Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Secunda Secundae·Q75. Derision
Source context
- Theme
- derision as moral vice opposed to the honour owed to persons
- Soul-faculty
- Intellectual Soul
Steiner
- GA 97, 1906-11-30At the third stage of initiation the pupil must cultivate the capacity to bear scorn and derision directed at what is most sacred, receiving this as a trial of inner equanimity rather than as a wound.
- GA 94, 1906-11-04Steiner identifies endurance of scorn and derision as a specific initiatory ordeal whose outer symptom is prolonged headache and whose inner correlate is assault upon the astral body.
- GA 111, 1907-10-04Steiner associates the crowning with thorns with the trial in which the emotional life must be strong enough to endure silent treatment of sacred things with scorn and derision.
- GA 68a, 1906-11-27Steiner paraphrases the esoteric teacher's instruction that the pupil must cultivate a feeling capable of enduring that what he holds highest is treated with scorn and derision, so that such derision becomes formative rather than destructive.
- GA 165, 1916-01-02Steiner observes that those who refuse understanding spread scorn and derision upon spiritual-scientific knowledge, identifying this as a culturally significant obstacle to contemporary spiritual development.
Cross-tradition
- Aristotelian ethics (NE IV.3)Aristotle treats contemptuous treatment of another as a sub-species of injustice related to dishonour; Aquinas inherits and formalises this in locating derision as a sin against the respect owed to a neighbour's dignity, showing cross-tradition congruence in the moral-ontological grounding of the prohibition.
- Stoic apatheia traditionStoic teaching that the sage must remain unmoved by mockery provides a cross-tradition congruence with both Aquinas's account of the harm derision inflicts and Steiner's initiatory demand that the pupil learn to bear it without disturbance.
Q75. Derision
Article 1
[II-II.q.75.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that derision is not a special sin distinct from those mentioned above. For laughing to scorn is apparently the same as derision. But laughing to scorn pertains to reviling. Therefore derision would seem not to differ from reviling.
[II-II.q.75.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod derisio non sit speciale peccatum ab aliis præmissis distinctum. Subsannatio enim videtur idem esse quod derisio. Sed subsannatio ad contumeliam videtur pertinere. Ergo derisio non videtur distingui a contumelia.
[II-II.q.75.a.1.arg.2] Further, no man is derided except for something reprehensible which puts him to shame. Now such are sins; and if they be imputed to a person publicly, it is a case of reviling, if privately, it amounts to backbiting or tale-bearing. Therefore derision is not distinct from the foregoing vices.
[II-II.q.75.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Dominus dicit, Matth., ult., 20: Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem sæculi: quod exponens Augustinus Tract. xxx in Joan., §1, col. 1632, t. 3, dicit: Donec sæculum finiatur, sussum est Dominus; sed tamen et hic nobiscum est veritas Dominus; corpus enim, in quo resurrexit, in uno loco oportet esse; veritas autem ejus ubique diffusa est. » Non ergo secundum veritatem est corpus Christi in hoc sacramento, sed solum sicut in signo.
[II-II.q.75.a.1.arg.3] Further, sins of this kind are distinguished by the injury they inflict on one's neighbor. Now the injury inflicted on a man by derision affects either his honor, or his good name, or is detrimental to his friendship. Therefore derision is not a sin distinct from the foregoing.
[II-II.q.75.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, nullum corpus potest esse simul in pluribus locis, cum nec angelo hoc conveniat; eadem enim ratione posset esse ubique. Sed corpus Christi est verum corpus, et est in cælo. Ergo videtur quod non sit secundum veritatem in sacramento altaris, sed solum sicut in signo.
[II-II.q.75.a.1.sc] Derision is done in jest, wherefore it is described as "making fun." Now all the foregoing are done seriously and not in jest. Therefore derision differs from all of them.
[II-II.q.75.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod Hilarius dicit in VIII De Trin., §14, col. 247, t. 2: « De veritate carnis et sanguinis Christi non relictus est ambigendi locus; nunc enim et ipsius Domini professione et fide nostra caro ejus vere est cibus, et sanguis ejus vere est potus. » Et Ambrosius dicit, VI De sacramentis, cap. 1, §1, col. 473, t. 3: « Sicut verus Dei Filius est Dominus Jesus Christus, ita vera Christi caro est quam accipimus, et verus sanguis ejus est potus. »
[II-II.q.75.a.1.co] As stated above (Question 72, Article 2), sins of word should be weighed chiefly by the intention of the speaker, wherefore these sins are differentiated according to the various intentions of those who speak against another. Now just as the railer intends to injure the honor of the person he rails, the backbiter to depreciate a good name, and the tale-bearer to destroy friendship, so too the derider intends to shame the person he derides. And since this end is distinct from the others, it follows that the sin of derision is distinct from the foregoing sins.
[II-II.q.75.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod verum corpus Christi et sanguinem esse in hoc sacramento, neque sensu deprehendi potest, sed sola fide, quæ auctoritati divinæ innititur. Unde Super illud Luc., xxii: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur, dicit Cyrillus, col. 941, t. 5: « Non dubites an hoc verum sit: sed potius suscipe verba Salvatoris in fide; cum enim sit veritas, non mentitur. » Hoc autem conveniens est, primo quidem perfectioni novæ legis. Sacrificia enim veteris legis illud verum sacrificium passionis Christi continebant solum in figura, secundum illud Hebr., x, 1: Umbram habens lex futurorum bonorum, non ipsam imaginem rerum. Et ideo oportuit ut aliquid plus haberet sacrificium novæ legis a Christo institutum; ut scilicet contineret ipsum Christum passum, non solum in significatione vel figura, sed etiam in rei veritate. Et ideo hoc sacramentum, quod ipsum Christum realiter continet, ut Dionysius dicit, III cap. Eccl. hierarch., §12 et 13 p. III, col. 443, t. 1, est perfectivum omnium aliorum sacramentorum, in quibus virtus Christi participatur. Secundo hoc competit charitati Christi, ex qua pro salute nostra corpus verum nostræ naturæ assumpsit. Et quia maxime proprium ami- Parm. cum Nicolaï.: « neque intellectu, » * Ubicumque. * In illo. citiæ est convivere amicis, ut Philosophus dicit, IX Ethic., cap. xii, sui præsentiam corporalem nobis repromittit in praemium, dicens, Matth., xxiv, 28: Ubi * fuerit corpus, illic congregabuntur et aquilæ. Interim tamen nec sua præsentia corporali nos in hac peregrinatione destituit; sed per veritatem corporis et sanguinis sui nos sibi conjungit in hoc sacramento. Unde ipse dicit Joan., vi, 57: Qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanquinem, in me manet, et ego in eo*. Unde hoc sacramentum est maximæ charitatis signum, et nostræ spei sublevamentum ex tam familiari conjunctione Christi ad nos. Tertio hoc competit perfectioni fidei, quæ sicut est de divinitate Christi, ita est de ejus humanitate, secundum illud Joan., xiv, 2: Creditis in Deum, et in me credite. Et quia fides est invisibilium, sicut divinitatem suam nobis exhibet Christus invisibiliter, ita et in hoc sacramento carnem suam nobis exhibet invisibili modo. Quæ quidam non attendentes posuerunt corpus et sanguinem Christi non esse in hoc sacramento nisi sicut in signo, quod est tamquam hæreticum abjiciendum, utpote Verbis Christi contra-rium. Unde et Berengarius, qui primus hujus erroris auctor fuerat, postea coactus est suum errorem revocare et veritatem fidei confiteri 1.
[II-II.q.75.a.1.ad.1] Laughing to scorn and derision agree as to the end but differ in mode, because derision is done with the "mouth," i.e. by words and laughter, while laughing to scorn is done by wrinkling the nose, as a gloss says on Psalm 2:4, "He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them": and such a distinction does not differentiate the species. Yet they both differ from reviling, as being shamed differs from being dishonored: for to be ashamed is "to fear dishonor," as Damascene states (De Fide Orth. ii, 15).
[II-II.q.75.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ex hac auctoritate prædicti hæretici occasionem errandi sumpserunt, male verba Augustini intelligentes. Cum enim Augustinus dicit: « Non hoc corpus, quod videtis, manducatur estis, » non intendit excludere veritatem corporis Christi, sed quod non erat manducandum in hac specie in qua ab eis videbatur. Per hoc autem quod subdit: « Sacramentum quod vobis commendavi, spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos, » non intendit quod corpus Christi sit in hoc sacramento solum secundum mysticam significationem; sed « spiritualiter » dicit; id est, invisibiliter, et per virtutem Spiritus sancti. Unde Super Joan., exponens id quod dicitur: Caro non prodest quidquam, Tract. xxvii, § 5, col. 1617, t. 3, dicit: « Sed quomodo illi intellexerunt: carnem quippe sic intellexerunt manducandam, quomodo in cadavere dilaniatur, aut in macello venditur, non quomodo spiritu vegetatur. Accedat spiritus ad carnem, et prodest plurimum: nam si caro nihil prodesset, Verbum caro non fieret, ut inhabitaret in nobis. »
[II-II.q.75.a.1.ad.2] For doing a virtuous deed a man deserves both respect and a good name in the eyes of others, and in his own eyes the glory of a good conscience, according to 2 Corinthians 1:12, "Our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience." Hence, on the other hand, for doing a reprehensible, i.e. a vicious action, a man forfeits his honor and good name in the eyes of others--and for this purpose the reviler and the backbiter speak of another person--while in his own eyes, he loses the glory of his conscience through being confused and ashamed at reprehensible deeds being imputed to him--and for this purpose the derider speaks ill of him. It is accordingly evident that derision agrees with the foregoing vices as to the matter but differs as to the end.
[II-II.q.75.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod verbum illud Augustini et omnia similia sunt intelligenda de corpore Christi secundum quod videtur in propria specie; secundum quod etiam ipse Dominus dicit, Matth., xxvi, 11: Me autem non semper habebitis *. Invisibiliter tamen sub speciebus hujus sacramenti est, ubicumque hoc sacramentum perficitur.
[II-II.q.75.a.1.ad.3] A secure and calm conscience is a great good, according to Proverbs 15:15, "A secure mind is like a continual feast." Wherefore he that disturbs another's conscience by confounding him inflicts a special injury on him: hence derision is a special kind of sin.
[II-II.q.75.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod corpus Christi non est eo modo in hoc sacramento, sicut corpus in loco, quod suis dimensionibus loco commensuratur, sed quodam 2 speciali modo, qui est proprius huic sacramento. Unde dicimus quod corpus Christi est in diversis altaribus, non sicut in diversis locis, sed sicut in sacramento: per quod non intelligimus quod Christus sitibi solum sicut in signo, licet sacramentum sit in genere signi; sed intelligimus corpus Christi hic esse, sicut dictum est, secundum modum proprium huic sacramento.
Article 2
[II-II.q.75.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that derision cannot be a mortal sin. Every mortal sin is contrary to charity. But derision does not seem contrary to charity, for sometimes it takes place in jest among friends, wherefore it is known as "making fun." Therefore derision cannot be a mortal sin.
[II-II.q.75.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod in hoc sacramento remaneat substantia panis et vini post consecrationem. Dicit enim Damascenus in lib. IV Orth. fid., cap. xiii, col. 4143, t. 1: « Quia consuetudo est hominibus comedere panem et vinum bibere, conjugavit eis Deus divinitatem, et fecit ea corpus et sanguinem suum; et ita panis communicationis non panis simplex est, sed unitus divinitati. » Sed conjugatio est rerum actu existentium. Ergo panis et vinum simul sunt in hoc sacramento cum corpore et sanguine Christi.
[II-II.q.75.a.2.arg.2] Further, the greatest derision would appear to be that which is done as an injury to God. But derision is not always a mortal sin when it tends to the injury of God: else it would be a mortal sin to relapse into a venial sin of which one has repented. For Isidore says (De Sum. Bon. ii, 16) that "he who continues to do what he has repented of, is a derider and not a penitent." It would likewise follow that all hypocrisy is a mortal sin, because, according to Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 15) "the ostrich signifies the hypocrite, who derides the horse, i.e. the just man, and his rider, i.e. God." Therefore derision is not a mortal sin.
[II-II.q.75.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, inter Ecclesiæ sacramenta debet esse conformitas. Sed in aliis sacramentis substantia materiæ manet, sicut in baptismo substantia aquæ, et in confirmatione substantia chrismatis. Ergo et in hoc sacramento substantia panis et vini manet.
[II-II.q.75.a.2.arg.3] Further, reviling and backbiting seem to be graver sins than derision, because it is more to do a thing seriously than in jest. But not all backbiting or reviling is a mortal sin. Much less therefore is derision a mortal sin.
[II-II.q.75.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, panis et vinum assumuntur in hoc sacramento, inquantum significant ecclesiasticam unitatem, prout « unus panis fit ex multis granis et unum vinum ex multis racemis, » ut Augustinus dicit in Tract. xxvi in Joan., § 17, col. 1614, t. 3. Sed hoc pertinet ad ipsam substantiam panis et vini. Ergo substantia panis et vini remanet in hoc sacramento.
[II-II.q.75.a.2.sc] It is written (Proverbs 3:34): "He derideth [Vulgate: 'shall scorn'] the scorners." But God's derision is eternal punishment for mortal sin, as appears from the words of Psalm 2:4, "He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them." Therefore derision is a mortal sin.
[II-II.q.75.a.2.sc] Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit in libro IV De Sacramentis, cap. iv, col. 458, t. 3: « Licet figura panis et vini videatur, tamen nihil aliud quam caro Christi et sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt. »
[II-II.q.75.a.2.co] The object of derision is always some evil or defect. Now when an evil is great, it is taken, not in jest, but seriously: consequently if it is taken in jest or turned to ridicule (whence the terms 'derision' and 'jesting'), this is because it is considered to be slight. Now an evil may be considered to be slight in two ways: first, in itself, secondly, in relation to the person. When anyone makes game or fun of another's evil or defect, because it is a slight evil in itself, this is a venial sin by reason of its genus. on the other hand this defect may be considered as a slight evil in relation to the person, just as we are wont to think little of the defects of children and imbeciles: and then to make game or fun of a person, is to scorn him altogether, and to think him so despicable that his misfortune troubles us not one whit, but is held as an object of derision. On this way derision is a mortal sin, and more grievous than reviling, which is also done openly: because the reviler would seem to take another's evil seriously; whereas the derider does so in fun, and so would seem the more to despise and dishonor the other man. Wherefore, in this sense, derision is a grievous sin, and all the more grievous according as a greater respect is due to the person derided.
Consequently it is an exceedingly grievous sin to deride God and the things of God, according to Isaiah 37:23, "Whom hast thou reproached, and whom hast thou blasphemed, and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice?" and he replies: "Against the Holy One of Israel." On the second place comes derision of one's parents, wherefore it is written (Proverbs 30:17): "The eye that mocketh at his father, and that despiseth the labor of his mother in bearing him, let the ravens of the brooks pick it out, and the young eagles eat it." Further, the derision of good persons is grievous, because honor is the reward of virtue, and against this it is written (Job 12:4): "The simplicity of the just man is laughed to scorn." Such like derision does very much harm: because it turns men away from good deeds, according to Gregory (Moral. xx, 14), "Who when they perceive any good points appearing in the acts of others, directly pluck them up with the hand of a mischievous reviling."
[II-II.q.75.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod quidam posuerunt post consecrationem substantiam panis et vini in hoc sacramento remanere. Sed hæc positio stare non potest; 1 In 2 Colligitur ex dicto loco. Vide etiam VI, c. 1, col. 473. Inter impanatores et consubstantiatores distingue. Primi docent Verbum hypostatice assumere panem et vinum in eucharistia; alii volunt panem corpori Christi conjungi in hoc sacramento, absque tamen unione hypostatica: sic Lutherus. Hic notanda est positio cujusdam Johannis Paprimo quidem quia per hanc positionem tollitur veritas hujus sacramenti, ad quam pertinet ut verum corpus Christi in hoc sacramento existat, quod quidem ibi non est ante consecrationem. Non autem aliquid potest esse alicubi, ubi prius non erat, nisi vel per loci mutationem, vel per alterius conversionem in ipsum; sicut in domo aliqua de novo incipit esse ignis, aut quia illuc defertur, aut quia ibi generatur. Manifestum est autem quod corpus Christi non incipit esse in hoc sacramento per motum localem; primo quidem, quia sequeretur quod desineret esse in cælo: non enim quod localiter movetur, pervenit de novo ad aliquem locum nisi deserat priorem; secundo, quia omne corpus localiter motum per-transit omnia media, quod hic dici non potest; tertio, quia impossibile est quod unus motus ejusdem corporis localiter moti terminetur simul ad diversa loca, cum tamen in pluribus locis corpus Christi sub hoc sacramento simul esse incipiat. Et ideo relinquitur quod non possit aliter corpus Christi incipere esse de novo in hoc sacramento nisi per conversionem substantia panis in ipsum. Quod autem convertitur in aliquid, facta conversione, non manet. Unde relinquitur quod salva veritate hujus sacramenti, substantia panis post consecrationem remanere non possit. Secundo, quia hæc positio contrariatur formæ hujus sacramenti, in qua dicitur: « Hoc est corpus meum, » quod non esset verum, si substantia panis ibi remaneret: nunquam enim substantia panis est corpus Christi; sed potius esset dicendum: « Hic est corpus meum. » Tertio, quia contrariatur venerationi hujus sacramenti, si aliqua substantia creata esset ibi, quæ non posset adoratione latriæ adorari. Quarto, quia contrariatur ritui Ecclesiæ, secundum quem post corporalem cibum non licet sumere corpus Christi, cum tamen post unam hostiam consecratam liceat sumere aliam. Unde hæc positio vitanda est tanquam hæretica. risiensis qui dicit quod probabilius est ponere substantiam panis remanere in sacramento quam ponere oppositum: 1. quia, secundum Damascenum, panis assumitur et unitur divinitati hac esca spirituali, sicut carbo est lignum unitum igni, et humanitas Deo in Incarnatione; 2. quia Dionysius, De ecclesiast. hierarch., vocat istud sacramentum assumptionis vel sumptionis, dicens quod Christus hic assumit nostra ut communet
[II-II.q.75.a.2.ad.1] Jesting implies nothing contrary to charity in relation to the person with whom one jests, but it may imply something against charity in relation to the person who is the object of the jest, on account of contempt, as stated above.
[II-II.q.75.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Deus conjugavit divinitatem suam, id est, divinam virtutem, pani et vino, non ut remaneant in hoc sacramento, sed ut faciat inde corpus et sanguinem suum.
[II-II.q.75.a.2.ad.2] Neither he that relapses into a sin of which he has repented, nor a hypocrite, derides God explicitly, but implicitly, in so far as either's behavior is like a derider's. Nor is it true that to commit a venial sin is to relapse or dissimulate altogether, but only dispositively and imperfectly.
[II-II.q.75.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod, in aliis sacramentis non est ipse Christus realiter, sicut in hoc sacramento; et ideo in aliis sacramentis manet substantia materiæ, non autem in isto.
[II-II.q.75.a.2.ad.3] Derision considered in itself is less grievous than backbiting or reviling, because it does not imply contempt, but jest. Sometimes however it includes greater contempt than reviling does, as stated above, and then it is a grave sin.
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
[II-II.q.75.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod species quæ remanent in hoc sacramento, ut infra dicetur, sufficiunt ad significationem hujus sacramenti: nam per accidentia cognoscitur ratio substantiae.
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/secunda-secundae/q075.json