Haste

The Sin of Haste.—The sin of haste or precipitancy passes over or hurries over the processes of deliberation that ought to precede action; it devotes little or no attention to memory of past experiences, understanding of present conditions, or conjecture of future possibilities; it does not give to a question the proper amount of study or of consultation. It is of two kinds, ordinary and rash.

(a) Ordinary precipitancy results from a strong inclination of the will or of the passions, as when a person speaks in anger before he has thought of the serious consequences of his words, or marries without reflection, or purchases an article the worth of which he does not know, or agrees to something about which he is in the dark, etc. Both Holy Writ and popular proverbs strongly condemn this sin.

(b) Rash precipitancy results from contempt of the law, as when one so despises an ordinance as to violate it without the slightest hesitation or reflection. This sin pertains to pride as well as to imprudence. In various censures the word “rashness” or “temerity” is used as here given, as when excommunication is pronounced against rash violators of the law.

St. Thomas, II-II, q. 53 and 54.

36. Imprudence is taken 1. negatively, for the mere absence of prudence, and thus it can be without sin, as is clear in children; 2. privatively, for the lack of prudence which someone can and ought to have, and thus it is an indirectly voluntary sin, by reason of negligence or omission, because someone does not sufficiently strive to have prudence; nevertheless it is not a special sin but a general one, that is, any sin whatever or the condition of every sin: for it is included in every sin, since none occurs without defect in the act of directing reason; 3. contrarily, for imprudence directly and in itself intended, by which, namely, reason is directly moved and acts against prudence, by despising and repudiating counsel (judgment, command) of reason or divine rules; which rarely occurs. This is a special sin of commission according to the proper notion of prudence, mortal from its genus, and therefore to be declared in confession if there is grave contempt of divine rules; otherwise it is venial.

1. Cf. q. 53, a. 2, and q. 51, a. 1, ad 3. Hence it seems to be a sin of omission, although some, such as Cajetan, say that it is reduced to commission; but this is a question of name. It is a sin against the affirmative precept of prudence; this is not a special precept but a general one; whence that is a general sin, not by essence insofar as it is predicated of every sin, but by participation insofar as it is included in every sin, just as in every sin there is that it is against charity of God and of oneself.

2. It is a sin of commission against the negative precept of not contemning divine counsels and rules; special, because directly and in itself voluntary, just as to will the rectitude of prudence is a special act of virtue. Several, such as Lessius and generally the Jesuits who copy him, say that imprudence is venial from its genus and only mortal per accidens; whence precipitation and inconsideration are only mortal by reason of the danger of mortal sin; inconstancy only if someone is bound by vow or precept to persist in a judgment, or from something extrinsic, for example because of scandal; negligence only if that is omitted which obliges under mortal sin or if there is danger of mortal sin. Their reason is that the defect of prudence alone, without defect of another virtue, is defect in the act of reason alone, which is not great: for the rectitude of reason is not sought for its own sake, but on account of the work to be directed; thus perversity is to be estimated from the work which follows.

But no defect of practical reason exists alone; therefore always and per se there is present the defect of another virtue, just as prudence alone is also never exercised, but always together with some other virtue, which consequently is the proper matter of prudence; and therefore the defect of prudence is not mortal per accidens, but per se and from its genus, because a great defect in another virtue is a defect in the proper matter of prudence. Otherwise prudence, which is called the virtue most necessary (I-II, q. 57, a. 5), would oblige only under slight sin!

They object a) the example of a lie, which of itself is venial. But this does not prove the point, because a lie can exist without injury to another virtue.

b) They also allege St. Thomas, who, q. 54, a. 3, says that negligence is mortal either by reason of necessity for salvation or by reason of the cause: both per accidens, because not only the sin of imprudence distinct in species is considered, but at the same time with the work which is omitted from negligence, and this is per accidens. But this is false: negligence is always considered with the omitted work, and thus it is considered according to itself, because the work to be placed is the proper matter of prudence. And even if it were true concerning negligence, it would not yet be true concerning imprudence: the former is by omission, the latter by commission.

37. Various species of imprudence. - Imprudence is divided into various species:

1. By opposition to the annexed virtues and the diverse acts of reason, there is distinguished

a) against counsel and eubulia: precipitation (overhaasting, voorbarig oordeel), by which, with the various modes of inquiry neglected and necessary things to be considered passed over, someone through impulse of will or passion immediately undertakes the work or judges concerning the means of executing it. Whence there is a defect in the inquiry of reason, insofar as reason does not descend in an ordered way to the execution of the work through means according to the required grades, which are five integral parts, namely memory of past things, understanding of present things, shrewdness in considering future events, docility by which someone acquiesces in the judgments of elders, and reasoning comparing one thing with another: for when all these, or several of them, are neglected, there is disorder of counsel. But if this happens from contempt of counsel, it is called temerity (vermetelheid);

b) against judgment and synesis and gnome: inconsideration (onbedachtzaamheid, onbezonnenheid), by which someone, with diligent inspection omitted, contemns or neglects to attend to those things from which right judgment proceeds; whence there is a defect in the judgment of the practical intellect;

c) against command and prudence properly so called: inconstancy (wankelmoedigheid, onbestendigheid, onstandvastigheid), which is a retreat from a good established proposal, whereby reason, because of slight motives, and without any cause or without a just cause, repudiates what it had before rightly dictated;

d) against solicitude (watchfulness in executing), required for prudence strictly so called and for command: negligence (nalatigheid).

2. By opposition to the integral parts required in prudence. But because all those are ordered to directing the aforesaid three acts of reason, concerning which under 1, thence the opposed imprudences are reduced to the sins enumerated above.

3. By opposition to the diverse species of prudence, it is divided into personal, regnative, political, economic, and military imprudence.

1. Cf. q. 53, a. 4, ad 2: "Consideration of those things which are attended to in counsel is ordered to judging rightly. And therefore consideration is perfected in practical judgment. Whence also inconsideration is most of all opposed to the rectitude of judgment."

38. The cause of imprudence. - Precipitation, inconsideration, and inconstancy arise especially from luxury, which most of all impedes the use of reason, because it absorbs the soul and draws it to sensible delight, while the perfection of intellectual virtue consists in abstraction from sensible things. And although envy, anger, avarice, ambition, etc., also draw reason away to something else, luxury extinguishes the very judgment of reason.

39. Negligence is taken in two ways: 1. generally, for the omission of any due act whatever, and thus it is not opposed to prudence but to the virtue in whose matter it is concerned, for example, negligence in counsel, in restitution, or in prayer is opposed to eubulia, justice, or religion; 2. for the defect of solicitude in commanding efficaciously, required, namely, in the act of reason for exciting and directing the will in the execution of the work; and thus it is opposed to prudence strictly so called: namely, it is an act of reason not commanding when it ought or in the way in which it ought. Therefore it differs from inconstancy: this latter is from weakness of reason which does not hold itself firmly in the good proposal conceived, and denotes lightness of soul in a judgment once prudently received. On the contrary, negligence is the omission of judgment and command: reason is deficient in commanding the things which were counseled and judged.

Negligence can be a mortal sin (Prov. XIX, 16): a) per se, on the part of that which is neglected, if it is something of the necessity of salvation; b) per accidens, on the part of the cause, if it comes from a mortally evil will, for example from perfect contempt. Otherwise it is venial, as if it is concerned with something small, and comes from defect of fervor.

40. Observation. - Billuart notes from St. Thomas: Negligence strictly is distinguished from omission, sloth, torpor, and inconstancy. Negligence consists in the defect of an interior act of reason not commanding what it ought or in the way in which it ought. Omission properly pertains to an exterior act; sloth and torpor to execution, yet in such a way that sloth imports slowness in executing, while torpor imports a certain remissness in execution. Finally the inconstant man is deficient in commanding as if impeded by something; the negligent man, through defect of prompt will (q. 54, a. 2, ad 1, 2, 3). For "negligence comes from a certain remissness of the will, through which it happens that reason is not solicited to command those things which it ought, or in the way in which it ought" (a. 3).

PRECIPITATION is taken metaphorically from the precipitation of bodies from the highest to the lowest with a certain impetus, either innate or impressed; not by order gradually, but ruinously. Thus therefore someone precipitates, when reason and will rush down, not descending to operations by the due means and memorable degrees of considering the past, understanding the present, providing for the future, etc. But it rushes with the impetus of passion without counsel. This, if it is done from mere impulse of the will, is called precipitation; but if contempt is added of those things which ought to have been counseled, it is called Temerity, as D. Thom. ad 2. and D. Bonav. infra, Tannerus disp. 3. quaest. 5. dub. 4. and Caietanus quaest. 53. art. 3. teach. Therefore the Saintly Doctor in speculo animae, cap. 3., saying negligence, which from contempt leads man precipitantly to works contrary to salvation, without due consideration, says it is mortiferous. That this is to be noted Caietanus art. cit. and Valentia disp. 4. quest. 5. punct. 1. admonish, that we may know when the penalty of some Law, or Canon, enacted against those doing something rashly, is incurred, namely when it is done from contempt. Gather this from D. Bonav. loc. cit. and cap. 1. of the same speculum; and in the Confessional.

Sylvester ADDS under the word Temeritas, that those also are held to act rashly, and to undergo the penalties enjoined for that rash transgression, who knowingly under some fraudulent pretext exercise an act prohibited by law, as is clear from C. Venerabilem extra, qui filii sint legitimi. So also Tannerus.

ANY audacity about evil is also wont to be called Temerity, as is clear from l. Iubemus C. de Sacrosanctis Ecclesiis, as Sylvester notes above, and Tutte-rem. in Clem. 1. de Sacrosanct. Eccles. But this temerity is not opposed to Prudence, but to Fortitude. Now we are treating of precipitation, and temerity, opposed to Prudence, by reason of the Eubulia annexed to it, whose act is to counsel well, as D. Thom. quaest. 53. art. 2. and 3. teaches. Therefore it is also opposed to the gift of Counsel, as I said. From which you also have that such temerity is a sin.