Question III: On curses

MALEDICTION is defined by St. Bonaventure in the Declaratory Dictionary of Theological Terms: To curse is for anyone to wish that blows or punishments be impressed upon someone by word. So also St. Thomas.

St. Thomas, art. 1. Filliuc, Tract. 40, cap. 5, num. 146. Fagundez, l. 8, cap. 12, num. 18, and others cited by him, define cursing as: An imprecation of evil, under the aspect of evil, and they add that a curse can be made either imperatively or optatively; but I do not see that they can exercise a proper command unless they order someone killed or struck, which is not to curse.

THEY SAY, further, that "an imprecation of evil, under the aspect of evil," is added to the definition because someone can imprecate evil under the aspect of good, as when someone is justly punished for a fault.

THEY ADD that to curse with the mouth only is only a material cursing, such as certain Fathers usually commit, and who therefore do not sin gravely. So in Bassaeus, v. maledictio.

I ASSUME here that if we imprecate evil out of justice, it is not a sin. Thus Noah in Genesis 9 cursed his grandson; Genesis 27, Isaac: Let him that curseth thee be cursed. Genesis 49, Jacob against Simeon and Levi: Cursed be their fury. In Deuteronomy 27 Moses heaps up many curses against sinners. Joshua imprecated a curse on those who would rebuild Jericho, cap. 6; 4 Kings 2, Eliseus cursed the mocking boys.

THIS IS PROVED from St. Bonaventure, loc. cit. of the Pharetra, from the Fathers, from St. Gregory, l. 4, Moral., cap. 6: A curse is uttered one way under the pretext of justice, another through the rancor of vengeance: when holy men pronounce a sentence of cursing, it bursts from them not from a desire of revenge, but from the justice of judgment. Therefore Gregory of Valencia, in the place cited, warns sons to fear the curses of their parents when they are just; but those who curse without cause sin most grievously.

MOREOVER, cursing is of itself a mortal sin.

THIS IS PROVED first from St. Bonaventure, in the Mirror of the Soul, cap. 1, §. Item solium discordiae, and l. 3 of the Pharetra, cap. 3, §. 1, according to the exposition of Sts. Augustine, de conflictu vitiorum, cap. 9, and Gregory, l. 3, Dial. cap. 15, from that first verse to the Corinthians 6: Nor shall cursers possess the kingdom of God.

IT IS PROVED secondly from St. Bonaventure in the Pharetra, from the Fathers, from St. Gregory, l. 22, Mor. cap. 6: They who assail an enemy with curses, what else do they wish God to do to him than what they themselves either cannot do, or blush to do? And in the Register, book 2, index 10, cap. 34, to a certain Archbishop: You show nothing of thinking on heavenly things, but you signify that you have an earthly thought: while for your own vengeance for an injury — which the sacred rules forbid — you have invaded with the curse of anathema. And lib. 3, Dial. cap. 15, on the Apostle's words: Nor shall cursers possess the kingdom of God. Consider how great is the guilt that separates from the kingdom of heavenly life.

ST. AUGUSTINE, lib. de conflictu vitiorum et virtutum, cap. 9: What is to be said of those who, in the fury of blindness, burst forth even into words of cursing, except what the Apostle says: Nor shall cursers possess the kingdom of God?

And in Proverbs 26: A curse uttered in vain against anyone shall come upon the one who utters it, where the Interlinear gloss has: Upon the one who utters it.

NEVERTHELESS (as the Holy Doctor says above) the word of a curse can be venial, either because of the smallness of the evil desired, or because the words are spoken in jest, or by surprise, or out of zeal for justice, or without a wicked affection. And in this way St. Augustine, sermon 41 on the Saints, indicates it is venial.

SOME DOUBT: whether it is lawful to imprecate an evil upon someone for a right end, that is, sickness upon a sinner, so that he may repent.

SOME DENY it, because what is not lawful to do is not lawful to desire.

THE TRUER opinion is affirmative. So St. Thomas, quaest. 76, art. 7; Sotus, l. 5, quaest. 12, art. 1; Filliuc, tomo 2, tract. 40, cap. 5, numer. 149; Fagundez, lib. 8, cap. 22, num. 21. The reason is that the end is more important, and therefore a good is wished to him when some penalty, ordered to a good end, is wished. And what is lawful to desire is lawful to pray for, as Bass. 4 and Sanci. sel. disp. 2 and 6 say.

FINALLY THEY ASK: whether it is lawful to curse irrational creatures.

ST. BONAVENTURE ANSWERS, in his commentary on Psalm 39, universally that it is not lawful to curse these. He proves it from Romans 12: Bless, and curse not: and from that passage of 1 Corinthians 6 cited above.

THEY OBJECT that David cursed the mountains of Gelboe, 2 Kings 1.

IT IS ANSWERED with St. Bonaventure, de gradibus virtutum, cap. 16, that David was lamenting the ruin of Israel, and rather cursed the misfortune of the men. So also St. Thomas, quaest. 76, article two.

THEY OBJECT secondly that Job cursed the day of his birth and the night of his conception.

ST. BONAVENTURE ANSWERS, in the Mirror of the Blessed Virgin, lecture eleven, that Job cursed the night of his conception not as it was a day or night, but as it was stained in it by original sin. So Fagundez also answers, lib. 8, cap. 13, number 24.

GREGORY OF VALENCIA ANSWERS, quaest. 19, p. 2, that the curses of things read in Scripture cannot be referred to things that are not capable of evil in order to the free attainment of the supernatural end, but only to the men themselves, as at Job 3 and 2 Kings 1 cited above; Matthew 21: Never shall fruit come forth from thee henceforward; Genesis 3: Cursed is the earth in thy work.

THEREFORE, says Tannetus, number 157, curses upon irrational creatures, as rustics do, are idle words; but to curse them as they are creatures of God is blasphemy, just as it is to curse the Saints insofar as God dwells in them. But to curse them as they are someone's goods is the same sin as cursing the Lords themselves: so also Bassaeus, num. 5.

AGAIN, to curse creatures as they are related to human goods — for example, to curse the day on which one was born, because you wish he had never been born, as if he had been born unto evil — is a mortal sin; but to curse them as they are referred to evils, for example the day of one's birth because of the evils that followed from it, provided that this does not contradict the ordination of the absolute will of God, is not a sin, says Tanner, number 158; and thus Job cursed his day, cap. 3, and David the mountains of Gelboe, 2 Kings 1, as St. Thomas also teaches, quaestion 76, artic. 2, and Cajetan, on the word maledictum.

FURTHER, a curse does not belong to one single genus of sin; for if anyone wishes an evil to be inflicted on another not by an unjust way but through God, or the elements, or other creatures, without injustice, it will belong to the order of charity and will be opposed to charity, as St. Thomas indicates, quaest. 76, art. 3. But if he wishes evils of this kind to be inflicted unjustly, for instance by homicide, etc., then it is opposed to justice. See Tanner, number 159.

SOME TREAT here of Suspicion and Rash Judgment, of which we treated in disput. 23, quaest. 7; therefore nothing now occurs to be said of these, except what the Doctors assign as the rule for discerning one from the other, namely when you judge an evil of your neighbor with near certainty and the firmness of a judgment upon slight conjectures, so that if someone publicly questioned you about it, you would affirm the same.

OTHERS ADD that you would not fear to confirm it even by oath; and then indeed the sin is grave, against love of neighbor, who always stands in possession of his good character until he loses it by so open a prostitution that he cannot sustain it by any evasion. Understand this, however, of that neighbor who is of so entire a good reputation as to be commonly so regarded. For to judge of a soldier who is used to spending his time over cups that he is drunk, when he leaves the tavern with a flushed face, will not be a sin so grave, even if in fact he is not tipsy.

IF, HOWEVER, the Judgment falls away from this firmness of asserting; then it will be only suspicion, which is for the most part venial, unless it happens concerning a very honorable person; as if you suspected theft or adultery of a man of noted sanctity because you saw him leaving the house where these were committed; for then upon a slight conjecture you inflict a grave injury on him. The Doctors are accustomed to interpose always: Upon slight conjectures; for if you formed a judgment of anyone with such evidence of reason that no defense to the contrary could be offered, then he is not judged rashly, nor consequently is there sin. Yet since judgments of this kind are accustomed to burst forth from some depraved affection or passion, one must strenuously guard lest anyone indulge himself too much while judging.