Last Question: On the other vices opposed to the potential parts of temperance

AMONG these vices curiosity first presents itself, which can be taken broadly or strictly; taken broadly it stands for an immoderate eagerness for trying novelties in any way whatever; thus the Holy Doctor takes it in his exposition on the Psalter, Psalm 13, where he sets out four things by which a Christian man is most corrupted; and he puts Curiosity first among them, saying: there are four things that corrupt, Curiosity, loquacity, cruelty, and pleasure.

And since the experience of novelties is perceived chiefly by sight, therefore the Holy Doctor in the place cited ascribes Curiosity to the eyes; for these, while the mind within is distracted through negligence, run about and wander abroad among various objects; whence a multitude of thoughts, creeping into the mind in a throng, empties piety, and by degrees drives the soul on to graver sins.

The Holy Doctor also elegantly sets forth another, more physical reason, in the place cited above: why the eyes are seduced by curiosity more than the other senses? For since the four elements flourish especially in four parts of man, fire shines forth most of all in the eyes, and therefore by nature, being remote from the center, it strives to burst forth in every direction and to course about, and scarcely allows the visual rays to be fixed long on one object; hence the young are more curious than the old, since in the latter that fire lies almost extinct and languishes, while in the former, being more lively, it distracts: The other parts, in which the remaining elements flourish, are the hands, in which, because of the predominance of earth, there is touch; the tongue, in which the air forms the voice; and the genitals, in which the watery humor serves generation: And these parts (the Holy Doctor subjoins) the aforesaid four vices, like a fourfold pestilence, destroy — the eyes namely curiosity, the tongue loquacity, the hands cruelty, and the genitals pleasure. I relate this because those vices oppose that temperance in a special manner, of which more fully elsewhere.

STRICTLY speaking, however, curiosity taken thus is opposed to studiousness by excess, and consists in the desire and immoderate eagerness to know and to be wise, not unto sobriety, but to satisfy the lust of the mind.

Hence this curiosity is very well defined by the Holy Doctor in his exposition on Ecclesiastes on the words I saw all things that are done. It is the lustful prostitution of the human understanding, embracing any truth whatsoever everywhere and committing adultery with it: The reason for this definition is given in the same place by the Seraphic Doctor, because the first Truth is the bride, whose faith the human understanding in a certain way breaks, while it curiously explores other truths and places its satiety, or happiness, in them; And since curiosity advances thus far, it is without doubt deadly, when it turns the soul wholly away from the first Truth.

That this immoderate desire of knowing can occur in four ways is taught by St. Thomas, q. 167, and St. Bonaventure in the mirror of the soul, chap. 1.

FIRST on the part of the end, if he ordains knowledge to an evil end, or does not refer it to God as he ought, as St. Augustine says book on true religion, chap. 29, and book on the morals of the Church, chap. 21, in Valencia's collection.

SECOND on the part of the learner, if by means of it he is hindered from satisfying his duty. On this ground St. Jerome in the epistle to Damasus, on the prodigal son, rebukes Priests, who, setting aside the Gospels and the Prophets, read comedies and love poems, and sing the words of bucolic verses.

THIRD on the part of the one from whom knowledge is sought, as if it be sought from a demon, as I said concerning Superstition and Adjuration, Treatise on Religion.

FOURTH on the part of the thing whose knowledge is sought, if it be above nature. Therefore Ecclesiasticus 3: Seek not the things that are too high for thee.

THE EXCESS of games is opposed to Eutrapelia, as I said when treating of Games and Jests. See St. Thomas question 178, article 3.

And indeed it will be mortal, if the manner of playing is disgraceful and obscene, or pernicious to one's neighbor through mingled frauds: Or if anyone so gives himself to play that he neglects the commandments of God or of the Church, and indeed places in it his ultimate end, as St. Bonaventure teaches in the mirror of the soul, chap. 2, §. The fifth fruit of rapine is the game of dice. Hence some say of this that it is a mortal sin, because it is against Canonical and Civil law. And what is gained from play is possessed by no good title, nor can it be retained, but ought to be distributed to the poor. For since he who gains in play gains unjustly, and he who loses loses justly, therefore he who gains is not bound to restore to him from whom he gains, unless perhaps he led him into playing. And since play seems to have sufficiently from its root the character of mortal sin, because it seems to proceed from avarice, and because many sins are communicated in play — namely fraud, lying, perjury, blasphemy, scandal, loss of time, and anger — therefore this seems to be the reason for the prohibition of play. When one plays for the sake of recreation, the sins said above being excluded, it does not seem to have the character of mortal sin. Thus the Seraphic Doctor.

And chap. 3, §. On dishonesty in gesture, he strikes the same note.

From these gather, first, that the game of dice is not forbidden by the natural law. So Molina Volume 2, on Justice, question 510. Stephanus Costa, Treatise on Play, article 4, number 5. Diana part one, treatise 15, resolution 65, against Scacchius treatise on commerce, §. 1, question 1, number 104.

GATHER, second, that the civil and canonical laws prohibiting these games do not of themselves bind under mortal sin, as the Holy Doctor says, but only by reason of the sins that follow; and that the civil laws have been abrogated by custom, as taught by Homobonus on the examination of churches, part 2, treatise 9, chap. 24, question 25. Regius in the resolution of cases, case 23. Salas treatise on play, disputation 3. Lessius book 2, chap. 26, doubt 1. Filliucius volume 2, treatise 38, chap. 4, number 58. Diana in the place cited, who with others infer that, by force of the said laws, other circumstances set aside, there is not even sin.

THERE is, moreover, the question whether the keepers of houses for these games sin gravely.

THE NEGATIVE opinion is upheld by Vincentius Iustinianus, a Dominican, cited by Lopez, to be quoted below; for by the authority of St. Thomas 1. 2. question 169, article 2, ad 4, and by the examples adduced after Sanchez by Bonacina, Treatise on laws, disputation 2, question 4, point 2, it is lawful to minister and sell indifferent things, even with knowledge of their wicked abuse: And such are these games.

THAT it is nevertheless unlawful St. Bonaventure teaches in the place cited of the mirror, chap. 2, for there those grave sins are perpetrated which the Holy Doctor enumerates, as tearful experience teaches.

He has been followed by Suarez, treatise on Charity, disputation 10, section 4. Sanchez, Volume 1, book 1, chap. 7, number 39. Sylvester, under the word Ludus, question 15. Navarrus, Manual, chap. 19. Comitolus, book 3, question 7. Zanardus, in the Directory, part 2, precept 3, chap. 28. John de la Cruz, in the Directory, part 1, precept 7, article 5, doubt 13. Valencia, volume 2, disputation 5, question 6, point 5, §. 2. Molina, Volume 2, on Justice, disputation 516, and many others among these, with whom Diana subscribes above, referring to others.

It is proved by the argument of St. Bonaventure: Those things from which grave sins follow are gravely forbidden: such are these gatherings of houses, or conventicles: Therefore. The minor is proved from St. Bernard sermon 33, where he enumerates twelve sins. What is Barattry but a betting-house, in which by blasphemies the limbs are cut down of him who redeemed us with his own blood, and of his sweetest Mother, and of all the Saints, as Bellochius says in practice, part 2, question 4, from number 492 to 504, who says it is the seed-bed of all vices, of which St. Antoninus enumerates twenty-one part 2, title 1, chap. 23, §. 6. Wherefore he beseeches Princes, in the bowels of Christ, to root out this most foul pestilence.

Bellochus number 466 infers, and Diana in the place cited and others, that the patrons of these conventicles, should the principal players default, step in and are bound in restitution.

Diana infers, second, that Princes cannot grant a license for exposing a house for play.

From what has been said the adverse argument is answered: it is not lawful to minister things to wicked uses when the wicked use is exercised in the very exhibition itself; and thus dice, dice-games, and candles are exercised while men are actually blaspheming, as Diana notes with Lorca 2. 2, question 10, article 9. Nor does Diana rightly concede in his first answer that these things are indifferent, since on the very fact they are wicked and morally ordered to this.

THE DEFECT opposed to Eutrapelia at the other extreme remains, and is called Rusticity, as Aristotle teaches Nicomachean Ethics 2, chap. 7, and book 4, chap. 8, and St. Thomas question 168, article 4, and St. Bonaventure in the places adduced, and it occurs when a man is so boorish as to make himself burdensome to all, hindering honest recreations, either by not cooperating in them or by biting, carping, and embittering them out of a certain unurbanity which I call Saturnine, which very many hunt after, especially spiritual Cydonians, and by which they vex others.