Article I. On Specific Distinction

The specific distinction of sin arises from a special malice, or from the diverse deformity by which one sin differs essentially from another.

Various rules are assigned by theologians for knowing this specifically diverse deformity. The first of all, and the more fundamental, they take from the diversity of objects; for as all human acts, so also sins are distinguished primarily and of themselves in species according to their objects. - Cf. St. Thom. 1-2, q. 72, art. 1. But precisely because this rule is fundamental and remote, the Doctors establish two others, which are proximate, easier, and more accommodated to practice.

Rule I. The specific distinction of sins is taken from opposition to diverse virtues, or from opposition indeed to the same virtue but according to the diverse offices which it prescribes to be observed, or finally from opposition to the same virtue according to its extremes. The reason for the first is clear, because individual virtues have their own special and altogether distinct goodness; therefore sins opposed to them also necessarily contract a special turpitude. Thus denial of revealed truth, despair, and hatred of God differ among themselves in species, because they are opposed to three diverse virtues, namely faith, hope, and charity. - The reason for the second is that a virtue which demands that diverse offices be observed is virtually multiple, and to violate it according to these imports a diverse repugnance to the moral order. Thus homicide, theft, and detraction differ among themselves in species, although they are opposed to the same virtue, namely justice, because they are opposed to diverse offices of the same virtue, which commands that no one be injured whether in the goods of life, or in the goods of fortune, or in the goods of reputation. The reason for the third is that extremes are contraries, and contraries, according to St. Thom. 1-2, q. 72, art. 8, differ according to species; thus presumption and despair differ among themselves in species, because one through excess, the other through defect, is opposed to the same virtue of hope. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 31.

Rule II. The specific distinction of sins is taken also from violation of precepts morally diverse. For sin is transgression of law or of a precept; therefore where precepts differ among themselves in moral species, the sins opposed to them also ought to differ in species. Thus omission of Mass on a feast day, omission of the commanded fast, omission of annual confession or paschal communion, differ among themselves in species. But precepts are called morally diverse as often as they have a diverse object, such as fast, hearing of Mass, abstinence from meats; or as often as the intrinsic motive of the precept is diverse, although the object is the same. Thus he who in Lent omits the fast to which from another source he is bound by reason of sacramental penance commits a twofold sin diverse in species. On the contrary, theft is one sin, although it is prohibited by divine and human law, because the reason of the prohibition is the same. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 33.

But if someone rightly attends, he will perceive that this second rule either is reduced to the first, or at least cannot in any way be brought into use without the first. For the objects of various precepts are diverse in the genus of morals only because they pertain to diverse virtues, or to diverse offices of the same virtue; but the intrinsic motive of each precept is the very virtue or office of virtue to which the precept is referred.

You Will Resolve. 1st. He commits four diverse sins who, bound by a vow of chastity, sins with a married blood-relative, because he violates four diverse virtues, namely chastity, religion, piety, and justice.

2nd. He sins in a threefold way who kills a priest or religious in a church; because he violates justice by killing, and religion in two specifically diverse ways, namely by violating a sacred person and a sacred place.

3rd. He does not commit sins diverse in species who omits Mass on a Sunday on which another feast of precept falls, for example, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, nor he who violates the fast of a vigil or of Ember Days falling in Lent, because those precepts are not formally diverse, since the intrinsic and primary motive is the same.

4th. On the contrary, he perpetrates three sins diverse in species by one act who omits a fast to which on the same day he is obliged from a precept of the Church, from a vow, and from sacramental penance; for this reason in confession the violation of this threefold obligation must be disclosed.