VI. On Irreligiosity and on Temptation of God

What is irreligiosity? - Irreligiosity is a vice which is opposed to the virtue of religion by defect, and which tends to inflict irreverence upon God either directly in himself, or indirectly in sacred things or persons. In the first mode it is divided into temptation of God, perjury, infidelity in promises, and blasphemy. In the other mode, into sacrilege and simony. Concerning perjury, infidelity, and blasphemy, in the second precept of the Decalogue; concerning the rest here it will have to be said. Yet S. Thomas treats blasphemy insofar as it is opposed to confession of faith, qq. 13, 14. But cf. q. 13, a. 2 ad 2. Suarez, tr. 3, l. 1, c. 1, n. 8.

What is temptation of God? - Temptation of God is a saying or deed by which someone tests whether God is powerful, wise, merciful, or has some other perfection. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 97, a. 1; L. 29; Suarez, de Relig., tr. 3, l. 1, c. 2, n. 14.

Of how many kinds is temptation of God? - It is twofold: one explicit and formal, the other implicit and interpretative. The first is when someone directly intends the testing of divine perfections, and this generally arises from infidelity, although it can also come from lightness, curiosity, imprudent confidence, etc.; for example, if someone doubting concerning some article of faith should ask from God a miracle, or if someone should throw himself down from a high tower, curiously to test whether God is powerful to preserve him from death.

But the second is when someone does not properly intend that testing, but rashly, without any necessity or utility, says or does something which, the circumstances being considered, by its own nature seems to be referred to it. This happens: 1. when someone tests the divine will concerning some future thing. 2. when someone without just cause neglects ordinary remedies and rashly expects an extraordinary effect from God alone, for example, if someone in a dangerous illness rejects all medicine, wishing to be miraculously healed by God. 3. when someone without any necessity casts himself into such danger that he can scarcely be freed without a miracle of God, for example, if someone through the whole of Lent, without a special instinct of God, should wish to abstain from all food and drink, expecting from God an extraordinary preservation of his life. Here note that if someone acts only rashly, without any respect to God, not trusting certainly in divine providence, but by a certain foolish confidence believing that perhaps by chance he will overcome such or such a danger, he does not sin against religion, but only against the fifth precept of the Decalogue. Suarez, de Relig., tr. 3, l. 1, cc. 2, 3; L. 29; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 97, a. 1.

What kind of sin is temptation of God? - Temptation of God is a mortal sin from its genus. It is proved, because it inflicts grave irreverence upon God; hence it is written: You shall not tempt the Lord your God. Matt. 4:7. And this holds whether the temptation is explicit or implicit. Concerning explicit temptation it is clear, because that explicit intention of testing the divine perfections is an explicit contempt of God himself. But concerning implicit temptation it is demonstrated from this, that even an implicit petition, namely that God work contrary to the order of his providence, from mere curiosity or arrogance, without necessity, very evidently redounds to grave injury to him; for it is to act with God as with a favorer of curiosities.

Temptation of God can be only venial not only on account of ignorance, inadvertence, defect of consent, but also on account of smallness of matter. Thus, for example, he would sin only venially who, laboring under illness, should neglect natural remedies and expect health for himself from God by imprudent confidence, or rather presumption; for that man does not seem to commit a grave disorder, since he does not truly ask a miracle from doubt, or from grave lightness and curiosity of testing divine power. Indeed he is excused even from all fault if he hopes that he will be naturally freed from such a disease, with God helping. Likewise he sins per se only venially who from negligence comes unprepared to preach the word of God, hoping for special help from God. Yet if temptation of God comes not only from an imprudent and presumptuous testing of a divine perfection, or only from an imprudent and presumptuous imploration of divine help, but from doubt concerning the divine perfections, then there will be no smallness of matter. For smallness of matter is not given in deliberate doubt against faith. Therefore then sin will have place against religion and also against faith, mortal from its whole genus. L. 29, 30, 32; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 97, aa. 2, 3, 4.

You will resolve: From what has been said, one can gather what must be thought concerning the tests formerly used, commonly called judgments of God: namely, when witnesses were lacking, various experiments had been instituted to which the accused was subjected; for example, he carried hot iron, walked over burning coals, etc., and if nothing evil happened to him, he was held as innocent. For this is altogether illicit; for it is both a species of divination, since there is no proportion of the means to the end, and temptation of God, since it is to wish indiscriminately to ask from him a miracle by which he may disclose the truth. The Church never approved this. For when a crime cannot be known by natural ways, nor does a special instinct of God otherwise advise, it must be left to the judgment of God, who searches the secrets of hearts. C. Consuluisti 2, qu. 5; tit. de Purgat. vulgari; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 95, a. 8; L. 30; Struggl 6; Muratori, Antiq. Ital., diss. 38, 39.

Is it permitted to ask a miracle from God? - They commonly teach that this is permitted whenever there is a grave utility for our salvation or that of others, or for fulfilling the divine will. For then it would not be to tempt God, but to ask earnestly for God's help in a suitable time. But he would sin who absolutely asked for or offered a miracle for the conversion of heretics or sinners, since the testimonies of our faith suffice. Except the case of a particular inspiration of God. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 97, a. 2 ad 3; L. 31.

Is it permitted to offer oneself to martyrdom? - One must distinguish with St. Thomas. Either a legitimate cause is present or not. If the first, for example, to avoid blasphemies, to procure the glory of God and of faith, to remove in one's neighbor the danger of unbelief, it is certainly permitted, since it is a work of the greatest charity. If the second, it is not permitted, since no one is lord of his own life so that he can squander it at his own pleasure. Whence he sins gravely, when good faith or divine inspiration does not excuse, as we know happened in several Saints. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 174, a. 3; L. 32, l. 6, n. 101. "To sustain martyrdom on account of Christ falls under precept, because namely man ought to have his mind so prepared that he would sooner permit himself to be killed than deny Christ or sin mortally. And thus also to leave one's own goods falls under precept, because the mind of a Christian ought to be prepared rather to sustain the plundering of his goods than to deny Christ or sin mortally." S. Th., Quodl. 4, a. 20.