Article Sixth. On Tempting God

171. Notion. 1. Tempting God is defined as: a saying or deed by which someone explores whether God has or exercises some perfection (knowledge, power, mercy).

a. One temptation is called that of seduction to evil, another that of probation. Where there is question of tempting God, temptation of seduction to sin can have no place, neither actively, because God tempts no one in this way,¹ nor passively, because God cannot be induced to sin.

b. Temptation of probation is called active when God tempts man, in order to test his virtue;² and it is called passive when God is tempted by men, who intend to take an experiment concerning His perfections. Concerning this last temptation there is speech here, as is clear from the definition.

2. Tempting God arises especially from two vices: a. from infidelity, when someone, doubting concerning some perfection of God, intends to explore it; b. from presumption, when someone rashly (without a cause of necessity or utility) asks or expects from God an extraordinary effect.

From infidelity, if someone, doubting concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, asks to see Christ hidden under the species. From presumption, if someone, firmly holding the real presence of Christ, asks to see in the consecrated host the divine Child, as several saints saw Him, or if someone for forty days abstains from food and drink while expecting from God the preservation of life. It is clear that in the same fact there can be a diverse intention of the agent.

¹ Jas. 1:13.

² Deut. 13:3; Tob. 2:12.

172. Division. A twofold tempting of God is distinguished: formal or explicit, and virtual or interpretative, according as God is tempted with an explicit intention or only with an implicit one, latent in the mode of acting.

a. Formal temptation can happen in two ways: a. when someone intends to explore some perfection of God, as if someone, doubting concerning the power of God, asks from Him a miracle; b. when someone intends to explore the will of God through an extraordinary sign, as if someone casts himself down from a very high tower with the mind of curiously testing whether God wishes to save him. Formal temptation for the most part proceeds from infidelity, although it can also proceed from presumption.

b. Virtual temptation is had if someone indeed does not intend to tempt God, yet does or omits something which of itself demands a miracle, as if someone expects health in a grave illness from God alone, natural means having been passed over, or if someone exposes himself to danger from which he could be freed by God alone through a miracle. Virtual temptation proceeds from presumption, since it is a rash expectation of divine help.

It belongs to the notion of temptation that something be expected from God, and that it be expected rashly from God.

a. It is not tempting God if someone expects nothing from God, which can happen in two ways: a. when someone exposes himself to danger because he wills the danger, as if someone enters a duel in the way in which today men enter it, without expecting, as formerly used to happen, a special intervention of God in favor of the innocent; or if a sick man rejects all medicines, either so that he may die more quickly or so that he may suffer the troubles of the disease. b. When the effect is expected from imprudence or stupidity contrary to all probability, as if someone without sufficient preparation undergoes an examination, trusting that by some chance he will nevertheless satisfy.

b. It is not tempting God if someone, from a just cause, for example from divine inspiration, or from necessity or great utility, where ordinary means are lacking, expects some effect from God alone. Therefore it is licit to ask a miracle from God from a just cause of necessity or utility, namely for one's own salvation or that of others, or for fulfilling the will of God, and under the condition, if it shall have pleased God. But it is not licit to offer or ask absolutely for a miracle for the conversion of heretics without divine inspiration, because for this end the testimonies of the Christian faith are present and suffice.¹

c. The judgments of God, commonly ordeals (Gottesurteile), which once were in use, such as the trial of fire or water for exploring innocence, are illicit: for in these the sin of interpretative tempting of God is committed by asking a miracle without necessity, wherefore in law they are expressly prohibited.² Nevertheless several prelates of the Church and also particular synods approved the use of ordeals. In this matter they must be excused from their good faith and from the circumstances of the times. Yet the supreme pontiffs never approved them, although it must be conceded that the same pontiffs neither immediately reprobated them nor took care severely enough that this abuse be eliminated. But if it is read that God declared the innocence of certain persons through a miracle, this must be explained from the fact that the purgations were chosen by the innocent themselves either from divine instinct or in good faith, or that the innocent were driven by force by others to the purgations.³

¹ Cf. 3 Kings 18:23, 24.

² c. cura 1, De purgatione vulgari (V. 35).

³ Kirchenlexikon, 2nd ed., "Gottesurteile."

173. Its moral malice. 1. Formal tempting of God is a sin mortal from its whole genus, which does not admit smallness of matter.

a. Formal tempting of God, whether it happens in one way or the other, inflicts grave irreverence upon God, because it is directly opposed to divine wisdom: for he who tempts asks and expects that God by His omnipotence produce an extraordinary effect for a vain and useless end. Therefore Christ answered: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.¹

b. If formal tempting of God proceeds from infidelity, a twofold malice concurs: one against faith, which consists in doubting whether God is endowed with some determinate perfection; the other against religion, which consists in the irreverence by which someone demands from God Himself that He prove His perfections.

2. Interpretative tempting of God is a sin grave from its genus, admitting smallness of matter; yet for the most part it is a venial sin. It is a grave sin when someone rashly expects from God a miracle; but if he expects only special help from God from curiosity or levity, it does not seem to be a grave sin, unless there is introduced a danger of grave harm to oneself or another.

Therefore he who without a just cause, in danger of death, natural remedies having been omitted, expects divine help, sins gravely, because it is judged to be grave irreverence in so great a danger to expect health from God without necessity. He who in a slight illness, natural means having been rejected, hopes for health from God, sins only lightly; and he does not sin at all if he hopes that, with God helping, he will be freed naturally from such an illness. In like manner he sins only lightly who, through negligence unprepared, proceeds to a sermon hoping for special help from God; but an untaught cleric would sin gravely if he wished to preach without preparation, hoping that the matter would be suggested to him by God.

¹ Matt. 4:7.