§ I. On Tempting God

283. • Tempting God is a saying or deed by which someone explores whether God is powerful, wise, merciful, or endowed with another perfection. - Thus the common opinion with St. Thom. 2. 2. q. 97. art. 1.

But it proceeds from a twofold vice, namely either from infidelity, when someone, doubting concerning some perfection of God, says or does something with the intention of obtaining from God a manifestation of that perfection; or from mere presumption, when someone, doubting nothing concerning the perfections of God, without necessity wishes to obtain either a manifestation of the divine will, or special help of God through prodigies ¹.

¹ Certain persons call tempting God arising from infidelity tempting strictly so called; but that arising from mere presumption they call less strictly so called. Others call the former express and formal; but the latter virtual and interpretative. Yet this does not please others; because express temptation does not always proceed from doubt concerning the attributes of God, but can arise from levity, curiosity, imprudent confidence, etc.

It is certain that formal express tempting of God is always a mortal sin against Religion ². - But if it is only implicit, often on account of ignorance, inadvertence, or smallness of matter it can be venial ³. - St. Lig. n. 29., etc.

² Understand this concerning that tempting of God in which doubt concerning the divine perfections intervenes. For smallness of matter has no place in a deliberate doubt against faith. Nor nevertheless ought the sin against faith to be confused with the guilt of tempting God, which formally, on account of irreverence toward God, pertains to irreligiosity. But in this act there is present a twofold sin diverse in species: one against faith, the other against religion. For the rest, if revelation has not been sufficiently proposed to someone, it can happen that without sin a sign is asked from God for exploring the truth. See Suarez, De Relig. Tr. 3. Lib. 1. Cap. 2. n. 9.

³ Formal tempting of God differs from interpretative not only because the latter admits smallness of matter, but the former in no way (for as regards lightness of fault on account of imperfection of the act, that is common to both); but besides, as Suarez warns, the mode of sin in interpretative tempting is far different from formal tempting of God; for formal tempting proceeds from doubt concerning the attributes of God, but interpretative, on the contrary, from too much confidence; the former besides is an exploration of divine perfection, the latter is in no way an exploration, but reductively and implicitly is rather a certain imprudent and presumptuous imploration of divine help. Wherefore Suarez concludes that these two seem to him to be distinguished even by specific malice.

Resolves. - 1º He sins gravely against Religion who asks that his innocence be proved by a duel, by glowing iron, etc. ⁴, or who voluntarily offers himself for martyrdom, unless he is excused by good faith or divine inspiration.

⁴ When someone rashly exposes himself to grave danger, imprudently presuming on divine help, he sins in two ways, namely against the virtue of religion and against the fifth precept, as is said in the following resolution. See Less. lib. 2. C. 45. n. 4.

Yet it is lawful to ask from God a miracle under the condition, if it shall have pleased him, whenever there is present a grave cause for our salvation or that of others, or for fulfilling the divine will, or (as St. Thom. 2. 2. q. 97. a. 2. says) when there is underneath a just necessity or pious utility, and the other things which ought to concur for this; for then it is not to tempt God, but to ask earnestly for God's help at an opportune time.

2º Likewise he sins gravely who without a just cause exposes himself to the danger of death, because he expects divine help; but if he only acts rashly, without certainly trusting in divine Providence, he does not sin against religion, but only against the fifth precept of the Decalogue.

3º He sins only lightly who in a slight illness, remedies having been rejected, hopes for health from God; because there is no grave disorder there. Indeed he is excused from every fault if he hopes that, God helping, he will naturally be freed from such an illness. - St. Lig. n. 3. ⁵.

⁵ St. Alphonsus (h. l.) attributes to Cajetan, Valentia, Lessius, Sayrus, and

Busembaum, that they said that there is a light fault if someone in a light matter and without danger of grave harm were to tempt God from mere curiosity of seeing some supernatural work. But in fact those authors have nothing of this kind; and Busembaum, in St. Alphonsus himself (ibid. n. 29), teaches the opposite with Lessius. But the fallacy of the citations in this passage of St. Alphonsus flowed, as often elsewhere, from the Salmanticenses (Tract. 21. Cap. 12. n. 4).

** If ever at another time, certainly on the occasion of this Note the VV. show themselves vehemently moved; and against those six lines they set up the mass of eight columns (Pag. 187-190). But rather than follow them running about here and there, it will be useful simply to set forth the state of the question, and the manner in which St. Alphonsus treats it.

The resolution of Fr. Gury, as is evident, regards interpretative tempting of God; and St. Alphonsus also treats of interpretative tempting (Lib. 3. n. 30), whose words are these: But this is the question, whether in INTERPRETATIVE tempting of God, as above, there is smallness of matter. Busembaum affirms with Cajetan and Valentia in 2. 2. D. 6. q. 14. n. 2. (Correct: Punct. 2), Lessius Lib. 2. C. 45. n. 4, Sayrus Clav. Reg. Lib. 6. (Correct: Lib. 4) c. 7. n. 14, and Toletus Lib. 4. c. 19. n. 7. These say that if someone in a light matter and without danger of grave harm were to tempt God from the mere curiosity of looking upon some supernatural work, he would sin only venially. But Sanchez more probably, Dec. Lib. 2. c. 34. n. 5, Suarez De Relig. Tom. 1. Tr. 3. c. 3. (Correct: c. 2) n. 16, condemn him of mortal sin, unless he were excused by reason of ignorance or lack of deliberation. Thus far the text of St. Alphonsus, from which the words were taken in the Note described above.

But who does not see that the question is indeed proposed by the Holy Doctor concerning material and interpretative tempting, but that then a case is added which pertains to formal tempting, such as belongs to one seeking to see a supernatural work for the sake of curiosity? And hence is the true cause of the whole confusion. For Busembaum, immediately before the words of St. Alphonsus (Lib. 3. n. 29 in fin.), was indeed saying that the fault can be light because of the smallness of the danger; but he was dealing expressly with interpretative tempting, nor does he have anything about curiosity for seeing a supernatural work, and with due right he cites Toletus, Sayrus, and Cajetan for his purpose. Likewise Valentia (l. c.): It happens that it is venial, if it is material and interpretative tempting, ... unless someone were to expose himself to the greatest danger. But about the curiosity of seeing supernatural works he has nothing at all. So also Sayrus (l. c.): Sometimes, however, it will be only venial, if it is material and interpretative tempting... unless someone were to expose himself to the greatest danger. But nothing occurs there about the aforesaid curiosity. But if Lessius (l. c.) and Toletus (l. c.) introduce mention of him who seeks something supernatural from curiosity, they refer that not to interpretative, but to formal tempting; but when they treat of interpretative tempting, they think the same as Busembaum, and they mix in nothing about the curiosity of seeing supernatural things. Therefore those Doctors are less to the point when cited there by St. Alphonsus.

The VV. take it ill (Pag. 188) that citations derived by St. Alphonsus from the Salmanticenses are sometimes said to be so. - Resp. Not only the citations in this place, but also, what is more to be regretted, St. Alphonsus took the form of the disputation from them. The excellent exploit of the Salmanticenses was this: after they had set forth beforehand (Tr. 21. c. 12. n. 2) the notions of temptation, both formal and interpretative, when afterward inquiring what kind of sin it is (ibid. n. 3. 4), they would distinguish nothing between formal and interpretative. Indeed, when they proposed the example common among the Doctors concerning interpretative temptation, namely of a man who, in a light illness, rejects medicines, trusting that he will obtain health from God, yet not expressly asking for a miraculous cure, or if he prays badly and irreverently, hopes that he will obtain those things which others commonly are wont to obtain, they altogether wish to look into that man, so that they may condemn him of grave fault, vain curiosity of seeing a miracle, and therefore they expressly exhibit him as dealing with God as with a juggler. Hence the true origin of whatever confusion there is also in St. Alphonsus. If the VV. desire a clearer argument of this origin, let them go to St. Alphonsus' edition of the year 1748, where the Holy Doctor speaks thus of this controversy (Lib. 3. Tr. 1. C. 2. Dub. 1. not. A): The question is whether smallness of matter is found in tempting God from lightness of matter? e.g., if in a light illness you reject medicines, expecting health from God, yet not expressly asking for a miracle, and similar things? Toletus, Bonacina, Sayrus, Valentia, AMONG THE SALMANTICENSES Tr. 21. c. 12. n. 3. (correct: 4), affirm. But the SALMANTICENSES deny, as more probable, with Suarez and Palaus. Does not the nucleus here plainly appear, excerpted literally from the Salmanticenses? Nevertheless, already from the edition of the year 1757, as to the case thus proposed, the Holy Doctor had withdrawn from this anomalous opinion of the Salmanticenses. It would also have been desirable that he should discuss interpretative tempting on his own account, and should leave the Salmanticenses to themselves, who in that confusion oppose Sanchez also to Busembaum, although Sanchez, concerning the same case no otherwise than Busembaum, writes (Dec. Lib. 2. c. 34. n. 5 in fin.): Yet it must be confessed that sometimes the matter and danger can be so slight that the fault is venial, as Leonardus (Lessius) well teaches, whose example I set down, as, in a light illness, to be unwilling to use medicines, vainly hoping for health from God, without asking for a miracle. But Suarez, whom St. Alphonsus after the Salmanticenses opposes together with Sanchez, deals not with interpretative, but with formal tempting; and indeed the fact that this second head was cited by St. Alphonsus, and that chapter 3 was written erroneously in his text, is manifest from this, that § 16 is seen precisely in the second chapter, and not in chapter 3, since this has only ten sections.

4. Likewise he sins per se venially who, from negligence, comes unprepared to preach the word of God, hoping for special help from God.