Secunda Secundae · Prudence

Of Vices Opposed to Prudence by Way of Resemblance

II-II, q. 55 · Eight articles

Prooemium · Thomas's plan for this question

Deinde considerandum est de vitiis oppositis prudentiae quae habent similitudinem cum ipsa. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. Primo, utrum prudentia carnis sit peccatum. Secundo, utrum sit peccatum mortale. Tertio, utrum astutia sit peccatum speciale. Quarto, de dolo. Quinto, de fraude. Sexto, de sollicitudine temporalium rerum. Septimo, de sollicitudine futurorum. Octavo, de origine horum vitiorum.

We must now consider those vices opposed to prudence, which have a resemblance thereto. Under this head there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether prudence of the flesh is a sin?

(2) Whether it is a mortal sin?

(3) Whether craftiness is a special sin?

(4) Of guile;

(5) Of fraud;

(6) Of solicitude about temporal things;

(7) Of solicitude about the future;

(8) Of the origin of these vices.

1 Whether Prudence of the Flesh Is a Sin?
2 Whether Prudence of the Flesh Is a Mortal Sin?
3 Whether Craftiness Is a Special Sin?
4 Whether Guile Is a Sin Pertaining to Craftiness?
5 Whether Fraud Pertains to Craftiness?
6 Whether It Is Lawful to Be Solicitous About Temporal Matters?
7 Whether We Should Be Solicitous About the Future?
8 Whether These Vices Arise from Covetousness?

Articulus I

Whether Prudence of the Flesh Is a Sin?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod prudentia carnis non sit peccatum. Prudentia enim est nobilior virtus quam aliae virtutes morales, utpote omnium regitiva. Sed nulla iustitia vel temperantia est peccatum. Ergo etiam neque aliqua prudentia est peccatum.

It would seem that prudence of the flesh is not a sin. For prudence is more excellent than the other moral virtues, since it governs them all. But no justice or temperance is sinful. Neither therefore is any prudence a sin.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, prudenter operari ad finem qui licite amatur non est peccatum. Sed caro licite amatur, nemo enim unquam carnem suam odio habuit, ut habetur ad Ephes. V. Ergo prudentia carnis non est peccatum.

Further, it is not a sin to act prudently for an end which it is lawful to love. But it is lawful to love the flesh, "for no man ever hated his own flesh" (Eph. 5:29). Therefore prudence of the flesh is not a sin.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, sicut homo tentatur a carne, ita etiam tentatur a mundo, et etiam a Diabolo. Sed non ponitur inter peccata aliqua prudentia mundi, vel etiam Diaboli. Ergo neque debet poni inter peccata aliqua prudentia carnis.

Further, just as man is tempted by the flesh, so too is he tempted by the world and the devil. But no prudence of the world, or of the devil is accounted a sin. Therefore neither should any prudence of the flesh be accounted among sins.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra, nullus est inimicus Deo nisi propter iniquitatem, secundum illud Sap. XIV, simul odio sunt Deo impius et impietas eius. Sed sicut dicitur ad Rom. VIII, prudentia carnis inimica est Deo. Ergo prudentia carnis est peccatum.

On the contrary, No man is an enemy to God save for wickedness according to Wis. 14:9, "To God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike." Now it is written (Rom. 8:7): "The prudence [Vulg.: 'wisdom'] of the flesh is an enemy to God." Therefore prudence of the flesh is a sin.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, prudentia est circa ea quae sunt ad finem totius vitae. Et ideo prudentia carnis proprie dicitur secundum quod aliquis bona carnis habet ut ultimum finem suae vitae. Manifestum est autem quod hoc est peccatum, per hoc enim homo deordinatur circa ultimum finem, qui non consistit in bonis corporis, sicut supra habitum est. Et ideo prudentia carnis est peccatum.

I answer that, As stated above (Q. 47, A. 13), prudence regards things which are directed to the end of life as a whole. Hence prudence of the flesh signifies properly the prudence of a man who looks upon carnal goods as the last end of his life. Now it is evident that this is a sin, because it involves a disorder in man with respect to his last end, which does not consist in the goods of the body, as stated above (I-II, Q. 2, A. 5). Therefore prudence of the flesh is a sin.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod iustitia et temperantia in sui ratione important id unde virtus laudatur, scilicet aequalitatem et concupiscentiarum refrenationem, et ideo nunquam accipiuntur in malo. Sed nomen prudentiae sumitur a providendo, sicut supra dictum est, quod potest etiam ad mala extendi. Et ideo, licet prudentia simpliciter dicta in bono accipiatur, aliquo tamen addito potest accipi in malo. Et secundum hoc dicitur prudentia carnis esse peccatum.

Justice and temperance include in their very nature that which ranks them among the virtues, viz. equality and the curbing of concupiscence; hence they are never taken in a bad sense. On the other hand prudence is so called from foreseeing (providendo), as stated above (Q. 47, A. 1; Q. 49, A. 6), which can extend to evil things also. Therefore, although prudence is taken simply in a good sense, yet, if something be added, it may be taken in a bad sense: and it is thus that prudence of the flesh is said to be a sin.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod caro est propter animam sicut materia propter formam et instrumentum propter principale agens. Et ideo sic licite diligitur caro ut ordinetur ad bonum animae sicut ad finem. Si autem in ipso bono carnis constituatur ultimus finis, erit inordinata et illicita dilectio. Et hoc modo ad amorem carnis ordinatur prudentia carnis.

The flesh is on account of the soul, as matter is on account of the form, and the instrument on account of the principal agent. Hence the flesh is loved lawfully, if it be directed to the good of the soul as its end. If, however, a man place his last end in a good of the flesh, his love will be inordinate and unlawful, and it is thus that the prudence of the flesh is directed to the love of the flesh.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod Diabolus nos tentat non per modum appetibilis, sed per modum suggerentis. Et ideo, cum prudentia importet ordinem ad aliquem finem appetibilem, non ita dicitur prudentia Diaboli sicut prudentia respectu alicuius mali finis, sub cuius ratione tentat nos mundus et caro, inquantum scilicet proponuntur nobis ad appetendum bona mundi vel carnis. Et ideo dicitur prudentia carnis, et etiam prudentia mundi, secundum illud Luc. XVI, filii huius saeculi prudentiores sunt in generatione sua et cetera. Apostolus autem totum comprehendit sub prudentia carnis, quia etiam exteriores res mundi appetimus propter carnem. Potest tamen dici quod quia prudentia quodammodo dicitur sapientia, ut supra dictum est, ideo secundum tres tentationes potest intelligi triplex prudentia. Unde dicitur Iac. III sapientia esse terrena, animalis, diabolica, ut supra expositum est cum de sapientia ageretur.

The devil tempts us, not through the good of the appetible object, but by way of suggestion. Wherefore, since prudence implies direction to some appetible end, we do not speak of "prudence of the devil," as of a prudence directed to some evil end, which is the aspect under which the world and the flesh tempt us, in so far as worldly or carnal goods are proposed to our appetite. Hence we speak of "carnal" and again of "worldly" prudence, according to Luke 16:8, "The children of this world are more prudent [Douay: 'wiser'] in their generation," etc. The Apostle includes all in the "prudence of the flesh," because we covet the external things of the world on account of the flesh.

We may also reply that since prudence is in a certain sense called "wisdom," as stated above (Q. 47, A. 2, ad 1), we may distinguish a threefold prudence corresponding to the three kinds of temptation. Hence it is written (James 3:15) that there is a wisdom which is "earthly, sensual and devilish," as explained above (Q. 45, A. 1, ad 1), when we were treating of wisdom.

Articulus II

Whether Prudence of the Flesh Is a Mortal Sin?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod prudentia carnis sit peccatum mortale. Rebellare enim divinae legi est peccatum mortale quia per hoc dominus contemnitur. Sed prudentia carnis non est subiecta legi Dei, ut habetur Rom. VIII. Ergo prudentia carnis est peccatum mortale.

It would seem that prudence of the flesh is a mortal sin. For it is a mortal sin to rebel against the Divine law, since this implies contempt of God. Now "the prudence [Douay: 'wisdom'] of the flesh . . . is not subject to the law of God" (Rom. 8:7). Therefore prudence of the flesh is a mortal sin.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, omne peccatum in spiritum sanctum est peccatum mortale. Sed prudentia carnis videtur esse peccatum in spiritum sanctum, non enim potest esse subiecta legi Dei, ut dicitur Rom. VIII; et ita videtur esse peccatum irremissibile, quod est proprium peccati in spiritum sanctum. Ergo prudentia carnis est peccatum mortale.

Further, every sin against the Holy Ghost is a mortal sin. Now prudence of the flesh seems to be a sin against the Holy Ghost, for "it cannot be subject to the law of God" (Rom. 8:7), and so it seems to be an unpardonable sin, which is proper to the sin against the Holy Ghost. Therefore prudence of the flesh is a mortal sin.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, maximo bono opponitur maximum malum; ut patet in VIII Ethic. Sed prudentia carnis opponitur prudentiae quae est praecipua inter virtutes morales. Ergo prudentia carnis est praecipuum inter peccata moralia. Et ita est peccatum mortale.

Further, the greatest evil is opposed to the greatest good, as stated in Ethic. viii, 10. Now prudence of the flesh is opposed to that prudence which is the chief of the moral virtues. Therefore prudence of the flesh is chief among mortal sins, so that it is itself a mortal sin.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra, illud quod diminuit peccatum non importat de se rationem peccati mortalis. Sed caute prosequi ea quae pertinent ad curam carnis, quod videtur ad prudentiam carnis pertinere, diminuit peccatum. Ergo prudentia carnis de sui ratione non importat peccatum mortale.

On the contrary, That which diminishes a sin has not of itself the nature of a mortal sin. Now the thoughtful quest of things pertaining to the care of the flesh, which seems to pertain to carnal prudence, diminishes sin [Cf. Prov. 6:30]. Therefore prudence of the flesh has not of itself the nature of a mortal sin.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, prudens dicitur aliquis dupliciter, uno modo, simpliciter, scilicet in ordine ad finem totius vitae; alio modo, secundum quid, scilicet in ordine ad finem aliquem particularem, puta sicut dicitur aliquis prudens in negotiatione vel in aliquo huiusmodi. Si ergo prudentia carnis accipiatur secundum absolutam prudentiae rationem, ita scilicet quod in cura carnis constituatur ultimus finis totius vitae, sic est peccatum mortale, quia per hoc homo avertitur a Deo, cum impossibile sit esse plures fines ultimos, ut supra habitum est. Si vero prudentia carnis accipiatur secundum rationem particularis prudentiae, sic prudentia carnis est peccatum veniale. Contingit enim quandoque quod aliquis inordinate afficitur ad aliquod delectabile carnis absque hoc quod avertatur a Deo per peccatum mortale, unde non constituit finem totius vitae in delectatione carnis. Et sic adhibere studium ad hanc delectationem consequendam est peccatum veniale, quod pertinet ad prudentiam carnis. Si vero aliquis actu curam carnis referat in finem honestum, puta cum aliquis studet comestioni propter corporis sustentationem, non vocatur prudentia carnis, quia sic utitur homo cura carnis ut ad finem.

I answer that, As stated above (Q. 47, A. 2, ad 1; A. 13), a man is said to be prudent in two ways. First, simply, i.e. in relation to the end of life as a whole. Secondly, relatively, i.e. in relation to some particular end; thus a man is said to be prudent in business or something else of the kind. Accordingly if prudence of the flesh be taken as corresponding to prudence in its absolute signification, so that a man place the last end of his whole life in the care of the flesh, it is a mortal sin, because he turns away from God by so doing, since he cannot have several last ends, as stated above (I-II, Q. 1, A. 5).

If, on the other hand, prudence of the flesh be taken as corresponding to particular prudence, it is a venial sin. For it happens sometimes that a man has an inordinate affection for some pleasure of the flesh, without turning away from God by a mortal sin; in which case he does not place the end of his whole life in carnal pleasure. To apply oneself to obtain this pleasure is a venial sin and pertains to prudence of the flesh. But if a man actually refers the care of the flesh to a good end, as when one is careful about one's food in order to sustain one's body, this is no longer prudence of the flesh, because then one uses the care of the flesh as a means to an end.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod apostolus loquitur de prudentia carnis secundum quod finis totius vitae humanae constituitur in bonis carnis. Et sic est peccatum mortale.

The Apostle is speaking of that carnal prudence whereby a man places the end of his whole life in the goods of the flesh, and this is a mortal sin.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod prudentia carnis non importat peccatum in spiritum sanctum. Quod enim dicitur quod non potest esse subiecta legi Dei, non sic est intelligendum quasi ille qui habet prudentiam carnis non possit converti et subiici legi Dei, sed quia ipsa prudentia carnis legi Dei non potest esse subiecta, sicut nec iniustitia potest esse iusta, nec calor potest esse frigidus, quamvis calidum posset esse frigidum.

Prudence of the flesh does not imply a sin against the Holy Ghost. For when it is stated that "it cannot be subject to the law of God," this does not mean that he who has prudence of the flesh, cannot be converted and submit to the law of God, but that carnal prudence itself cannot be subject to God's law, even as neither can injustice be just, nor heat cold, although that which is hot may become cold.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod omne peccatum opponitur prudentiae, sicut et prudentia participatur in omni virtute. Sed ideo non oportet quod quodlibet peccatum prudentiae oppositum sit gravissimum, sed solum quando opponitur prudentiae in aliquo maximo.

Every sin is opposed to prudence, just as prudence is shared by every virtue. But it does not follow that every sin opposed to prudence is most grave, but only when it is opposed to prudence in some very grave matter.

Articulus III

Whether Craftiness Is a Special Sin?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod astutia non sit speciale peccatum. Verba enim sacrae Scripturae non inducunt aliquem ad peccatum. Inducunt autem ad astutiam, secundum illud Prov. I, ut detur parvulis astutia. Ergo astutia non est peccatum.

It would seem that craftiness is not a special sin. For the words of Holy Writ do not induce anyone to sin; and yet they induce us to be crafty, according to Prov. 1:4, "To give craftiness [Douay: 'subtlety'] to little ones." Therefore craftiness is not a sin.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, Prov. XIII dicitur, astutus omnia agit cum consilio. Aut ergo ad finem bonum; aut ad finem malum. Si ad finem bonum, non videtur esse peccatum. Si autem ad finem malum, videtur pertinere ad prudentiam carnis vel saeculi. Ergo astutia non est speciale peccatum a prudentia carnis distinctum.

Further, it is written (Prov. 13:16): "The crafty [Douay: 'prudent'] man doth all things with counsel." Therefore, he does so either for a good or for an evil end. If for a good end, there is no sin seemingly, and if for an evil end, it would seem to pertain to carnal or worldly prudence. Therefore craftiness is not a special sin distinct from prudence of the flesh.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, Gregorius, X Moral., exponens illud Iob XII, deridetur iusti simplicitas, dicit, sapientia huius mundi est cor machinationibus tegere, sensum verbis velare, quae falsa sunt vera ostendere, quae vera sunt falsa demonstrare. Et postea subdit, haec prudentia usu a iuvenibus scitur, a pueris pretio discitur. Sed ea quae praedicta sunt videntur ad astutiam pertinere. Ergo astutia non distinguitur a prudentia carnis vel mundi; et ita non videtur esse speciale peccatum.

Further, Gregory expounding the words of Job 12, "The simplicity of the just man is laughed to scorn," says (Moral. x, 29): "The wisdom of this world is to hide one's thoughts by artifice, to conceal one's meaning by words, to represent error as truth, to make out the truth to be false," and further on he adds: "This prudence is acquired by the young, it is learnt at a price by children." Now the above things seem to belong to craftiness. Therefore craftiness is not distinct from carnal or worldly prudence, and consequently it seems not to be a special sin.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, II ad Cor. IV, abdicamus occulta dedecoris, non ambulantes in astutia, neque adulterantes verbum Dei. Ergo astutia est quoddam peccatum.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (2 Cor. 4:2): "We renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the word of God." Therefore craftiness is a sin.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod prudentia est recta ratio agibilium, sicut scientia est recta ratio scibilium. Contingit autem contra rectitudinem scientiae dupliciter peccari in speculativis, uno quidem modo, quando ratio inducitur ad aliquam conclusionem falsam quae apparet vera; alio modo, ex eo quod ratio procedit ex aliquibus falsis quae videntur esse vera, sive sint ad conclusionem veram sive ad conclusionem falsam. Ita etiam aliquod peccatum potest esse contra prudentiam habens aliquam similitudinem eius dupliciter. Uno modo, quia studium rationis ordinatur ad finem qui non est vere bonus sed apparens, et hoc pertinet ad prudentiam carnis. Alio modo, inquantum aliquis ad finem aliquem consequendum, vel bonum vel malum, utitur non veris viis, sed simulatis et apparentibus, et hoc pertinet ad peccatum astutiae. Unde est quoddam peccatum prudentiae oppositum a prudentia carnis distinctum.

I answer that, Prudence is right reason applied to action, just as science is right reason applied to knowledge. In speculative matters one may sin against rectitude of knowledge in two ways: in one way when the reason is led to a false conclusion that appears to be true; in another way when the reason proceeds from false premises, that appear to be true, either to a true or to a false conclusion. Even so a sin may be against prudence, through having some resemblance thereto, in two ways. First, when the purpose of the reason is directed to an end which is good not in truth but in appearance, and this pertains to prudence of the flesh; secondly, when, in order to obtain a certain end, whether good or evil, a man uses means that are not true but fictitious and counterfeit, and this belongs to the sin of craftiness. This is consequently a sin opposed to prudence, and distinct from prudence of the flesh.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in IV contra Iulian., sicut prudentia abusive quandoque in malo accipitur, ita etiam astutia quandoque in bono, et hoc propter similitudinem unius ad alterum. Proprie tamen astutia in malo accipitur; sicut et philosophus dicit, in VI Ethic.

As Augustine observes (Contra Julian. iv, 3) just as prudence is sometimes improperly taken in a bad sense, so is craftiness sometimes taken in a good sense, and this on account of their mutual resemblance. Properly speaking, however, craftiness is taken in a bad sense, as the Philosopher states in Ethic. vi, 12.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod astutia potest consiliari et ad finem bonum et ad finem malum, nec oportet ad finem bonum falsis viis pervenire et simulatis, sed veris. Unde etiam astutia si ordinetur ad bonum finem, est peccatum.

Craftiness can take counsel both for a good end and for an evil end: nor should a good end be pursued by means that are false and counterfeit but by such as are true. Hence craftiness is a sin if it be directed to a good end.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod Gregorius sub prudentia mundi accepit omnia quae possunt ad falsam prudentiam pertinere. Unde etiam sub hac comprehenditur astutia.

Under "worldly prudence" Gregory included everything that can pertain to false prudence, so that it comprises craftiness also.

Articulus IV

Whether Guile Is a Sin Pertaining to Craftiness?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod dolus non sit peccatum ad astutiam pertinens. Peccatum enim in perfectis viris non invenitur, praecipue mortale. Invenitur autem in eis aliquis dolus, secundum illud II ad Cor. XII, cum essem astutus, dolo vos cepi. Ergo dolus non est semper peccatum.

It would seem that guile is not a sin pertaining to craftiness. For sin, especially mortal, has no place in perfect men. Yet a certain guile is to be found in them, according to 2 Cor. 12:16, "Being crafty I caught you by guile." Therefore guile is not always a sin.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, dolus maxime ad linguam pertinere videtur, secundum illud Psalm., linguis suis dolose agebant. Astutia autem, sicut et prudentia, est in ipso actu rationis. Ergo dolus non pertinet ad astutiam.

Further, guile seems to pertain chiefly to the tongue, according to Ps. 5:11, "They dealt deceitfully with their tongues." Now craftiness like prudence is in the very act of reason. Therefore guile does not pertain to craftiness.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, Prov. XII dicitur, dolus in corde cogitantium mala. Sed non omnis malorum cogitatio pertinet ad astutiam. Ergo dolus non videtur ad astutiam pertinere.

Further, it is written (Prov. 12:20): "Guile [Douay: 'Deceit'] is in the heart of them that think evil things." But the thought of evil things does not always pertain to craftiness. Therefore guile does not seem to belong to craftiness.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod astutia ad circumveniendum ordinatur, secundum illud apostoli, ad Ephes. IV, in astutia ad circumventionem erroris. Ad quod etiam dolus ordinatur. Ergo dolus pertinet ad astutiam.

On the contrary, Craftiness aims at lying in wait, according to Eph. 4:14, "By cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive": and guile aims at this also. Therefore guile pertains to craftiness.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, ad astutiam pertinet assumere vias non veras, sed simulatas et apparentes, ad aliquem finem prosequendum vel bonum vel malum. Assumptio autem harum viarum potest dupliciter considerari. Uno quidem modo, in ipsa excogitatione viarum huiusmodi, et hoc proprie pertinet ad astutiam, sicut etiam excogitatio rectarum viarum ad debitum finem pertinet ad prudentiam. Alio modo potest considerari talium viarum assumptio secundum executionem operis, et secundum hoc pertinet ad dolum. Et ideo dolus importat quandam executionem astutiae. Et secundum hoc ad astutiam pertinet.

I answer that, As stated above (A. 3), it belongs to craftiness to adopt ways that are not true but counterfeit and apparently true, in order to attain some end either good or evil. Now the adopting of such ways may be subjected to a twofold consideration; first, as regards the process of thinking them out, and this belongs properly to craftiness, even as thinking out right ways to a due end belongs to prudence. Secondly the adopting of such like ways may be considered with regard to their actual execution, and in this way it belongs to guile. Hence guile denotes a certain execution of craftiness, and accordingly belongs thereto.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sicut astutia proprie accipitur in malo, abusive autem in bono; ita etiam et dolus, qui est astutiae executio.

Just as craftiness is taken properly in a bad sense, and improperly in a good sense, so too is guile which is the execution of craftiness.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod executio astutiae ad decipiendum primo quidem et principaliter fit per verba, quae praecipuum locum tenent inter signa quibus homo significat aliquid alteri, ut patet per Augustinum, in libro de Doct. Christ. Et ideo dolus maxime attribuitur locutioni. Contingit tamen esse dolum et in factis, secundum illud Psalm., et dolum facerent in servos eius. Est etiam et dolus in corde, secundum illud Eccli. XIX. Interiora eius plena sunt dolo. Sed hoc est secundum quod aliquis dolos excogitat, secundum illud Psalm., dolos tota die meditabantur.

The execution of craftiness with the purpose of deceiving, is effected first and foremost by words, which hold the chief place among those signs whereby a man signifies something to another man, as Augustine states (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 3), hence guile is ascribed chiefly to speech. Yet guile may happen also in deeds, according to Ps. 104:25, "And to deal deceitfully with his servants." Guile is also in the heart, according to Ecclus. 19:23, "His interior is full of deceit," but this is to devise deceits, according to Ps. 37:13: "They studied deceits all the day long."

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod quicumque cogitant aliquod malum facere, necesse est quod excogitent aliquas vias ad hoc quod suum propositum impleant, et ut plurimum excogitant vias dolosas, quibus facilius propositum consequantur. Quamvis contingat quandoque quod absque astutia et dolo aliqui aperte et per violentiam malum operentur. Sed hoc, quia difficilius fit, in paucioribus accidit.

Whoever purposes to do some evil deed, must needs devise certain ways of attaining his purpose, and for the most part he devises deceitful ways, whereby the more easily to obtain his end. Nevertheless it happens sometimes that evil is done openly and by violence without craftiness and guile; but as this is more difficult, it is of less frequent occurrence.

Articulus V

Whether Fraud Pertains to Craftiness?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fraus ad astutiam non pertineat. Non enim est laudabile quod aliquis decipi se patiatur, ad quod astutia tendit. Est autem laudabile quod aliquis patiatur fraudem, secundum illud I ad Cor. VI, quare non magis fraudem patimini? Ergo fraus non pertinet ad astutiam.

It would seem that fraud does not pertain to craftiness. For a man does not deserve praise if he allows himself to be deceived, which is the object of craftiness; and yet a man deserves praise for allowing himself to be defrauded, according to 1 Cor. 6:1, "Why do you not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?" Therefore fraud does not belong to craftiness.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, fraus pertinere videtur ad illicitam acceptionem vel receptionem exteriorum rerum, dicitur enim Act. V quod vir quidam nomine Ananias, cum Saphira uxore sua, vendidit agrum et fraudavit de pretio agri. Sed illicite usurpare vel retinere res exteriores pertinet ad iniustitiam vel illiberalitatem. Ergo fraus non pertinet ad astutiam, quae opponitur prudentiae.

Further, fraud seems to consist in unlawfully taking or receiving external things, for it is written (Acts 5:1) that "a certain man named Ananias with Saphira his wife, sold a piece of land, and by fraud kept back part of the price of the land." Now it pertains to injustice or illiberality to take possession of or retain external things unjustly. Therefore fraud does not belong to craftiness which is opposed to prudence.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, nullus astutia utitur contra seipsum. Sed aliquorum fraudes sunt contra seipsos, dicitur enim Prov. I de quibusdam quod moliuntur fraudes contra animas suas. Ergo fraus non pertinet ad astutiam.

Further, no man employs craftiness against himself. But the frauds of some are against themselves, for it is written (Prov. 1:18) concerning some "that they practice frauds [Douay: 'deceits'] against their own souls." Therefore fraud does not belong to craftiness.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra, fraus ad deceptionem ordinatur, secundum illud Iob XIII, numquid decipietur ut homo vestris fraudulentiis? Ad idem etiam ordinatur astutia. Ergo fraus ad astutiam pertinet.

On the contrary, The object of fraud is to deceive, according to Job 13:9, "Shall he be deceived as a man, with your fraudulent [Douay: 'deceitful'] dealings?" Now craftiness is directed to the same object. Therefore fraud pertains to craftiness.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod sicut dolus consistit in executione astutiae, ita etiam et fraus, sed in hoc differre videntur quod dolus pertinet universaliter ad executionem astutiae, sive fiat per verba sive per facta; fraus autem magis proprie pertinet ad executionem astutiae secundum quod fit per facta.

I answer that, Just as guile consists in the execution of craftiness, so also does fraud. But they seem to differ in the fact that guile belongs in general to the execution of craftiness, whether this be effected by words, or by deeds, whereas fraud belongs more properly to the execution of craftiness by deeds.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod apostolus non inducit fideles ad hoc quod decipiantur in cognoscendo, sed ad hoc quod effectum deceptionis patienter tolerent in sustinendis iniuriis fraudulenter illatis.

The Apostle does not counsel the faithful to be deceived in their knowledge, but to bear patiently the effect of being deceived, and to endure wrongs inflicted on them by fraud.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod executio astutiae potest fieri per aliquod aliud vitium, sicut et executio prudentiae fit per virtutes. Et hoc modo nihil prohibet defraudationem pertinere ad avaritiam vel illiberalitatem.

The execution of craftiness may be carried out by another vice, just as the execution of prudence by the virtues: and accordingly nothing hinders fraud from pertaining to covetousness or illiberality.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod illi qui fraudes faciunt ex eorum intentione non moliuntur aliquid contra seipsos vel contra animas suas, sed ex iusto Dei iudicio provenit ut id quod contra alios moliuntur contra eos retorqueatur; secundum illud Psalm., incidit in foveam quam fecit.

Those who commit frauds, do not design anything against themselves or their own souls; it is through God's just judgment that what they plot against others, recoils on themselves, according to Ps. 7:16, "He is fallen into the hole he made."

Articulus VI

Whether It Is Lawful to Be Solicitous About Temporal Matters?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod licitum sit sollicitudinem habere de temporalibus rebus. Ad praesidentem enim pertinet sollicitum esse de his quibus praeest, secundum illud Rom. XII, qui praeest in sollicitudine. Sed homo praeest ex divina ordinatione temporalibus rebus, secundum illud Psalm., omnia subiecisti sub pedibus eius, oves et boves et cetera. Ergo homo debet habere sollicitudinem de temporalibus rebus.

It would seem lawful to be solicitous about temporal matters. Because a superior should be solicitous for his subjects, according to Rom. 12:8, "He that ruleth, with solicitude." Now according to the Divine ordering, man is placed over temporal things, according to Ps. 8:8, "Thou hast subjected all things under his feet," etc. Therefore man should be solicitous about temporal things.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, unusquisque sollicitus est de fine propter quem operatur. Sed licitum est hominem operari propter temporalia, quibus vitam sustentet, unde apostolus dicit, II ad Thess. III, si quis non vult operari, non manducet. Ergo licitum est sollicitari de rebus temporalibus.

Further, everyone is solicitous about the end for which he works. Now it is lawful for a man to work for the temporal things whereby he sustains life, wherefore the Apostle says (2 Thess. 3:10): "If any man will not work, neither let him eat." Therefore it is lawful to be solicitous about temporal things.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, sollicitudo de operibus misericordiae laudabilis est, secundum illud II ad Tim. I, cum Romam venisset, sollicite me quaesivit. Sed sollicitudo temporalium rerum quandoque pertinet ad opera misericordiae, puta cum quis sollicitudinem adhibet ad procurandum negotia pupillorum et pauperum. Ergo sollicitudo temporalium rerum non est illicita.

Further, solicitude about works of mercy is praiseworthy, according to 2 Tim. 1:17, "When he was come to Rome, he carefully sought me." Now solicitude about temporal things is sometimes connected with works of mercy; for instance, when a man is solicitous to watch over the interests of orphans and poor persons. Therefore solicitude about temporal things is not unlawful.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Matth. VI, nolite solliciti esse, dicentes, quid manducabimus aut quid bibemus, aut quo operiemur? Quae tamen sunt maxime necessaria.

On the contrary, Our Lord said (Matt. 6:31): "Be not solicitous . . . saying, What shall we eat, or what shall we drink, or wherewith shall we be clothed?" And yet such things are very necessary.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod sollicitudo importat studium quoddam adhibitum ad aliquid consequendum. Manifestum est autem quod maius studium adhibetur ubi est timor deficiendi, et ideo ubi est securitas consequendi, minor intervenit sollicitudo. Sic ergo sollicitudo temporalium rerum tripliciter potest esse illicita. Uno quidem modo, ex parte eius de quo sollicitamur, si scilicet temporalia tanquam finem quaeramus. Unde et Augustinus dicit, in libro de operibus Monach., cum dominus dicit, nolite solliciti esse etc., hoc dicit ut non ista intueantur, et propter ista faciant quidquid in Evangelii praedicatione facere iubentur. Alio modo potest esse temporalium sollicitudo illicita propter superfluum studium quod apponitur ad temporalia procuranda, propter quod homo a spiritualibus, quibus principalius inservire debet, retrahitur. Et ideo dicitur Matth. XIII quod sollicitudo saeculi suffocat verbum. Tertio modo, ex parte timoris superflui, quando scilicet aliquis timet ne, faciendo quod debet, necessaria sibi deficiant. Quod dominus tripliciter excludit. Primo, propter maiora beneficia homini praestita divinitus praeter suam sollicitudinem, scilicet corpus et animam. Secundo, propter subventionem qua Deus animalibus et plantis subvenit absque opere humano, secundum proportionem suae naturae. Tertio, ex divina providentia, propter cuius ignorantiam gentiles circa temporalia bona quaerenda principalius sollicitantur. Et ideo concludit quod principaliter nostra sollicitudo esse debet de spiritualibus bonis, sperantes quod etiam temporalia nobis provenient ad necessitatem, si fecerimus quod debemus.

I answer that, Solicitude denotes an earnest endeavor to obtain something. Now it is evident that the endeavor is more earnest when there is fear of failure, so that there is less solicitude when success is assured. Accordingly solicitude about temporal things may be unlawful in three ways. First on the part of the object of solicitude; that is, if we seek temporal things as an end. Hence Augustine says (De Operibus Monach. xxvi): "When Our Lord said: 'Be not solicitous, ' etc. . . . He intended to forbid them either to make such things their end, or for the sake of these things to do whatever they were commanded to do in preaching the Gospel." Secondly, solicitude about temporal things may be unlawful, through too much earnestness in endeavoring to obtain temporal things, the result being that a man is drawn away from spiritual things which ought to be the chief object of his search, wherefore it is written (Matt. 13:22) that "the care of this world . . . chokes up the word." Thirdly, through over much fear, when, to wit, a man fears to lack necessary things if he do what he ought to do. Now our Lord gives three motives for laying aside this fear. First, on account of the yet greater favors bestowed by God on man, independently of his solicitude, viz. his body and soul (Matt. 6:26); secondly, on account of the care with which God watches over animals and plants without the assistance of man, according to the requirements of their nature; thirdly, because of Divine providence, through ignorance of which the gentiles are solicitous in seeking temporal goods before all others. Consequently He concludes that we should be solicitous most of all about spiritual goods, hoping that temporal goods also may be granted us according to our needs, if we do what we ought to do.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod temporalia bona subiecta sunt homini ut eis utatur ad necessitatem, non ut in eis finem constituat, et superflue circa ea sollicitetur.

Temporal goods are subjected to man that he may use them according to his needs, not that he may place his end in them and be over solicitous about them.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod sollicitudo eius qui corporali labore panem acquirit non est superflua, sed moderata. Et ideo Hieronymus dicit quod labor exercendus est, sollicitudo tollenda, superflua scilicet, animum inquietans.

The solicitude of a man who gains his bread by bodily labor is not superfluous but proportionate; hence Jerome says on Matt. 6:31, "Be not solicitous," that "labor is necessary, but solicitude must be banished," namely superfluous solicitude which unsettles the mind.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod sollicitudo temporalium in operibus misericordiae ordinatur ad finem caritatis. Et ideo non est illicita, nisi sit superflua.

In the works of mercy solicitude about temporal things is directed to charity as its end, wherefore it is not unlawful, unless it be superfluous.

Articulus VII

Whether We Should Be Solicitous About the Future?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis debeat esse sollicitus in futurum. Dicitur enim Prov. VI, vade ad formicam, o piger, et considera vias eius, et disce sapientiam, quae cum non habeat ducem nec praeceptorem, parat in aestate cibum sibi, et congregat in messe quod comedat. Sed hoc est in futurum sollicitari. Ergo laudabilis est sollicitudo futurorum.

It would seem that we should be solicitous about the future. For it is written (Prov. 6:6-8): "Go to the ant, O sluggard, and consider her ways and learn wisdom; which, although she hath no guide, nor master . . . provideth her meat for herself in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest." Now this is to be solicitous about the future. Therefore solicitude about the future is praiseworthy.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, sollicitudo ad prudentiam pertinet. Sed prudentia praecipue est futurorum, praecipua enim pars eius est providentia futurorum, ut supra dictum est. Ergo virtuosum est sollicitari de futuris.

Further, solicitude pertains to prudence. But prudence is chiefly about the future, since its principal part is foresight of future things, as stated above (Q. 49, A. 6, ad 1). Therefore it is virtuous to be solicitous about the future.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, quicumque reponit aliquid in posterum conservandum sollicitus est in futurum. Sed ipse Christus legitur, Ioan. XII, loculos habuisse ad aliquid conservandum, quos Iudas deferebat. Apostoli etiam conservabant pretia praediorum, quae ante pedes eorum ponebantur, ut legitur Act. IV. Ergo licitum est in futurum sollicitari.

Further, whoever puts something by that he may keep it for the morrow, is solicitous about the future. Now we read (John 12:6) that Christ had a bag for keeping things in, which Judas carried, and (Acts 4:34-37) that the Apostles kept the price of the land, which had been laid at their feet. Therefore it is lawful to be solicitous about the future.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Matth. VI, nolite solliciti esse in crastinum. Cras autem ibi ponitur pro futuro, sicut dicit Hieronymus.

On the contrary, Our Lord said (Matt. 6:34): "Be not . . . solicitous for tomorrow"; where "tomorrow" stands for the future, as Jerome says in his commentary on this passage.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod nullum opus potest esse virtuosum nisi debitis circumstantiis vestiatur; inter quas una est debitum tempus, secundum illud Eccle. VIII, omni negotio tempus est et opportunitas. Quod non solum in exterioribus operibus, sed etiam in interiori sollicitudine locum habet. Unicuique enim tempori competit propria sollicitudo, sicut tempori aestatis competit sollicitudo metendi, tempori autumni sollicitudo vindemiae. Si quis ergo tempore aestatis de vindemia iam esset sollicitus, superflue praeoccuparet futuri temporis sollicitudinem. Unde huiusmodi sollicitudinem tanquam superfluam dominus prohibet, dicens, nolite solliciti esse in crastinum. Unde subdit, crastinus enim dies sollicitus erit sibi ipsi, idest, suam propriam sollicitudinem habebit, quae sufficiet ad animum affligendum. Et hoc est quod subdit, sufficit diei malitia sua, idest afflictio sollicitudinis.

I answer that, No work can be virtuous, unless it be vested with its due circumstances, and among these is the due time, according to Eccles. 8:6, "There is a time and opportunity for every business"; which applies not only to external deeds but also to internal solicitude. For every time has its own fitting proper solicitude; thus solicitude about the crops belongs to the summer time, and solicitude about the vintage to the time of autumn. Accordingly if a man were solicitous about the vintage during the summer, he would be needlessly forestalling the solicitude belonging to a future time. Hence Our Lord forbids such like excessive solicitude, saying: "Be . . . not solicitous for tomorrow," wherefore He adds, "for the morrow will be solicitous for itself," that is to say, the morrow will have its own solicitude, which will be burden enough for the soul. This is what He means by adding: "Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof," namely, the burden of solicitude.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod formica habet sollicitudinem congruam tempori, et hoc nobis imitandum proponitur.

The ant is solicitous at a befitting time, and it is this that is proposed for our example.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ad prudentiam pertinet providentia debita futurorum. Esset autem inordinata futurorum providentia vel sollicitudo si quis temporalia, in quibus dicitur praeteritum et futurum, tanquam fines quaereret; vel si superflua quaereret ultra praesentis vitae necessitatem; vel si tempus sollicitudinis praeoccuparet.

Due foresight of the future belongs to prudence. But it would be an inordinate foresight or solicitude about the future, if a man were to seek temporal things, to which the terms "past" and "future" apply, as ends, or if he were to seek them in excess of the needs of the present life, or if he were to forestall the time for solicitude.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Serm. Dom. in monte, cum viderimus aliquem servum Dei providere ne ista necessaria sibi desint, non iudicemus eum de crastino sollicitum esse. Nam et ipse dominus propter exemplum loculos habere dignatus est; et in actibus apostolorum scriptum est ea quae ad victum sunt necessaria procurata esse in futurum propter imminentem famem. Non ergo dominus improbat si quis humano more ista procuret, sed si quis propter ista militet Deo.

As Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 17), "when we see a servant of God taking thought lest he lack these needful things, we must not judge him to be solicitous for the morrow, since even Our Lord deigned for our example to have a purse, and we read in the Acts of the Apostles that they procured the necessary means of livelihood in view of the future on account of a threatened famine. Hence Our Lord does not condemn those who according to human custom, provide themselves with such things, but those who oppose themselves to God for the sake of these things."

Articulus VIII

Whether These Vices Arise from Covetousness?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod huiusmodi vitia non oriantur ex avaritia. Quia sicut dictum est, per luxuriam maxime ratio patitur defectum in sua rectitudine. Sed huiusmodi vitia opponuntur rationi rectae, scilicet prudentiae. Ergo huiusmodi vitia maxime ex luxuria oriuntur, praesertim cum philosophus dicat, in VII Ethic., quod Venus est dolosa, et eius corrigia est varia, et quod ex insidiis agit incontinens concupiscentiae.

It would seem that these vices do not arise from covetousness. As stated above (Q. 43, A. 6) lust is the chief cause of lack of rectitude in the reason. Now these vices are opposed to right reason, i.e. to prudence. Therefore they arise chiefly from lust; especially since the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 6) that "Venus is full of guile and her girdle is many colored" and that "he who is incontinent in desire acts with cunning."

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, praedicta vitia habent quandam similitudinem prudentiae, ut dictum est. Sed ad prudentiam, cum sit in ratione, maiorem propinquitatem habere videntur vitia magis spiritualia, sicut superbia et inanis gloria. Ergo huiusmodi vitia magis videntur ex superbia oriri quam ex avaritia.

Further, these vices bear a certain resemblance to prudence, as stated above (Q. 47, A. 13). Now, since prudence is in the reason, the more spiritual vices seem to be more akin thereto, such as pride and vainglory. Therefore the aforesaid vices seem to arise from pride rather than from covetousness.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, homo insidiis utitur non solum in diripiendis bonis alienis, sed etiam in machinando aliorum caedes, quorum primum pertinet ad avaritiam, secundum ad iram. Sed insidiis uti pertinet ad astutiam, dolum et fraudem. Ergo praedicta vitia non solum oriuntur ex avaritia, sed etiam ex ira.

Further, men make use of stratagems not only in laying hold of other people's goods, but also in plotting murders, the former of which pertains to covetousness, and the latter to anger. Now the use of stratagems pertains to craftiness, guile, and fraud. Therefore the aforesaid vices arise not only from covetousness, but also from anger.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Gregorius, XXXI Moral., ponit fraudem filiam avaritiae.

On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) states that fraud is a daughter of covetousness.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, prudentia carnis et astutia, cum dolo et fraude, quandam similitudinem habent cum prudentia in aliquali usu rationis. Praecipue autem inter alias virtutes morales usus rationis rectae apparet in iustitia, quae est in appetitu rationali. Et ideo usus rationis indebitus etiam maxime apparet in vitiis oppositis iustitiae. Opponitur autem sibi maxime avaritia. Et ideo praedicta vitia maxime ex avaritia oriuntur.

I answer that, As stated above (A. 3; Q. 47, A. 13), carnal prudence and craftiness, as well as guile and fraud, bear a certain resemblance to prudence in some kind of use of the reason. Now among all the moral virtues it is justice wherein the use of right reason appears chiefly, for justice is in the rational appetite. Hence the undue use of reason appears chiefly in the vices opposed to justice, the chief of which is covetousness. Therefore the aforesaid vices arise chiefly from covetousness.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod luxuria, propter vehementiam delectationis et concupiscentiae, totaliter opprimit rationem, ne prodeat in actum. In praedictis autem vitiis aliquis usus rationis est, licet inordinatus. Unde praedicta vitia non oriuntur directe ex luxuria. Quod autem philosophus Venerem dolosam appellat, hoc dicitur secundum quandam similitudinem, inquantum scilicet subito hominem surripit, sicut et in dolis agitur; non tamen per astutias, sed magis per violentiam concupiscentiae et delectationis. Unde et subdit quod Venus furatur intellectum multum sapientis.

On account of the vehemence of pleasure and of concupiscence, lust entirely suppresses the reason from exercising its act: whereas in the aforesaid vices there is some use of reason, albeit inordinate. Hence these vices do not arise directly from lust. When the Philosopher says that "Venus is full of guile," he is referring to a certain resemblance, in so far as she carries man away suddenly, just as he is moved in deceitful actions, yet not by means of craftiness but rather by the vehemence of concupiscence and pleasure; wherefore he adds that "Venus doth cozen the wits of the wisest man" [Cf. Iliad xiv, 214-217].

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ex insidiis agere ad quandam pusillanimitatem pertinere videtur, magnanimus enim in omnibus vult manifestus esse, ut philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic. Et ideo quia superbia quandam similitudinem magnanimitatis habet vel fingit, inde est quod non directe ex superbia huiusmodi vitia oriuntur, quae utuntur fraude et dolis. Magis autem hoc pertinet ad avaritiam, quae utilitatem quaerit, parvipendens excellentiam.

To do anything by stratagem seems to be due to pusillanimity: because a magnanimous man wishes to act openly, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 3). Wherefore, as pride resembles or apes magnanimity, it follows that the aforesaid vices which make use of fraud and guile, do not arise directly from pride, but rather from covetousness, which seeks its own profit and sets little by excellence.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod ira habet subitum motum, unde praecipitanter agit et absque consilio; quo utuntur praedicta vitia, licet inordinate. Quod autem aliqui insidiis utantur ad caedes aliorum, non provenit ex ira, sed magis ex odio, quia iracundus appetit esse manifestus in nocendo, ut dicit philosophus, in II Rhet.

Anger's movement is sudden, hence it acts with precipitation, and without counsel, contrary to the use of the aforesaid vices, though these use counsel inordinately. That men use stratagems in plotting murders, arises not from anger but rather from hatred, because the angry man desires to harm manifestly, as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii, 2, 3) [Cf. Ethic. vii, 6].

Showing Thomas's answers only.