Article — Billuart, Summa Summae · from Schola Thomistica
Whence is the inequality of sins taken?
I say 1°: The quantity or essential inequality of sins is derived from the object in point of gravity1. 1 Here q. 73, a. 3, o.
Dico 1° : Quantitas seu inaequalitas essentialis peccatorum in gravitate desumitur ex objecto1. 1 Hic q. 73, a. 3, o.
It is proved. Thence is sought the essential quantity or gravity of sin, whence its species is sought2. But the species of sin is derived from the object, as we said in the places soon to be cited. Therefore. 2 Ibid., in arg. Sed contra.
Probatur. Inde petitur essentialis quantitas seu gravitas peccati, unde petitur ejus species2. Atqui species peccati desumitur ex objecto, ut diximus locis mox citatis. Ergo. 2 Ibid., in arg. Sed contra.
I say 2°: The essential inequality of sins is also sought per se and caeteris paribus from the virtues to which they are opposed3; so that that sin is the more grave which is directly and principally opposed to the nobler virtue. 3 Ibid., a. 4, o.
Dico 2° : Inaequalitas essentialis peccatorum petitur etiam per se et caeteris paribus ex virtutibus quibus opponentur3; ita ut eo gravius sit peccatum, quo opponitur directe et principaliter nobiliori virtuti. 3 Ibid., a. 4, o.
This conclusion follows from the preceding; because, the nobler the virtue against which a sin is opposed, the more excellent is the object about which it is concerned. But it was said in the preceding conclusion that the essential gravity of sins is derived from the object. Therefore.
Haec conclusio sequitur ex praecedenti; quia, quo peccatum opponitur nobiliori virtuti, eo praestantius est objectum circa quod versatur. Dictum est autem in conclusione praecedenti, gravitatem essentialem peccatorum desumi ex objecto. Ergo.
Understand both these conclusions 1º per se, because per accidens a sin whose object is more grave and is opposed to a nobler virtue can, by reason of the imperfection of the act or the lightness of the matter, be venial; and another whose object is less grave and is opposed to a lesser virtue, mortal. 2º Understand it caeteris paribus, so that the vices between which the comparison is made are concerned with the primary object of the virtue to which they are opposed; so that, if a supreme vice is opposed on one side to the supreme virtue, so also on the other: for want of which, hatred of one's neighbor, for example, although opposed to charity, the most noble of virtues, is nevertheless not the most grave of sins, because it is not opposed to the primary object of charity, which is God.
Hanc utramque conclusionem intellige 1º per se, quia per accidens peccatum cujus objectum est gravius, et opponitur nobilibri virtuti, ratione imperfectionis actus aut levitatis materiae potest esse veniale, et aliud cujus objectum est minus grave et opponitur minori virtuti, esse mortale. 2º Intellige caeteris paribus, ita ut vitia inter quae fit comparatio versentur circa objectum primarium virtutis cui opponuntur, ita ut, si summae virtuti ex una parte opponatur summum vitium, ita ex altera parte : cujus defectu, odium proximi, v. g., licet charitati, nobilissimae virtuti, opponatur, non est tamen gravissimum peccatum, quia non opponitur objecto primario charitatis, quod est Deus.
I say 3°: The gravity of sin is also sought from the circumstances4; because each thing is apt to be increased by that from which 4 Ibid., a. 7, o.
Dico 3° : Gravitas peccati petitur etiam ex circumstantiis4; quia unumquodque natum est augeri ex quo 4 Ibid., a. 7, o.