Talk:Thomas Aquinas/Modern Criticism
(archive)
- In S. Theol. II II §153 and §154 St. Thomas addresses the sin of lust. In II II 153 3 he shows the gravity of lust in relation to reason: "The more necessary a thing is, the more it behooves one to observe the order of reason in its regard; wherefore the more sinful it becomes if the order of reason be forsaken. Now the use of venereal acts, as stated in the foregoing Article, is most necessary for the common good, namely the preservation of the human race. Wherefore there is the greatest necessity for observing the order of reason in this matter: so that if anything be done in this connection against the dictate of reason's ordering, it will be a sin. Now lust consists essentially in exceeding the order and mode of reason in the matter of venereal acts. Wherefore without any doubt lust is a sin" (emphases added).
- He gives concrete examples of the consequences of lust in II II 153 5, where he answers the objection: "It would seem that the daughters of lust are unfittingly reckoned to be 'blindness of mind, thoughtlessness, inconstancy, rashness, self-love, hatred of God, love of this world and abhorrence or despair of a future world.'"
- In II II 154 1 he lists those things of which lust consists: "simple fornication, adultery, incest, seduction, rape, and the unnatural vice" which are in the form of an objection which he answers.
- In Scholastic terms, he then expands on II II 153 3 by positing two ways in which the matter of a given species of lust "may be discordant with right reason.... First, because it is inconsistent with the end of the venereal act. In this way, as hindering the begetting of children, there is the 'vice against nature,' which attaches to every venereal act from which generation cannot follow; and, as hindering the due upbringing and advancement of the child when born, there is 'simple fornication,' which is the union of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman." In other words, anything contraceptive; any kind of masturbation; and fornication, that could result in a child that would not be properly cared for; are examples of "vice against nature", also termed "the unnatural vice" below. He continues: "Secondly, the matter wherein the venereal act is consummated may be discordant with right reason in relation to other persons; and this in two ways. First, with regard to the woman, with whom a man has connection, by reason of due honor not being paid to her; and thus there is 'incest,' which consists in the misuse of a woman who is related by consanguinity or affinity. Secondly, with regard to the person under whose authority the woman is placed: and if she be under the authority of a husband, it is 'adultery,' if under the authority of her father, it is 'seduction,' in the absence of violence, and 'rape' if violence be employed." In other words, venereal acts improperly associated with other persons, such as incest, adultery, fornication with what amounts to a minor in modern parlance, and rape, are contrary to right reason.
- Regarding "the unnatural vice", which subsumes masturbation, about which contemporary mores are more enthusiastic, St. Thomas posits in II II 154 11 that it constitutes "a species of lust" — which, according to II II 153 3 "exceed[s] the order and mode of reason" — and gives specific instances of it: "First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of 'uncleanness' which some call 'effeminacy.' Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called 'bestiality.' Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rom 1:27): and this is called the 'vice of sodomy.' Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation." The first of those is a reference to masturbation.
- In II II 154 12 he posits that the unnatural vices are the worst sins in the overall category of lustful sin: "since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. ... With regard to the other species of lust they imply a transgression merely of that which is determined by right reason, on the presupposition, however, of natural principles." In other words, "the unnatural vices" transgress nature and reason, whereas other forms of lust transgress only reason.
- Also in II II 154 12, St. Thomas posits that among the unnatural vices, "the lowest place belongs to the sin of uncleanness, which consists in the mere omission of copulation with another. While the most grievous is the sin of bestiality.... After this comes the sin of sodomy, because the use of the right sex is not observed. Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the 'vas' [vessel] than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances." In other words, the hierarchy of sins among the unnatural vices according to St. Thomas appears to be, from most to least offensive: masturbation, bestiality, sodomy, and copulation in strange manners. St. Thomas, then, argues that masturbation is the worst sin in the category of sins of lust.
While it may seem odd to determine that masturbation is a worse sin than rape, and indeed the worst of the sins of lust, the proposition itself is one that can be debated, regarding which contemporary ethics probably lacks the vocabulary, e.g., to evaluate whether or not the distinction between transgressing nature and reason vs. transgressing only reason is meaningful. Modern mores are also biased toward affirming that masturbation and other sexual sins be recast as lifestyle choices.
Some critics believe that the hierarchy of sin detailed by St. Thomas was effectively repudiated by a passage in the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2352, which states that masturbation is "gravely disordered" but affords that there are extenuating circumstances such as "force of acquired habit" which reduce culpability — yet lessened culpability is an issue separate from observing the nature of the act itself. Rape, determined to be less offensive than masturbation in the hierarchy of sins of lust according to St. Thomas supra, is deemed in the Catechism to be "always an intrinsically evil act" (§2356) with no apparent extenuating circumstances listed. To the uncritical view, this may appear to be an assertion that rape is now deemed to be worse than masturbation in the hierarchy of the sins of lust. Yet the difference is a pastoral, not a theological, observation: a person who did not know that rape was a sin would not be as morally culpable as one who did know — yet virtually all persons on earth do know that rape is "intrinsically evil". On a pastoral level, one can observe that many people effectively do not know that masturbation is considered a sin in Catholic theology, let alone a serious one. Hence, their culpability is reduced in some measure, and that observation is not an implicit or explicit repudiation. St. Thomas argues that masturbation is the worst of the "unnatural vices" in the overall category of the sins of lust. This is consistent with observing that masturbation is "gravely disordered"; that a person may have a "force of acquired habit" is simply an observation of the condition of a person; the habit would be said, by St. Thomas, to be to commit an act that is the worst form of lust. That rape is "intrinsically evil" also affords no contradiction. St. Thomas explains in what precise way rape is "intrinsically evil": it is "inconsistent with the end of the venereal act;" "due honor not being paid"; and "if violence be employed." One must understand the distinction between a Catechism and a theological Summa. A catechism is a document of simpler organization and summary argument, whereas a Summa is a treatise intended to expound in detail the relations concepts have to each other.
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Thomas Aquinas/Modern Criticism" page.
