Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Secunda Secundae·Q170. The precepts of temperance
Source context
- Theme
- Precepts governing the virtue of temperance as a binding moral ordinance
- Soul-faculty
- Sentient Soul
Steiner
not engaged in the GA corpus
Cross-tradition
- Aristotelian ethics (sophrosyne)Aristotle's treatment of sophrosyne (temperance) in the Nicomachean Ethics establishes a structural parallel to Aquinas's precepts here: both locate temperance as the rational ordering of appetitive impulse toward the mean, codifiable as a prescriptive norm.
- Stoic moral lawStoic enkrateia (self-mastery) as a codified duty incumbent on the rational agent shows cross-tradition congruence with Aquinas's reduction of temperance to precept: in both cases, inner restraint receives the form of an obligatory rule rather than remaining a merely counseled disposition.
Q170. The precepts of temperance
Article 1
[II-II.q.170.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that the precepts of temperance are unsuitably given in the Divine law. Because fortitude is a greater virtue than temperance, as stated above (123, 12; 141, 8; I-II, 66, 4). Now there is no precept of fortitude among the precepts of the decalogue, which are the most important among the precepts of the Law. Therefore it was unfitting to include among the precepts of the decalogue the prohibition of adultery, which is contrary to temperance, as stated above (154, 1,8).
[II-II.q.170.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod præcepta temperantiæ inconvenien-ter in lege divina tradantur. Fortitudo enim est potior virtus quam temperantia, ut supra dictum est. Sed nullum præceptum fortitudinis ponitur inter præcepta Decalogi, quæ sunt potiora legis præcepta. Ergo inconvenienter inter præcepta Decalogi ponitur prohibitio adulterii, quod contrariatur temperantiæ, ut ex supra dictis patet.
[II-II.q.170.a.1.arg.2] Further, temperance is not only about venereal matters, but also about pleasures of meat and drink. Now the precepts of the decalogue include no prohibition of a vice pertaining to pleasures of meat and drink, or to any other species of lust. Neither, therefore, should they include a precept prohibiting adultery, which pertains to venereal pleasure.
[II-II.q.170.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, temperantia non est solum circa venerea, sed etiam circa delectationem ciborum et potuum. Sed inter præcepta Decalogi non prohibetur aliquod vitium pertinens ad delectationem ciborum et potuum, neque etiam pertinens ad aliquam aliam speciem luxuriæ. Ergo neque etiam debet poni aliquod præceptum prohibens adulterium, quod pertinet ad delectationem venereorum.
[II-II.q.170.a.1.arg.3] Further, in the lawgiver's intention inducement to virtue precedes the prohibition of vice, since vices are forbidden in order that obstacles to virtue may be removed. Now the precepts of the decalogue are the most important in the Divine law. Therefore the precepts of the decalogue should have included an affirmative precept directly prescribing the virtue of temperance, rather than a negative precept forbidding adultery which is directly opposed thereto.
[II-II.q.170.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, principalius est in intentione legislatoris inducere ad virtutes quam vitia prohibere: ad hoc enim vitia prohibentur ut virtutum impedimenta tollantur. Sed præcepta Decalogi sunt principalia in lege divina. Ergo inter præcepta Decalogi magis debuit poni præceptum aliquod affirmativum directe inducens ad virtutem temperantiæ, quam præceptum negativum prohibens adulterium, quod ei directe opponitur. In contrarium est auctoritas Scripturæ, in Decalogo, Exod., xx.
[II-II.q.170.a.1.sc] stands the authority of Scripture in the decalogue (Exodus 20:14-17).
[II-II.q.170.a.1.co] As the Apostle says (1 Timothy 1:5), "the end of the commandment is charity," which is enjoined upon us in the two precepts concerning the love of God and of our neighbor. Wherefore the decalogue contains those precepts which tend more directly to the love of God and of our neighbor. Now among the vices opposed to temperance, adultery would seem most of all opposed to the love of our neighbor, since thereby a man lays hold of another's property for his own use, by abusing his neighbor's wife. Wherefore the precepts of the decalogue include a special prohibition of adultery, not only as committed in deed, but also as desired in thought.
[II-II.q.170.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut Apostolus dicit I ad Timoth., 1, 5, finis præcepti est charitas; ad quam duobus præceptis inducimur pertinentibus ad dilectionem Dei et proximi. Et ideo illa præcepta in Decalogo ponuntur quæ directius ordinantur ad dilectionem Dei et proximi. Inter vitia autem temperantiæ opposita, maxime dilectioni proximi videtur opponi adulterium, per quod aliquis usurpat sibi rem alienam, abutendo scilicet uxore proximi. Et ideo inter præcepta Decalogi præcipue prohibetur adulterium, non solum secundum quod opere exercetur, sed etiam secundum quod corde concupiscitur.
[II-II.q.170.a.1.ad.1] Among the species of vices opposed to fortitude there is not one that is so directly opposed to the love of our neighbor as adultery, which is a species of lust that is opposed to temperance. And yet the vice of daring, which is opposed to fortitude, is wont to be sometimes the cause of murder, which is forbidden by one of the precepts of the decalogue: for it is written (Sirach 8:18): "Go not on the way with a bold man lest he burden thee with his evils."
[II-II.q.170.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod inter species vitiorum quæ opponuntur fortitudini, nulla est quæ ita directe contrarietur dilectioni proximi, sicut adulterium, quod est species luxuriæ, quæ temperantiæ contrariatur: et tamen vitium audaciæ, quod opponitur fortitudini, quando solet esse causa homicidii, quod inter præcepta Decalogi prohibetur: dicitur enim Eccli., viii, 18: Cum audace non eas in via, ne forte gravet mala sua in te.
[II-II.q.170.a.1.ad.2] Gluttony is not directly opposed to the love of our neighbor, as adultery is. Nor indeed is any other species of lust, for a father is not so wronged by the seduction of the virgin over whom he has no connubial right, as is the husband by the adultery of his wife, for he, not the wife herself, has power over her body [1 Corinthians 7:4.
[II-II.q.170.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod gula non directe opponitur dilectioni proximi, sicut adulterium, neque etiam aliqua alia species luxuriæ. Non enim tanta fit injuria patri per stuprum virginis, quæ non est ejus connubio deputata, quanta fit injuria viro per adulterium uxoris, cujus corporis potestatem ipse habet, non uxor.
[II-II.q.170.a.1.ad.3] As stated above (122, 1,4) the precepts of the decalogue are universal principles of the Divine law; hence they need to be common precepts. Now it was not possible to give any common affirmative precepts of temperance, because the practice of temperance varies according to different times, as Augustine remarks (De Bono Conjug. xv, 7), and according to different human laws and customs.
[II-II.q.170.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod præcepta Decalogi, ut supra dictum est, sunt quædam universalia divinæ legis principia; unde oportet ea esse communia. Non poterant autem aliqua præcepta communia affirmativa de temperantia dari, quia usus ejus variatur secundum diversa tempora, sicut Augustinus dicit in libro De bono conjugali, cap. xv, col. 385, t. 6, et secundum diversas hominum leges et consuetudines.
Article 2
[II-II.q.170.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that the precepts of the virtues annexed to temperance are unsuitably given in the Divine law. For the precepts of the Decalogue, as stated above (1, ad 3), are certain universal principles of the whole Divine law. Now "pride is the beginning of all sin," according to Sirach 10:15. Therefore among the precepts of the Decalogue there should have been one forbidding pride.
[II-II.q.170.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod inconvenienter tradantur in divina lege præcepta de virtutibus annexis temperantiæ. Præcepta enim Decalogi, ut dictum est, sunt quædam universalia principia to tius legis divinæ. Sed est initium omnis peccati superbia, ut dicitur Eccli., x, 15. Ergo inter præcepta Decalogi debuit aliquod poni prohibitivum superbiæ.
[II-II.q.170.a.2.arg.2] Further, a place before all should have been given in the decalogue to those precepts by which men are especially induced to fulfil the Law, because these would seem to be the most important. Now since humility subjects man to God, it would seem most of all to dispose man to the fulfilment of the Divine law; wherefore obedience is accounted one of the degrees of humility, as stated above (Question 161, Article 6); and the same apparently applies to meekness, the effect of which is that a man does not contradict the Divine Scriptures, as Augustine observes (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 7). Therefore it seems that the Decalogue should have contained precepts of humility and meekness.
[II-II.q.170.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, illa præcepta maxime debent in Decalogo poni per quæ homines maxime inclinantur ad legis impletionem, quia ista videntur esse principalia. Sed per humilitatem, per quam homo Deo subjicitur, maxime videtur homo disponi ad observantiam divinæ legis; unde obedientia inter gradus humilitatis computatur, ut supra habitum est; idem etiam videtur esse dicendum de mansuetudine, per quam fit ut homo divinæ Scripturæ non contradicat, ut Augustinus dicit in II De doctrina christ., vii, col. 39, t. 3. Ergo videtur quod de humilitate et mansuetudine aliqua præcepta in Decalogo poni debuerint.
[II-II.q.170.a.2.arg.3] Further, it was stated in the foregoing Article that adultery is forbidden in the decalogue, because it is contrary to the love of our neighbor. But inordinateness of outward movements, which is contrary to modesty, is opposed to neighborly love: wherefore Augustine says in his Rule (Ep. ccxii): "In all your movements let nothing be done to offend the eye of any person whatever." Therefore it seems that this kind of inordinateness should also have been forbidden by a precept of the Decalogue.
[II-II.q.170.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, dictum est, quod adulterium in Decalogo prohibetur quia contra-riatur dilectioni proximi. Sed etiam inordinatio exteriorum motuum quæ contraria-tur modestiæ, dilectioni proximi oppositur: unde Augustinus dicit In regula, § 6, col. 1380, t. 4: « In omnibus motibus vestris nihil fiat quod cujusquam offendat aspectum. » Ergo videtur quod etiam hujusmodi inordinatio debuit prohiberi per aliquod præceptum Decalogi. In contrarium sufficit auctoritas Scripturæ.
[II-II.q.170.a.2.sc] suffices the authority of Scripture.
[II-II.q.170.a.2.co] The virtues annexed to temperance may be considered in two ways: first, in themselves; secondly, in their effects. Considered in themselves they have no direct connection with the love of God or of our neighbor; rather do they regard a certain moderation of things pertaining to man himself. But considered in their effects, they may regard the love of God or of our neighbor: and in this respect the decalogue contains precepts that relate to the prohibition of the effects of the vices opposed to the parts of temperance. Thus the effect of anger, which is opposed to meekness, is sometimes that a man goes on to commit murder (and this is forbidden in the Decalogue), and sometimes that he refuses due honor to his parents, which may also be the result of pride, which leads many to transgress the precepts of the first table.
[II-II.q.170.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod virtutes temperantiæ annexæ dupliciter considerari possunt: uno modo secundum se; alio modo secundum suos effectus. Secundum se quidem non habent directam habitudinem ad dilectionem Dei vel proximi; sed magis respiciunt quamdam moderationem eorum quæ ad ipsum hominem pertinent. Quantum autem ad effectus suos, possunt respicere dilectionem Dei vel proximi: et secundum hoc aliqua præcepta in Decalogo ponuntur pertinentia ad prohibendum effectus vitiorum oppositorum temperantiæ partibus: sicut ex ira, quæ opponitur mansuetudini, procedit interdum aliquis ad homicidium, quod in Decalogo prohibetur, aut ad subtrahendum debitum honorem parentibus; quod etiam potest ex superbia provenire, ex qua etiam multi transgrediuntur præcepta primæ tabulæ.
[II-II.q.170.a.2.ad.1] Pride is the beginning of sin, but it lies hidden in the heart; and its inordinateness is not perceived by all in common. Hence there was no place for its prohibition among the precepts of the Decalogue, which are like first self-evident principles.
[II-II.q.170.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod superbia est initium peccati, sed latens in corde; cujus etiam inordinatio non perpenditur communiter ab omnibus. Unde ejus prohibitio non debuit poni inter præcepta Decalogi, quæ sunt prima principia per se nota.
[II-II.q.170.a.2.ad.2] Those precepts which are essentially an inducement to the observance of the Law presuppose the Law to be already given, wherefore they cannot be first precepts of the Law so as to have a place in the Decalogue.
[II-II.q.170.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod præcepta quæ 1 inducunt ad observantiam legis, præsupponunt jam legem; unde non possunt esse prima legis præcepta, ut in Decalogo ponantur.
[II-II.q.170.a.2.ad.3] Inordinate outward movement is not injurious to one's neighbor, if we consider the species of the act, as are murder, adultery, and theft, which are forbidden in the decalogue; but only as being signs of an inward inordinateness, as stated above (168, 1, ad 1,3).
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.170.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod inordinatio exteriorum motuum non pertinet ad offensam proximi secundum ipsam speciem actus, sicut homicidium, adulterium et furtum, quæ in Decalogo prohibentur; sed solum secundum quod sunt signa interioris inordinationis, ut supra dictum est.
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/secunda-secundae/q170.json