.

[I-II.q.87.a.8.arg.2] Further, human justice springs from Divine justice. Now, according to human justice, children are sometimes punished for their parents, as in the case of high treason. Therefore also according to Divine justice, one is punished for another's sin.

[I-II.q.87.a.8.arg.2] 2. Præterea, justitia humana derivatur a justitia divina. Sed secundum justitiam humanam aliquando filii puniuntur pro parentibus, sicut patet in crimine læsæ majestatis. Ergo etiam secundum divinam justitiam unus punitur pro peccato alterius.

[I-II.q.87.a.8.arg.3] Further, if it be replied that the son is punished, not for the father's sin, but for his own, inasmuch as he imitates his father's wickedness; this would not be said of the children rather than of outsiders, who are punished in like manner as those whose crimes they imitate. It seems, therefore, that children are punished, not for their own sins, but for those of their parents.

[I-II.q.87.a.8.arg.3] 3. Præterea, si dicatur filius non puniri pro peccato patris, sed pro peccato proprio, inquantum imitatur malitiam paternam, non magis hoc dicetur de filiis quam de extraneis, qui simili pœna puniuntur in his quorum peccata imitantur. Non ergo videtur quod filii pro peccatis propriis puniuntur, sed pro peccatis parentum.

[I-II.q.87.a.8.sc] It is written (Ezekiel 18:20): "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father."

[I-II.q.87.a.8.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Ezech., xvIII, 20: Filius non portabit iniquitatem patris.

[I-II.q.87.a.8.co] If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another's punishment, in so far as they are, in some way, one, as stated above (Article 7). If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sin only, because the sinful act is something personal. But if we speak of a punishment that is medicinal, in this way it does happen that one is punished for another's sin. For it has been stated (7) that ills sustained in bodily goods or even in the body itself, are medicinal punishments intended for the health of the soul. Wherefore there is no reason why one should not have such like punishments inflicted on one for another's sin, either by God or by man; e.g. on children for their parents, or on servants for their masters, inasmuch as they are their property so to speak; in such a way, however, that, if the children or the servants take part in the sin, this penal ill has the character of punishment in regard to both the one punished and the one he is punished for. But if they do not take part in the sin, it has the character of punishment in regard to the one for whom the punishment is borne, while, in regard to the one who is punished, it is merely medicinal (except accidentally, if he consent to the other's sin), since it is intended for the good of his soul, if he bears it patiently.

With regard to spiritual punishments, these are not merely medicinal, because the good of the soul is not directed to a yet higher good. Consequently no one suffers loss in the goods of the soul without some fault of his own. Wherefore Augustine says (Ep. ad Avit.) [Ep. ad Auxilium, ccl.], such like punishments are not inflicted on one for another's sin, because, as regards the soul, the son is not the father's property. Hence the Lord assigns the reason for this by saying (Ezekiel 18:4): "All souls are Mine."

[I-II.q.87.a.8.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod si loquamur de pœna satisfactoria, quæ voluntarie assumitur, contingit quod unus portet pœnam alterius, inquantum sunt quodammodo unum, sicut jam dictum est. Si autem loquamur de pœna pro peccato inflicta, inquantum habet rationem pœnæ, sic solum unusquisque pro peccato suo punitur, quia actus peccati aliquid per se pœnale est. Si autem loquamur de pœna quæ habet rationem medicinæ, sic contingit quod unus punitur pro peccato alterius. Dictum est enim, quod detrimenta corporalium rerum, vel etiam ipsius corporis, sunt quædam pœnales medicinæ ordinatæ ad salutem animæ. Unde nihil prohibet talibus pœnis aliquem puniri pro peccato alterius, vel a Deo vel ab homine, utpote filios pro patribus, et subditos pro dominis; inquantum sunt quædam Divinæ justitiae magis congruere, ut numquam patiatur proborum virorum virile robur rerum materialium largitionibus enervari atque emolliri. » Cord. Ita codd. omnes; in edit.: « personale, » sed melius « per se pœnale, » conformiter ad doctrinam communem, quod peccanti omne peccatum pœna existit, quia privat in homine maximum bonum, ut recte doctor subtilis dicit. res eorum; ita tamen quod si filius vel subditus est particeps culpæ, hujusmodi pœnælis defectus habet rationem pœnæ quantum ad utrumque, scilicet et eum qui punitur, et eum pro quo punitur: si vero non sit particeps culpæ, habet rationem pœnæ quantum ad eum pro quo punitur; quantum vero ad eum qui punitur, rationem medicinæ tantum; nisi per accidens, inquantum peccato alterius consentit: ordinatur enim ei ad bonum animæ, si patienter sustineat. Pœnæ vero spirituales non sint medicinales, quia bonum animæ non ordinatur ad aliud melius bonum. Unde in bonis animæ nullus patitur detrimentum sine culpa propria. Et propter hoc etiam talibus pœnis, ut dicit Augustinus in Epist. ccl ad Auxilium, col. 1066, t. 2, unus non punitur pro alio; quia quantum ad animam filius non est res patris. Unde et hujus causam Dominus assignans dicit, Ezech., xviii, 4: Omnes animæ meæ sunt.

[I-II.q.87.a.8.ad.1] Both the passages quoted should, seemingly, be referred to temporal or bodily punishments, in so far as children are the property of their parents, and posterity, of their forefathers. Else, if they be referred to spiritual punishments, they must be understood in reference to the imitation of sin, wherefore in Exodus these words are added, "Of them that hate Me," and in the chapter quoted from Matthew (verse 32) we read: "Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers." The sins of the fathers are said to be punished in their children, because the latter are the more prone to sin through being brought up amid their parents' crimes, both by becoming accustomed to them, and by imitating their parents' example, conforming to their authority as it were. Moreover they deserve heavier punishment if, seeing the punishment of their parents, they fail to mend their ways. The text adds, "to the third and fourth generation," because men are wont to live long enough to see the third and fourth generation, so that both the children can witness their parents' sins so as to imitate them, and the parents can see their children's punishments so as to grieve for them.

[I-II.q.87.a.8.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod utrumque dictum videtur esse referendum ad pœnas temporales vel corporales, inquantum filii sunt quædam res parentum, et successores prædecessorum. Vel si referatur ad pœnas spirituales, hoc dicitur propter imitationem culpæ; unde in Exod. additur: Eorum qui oderunt me, et in Matth., xxiii, 32, dicitur: Et vos implete mensuram patrum vestrorum. Dicit autem puniri peccata patrum in filiiis, quia filii in peccatis parentum nutriti proniores sunt ad peccandum tum propter consuetudinem, tum etiam propter exemplum patrum, quasi auctoritatem eorum sequentes; sunt etiam majori pœna digni, si pœnas patrum videntes correcti non sunt. Ideo autem addit: In tertiam et quartam generationem, quia tantum consueverunt homines vivere, ut tertiam, et quartam generationem videant; et sic mutuo videre possunt et filii peccata parentum ad imitandum, et patres pœnas filiorum ad dolendum.

[I-II.q.87.a.8.ad.2] The punishments which human justice inflicts on one for another's sin are bodily and temporal. They are also remedies or medicines against future sins, in order that either they who are punished, or others may be restrained from similar faults.

[I-II.q.87.a.8.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod pœnæ illæ sunt corporales et temporales, quas justitia humana uni pro peccato alterius infligit; et sunt remedia quædam vel medicinæ contra culpas sequentes, ut vel ipsi qui puniun- Attende sequentibus propositionibus damna-tis: « Omnes omnino justorum afflictiones sunt ul-tiones peccatorum ipsorum » (Baii 72a). « Nunquam Deus affligit innocentes, et afflictiones semper serviunt vel ad puniendum peccatum, vel ad purifi- II. tur vel alii, cohibeantur a similibus culpis.

[I-II.q.87.a.8.ad.3] Those who are near of kin are said to be punished, rather than outsiders, for the sins of others, both because the punishment of kindred redounds somewhat upon those who sinned, as stated above, in so far as the child is the father's property, and because the examples and the punishments that occur in one's own household are more moving. Consequently when a man is brought up amid the sins of his parents, he is more eager to imitate them, and if he is not deterred by their punishments, he would seem to be the more obstinate, and, therefore, to deserve more severe punishment.

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.87.a.8.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod magis dicuntur puniri pro peccatis aliorum propinqui quam extranei; tum quia pœnæ propinquorum quodammodo redundant in illos qui peccaverunt, ut dictum est, inquantum filius est quædam res patris; tum etiam quia et domestica exempla, et domesticæ pœnæ magis movent. Unde quando aliquis nutritus est in peccatis parentum, vehementius ea sequitur; et si ex eorum pœnis non est deterritus, obstinator videtur; unde et est majori pœna dignus.

JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/prima-secundae/q087.json

Space: play/pause · ←→: skip · ↑↓: speed · Esc: close
250 wpm