Aquinas in Triumph, Traini, 1340

of St.
[abbreviated summary;   complete texts]






















animated fetus mentioned)


GOODS NECESSARY for LIFE (i.e. food, etc.)


FORNICATION Contra Naturam











(Embryonic Souls; Animation;




















Sum.Theol. I, Q. 118, Art. 2

Articulus 2

Whether the Intellectual Soul Is Produced from the Semen?

 See also 2

Reply Obj. 2: Some say that the vital functions observed in the embryo are not from its soul, but from the soul of the mother; or from the formative power of the semen. Both of these explanations are false; for vital functions such as feeling, nourishment, and growth cannot be from an extrinsic principle.

a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod aliqui dixerunt quod operationes vitae quae apparent in embryone, non sunt ab anima eius, sed ab anima matris; vel a virtute formativa quae est in semine. Quorum utrumque falsum est, opera enim vitae non possunt esse a principio extrinseco, sicut sentire, nutriri et augeri.

Consequently it must be said that the soul is in the embryo;

Et ideo dicendum est quod anima praeexistit in embryone

the nutritive soul from the beginning,

a principio quidem nutritiva,

then the sensitive,

postmodum autem sensitiva

lastly the intellectual soul.

, et tandem intellectiva.

[...] We must therefore say that since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it follows of necessity that both in men and in other animals, when a more perfect form supervenes the previous form is corrupted: yet so that the supervening form contains the perfection of the previous form, and something in addition. It is in this way that through many generations and corruptions we arrive at the ultimate substantial form, both in man and other animals. This indeed is apparent to the senses in animals generated from putrefaction

Et ideo dicendum est quod, cum generatio unius semper sit corruptio alterius, necesse est dicere quod tam in homine quam in animalibus aliis, quando perfectior forma advenit, fit corruptio prioris, ita tamen quod sequens forma habet quidquid habebat prima, et adhuc amplius. Et sic per multas generationes et corruptiones pervenitur ad ultimam formam substantialem, tam in homine quam in aliis animalibus. Et hoc ad sensum apparet in animalibus ex putrefactione generatis.

We conclude therefore that the intellectual soul is created by God at the end of human generation,

Sic igitur dicendum est quod anima intellectiva creatur a Deo in fine generationis humanae,

and this soul is at the same time sensitive

and nutritive,

quae simul est et sensitiva

et nutritiva,

the pre-existing forms being corrupted.

corruptis formis praeexistentibus.













Sum.Theol. III, Q. 33, Art. 2, ad 1

Articulus 2

Whether Christ’s Body Was Animated in the First Instant of Its Conception?


Reply Obj. 1: The beginning of the infusion of the soul may be considered in two ways. First, in regard to the disposition of the body. And thus, the beginning of the infusion of the soul into Christ’s body was the same as in other men’s bodies: for just as the soul is infused into another man’s body as soon as it is formed, so was it with Christ. Secondly, this beginning may be considered merely in regard to time. And thus, because Christ’s body was perfectly formed in a shorter space of time, so after a shorter space of time was it animated.

a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod principium inspirationis animae potest considerari dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum dispositionem corporis. Et sic non ab alio principio inspirata est anima corpori Christi, et corporibus aliorum hominum. Sicut enim statim, formato corpore alterius hominis, infunditur anima, ita fuit in Christo. Alio modo potest considerari dictum principium solum secundum tempus. Et sic, quia prius tempore formatum fuit perfecte corpus Christi, prius tempore fuit etiam animatum.













Sum.Theol. I, Q. 118, Art. 2, ad 3

Articulus 2

Successive Souls in Human Beings - Not in Christ

 See also 2

Reply Obj. 3: What the Philosopher says is true in the generation of other men, because the body is successively formed and disposed for the soul: whence, first, as being imperfectly disposed, it receives an imperfect soul; and afterwards, when it is perfectly disposed, it receives a perfect soul. But Christ’s body, on account of the infinite power of the agent, was perfectly disposed instantaneously. Wherefore, at once and in the first instant it received a perfect form, that is, the rational soul.

a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in generatione aliorum hominum locum habet quod dicit philosophus, propter hoc quod successive corpus formatur et disponitur ad animam, unde primo, tanquam imperfecte dispositum, recipit animam imperfectam; et postmodum, quando perfecte est dispositum, recipit animam perfectam. Sed corpus Christi, propter infinitam virtutem agentis, fuit perfecte dispositum in instanti. Unde statim in primo instanti recepit formam perfectam, idest animam rationalem.













Com.Sent. III, dist.3, q.5 art.2, co. resp.

Super Sent., lib. 3 dist. 3 q. 5 art. 2 co. Respondeo

But in others [i.e. human beings] the conception of the male is not complete until the fortieth day, nor the female until the ninetieth day, as Aristotle says in Book 9 of On Animals

In aliis autem haec successive contingunt, ita quod maris conceptio non perficitur nisi usque ad quadragesimum diem, ut philosophus in 9 de animalibus dicit, feminae autem usque ad nonagesimum.

UNINTENDED HOMICIDE (animated fetus)







 (Animated Fetus)





Sum.Theol. II-II, Q. 64, Art. 8

Articulus 8

Whether One Is Guilty of Murder Through Killing Someone by Chance?


Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Ex. 21:22): “If . . . one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed . . . if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life.” Yet this may happen without any intention of causing her death. Therefore one is guilty of murder through killing someone by chance.

64 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, Exod. XXI dicitur quod si quis percusserit mulierem praegnantem et aborsum fecerit, si mors eius fuerit subsecuta, reddet animam pro anima. Sed hoc potest fieri absque intentione occisionis. Ergo homicidium casuale habet homicidii reatum.

animated fetus


Reply Obj. 2: He that strikes a woman with child does something unlawful: wherefore if there results the death either of the woman or of the animated fetus, he will not be excused from homicide, especially seeing that death is the natural result of such a blow.

64 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ille qui percutit mulierem praegnantem dat operam rei illicitae. Et ideo si sequatur mors vel mulieris vel puerperii animati, non effugiet homicidii crimen, praecipue cum ex tali percussione in promptu sit quod mors sequatur.













Sum.Cont.Gent. III, 122

Caput 122

The Reason why Simple Fornication Is a Sin According to Divine Law, while Matrimony is Natural

Qua ratione fornicatio simplex secundum legem divinam sit peccatum: et quod matrimonium sit naturale

[5] It is evident from this that every emission of semen, in such a way that generation cannot follow, is contrary to the good for man. And if this be done deliberately, it must be a sin. Now, I am speaking of a way from which, in itself, generation could not result: such would be any emission of semen apart from the natural union of male and female. For which reason, sins of this type are called contrary to nature. But, if by accident generation cannot result from the emission of semen, then this is not a reason for it being against nature, or a sin; as for instance, if the woman happens to be sterile.

n. 5 Ex quo patet quod contra bonum hominis est omnis emissio seminis tali modo quod generatio sequi non possit. Et si ex proposito hoc agatur, oportet esse peccatum. Dico autem modum ex quo generatio sequi non potest secundum se: sicut omnis emissio seminis sine naturali coniunctione maris et feminae; propter quod huiusmodi peccata contra naturam dicuntur. Si autem per accidens generatio ex emissione seminis sequi non possit, non propter hoc est contra naturam, nec peccatum: sicut si contingat mulierem sterilem esse.













Sum.Cont.Gent. III, 122

Articulus 2

[9] Nor, in fact, should it be deemed a slight sin for a man to arrange for the emission of semen apart from the proper purpose of generating and bringing up children, on the argument that it is either a slight sin, or none at all, for a person to use a part of the body for a different use than that to which it is directed by nature (say, for instance, one chose to walk on his hands, or to use his feet for something usually done with the hands) because man’s good is not much opposed by such inordinate use. However, the inordinate emission of semen is incompatible with the natural good; namely, the preservation of the species.

n. 9 Nec tamen oportet reputari leve peccatum esse si quis seminis emissionem procuret praeter debitum generationis et educationis finem, propter hoc quod aut leve aut nullum peccatum est si quis aliqua sui corporis parte utatur ad alium usum quam ad eum ad quem est ordinata secundum naturam, ut si quis, verbi gratia, manibus ambulet, aut pedibus aliquid operetur manibus operandum: quia per huiusmodi inordinatos usus bonum hominis non multum impeditur; inordinata vero seminis emissio repugnat bono naturae, quod est conservatio speciei.

Hence, after the sin of homicide whereby a human nature already in existence is destroyed, this type of sin appears to take next place, for by it the generation of human nature is precluded. Unde post peccatum homicidii, quo natura humana iam in actu existens destruitur, huiusmodi genus peccati videtur secundum locum tenere, quo impeditur generatio humanae naturae.













Sum.Theol. II-II, Q. 64, Art. 7

Articulus 7

Whether It Is Lawful to Kill a Man in Self-defense?


On the contrary, It is written (Ex. 22:2): “If a thief be found breaking into a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die; he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood.” Now it is much more lawful to defend one’s life than one’s house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kill another in defense of his own life.

64 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod Exod. XXII dicitur, si effringens fur domum sive suffodiens fuerit inventus, et, accepto vulnere, mortuus fuerit, percussor non erit reus sanguinis. Sed multo magis licitum est defendere propriam vitam quam propriam domum. Ergo etiam si aliquis occidat aliquem pro defensione vitae suae, non erit reus homicidii.

I answer that, Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (Q.43, A.3; I-II, Q.12, A.1). 64 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod nihil prohibet unius actus esse duos effectus, quorum alter solum sit in intentione, alius vero sit praeter intentionem. Morales autem actus recipiunt speciem secundum id quod intenditur, non autem ab eo quod est praeter intentionem, cum sit per accidens, ut ex supradictis patet.
Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in being, as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Ex actu igitur alicuius seipsum defendentis duplex effectus sequi potest, unus quidem conservatio propriae vitae; alius autem occisio invadentis. Actus igitur huiusmodi ex hoc quod intenditur conservatio propriae vitae, non habet rationem illiciti, cum hoc sit cuilibet naturale quod se conservet in esse quantum potest. Potest tamen aliquis actus ex bona intentione proveniens illicitus reddi si non sit proportionatus fini.

Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [*Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (A.3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.

Et ideo si aliquis ad defendendum propriam vitam utatur maiori violentia quam oporteat, erit illicitum. Si vero moderate violentiam repellat, erit licita defensio, nam secundum iura, vim vi repellere licet cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae. Nec est necessarium ad salutem ut homo actum moderatae tutelae praetermittat ad evitandum occisionem alterius, quia plus tenetur homo vitae suae providere quam vitae alienae. Sed quia occidere hominem non licet nisi publica auctoritate propter bonum commune, ut ex supradictis patet; illicitum est quod homo intendat occidere hominem ut seipsum defendat, nisi ei qui habet publicam auctoritatem, qui, intendens hominem occidere ad sui defensionem, refert hoc ad publicum bonum, ut patet in milite pugnante contra hostes, et in ministro iudicis pugnante contra latrones. Quamvis et isti etiam peccent si privata libidine moveantur.






(Killing the Innocent; Goods;















 (e.g. unborn)





Sum.Theol. II-II, Q. 64, Art. 6

Articulus 6

Whether It Is Lawful to Kill the Innocent?


I answer that, [...] the life of righteous men preserves and forwards the common good, since they are the chief part of the community. Therefore it is in no way lawful to slay the innocent.

64 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum [..]  Vita autem iustorum est conservativa et promotiva boni communis, quia ipsi sunt principalior pars multitudinis. Et ideo nullo modo licet occidere innocentem.








  (e.g. surgery)





Sum.Theol. II-II, Q. 65, Art. 8

Q.65, Articulus 1

Whether in Some Cases It May Be Lawful to Maim Anyone?


I answer that, Since a member is part of the whole human body, it is for the sake of the whole, as the imperfect for the perfect. Hence a member of the human body is to be disposed of according as it is expedient for the body. Now a member of the human body is of itself useful to the good of the whole body, yet, accidentally it may happen to be hurtful, as when a decayed member is a source of corruption to the whole body. Accordingly so long as a member is healthy and retains its natural disposition, it cannot be cut off without injury to the whole body. 65 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod cum membrum aliquod sit pars totius humani corporis, est propter totum, sicut imperfectum propter perfectum. Unde disponendum est de membro humani corporis secundum quod expedit toti. Membrum autem humani corporis per se quidem utile est ad bonum totius corporis, per accidens tamen potest contingere quod sit nocivum, puta cum membrum putridum est totius corporis corruptivum. Si ergo membrum sanum fuerit et in sua naturali dispositione consistens, non potest praecidi absque totius hominis detrimento.
But as the whole of man is directed as to his end to the whole of the community of which he is a part, as stated above (Q. 61, A. 1; Q. 64, AA. 2, 5), it may happen that although the removal of a member may be detrimental to the whole body, it may nevertheless be directed to the good of the community, in so far as it is applied to a person as a punishment for the purpose of restraining sin. Hence just as by public authority a person is lawfully deprived of life altogether on account of certain more heinous sins, so is he deprived of a member on account of certain lesser sins. Sed quia ipse totus homo ordinatur ut ad finem ad totam communitatem cuius est pars, ut supra dictum est; potest contingere quod abscisio membri, etsi vergat in detrimentum totius corporis, ordinatur tamen ad bonum communitatis, inquantum alicui infertur in poenam ad cohibitionem peccatorum. Et ideo sicut per publicam potestatem aliquis licite privatur totaliter vita propter aliquas maiores culpas, ita etiam privatur membro propter aliquas culpas minores.
But this is not lawful for a private individual, even with the consent of the owner of the member, because this would involve an injury to the community, to whom the man and all his parts belong. Hoc autem non est licitum alicui privatae personae, etiam volente illo cuius est membrum, quia per hoc fit iniuria communitati, cuius est ipse homo et omnes partes eius.
If, however, the member be decayed and therefore a source of corruption to the whole body, then it is lawful with the consent of the owner of the member, to cut away the member for the welfare of the whole body, since each one is entrusted with the care of his own welfare. Si vero membrum propter putredinem sit totius corporis corruptivum, tunc licitum est, de voluntate eius cuius est membrum, putridum membrum praescindere propter salutem totius corporis, quia unicuique commissa est cura propriae salutis.

The same applies if it be done with the consent of the person whose business it is to care for the welfare of the person who has a decayed member: otherwise it is altogether unlawful to maim anyone.

Et eadem ratio est si fiat voluntate eius ad quem pertinet curare de salute eius qui habet membrum corruptum. Aliter autem aliquem membro mutilare est omnino illicitum.

Reply Obj. 3: A member should not be removed for the sake of the bodily health of the whole, unless otherwise nothing can be done to further the good of the whole. Now it is always possible to further one’s spiritual welfare otherwise than by cutting off a member, because sin is always subject to the will: and consequently in no case is it allowable to maim oneself, even to avoid any sin whatever. Hence Chrysostom, in his exposition on Matt. 19:12 (Hom. lxii in Matth.), “There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven,” says: “Not by maiming themselves, but by destroying evil thoughts, for a man is accursed who maims himself, since they are murderers who do such things.” And further on he says: “Nor is lust tamed thereby, on the contrary it becomes more importunate, for the seed springs in us from other sources, and chiefly from an incontinent purpose and a careless mind: and temptation is curbed not so much by cutting off a member as by curbing one’s thoughts.”

Ad tertium dicendum quod membrum non est praecidendum propter corporalem salutem totius nisi quando aliter toti subveniri non potest. Saluti autem spirituali semper potest aliter subveniri quam per membri praecisionem, quia peccatum subiacet voluntati. Et ideo in nullo casu licet membrum praecidere propter quodcumque peccatum vitandum. Unde Chrysostomus, exponens illud Matth. XIX, sunt eunuchi qui seipsos castraverunt propter regnum caelorum, dicit, non membrorum abscisionem, sed malarum cogitationum interemptionem. Maledictioni enim est obnoxius qui membrum abscidit, etenim quae homicidarum sunt talis praesumit. Et postea subdit, neque concupiscentia mansuetior ita fit, sed molestior. Aliunde enim habet fontes sperma quod in nobis est, et praecipue a proposito incontinenti et mente negligente, nec ita abscisio membri comprimit tentationes, ut cogitationis frenum.







[e.g. nutrition, hydration, medicine]






Sum.Theol. II-II, Q. 126, Art. 1

Articulus 1

Whether Fearlessness Is a Sin?


I answer that, Since fear is born of love, we must seemingly judge alike of love and fear. Now it is here a question of that fear whereby one dreads temporal evils, and which results from the love of temporal goods. And every man has it instilled in him by nature to love his own life and whatever is directed thereto; and to do so in due measure, that is, to love these things not as placing his end therein, but as things to be used for the sake of his last end. Hence it is contrary to the natural inclination, and therefore a sin, to fall short of loving them in due measure. Nevertheless, one never lapses entirely from this love: since what is natural cannot be wholly lost: for which reason the Apostle says (Eph. 5:29): “No man ever hated his own flesh.” Wherefore even those that slay themselves do so from love of their own flesh, which they desire to free from present stress. Hence it may happen that a man fears death and other temporal evils less than he ought, for the reason that he loves them less than he ought. But that he fear none of these things cannot result from an entire lack of love, but only from the fact that he thinks it impossible for him to be afflicted by the evils contrary to the goods he loves. This is sometimes the result of pride of soul presuming on self and despising others, according to the saying of Job 41:24, 25: “He [Vulg.: ‘who’] was made to fear no one, he beholdeth every high thing”: and sometimes it happens through a defect in the reason; thus the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 7) that the “Celts, through lack of intelligence, fear nothing.” [*”A man would deserve to be called insane and senseless if there were nothing that he feared, not even an earthquake nor a storm at sea, as is said to be the case with the Celts.”] It is therefore evident that fearlessness is a vice, whether it result from lack of love, pride of soul, or dullness of understanding: yet the latter is excused from sin if it be invincible.

 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, quia timor ex amore nascitur, idem iudicium videtur esse de amore et de timore. Agitur autem nunc de timore quo mala temporalia timentur, qui provenit ex temporalium bonorum amore. Inditum autem est unicuique naturaliter ut propriam vitam amet, et ea quae ad ipsam ordinantur, tamen debito modo, ut scilicet amentur huiusmodi non quasi finis constituatur in eis, sed secundum quod eis utendum est propter ultimum finem. Unde quod aliquis deficiat a debito modo amoris ipsorum, est contra naturalem inclinationem, et per consequens est peccatum. Nunquam tamen a tali amore totaliter aliquis decidit, quia id quod est naturae totaliter perdi non potest. Propter quod apostolus dicit, ad Ephes. V, quod nemo unquam carnem suam odio habuit. Unde etiam illi qui seipsos interimunt, ex amore carnis suae hoc faciunt, quam volunt a praesentibus angustiis liberari. Unde contingere potest quod aliquis minus quam debeat timeat, mortem et alia temporalia mala, propter hoc quod minus debito amet ea. Sed quod nihil horum timeat, non potest ex totali defectu amoris contingere, sed ex eo quod aestimat mala opposita bonis quae amat, sibi supervenire non posse. Quod quandoque contingit ex superbia animi de se praesumentis et alios contemnentis, secundum quod dicitur Iob XLI, factus est ut nullum timeret, omne sublime videt. Quandoque autem contingit ex defectu rationis, sicut philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod Celtae propter stultitiam nihil timent. Unde patet quod esse impavidum est vitiosum, sive causetur ex defectu amoris, sive causetur ex elatione animi, sive causetur ex stoliditate; quae tamen excusat a peccato si sit invincibilis.

Reply Obj. 3: Temporal goods are to be despised as hindering us from loving and serving God, and on the same score they are not to be feared; wherefore it is written (Ecclus. 34:16): “He that feareth the Lord shall tremble at nothing.” But temporal goods are not to be despised, in so far as they are helping us instrumentally to attain those things that pertain to Divine fear and love.

 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod bona temporalia debent contemni quantum nos impediunt ab amore et timore Dei. Et secundum hoc etiam non debent timeri, unde dicitur Eccli. XXXIV, qui timet Deum nihil trepidabit. Non autem debent contemni bona temporalia inquantum instrumentaliter nos iuvant ad ea quae sunt divini amoris et timoris.















Sum.Theol. II-II, Q. 64, Art. 5

Q. 64 Articulus 5

Whether It Is Lawful to Kill Oneself?


I answer that, It is altogether unlawful to kill oneself, for three reasons. First, because everything naturally loves itself, the result being that everything naturally keeps itself in being, and resists corruptions so far as it can. Wherefore suicide is contrary to the inclination of nature, and to charity whereby every man should love himself. Hence

64 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod seipsum occidere est omnino illicitum triplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia naturaliter quaelibet res seipsam amat, et ad hoc pertinet quod quaelibet res naturaliter conservat se in esse et corrumpentibus resistit quantum potest. Et ideo quod aliquis seipsum occidat est contra inclinationem naturalem, et contra caritatem, qua quilibet debet seipsum diligere.

[1] suicide is always a mortal sin, as being contrary to the natural law and to charity.

Et ideo occisio sui ipsius semper est peccatum mortale, utpote contra naturalem legem et contra caritatem existens.

[2] Secondly, because every part, as such, belongs to the whole. Now every man is part of the community, and so, as such, he belongs to the community. Hence by killing himself he injures the community, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. v, 11).

Secundo, quia quaelibet pars id quod est, est totius. Quilibet autem homo est pars communitatis, et ita id quod est, est communitatis. Unde in hoc quod seipsum interficit, iniuriam communitati facit, ut patet per philosophum, in V Ethic.

[3] Thirdly, because life is God’s gift to man, and is subject to His power, Who kills and makes to live. Hence whoever takes his own life, sins against God, even as he who kills another’s slave, sins against that slave’s master, and as he who usurps to himself judgment of a matter not entrusted to him. For it belongs to God alone to pronounce sentence of death and life, according to Deut. 32:39, “I will kill and I will make to live.”

Tertio, quia vita est quoddam donum divinitus homini attributum, et eius potestati subiectum qui occidit et vivere facit. Et ideo qui seipsum vita privat in Deum peccat, sicut qui alienum servum interficit peccat in dominum cuius est servus; et sicut peccat ille qui usurpat sibi iudicium de re sibi non commissa. Ad solum enim Deum pertinet iudicium mortis et vitae, secundum illud Deut. XXXII, ego occidam, et vivere faciam.

Reply Obj. 1: Murder is a sin, not only because it is contrary to justice, but also because it is opposed to charity which a man should have towards himself: in this respect suicide is a sin in relation to oneself. In relation to the community and to God, it is sinful, by reason also of its opposition to justice.

64 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homicidium est peccatum non solum quia contrariatur iustitiae, sed etiam quia contrariatur caritati quam habere debet aliquis ad seipsum. Et ex hac parte occisio sui ipsius est peccatum per comparationem ad seipsum. Per comparationem autem ad communitatem et ad Deum, habet rationem peccati etiam per oppositionem ad iustitiam.

Reply Obj. 2: One who exercises public authority may lawfully put to death an evil-doer, since he can pass judgment on him. But no man is judge of himself. Wherefore it is not lawful for one who exercises public authority to put himself to death for any sin whatever: although he may lawfully commit himself to the judgment of others.

64 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ille qui habet publicam potestatem potest licite malefactorem occidere per hoc quod potest de ipso iudicare. Nullus autem est iudex sui ipsius. Unde non licet habenti publicam potestatem seipsum occidere propter quodcumque peccatum. Licet tamen ei se committere iudicio aliorum.

Reply Obj. 3: Man is made master of himself through his free-will: wherefore he can lawfully dispose of himself as to those matters which pertain to this life which is ruled by man’s free-will. But the passage from this life to another and happier one is subject not to man’s free-will but to the power of God. Hence it is not lawful for man to take his own life that he may pass to a happier life, nor that he may escape any unhappiness whatsoever of the present life, because the ultimate and most fearsome evil of this life is death, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. iii, 6). Therefore to bring death upon oneself in order to escape the other afflictions of this life, is to adopt a greater evil in order to avoid a lesser. In like manner it is unlawful to take one’s own life on account of one’s having committed a sin, both because by so doing one does oneself a very great injury, by depriving oneself of the time needful for repentance, and because it is not lawful to slay an evildoer except by the sentence of the public authority. Again it is unlawful for a woman to kill herself lest she be violated, because she ought not to commit on herself the very great sin of suicide, to avoid the lesser sin of another. For she commits no sin in being violated by force, provided she does not consent, since “without consent of the mind there is no stain on the body,” as the Blessed Lucy declared. Now it is evident that fornication and adultery are less grievous sins than taking a man’s, especially one’s own, life: since the latter is most grievous, because one injures oneself, to whom one owes the greatest love. Moreover it is most dangerous since no time is left wherein to expiate it by repentance. Again it is not lawful for anyone to take his own life for fear he should consent to sin, because “evil must not be done that good may come” (Rom. 3:8) or that evil may be avoided especially if the evil be of small account and an uncertain event, for it is uncertain whether one will at some future time consent to a sin, since God is able to deliver man from sin under any temptation whatever.

64 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod homo constituitur dominus sui ipsius per liberum arbitrium. Et ideo licite potest homo de seipso disponere quantum ad ea quae pertinent ad hanc vitam, quae hominis libero arbitrio regitur. Sed transitus de hac vita ad aliam feliciorem non subiacet libero arbitrio hominis, sed potestati divinae. Et ideo non licet homini seipsum interficere ut ad feliciorem transeat vitam. Similiter etiam nec ut miserias quaslibet praesentis vitae evadat. Quia ultimum malorum huius vitae et maxime terribile est mors, ut patet per philosophum, in III Ethic. Et ita inferre sibi mortem ad alias huius vitae miserias evadendas est maius malum assumere ad minoris mali vitationem. Similiter etiam non licet seipsum occidere propter aliquod peccatum commissum. Tum quia in hoc sibi maxime nocet quod sibi adimit necessarium poenitentiae tempus. Tum etiam quia malefactorem occidere non licet nisi per iudicium publicae potestatis. Similiter etiam non licet mulieri seipsam occidere ne ab alio corrumpatur. Quia non debet in se committere crimen maximum, quod est sui ipsius occisio, ut vitet minus crimen alienum (non enim est crimen mulieris per violentiam violatae, si consensus non adsit, quia non inquinatur corpus nisi de consensu mentis, ut Lucia dixit). Constat autem minus esse peccatum fornicationem vel adulterium quam homicidium, et praecipue sui ipsius, quod est gravissimum, quia sibi ipsi nocet, cui maximam dilectionem debet. Est etiam periculosissimum, quia non restat tempus ut per poenitentiam expietur. Similiter etiam nulli licet seipsum occidere ob timorem ne consentiat in peccatum. Quia non sunt facienda mala ut veniant bona, vel ut vitentur mala, praesertim minora et minus certa. Incertum enim est an aliquis in futurum consentiat in peccatum, potens est enim Deus hominem, quacumque tentatione superveniente, liberare a peccato.






(Chapters 1-7: Antony the young ascetic)






















CHAPTER 1. Of the vigils which we endured. 1. De uigiliis quas pertulimus.






Youth and





































CHAPTER 1. Of the vigils which we endured. 1. De uigiliis quas pertulimus.































This Webpage was created for a workshop held at Saint Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo, California in 2001....x....  . “”.