Question — Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V · from Schola Thomistica
Question II: On inconsideration
INCONSIDERATION is thoughtlessness, or a not sufficiently attentive cognition of those truths from which one would judge rightly, as D. Thomas says. And so this sin is opposed to Prudence by reason of Synesis, and Gnome, annexed to it, which are judge of right judgment. On that account Cautelam and Incircumspectio are enclosed under this sin, against Cautela and Circumspection, which are integral parts of Prudence: For those ordinations are made toward right judgment, from which those two opposites fall short, which for that reason constitute one vice, and at the same time, together with Inconsideration, as Valentia and Tannerus say numero 52.
INCONSIDERATIO est incogitantia, vel non satis attenta cognitio earum veritatum, ex quibus esset recte iudicandum, ut ait D. Thom. Itaque peccatum hoc opponitur Prudentiae ratione Synesis, et Gnomae, ipsi adiunctarum, quae sunt recte iudicativae. Ob id sub hoc peccato clauditur Incautela, et Incircumspectio, contra Cautelam, et Circumspectionem, quae sunt partes integrales Prudentiae: Ordinationes enim istae fiunt ad rectum iudicium, a quo deficiunt illae duae oppositae, quae propterea unum vitium constituunt, et simul, et cum Inconsideratione, ut ait Valentia, et Tannerus numero 52.
But it happens for the most part, when someone, otherwise having knowledge of the Law or of fact, sins inconsiderately against either; whence he is recalled to that ignorance which the prudent man ought to have avoided; hence he has culpability when it arises from that inconsideration which is called affectata, by which someone, letting himself be carried away by the impetus of his passion, ceases to consider what and how he ought to act; But often he does not have culpability, if from the sudden presence of some unexpected thing the mind is suddenly snatched into oblivion, and is otherwise prepared to act rightly; for often, from the surreption of some affair, the mind is dispersed into various things, and however attentively you had considered, they are scattered into alien thoughts; wherefore inconsideration taken in this sense is not adverse to prudence; since it passes into the inculpable nature of Ignorance.
ACCIDIT autem plerumque, cum quis alioqui Iuris, aut facti habens scientiam, inconsiderate contra utrumvis delinquit; unde ad illam ignorantiam revocatur, quam prudens debuit vitare; hinc habet culpam, quando oritur ex illa inconsideratione, quae dicitur affectata, qua quis sinens se suae passionis impetu abduci, considerare desinit, quid et qualiter agere debeat; Culpam vero multoties non habet, si ex repentina insperatae alicuius rei praesentia mentem subito in oblivionem rapiat, et alioquin recte operari sit paratus; saepe enim ex alicuius negotii subreptione animus in varia dispergitur, et quamprius quantumvis attente consideraveris, in alienas cogitationes disperguntur; quare hoc sensu sumpta inconsiderantia, prudentiae non adversatur; cum in naturam Ignorantiae invincibilis transeat.
Nor does culpable Inconsideration intervene only in choosing evil simply; but also in rejecting the greater, or better good; which happens when a sensible good allure more vehemently, and reason does not weigh all with mature deliberation; whence it follows that this vice always precedes sin; although sometimes it is the effect of that sin of which it is not the cause; for the more the will succumbs to the appetite of sensible things, the less the Intellect can attend to the due pondering of things.
NEC solum in malo simpliciter eligendo intervenit Inconsiderantia culpabilis; sed et etiam in maiori, aut meliori bono respuendo; quod accidit, quando bonum sensibile vehementius allicit, nec ratio omnia matura deliberatione ponderat; unde sequitur, hoc vitium semper antecedere peccatum; licet aliquando illius peccati, cuius non est causa, sit effectus; cum quo magis voluntas rerum sensibilium appetitui succumbat, eo minus Intellectus debitae rerum ponderationi vacare possit.