Sloth

Spiritual sloth is a sluggishness of the soul in the exercise of virtue. If the reason for the sluggishness is the labour and difficulty which accompany the practice of virtue, sloth will be a mortal sin whenever on account of it a grave precept is violated; otherwise it will be a venial sin. If sloth makes the friendship of God tedious and irksome because of the trouble it takes to preserve it, it is a mortal sin, inasmuch as it is directly against our obligation of loving God with our whole heart.

I. Notion. Sloth is twofold, one universal, the other special. Sloth taken universally is sadness concerning a human spiritual good - i.e., concerning cultivating virtue or fulfilling precepts - insofar as it is laborious. Sloth accepted in this way is not a special sin, but is one and the same with the violation of the virtue or precept which flows from it. Sloth taken specially, or insofar as it is a capital vice, is sadness concerning a divine spiritual good pertaining to us, insofar as it is to be obtained through difficult acts. Under the name of divine good come grace, or divine friendship, beatitude, and the means of attaining them (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 35, a. 2; St. Alphonsus, V, 84).

II. Morality. Sloth, namely the capital vice, is a mortal sin, because it is repugnant to the charity of God, or involves contempt for divine friendship and beatitude (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 35, a. 3; St. Alphonsus, cited place). Nevertheless, on account of defect of full consent, it is often only venial.

III. The daughters of sloth are: 1. "malice, by which someone hates spiritual goods,... 2. faint-heartedness and despair of salvation,... 3. rancor, by which those who lead one to spiritual things are wearisome; 4. torpor, when good things are done without due fervor; 5. wandering of mind, by which someone wanders in the exercise of spiritual things" (St. Alphonsus, V, 84).

IV. Remedies of sloth. Weigh: 1. what Christ and His saints have done;¹ 2. vigorously undertake good works; 3. from time to time withdraw into spiritual retreat.

¹ Rom. 12:11.

The predominant individual motives for sin are as numerous as the different characters of those addicted to sin, and hence it is impossible to classify them. The predominant general motives for sin, on the contrary, can be assigned according to the principal goods that most often move or repel with wills of all who commit sin, as follows: (a) goods of the soul, such as praise and honor, inordinately pursued (the vice of pride); (b) goods of the body, inordinately desired (the views of lust and gluttony); (c) goods that are external, unduly loved (the vice of avarice); (d) one’s own good, not sufficiently wished (the vice of sloth); (e) the neighbor’s good, not suffiviently desired (the vices of envy and anger).

Certain acts of fear or sadness must not be mistaken for despair: (a) acts that are praiseworthy, like servile and filial fear spoken of above (see 1048 sqq.), grief over sin, etc.; (b) acts that are a trial from God, such as spiritual desolations in holy persons, scruples about forgiveness of sins, anxieties about predestination, perseverance, or the Judgment; (c) acts that are sinful, such as worldly fear, fear of God that is purely servile, timidity (i.e., an excessive dread of death or other evils). Those who fear that, on account of their frailty, they may not acquire a good habit or overcome an evil one, are guilty of pusillanimity. Those who, on account of sadness, neglect prayer are guilty of spiritual sloth.

The Sin of Sloth.—Sloth is a sadness or dejection of the will about the divine good one possesses, and arises from a want of esteem for one’s Last End and the means thereto.

(a) Sloth is a sadness of the will. Hence, the sin of sloth differs from the passion of sadness, and also from bodily weariness. The passions (as said in 121) are not evil in themselves, but become evil when exercised immoderately, or turned to an evil object. Weakness or weariness of body is not sinful, but it disposes one for the passion of sadness, and this in turn may tempt the will to sloth, when duties owed to God are to be attended to.

(b) Sloth is a sadness about good, and so it differs from sadness about the smallness of one’s good. Humility demands that one be sensible of one’s own shortcomings and of the greater merits of those who are better. But it is not humility but ingratitude and sloth to depreciate and grieve over the good which one has received from God, such as the gift of faith, membership in the Church, etc.

(c) Sloth is sadness about the divine good, which is loved by charity. Thus, the sin of sloth differs from the circumstance of sloth, which is found in every sin. There is no sin that does not contain a sadness or disgust about the act of the opposite virtue; the very thought of moderation is depressing to the glutton, and religion is associated with gloom by the irreligious. But what is special to the sin of sloth is, that it grieves about that divine good itself over which charity rejoices, and which is the end of all the other virtues.

(d) Sloth is a sadness about the divine good as shared by self, that is, about the end offered oneself and the means thereto, such as eternal beatitude, the friendship of God, the Sacraments, the Commandments, good works and other divine gifts which should be esteemed and received with gladness. Sloth thus differs from hatred of God, which is a sadness over God’s own goodness; and from envy, which is a sadness over the good of the neighbor.

(e) Sloth is a sadness over the divine good, which is considered by one as an evil. The sin of sloth looks upon the joys of heaven or the practice of virtue with contempt; it directly spurns them as unworthy of love (cfr. Num., xxi. 4). Hence, sloth differs from laziness or idleness, for this latter sin dislikes the exercise of virtue, not because it considers virtue as evil, but because it has a dread of the labor and exertion which virtue entails, and is overmuch in love with repose and ease.

Sloth is a sin. (a) It is forbidden by God: “Bow down thy shoulder and bear wisdom, and be not grieved with her bands” (Ecclus., vi. 26). (b) It is an evil sorrow, for it grieves over good. (c) It has evil effects, since it keeps man from his duty, swallowing him up with overmuch sorrow (II Cor., ii. 7).

Qualities of the Sin of Sloth.—(a) Sloth is a special sin, since, as explained above, its individual objects differentiate it from the general slothfulness that is found in every sin, as well as from hatred, envy and laziness. But it is a sin, by comparison, rarely committed. (b) It is a mortal sin, from its nature, since it is a horror and detestation for the divine good. It is implicitly forbidden in the Third Commandment, (c) It is a capital sin (i.e., a vice naturally productive of others), for sadness inclines man to many evils as means of escape from sorrow or of consolation in sorrow.

Sins that Spring from Sloth.—(a) To escape his sadness about divine things, the slothful man avoids or flees the things that sadden him—his last end (sin of despair) and the means thereto (sins of cowardice and carelessness). He also attacks the causes of his grief—the persons who would lead him to God (sin of rancor) or the spiritual things themselves (sin of malice). (b) To console himself for the want of joy in spiritual things, he seeks comfort in forbidden things: his mind is unquiet and curious about that which does not concern him, his talk is excessive, his bodily movements are restless, and he must be continually moving from place to place.

The Conquest of Sloth.—(a) Flight is a suitable form of resistance to temptation, whenever the temptation grows stronger by thinking over the matter, as is the case with temptations against purity (I Cor., vi. 18). (b) Attack is a suitable form of resistance, when the temptation becomes weaker as one thinks over the matter (see 257). This is the case with sloth, for, the more one gives oneself to the consideration of spiritual things, the more pleasing do they become.

Laziness, as distinct from the capital vice of sloth, is a generic name given to a number of sins or circumstances of sin, and hence it will be treated in several places.

(a) Thus, negligence is a want of prompt decision about duties to be performed. It is opposed to the virtue of diligence or solicitude, which pertains to prudence. Hence, negligence will be considered among the sins against prudence.

(b) Sluggishness (pigritia) is a tardy performance of duty, and will be considered among the sins opposed to diligence.

(c) Carelessness (torpor) is a perfunctory discharge of duties, without thought or love. It is one of the consequences of sloth given above (see 1324), and hence it is a sin against charity.

(d) Indolence is an excessive dislike of labor or exertion, caused by an inordinate love of recreation or bodily rest. It will be considered when we treat the sin of softness or delicacy, which is opposed to fortitude.

(e) Idleness is the actual omission of one’s duty on account of indolence, and hence it is considered among the sins against the various precepts. Thus, under the precepts of charity and of justice will be discussed the omission of labor to which one is bound.

The prohibitions of uncharitableness are as follows: (a) against hatred: “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart” (Lev, xix. IT); (b) against sloth: “Bow down thy shoulder and hear her (wisdom), and be not grieved with her bands” (Ecclus., vi. 26); (c) against envy: “Let us not be made desirous of vainglory, provoking one another, envying one another” (Gal., v. 26), (d) against discord: “Speak the same things and let there be no schisms among you” (I Cor., i. 10); and (e) against scandal: “Put not a stumbling-block or a scandal in your brother’s way” (Rom., xiv. 13).

What is acedia? Acedia, or weariness of soul, can be used in two ways: 1. Generally, for every weariness of soul and slackening in the exercise of virtues, because some labor is joined to it. "Acedia is a certain sadness by which man is rendered slow toward spiritual acts because of bodily labor." S. Th. 1 p., q. 63, a. 2 ad 2. 2. Specially, for sadness and weariness concerning divine friendship, because it must be preserved through laborious exercises of virtues; and thus someone does not care for that friendship. Acedia taken in the first way is then finally a mortal sin when therefore a work forbidden under mortal sin is done. Acedia taken in the second way is of itself mortal, because it repugns to the charity of God. "Acedia is not a mental withdrawal from any spiritual good whatsoever, but from the divine good, to which the mind must adhere of necessity. Hence if someone is saddened by this, that someone compels him to fulfill works of virtue which he is not bound to do, it is not the sin of acedia, but when he is saddened in those things which are incumbent upon him to be done for God." S. Th. 2. 2. q. 35, a. 3 ad 2; q. 35; L. 84; E. M.

What are the daughters of acedia? - They are the following: 1. Malice, namely a special malice by which, by reason of sadness to be fled, someone hates and detests spiritual goods, and would wish them not to exist, or by which he is sorry that he has done well or fulfilled that to which he was bound, or by which he contemns a benefit of God, e.g., by desiring not to have been born, or not to have known Christ, etc. It is mortal from its genus. - 2. Pusillanimity, by which someone flees those things which are arduous and which fall under counsels. 3. Torpor, by which someone flees those things which pertain to common justice, or precepts, and does good things without due fervor.

4. Rancor, by which those who induce to spiritual things are wearisome; whence rancor is a certain indignation. 5. Wandering of mind, by which someone in the exercise of spiritual things wanders toward exterior illicit delights, whether by thought, and it is called curiosity; or by speech, and it is called verbosity; or by bodily restlessness, and it is called restlessness, which are commonly venial. 6. Despair of salvation, which is flight from the end itself, and mortal. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 20, a. 4; q. 35; L. 84.

What intention is required in adults for receiving the individual sacraments? - In baptism and order there is required at least a habitual explicit will. The reason is that sacraments of this kind impose grave obligations to be fulfilled. But no one is judged to receive a grave obligation; rather, his positive will must be altogether clear. Lugo d. 9, n. 119, 127; L. 81, 82. The sacrament of baptism and of order is indeed invalidly conferred on those having only interpretative intention. Nevertheless Coninck, Sporer, Dicastillo, etc., apud Croix l. 6, p. 1, n. 168, and others judge that for receiving baptism an implicit intention contained in contrition or attrition had by the recipient suffices, or, as Lugo d. 9, n. 130 says, in the will of giving one's name to the Christian Religion, or, if he is ignorant of this, of doing whatever things are necessary for salvation, as La Croix has it, l.c. Cf. L. 82. This indeed can have place in urgent necessity, but baptism must then be conferred conditionally, and therefore repeated conditionally if time allows, unless there is certainty concerning a true and explicit intention not retracted. Cf. S. C. de P. F., March 30, 1898.

In confirmation, extreme unction, and the Eucharist, a habitual implicit will suffices, which is less rightly called interpretative, and which consists in this, that someone has had a general intention, and has not retracted it, of applying those things which are necessary and useful for his salvation; or of living and dying in the Catholic religion, with the helps of the same religion; or, a fortiori, of receiving all the sacraments in life and at death. The reason is that these sacraments bring many advantages and no disadvantage. But all are judged to wish to receive advantages. Hence both confirmation and extreme unction can be conferred conditionally on a dying person deprived of his senses. Ritual, de Extr. unct. § 6; L. 82. But if he in reality had never thought of receiving them, they would have to be altogether repeated.

For penance there is required either actual or at least virtual intention; nor therefore does habitual intention suffice. The reason is that in this sacrament the acts of the penitent are required for the matter, and these indeed cannot be had without at least virtual will of receiving the sacrament.

L. 82. - Likewise for matrimony at least virtual intention is required. For "since each spouse is not only receiving, but also minister of the sacrament, in each of them there is certainly required that intention which is demanded in the ministers of the other sacraments." L. 82.

Fr. Lehmkuhl, ed. 11, n. 66, requires for the Eucharist, besides the case of viaticum, an expressed habitual intention. Yet ordinarily it is not only virtual, but even actual. The reason, he says, is that "in the general will of living a Christian life there is in no way contained the will of receiving the sacred Eucharist so many times and at such a time." - But if, besides the case of viaticum, it is a question of the Eucharist to be received from obligation, certainly that general will also implicitly contains this. And if that general will is conceived more determinately, namely of applying all the means constituted by God as necessary and useful for salvation, certainly this will would also implicitly include the Eucharist to be received from mere devotion. Finally, if the general will of dying in a Christian manner includes the will of receiving the sacraments of the Church at the point of death, why does the general will of living a Christian life not include the will of receiving Christ's sacraments during life? "Wherefore," the same Fr. Lehmkuhl concludes, "an adult to whom, besides the case of viaticum, the Holy Eucharist were given without his knowledge, would indeed receive it materially, but not with fruit." - But consequently to the things which have just been noted: if in the case of Viaticum the aforesaid adult would receive the sacred Eucharist sacramentally and with fruit, also outside that case he would receive it sacramentally and with fruit, if namely, as was said, he has its will at least implicitly.

179. • Sloth in general sounds the same as laziness; but more strictly it is torpor of mind and weakness of will, from which flows disgust for spiritual things on account of the labor and inconvenience joined to them. If it is so great that grave obligations are omitted from it, it must be held grave; if otherwise, it is to be judged light. - Thus commonly.

The daughters: torpor, wandering of the mind, nausea in prayer, etc.

Remedies: consideration of the labors of Christ, of eternal reward, and of the dangers of sloth; pious reading, frequent confession, etc.

562. 1. Notion of acedia. Thus far concerning the vices which impel us to acting badly; now concerning sloth, which on the contrary induces us to not acting or to acting remissly, when some office to be fulfilled presses. Sloth in a general way is a propension to acting remissly and negligently, or to idleness. When this negligence is concerned with spiritual things and generates a certain weariness, it is called acedia. Therefore this is usually defined as sadness or weariness concerning spiritual good (degout des choses spirituelles), on account of the labor joined to it. Namely, in the present order of things we are able to accomplish no good without labor, whether in the natural order or in the supernatural order. Now we naturally flee more or less from every laborious work, and therefore not rarely are saddened when the question is of fulfilling an arduous office, and on account of this we abstain from doing it.

² St. Thomas, II-II, q. 35, and De Malo, q. 11; Nat. Alex., op. cit., p. 1148-1170. - In Greek, akedeia signifies negligence.

Acedia is concerned with spiritual things; sloth with any offices whatever, even those of natural life. Each defect arises from the same vicious principle, namely horror of difficulty and labor.

563. The effects (or daughters) of acedia are: (a) a certain derision of all things which pertain to piety: for those who neglect their duties, by a certain natural instinct, deride those things which they do not wish to perform; (b) indignation against those who by exhortations, admonitions, and rebukes incite the slothful to perfection and labor: for these men shudder at being disturbed in their rest; (c) torpor, by which the observance of precepts is either utterly omitted, or is performed only perfunctorily and yawningly: thence arises tepidity, which, with Scripture as witness, greatly displeases God;¹ (d) pusillanimity, which disdains and turns away from arduous works; (e) sometimes despair, which is born from the fact that care of one's own salvation, on account of difficulties to be overcome, is cast aside.

¹ Apoc. 3:15-16.

564. 2. The malice of acedia and sloth. (A) Acedia, considered in itself, is a mortal sin whenever it induces perfect sadness concerning divine good, and negligence of one's own salvation and of the means necessary for attaining it. For then it is gravely opposed to the command of loving God from the whole heart, from the whole soul, and from all one's powers. - But sloth is a sin more or less grave according as it induces neglect of an office more or less grave.

(B) But if they are considered in their effects, sloth, and a fortiori acedia, cause many and indeed grave evils: (a) the soul of the slothful man is deservedly compared to a field in which not the crops of good works, but the nettles and thorns of vices grow wonderfully: "I passed through the field of the slothful man, and through the vineyard of the foolish man; and behold nettles had filled it all, and thorns had covered its surface."² (b) It is liable to many temptations and sins: "Idleness has taught much malice... This was the iniquity of Sodom, your sister: pride, satiety of bread, and abundance, and her idleness and that of her daughters."³ In reality, since the mind cannot be entirely empty, nor the will entirely at rest, if we give ourselves to leisure, by this very fact depraved thoughts invade the mind, and solicit the will to depraved actions. (c) It casts one into danger of eternal salvation: for since each one receives his own reward according to his labor,⁴ he who does not make good fruit shall be cut down and cast into the fire.⁵ For it is not enough, for attaining salvation, to abstain from evil, but it is also necessary to work good, and especially to fulfill diligently the offices of one's state: "For," says St. Chrysostom,⁶ "not to have done good, this is to have done evil. For tell me, if you have some servant who neither steals, nor is insulting, nor contradicts, and abstains from drunkenness and from all other things, but perpetually sits idle, and does nothing of those things which a servant ought to render to his master, will you not beat him with lashes, will you not torment him?" Furthermore we are servants of God, condemned to arduous labor, not only on account of the fault of our first parents, but also on account of personal sins; workers hired in his vineyard for obtaining the reward of labors; and therefore we ought to labor strenuously and assiduously, for obtaining the reward of eternal life.

² Prov. 24:30-31.

³ Eccli. 33:29; Ezek. 16:49.

⁴ 1 Cor. 3:8.

⁵ Matt. 7:19.

⁶ St. Chrysostom, in ep. ad Ephes., hom. 16, n. 1, P. G., LXII, 112.

565. 3. Remedies against acedia and sloth. (A) Frequent thought concerning the necessity of working good and laboring strenuously. For God wishes all men, even the rich and noble, to flee idleness and to work good assiduously. But the law which imposed labor upon Adam the sinner¹ binds all sinners, men and women,² the richer equally with the poor. For all are held to bring forth fruits of good works, and to labor manfully in the vineyard of the Lord; otherwise the father of the family will deservedly rebuke the slothful in this way:³ "Why do you stand here all day idle?" and if the fig-tree brings forth no fruit, it will be cut down, according to that saying:⁴ "Cut it down therefore; why does it also occupy the ground?"

¹ "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread" (Gen. 3:19).

² Concerning the utility and necessity of labor with regard to girls and wives, the Countess Z. wrote wisely, Sur le Travail, Paris, Lethielleux, 1902; with regard to boys and men, Payot, Educ. de la volonte, l. IV, ch. 4; P. Doumer, Le Livre de mes fils, Paris, 1906, p. 63-72.

³ Matt. 20:6.

⁴ Luke 13:7.

For the rich who are given over to idleness it is indeed difficult to enter into the kingdom of heaven,⁵ because idleness has taught much malice, especially that which abounds in wealth; but the rich who labor strenuously will receive their own reward according to their labor: "He who sows sparingly, sparingly also shall reap, and he who sows in blessings, from blessings also shall reap."⁶ - And, if difficulty and weariness deter from labor, let thought of the reward promised to good workers inflame one to it: "The sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the future glory which shall be revealed in us... For that which is present and momentary and light in our tribulation works in us above measure an eternal weight of glory on high."⁷

⁵ Luke 18:25.

⁶ 2 Cor. 9:6.

⁷ Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17.

566. (B) Those who do not need to labor for themselves should not disdain to work for the relief of others. For there are so many poor who cannot nourish themselves and their families by their own labor, - so many ignorant of religious things, who need instruction, - so many little ones who receive no education at home and, unless they are educated Christianly, will soon be numbered among socialists and anarchists, - so many workers, imbued with prejudices against religion and the social order, whom it is necessary to teach true principles. Those who tend toward idleness should turn these and other things of this kind over in their mind, and should understand that in present-day society it is licit for no one to indulge acedia and sloth: for useless trees and fruitless fig-trees will soon be cut down and cast into the fire of tribulation.

567. (C) Let them likewise think that none are more miserable than the idle: weariness of life, vices of the flesh, intemperance, often dissensions and discords render these men unhappy. They are deservedly despised by honorable persons, they excite the envy of the poor, and they are made gravely burdensome to themselves and others. But in spiritual things, acedia generates tepidity; and the tepid lead a miserable life: for they enjoy neither the pleasures of the world, which conscience forbids, nor the divine consolation which is reserved for the truly devout, but are contemptuously rejected by God, according to that saying: "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot; would that you were cold or hot! But because you are tepid, and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit you out of my mouth."¹

¹ Apoc. 3:15-16.

Therefore let us burn with the fire of charity, lest we burn with the fire of tribulation: this ardor snatches us upward, to glorifying God, to relieving the neighbor, to cultivating the virtues, concerning which it remains to be treated.

— 1. Notion. Sloth denotes weariness of soul, and it can be taken generally for every relaxation of soul in exercising the virtues, because they have labor joined to them; and particularly for sadness and weariness concerning divine friendship, because it must be preserved through laborious works of the virtues; and then it is a special vice. The former becomes mortal when for that reason a grave affirmative or negative precept is violated; the latter directly repugns the charity of God, so that it is grave from its whole kind.

Sometimes they distinguish natural sloth, or weariness concerning bodily labor, and spiritual sloth, or weariness concerning laborious virtues. As is clear, flight from bodily labor, when it is culpable, is referred to spiritual sloth.

Although in common speech general sloth is rather taken for the capital vice, and St. Gregory the Great himself numbers general sadness among the capital vices, theologians nevertheless reserve the name of the capital vice of sloth for the special one.

2. By St. Gregory himself ¹, as daughters of sadness, there were already indicated:

Malice, by which someone has hatred for spiritual goods and would wish them not to exist; or by which he repents of having done well or fulfilled what he owed; or by which he contemns God's benefit, wishing that he had not been born, had not known Christ, etc.: it is mortal from its own kind;

Pusillanimity and despair concerning salvation;

Rancor, by which those are wearisome who induce him toward spiritual things;

Torpor, when good things are done without due fervor;

Wandering of mind in spiritual exercises: when it is done through thought, it is called curiosity; through speech, it is called verbosity; through restlessness, it is called inquietude: these are commonly venial.

N.B. Take care lest you confuse with mortal sloth the rather dangerous indeed, but of itself not mortal, weariness concerning a priesthood undertaken or a religious life entered, while there remains, however, the will of fulfilling the duties of either state.

¹ P. L. 76, 658.

— You ask whether labor is commanded to man?

By the words of Genesis, 3, 17. 18, a hard necessity is proclaimed rather than a true precept is promulgated. And some labor must be undertaken by all in order to flee sins, to exercise commanded acts of virtue, and to meet various necessities.

Therefore various duties indirectly generate for all men some obligation of laboring, and for most a sufficiently burdensome obligation, especially if among the duties you do not omit charity, which, when the matter concerns averting grave common harm, obliges even with notable inconvenience. And today, in our European societies, whether by reason of scandal, or by reason of common harm to be warded off, he who, abounding in goods, exercises charity by no work of his own cannot be excused from every sin.

But a proper and direct duty of laboring is not demonstrated; and social cooperation is generally to be obtained by much exhortation rather than by terror of divine anger. Cf. Gen.-Salsmans, I, 365.

433. Notion. Acedia¹⁰⁸ is sadness concerning spiritual good, insofar as it is a divine good. Thus St. Thomas,¹⁰⁹ who, in explanation of this definition, says: "If spiritual good is taken commonly, acedia will not have the character of a special vice, because every vice flees the spiritual good of the opposite virtue. Similarly also it cannot be said that acedia is a special vice insofar as it flees spiritual good as laborious or troublesome to the body, or as impeding its delectation, because this also would not separate acedia from the carnal vices, by which someone seeks the rest and delectation of the body."¹¹⁰ Sadness taken in those two senses is laziness, which is weariness of labor; it is called acedia in the broad sense. But acedia, insofar as it is a special vice, is sadness and weariness concerning spiritual good, that is, concerning the means of salvation conferred on us by God, and consequently it is opposed to the highest virtue, namely charity toward God. For just as charity toward God rejoices in friendship and union with God, and in all the means conducive to friendship and union with God, so acedia is saddened concerning all these things and scorns them, chiefly because a man affected by excessive self-love does not wish to tend toward God with labor. By such a sin of acedia there offend, for example, a Christian who is affected with weariness and sadness from professing the faith; a priest who is saddened concerning the priestly vocation accepted; a religious who from weariness deserts the religious life, etc.

A figure not unlike a man infected with acedia is the Israelite people, which, truly heaped with divine gifts, nourished with the wondrous food of manna on the journey to the promised land, began to be weary of the journey and labor and so spoke against God and Moses: "Why hast thou brought us out of Egypt, that we should die in the wilderness? ... Our soul now loatheth this very light food. Wherefore the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people; after their wounds and the deaths of very many, they came to Moses and said: We have sinned, because we have spoken against the Lord and thee."¹¹¹ A Christian man, heaped by God with benefits of every kind and led to the promised land of eternal salvation, if he is infected with acedia, exclaims: My soul loathes thy means leading me to salvation with labor. Then the fiery serpents of punishments and sins rush in and not rarely kill such a man.

¹⁰⁸ Ἀκηδία. Uberdruss an gottlich-geistigen Dingen, degout des choses spirituelles.

¹⁰⁹ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 35, a. 3. Cf. Cajetan, who rightly interprets this definition, Com. in S. theol. 2, 2, q. 35, a. 4.

¹¹⁰ Ib. a. 2.

¹¹¹ Num. 21, 4 sqq.

434. Malice. 1. Acedia taken in the strict sense is a mortal sin.^111a The reason is that its sadness is directly repugnant to charity, to which it belongs to rejoice not only in God himself, but also in the divine goods conferred on us insofar as they lead us to union with God.

2. Acedia also in a somewhat broader sense, insofar as it is negligence of one's own salvation and of the means necessary for obtaining it, and insofar as it is caused by weariness of working, is a mortal sin from its genus. The reason is that it is opposed to the precept of loving God with the whole heart, with the whole soul, with all one's powers, and not rarely becomes gravely evil on account of its worst effects. The soul of a lazy man is deservedly compared to a field in which the nettles and thorns of vices grow fruitfully.¹¹² Hence Sacred Scripture says: "Idleness hath taught much evil."¹¹³ And it is truly clear by daily experience that temptations of every kind arise in a lazy mind, to which such a man is wont to succumb on account of the weakness of his will. This acedia leads to tepidity, and tepidity leads to ruin, since God is said to vomit the tepid out of his mouth.¹¹⁴

^111a S. theol. 2, 2, q. 35, a. 4.

¹¹² Cf. Prov. 24, 31.

¹¹³ Eccli. 33, 29.

¹¹⁴ Cf. Apoc. 3, 16. Concerning acedia, insofar as it is sometimes found in priests, Iac. Schmitt wrote well (Linzer Theol. Quartalschrift 1883, 769 sqq. and 1884, 21 sqq.), treating broadly of its diagnosis, prognosis, and remedies.

435. Daughters of acedia. By St. Gregory and St. Thomas¹¹⁵ the following six daughters of acedia are enumerated: despair of salvation, pusillanimity, torpor concerning precepts, rancor, malice, wandering about illicit things.

1. Despair of salvation necessarily follows from acedia, for "the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away."¹¹⁶ Therefore a man infected with acedia cannot seriously hope for his salvation.

2. Pusillanimity, as it is taken here, is flight from using means not indeed strictly commanded, but rather counseled. In the Gospel we read that the pusillanimous servant was punished, who buried the money received from his lord in the earth.¹¹⁷ Pusillanimity is directly opposed to magnanimity.¹¹⁸

3. Torpor concerning precepts is the negligent fulfillment of precepts.

4. Rancor toward those who admonish to spiritual fervor; a man infected with acedia detests them as troublesome admonishers.

5. Malice is hatred of spiritual goods, which the tepid man detests and ridicules.

6. Wandering about illicit things. Since every man naturally desires delectation and happiness, and since the man laboring under acedia does not find this delectation in spiritual things, he seeks it elsewhere and indeed wanders about illicit delectations.

¹¹⁵ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 35, a. 4 ad 2; De malo q. 11, a. 4.

¹¹⁶ Matth. 11, 12.

¹¹⁷ Cf. Matth. 25, 18 sqq.

¹¹⁸ Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 133, a. 1 and 2.

436. Remedies of acedia are: frequent and serious consideration of the very great evils which follow from acedia and laziness. The householder in the Gospel says, rebuking: "Why stand you here all the day idle?"¹¹⁹ Christ commanded the fruitless fig tree to be cut down: "Cut it down therefore; why doth it also occupy the ground?"¹²⁰ Acedia and laziness render a man truly miserable: weariness of life, vices of the flesh, discords assail him; the lazy man is honored by no one, despised by many. - On the contrary, strenuous labor and a fervent spiritual life render man happy both on this earth and in the other life.

¹¹⁹ Matth. 20, 6.

¹²⁰ Luc. 13, 7.

565. Acedia is a certain aggravating sadness, namely, one that so depresses the soul that it pleases one to do nothing; and therefore acedia implies a certain weariness of working or a certain torpor of mind neglecting to begin goods.⁸⁴ Acedia, insofar as it is a special vice, can be defined: disgust and sadness concerning spiritual goods or concerning the means of eternal salvation, on account of the difficulty experienced in acquiring and using them. Taken in this sense, acedia is a mortal sin from its genus, as directly opposed to charity, which not only is not saddened but rather rejoices concerning spiritual and divine goods and fervently pursues them according to that of the Psalm: "I rejoiced at the things that were said to me: We shall go into the house of the Lord."⁸⁵ Cf. those things said above, n. 434 sqq., concerning the malice, effects, and remedies of acedia.

⁸⁴ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 35, a. 1.

⁸⁵ Ps. 121, 1.

St. Thomas, II-II, q. 35; De Malo q. 11.

511. Acedia is sadness concerning spiritual good, especially divine good; it is torpor, coldness, languor, tepidity, weariness concerning spiritual things, because they impede bodily quiet and delight. Hence acedia prefers to do nothing, and from this is born flight, horror, detestation of spiritual goods. This sadness is sin, both 1. by reason of the object: for to be saddened concerning evil is good, but to be saddened concerning that which apparently is evil but truly is good is sin, because good does not deserve that we be saddened concerning it; - and b) by reason of the effect: for it draws man back from due works (cf. treatise on Charity).

512. Acedia is twofold: 1. that by which we are saddened concerning the good of any virtue whatever; and this is not a special sin, even if it happens on account of the bodily labor attached, but is a circumstance of every sin, because every vice flees the opposite spiritual good even insofar as it impedes bodily quiet. Hence it is mortal or venial according as the sin of which it is a circumstance is grave or light; - 2. that by which we are saddened concerning spiritual good through excellence, to which all other things are ordered, namely, concerning divine good, not in itself, but insofar as it is internal to us and pertains to us and seems evil to us, for example, concerning beatitude or the friendship of God, and concerning the means to it, namely, concerning the sacraments, the grace of God, good works, divine precepts, etc., insofar as they require labor. This is a special sin, because it has a special object and is directly contrary to the special act of a special virtue: for it is opposed to joy concerning divine good, in which charity delights. Hence of itself it is mortal sin, because according to its proper account it is opposed to charity: for just as envy is mortal sin because it is saddened concerning the good of neighbor, concerning which charity rejoices, so a fortiori acedia, which is saddened concerning divine good. Yet it can be venial, if it is not perfectly deliberate, or also when it is concerned with goods not necessary for salvation.

513. From special acedia six sins arise. - For from sadness it happens that man flees those things concerning which he is saddened; indeed, that he assails them, and that he passes over to other things in which he delights. From acedia man flees divine goods: 1. the ultimate end, eternal salvation, or hoped-for divine good, which is done through despair; he also flees 2. spiritual good to be done, or the common and ordinary means to the end, which is torpor concerning precepts; 3. he flees arduous means, for example, those which fall under the counsels, through pusillanimity. - He assails 4. saddening spiritual goods, by detesting them, which is called malice; or also 5. he assails priests and God-fearing men who induce others to spiritual goods, and is indignant against them; and this is rancor. - Finally, 6. on account of sadness he passes over to exterior delectable things, in which the carnal mind delights, and this is wandering of the mind concerning illicit things.

514. Remark. - Many other sins arise from the capital vices; those which we have handed down are those which arise from them more frequently and more immediately, and which therefore are called their daughters. Others, by means of these, are born from them not so frequently, as envy from vainglory, anger from envy, acedia from anger, and from acedia avarice, gluttony, and lust. Thus Gregory the Great, Moralia, XXXI, c. 45 (P. L. LXXVI, 620-622).

S. Th. II-II, q. 35; de Malo, q. 11.

949. Acedia is sadness concerning spiritual good, especially divine good. For acid things are cold; whence acedia imports weariness or tepidity of acting, which so depresses the soul of man that he is pleased to do nothing. Hence spiritual acedia denotes torpor, languor, tepidity, weariness concerning spiritual things, which are therefore troublesome because they require bodily labor. Whence it is sadness concerning spiritual things because they impede bodily rest and delight: for acedia prefers doing nothing rather than impeding the rest of the body, and thence is born flight from, horror of, and detestation of spiritual things. This sadness is always a sin: a) by reason of the object: for to be saddened concerning evil is good, but to be saddened concerning that which is apparently evil but truly is good, is a sin, because good does not deserve that we be saddened concerning it; b) by reason of the effect: for it withdraws man from due works.

Acedia is twofold: 1. that by which we are saddened concerning the good of any virtue whatever; this is not a special sin, even if it is done on account of bodily labor annexed, but is a circumstance of every sin, because every vice flees the opposite spiritual good also insofar as it impedes bodily rest; 2. that by which we are saddened concerning the spiritual good to which all other things are ordered, namely, concerning divine good, not in itself, but insofar as it is internal to us or pertains to us and seems evil to us: namely, if someone is saddened concerning beatitude or concerning the friendship of God, because they must be preserved through laborious exercises of virtues and so he does not care for that friendship; or if, on account of labor, he is saddened concerning the means to it, for example, concerning the sacraments, the grace of God, good works, divine precepts, etc., insofar as they are necessary or useful for the friendship of God. This is a special sin because it has a special object and directly opposes the special act of a special virtue: for it is opposed to joy concerning the divine good, in which charity delights.

950. The gravity of acedia. - 1. Acedia, as it is a general sin, is mortal or venial according as the sin of which it is a circumstance is grave or light.

2. Special acedia is a mortal sin from its genus, because according to its proper character it is opposed to charity. For the proper effect of charity is joy concerning God; whence acedia, by which we are saddened concerning the divine good, is directly opposed to charity. Nevertheless it can be venial if it is not perfectly deliberate, or even, as it seems, when it is concerned with goods not necessary for salvation.

This acedia is also a capital sin, as was declared above, in the treatise on Sins, n. 513.

I. Acedia is sadness concerning spiritual good, especially divine good.

For sour things are cold, whence acedia imports tedium or tepidity in working, which so depresses the mind of man that nothing pleases him to do.

Hence spiritual acedia denotes torpor, languor, tepidity, tedium concerning spiritual things, which are therefore burdensome because they require bodily labor. Whence it is sadness concerning spiritual things because they impede bodily rest and delight; for acedia prefers to do nothing rather than to impede the rest of the body, and from this is born flight, horror, and detestation of spiritual things.

This sadness is always a sin, both 1. by reason of the object: for sadness concerning evil is good, but to be sad concerning that which is apparently evil but truly good is a sin, because good does not deserve that we be sad concerning it; and 2. by reason of the effect, for it draws man back from due works.

II. The species and gravity of acedia. - Acedia is twofold:

1. That by which we are sad concerning the good of any virtue whatsoever. This is not a special sin, even if it is done on account of the bodily labor joined to it, but is a circumstance of every sin, because every vice flees the opposed spiritual good, even insofar as it impedes bodily rest.

2. That by which we are sad concerning the spiritual good to which all other things are ordered, namely concerning divine good, not indeed in itself, but insofar as it is internal to us and pertains to us and seems evil to us: namely, if someone is sad concerning beatitude or concerning the friendship of God, because they must be preserved by laborious exercises of the virtues, and thus does not care for that friendship; or if on account of labor he is sad concerning the means to it, for example concerning the sacraments, the grace of God, good works, divine precepts, etc., insofar as they are necessary or useful for the friendship of God. This is a special sin because it has a special object and is directly contrary to a special act of a special virtue; for it is opposed to joy concerning divine good, in which charity delights.¹

¹ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 35, a. 1 and 2; Quaestiones disputatae de Malo, 11, a. 1 and 2.

Now: a) Acedia as it is a general sin is mortal or venial according as the sin of which it is a circumstance is grave or light.

b) Special acedia is a mortal sin from its genus, because according to its proper account it is opposed to charity. For the proper effect of charity is joy concerning God; whence acedia, by which we are sad concerning divine good, is directly opposed to charity. Therefore, just as envy is a mortal sin because it is sad concerning the good of the neighbor, concerning which charity rejoices, so a fortiori is acedia, which is sad concerning internal divine good.²

² St. Thomas, II-II, q. 35, a. 3; Quaestiones disputatae de Malo, 11, a. 3.

Nevertheless it can be venial if it is not perfectly deliberate, or also, as it seems, when it is concerned with goods not necessary for salvation.

III. Acedia is a capital sin. - A capital sin is that from which other vices are naturally apt to arise, chiefly according to the account of final cause. But as men do many things on account of delight, both that they may obtain it and because from its impulse they are moved to act, so also on account of sadness they are wont to do many things, either that they may avoid it, or that they may satisfy it, or because from it they are moved to do certain things. Whence, since acedia is a certain great sadness, it is deservedly numbered among the capital sins, in the same way as envy.

This is to be understood of acedia which is a special sin. A general sin or circumstance of every sin cannot be the cause of special vices.

IV. Acedia has six daughters. - From special acedia, as from a final cause, according to St. Gregory, Morals, book 31, c. 45 (or 17), six sins arise.

For from sadness it happens that man flees those things concerning which he is sad, indeed that he attacks them, and that he passes over to other things concerning which he is delighted.

From acedia man flees divine goods: 1. the last end, eternal salvation or the hoped-for divine good, which is done through despair; he also flees 2. the spiritual good to be done, or the common and ordinary means to the end, which they call torpor concerning the precepts; 3. he flees arduous means, for example those which fall under the counsels, through pusillanimity. He attacks 4. saddening spiritual goods by detesting them, which is called malice; or also 5. he attacks priests and God-fearing men who lead others to spiritual goods, and is indignant against them, and this is rancor. Finally, 6. on account of sadness he passes over to exterior delightful things, in which the carnal mind is delighted, and this is wandering of the mind concerning illicit things.³

³ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 35, a. 4; Quaestiones disputatae de Malo, 11, a. 4.

V. Remedies concerning acedia. - A manifold remedy can be indicated against acedia and spiritual tepidity, whether on the part of the mind or on the part of work.

A. On the part of the mind: Frequent thought concerning the necessity of doing good and of laboring strenuously for salvation (Matt. 7:19; 25:26; Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17; printed citation: I Cor. IV, 17), concerning the sterility of life without fervor (Matt. 3:10; 7:19), concerning the dangers of tepidity from its harmful effects and the progressive infirmity naturally born from it (Apoc. 3:15-17; Sir. 33:29).

B. On the part of work: Frequent and sincere confession, daily examination of conscience, pious readings and meditations, the establishment of a useful and laborious life according to a predefined order, a fervent purpose often renewed, diligent fulfillment of the duties of one's state, and spiritual exercises to be performed in total retreat.

Especially: "1. Consider how many things Christ your Savior and King, not needing you, did for the glory of the Father and the salvation of your soul; and do you think little of these things? 2. Whatever God works outside Himself, He works for the salvation of our souls: all His desires, all the care of providence, all the effects of mercy tend to this, that we love and worship Him, and thus be saved. Does not this paternal care and affection deserve love and service? 3. How slight, how brief a labor is required for an immense and eternal reward! Are you not worthy of every confusion if you are unwilling to expend even that for your happiness? 4. The smallest action done for God is worth a thousand times more than all the deeds of heroes undertaken for vanity; you weary yourself for vain things; what is it not fitting to do for eternal goods? 5. What would you think of your servant, who served negligently for a great reward? And you serve God, who prepares such things, more negligently than worldly men serve the devil offering lies? 6. The tepid man does injury to God, defames His service, as if it did not deserve service or had not prepared a just reward; he is a disgrace to Christ, whom he serves less fervently than the world..."⁴ For how many labors are assumed by many for worldly glory and riches! Therefore let us not do less for the kingdom of Christ and the riches of eternal glory.

⁴ Reuter, Neo-confessarius, n. 98.

1842. IT IS ASKED. How ought the confessor conduct himself with penitents who bring only IMPERFECTIONS or VENIAL sins?⁷

Resp. 1. "If they confess imperfections which do not reach faults certainly venial, Bonacina says that they can be absolved under condition; but I judge that this is not to be admitted except very rarely, and when they themselves could not assign certain matter from past life, or not without great trouble. For the rest I say that if the penitent does not present certain matter, the confessor must not inquire into it in order to absolve him; and in the case in which he had inquired and had not found it, he is not bound to impart conditional absolution to him" (cf. n. 1658 and 1663, qu. 5, Reg. 24).

2. "If the penitent confesses certain venial sins, but usual or daily ones, for example concerning impatiences, intemperances, distractions in the Office, in prayer, and similar things, so that absolution can be given to him, it must be considered whether he has at any time imposed force upon himself, as much as he could, in order to overcome the passion; because then it can be judged that his faults proceeded rather from human frailty than from defect of sorrow or purpose. - Conversely, if he has relapsed frequently, and without resistance, into faults of this kind, then he must be dealt with as with a recidivist," according to what was said at n. 1829; and therefore it must be obtained either that he truly grieve over at least some one of those sins, or that he present for matter some graver sin of past life.⁸ - Recall what was said at n. 340 and following.⁹

Capital sins are so called because they are as it were the heads or fountains of other sins. Hence they should be called vices rather than properly sins, if they are considered in general.

Seven are enumerated, namely: 1st. Pride; 2nd. Avarice; 3rd. Lust; 4th. Envy; 5th. Anger; 6th. Sloth; 7th. Gluttony. But how fittingly all sins are reduced to seven heads St. Thomas explains excellently, 1-2, q. 84, art. 4.

We shall say very few things here about the individual capital sins, but we shall carefully indicate the places of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus to which recourse must be had for a fuller exposition of the doctrine.

Pride is the disordered love of one's own excellence, and is distinguished into perfect, or complete and consummated in its own genus, and imperfect. It is called perfect when a man so stands in himself and is pleased with himself that he is in the disposition of gravely transgressing the law rather than obeying the commands of superiors. But this, by that very fact, always includes mortal sin in itself. In other cases it is called imperfect, and then of itself it is accustomed to introduce only venial sin. From pride proceed ambition, vain glory, presumption, boasting, ostentation, and hypocrisy. - Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 162; and QQ. DD. De Malo, qq. 8 and 9.

Avarice is the disordered appetite of temporal goods. It is opposed to justice or to liberality. If the former, it will easily issue into mortal sin, namely as often as it impels one to grave injustice toward the neighbor. - If the latter, of itself it will produce only venial sins. For the rest, excessive affection toward earthly things can impel, and indeed is accustomed to impel, into other even grave sins. From avarice also proceed hardness of heart toward the miserable, disquiet of soul, perfidy, deceit, etc. - Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 118; and QQ. DD. De Malo, q. 13.

Lust is the disordered appetite of a venereal thing. Lust is a grave sin from its whole genus; but this is to be understood if venereal delectation is deliberate in itself and directly willed. But if it is only indirectly voluntary, it sometimes admits smallness of matter, as will be said more fully below where the sixth precept of the Decalogue is treated.

Blindness of mind, inconsideration, inconstancy, hatred of God, languor of faith, indeed even loss of faith, are effects of lust. - Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, qq. 153 and 154; and QQ. DD. De Malo, q. 15.

Envy is sadness concerning the good of another, insofar as it is judged as one's own evil, or at least as one's lesser good. To it is reduced joy concerning the evil of another, which is judged an increase of one's own good. Envy is directly against charity, and from its genus, although not from its whole genus, imports grave sin. From envy proceed detraction, calumny, whispering, contumely, etc. - Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 36; and QQ. DD. De Malo, q. 10.

Anger is the kindling of the soul, and a disordered motion against someone or something; or it is a disordered appetite of vengeance. Irascibility is the habit of anger. Anger is mortal from its genus, if it is an appetite of vengeance; but venial, if it is only a disordered motion of the soul. - Anger generates indignation, rancor, shouting, insults, blasphemies, etc. - Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 158; and QQ. DD. De Malo, q. 12. - St. Alphonsus, nn. 80 and seq.

Sloth in general sounds the same as laziness; but more strictly it is torpor of mind and weakness of will, from which distaste for spiritual things flows because of the labor and trouble attached to them. - If it is so great that grave obligations are omitted from it, it must be held grave; if otherwise, it is to be judged slight. Torpor, wandering of the mind, nausea in prayer, etc., are the fruits of sloth. Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 35; and QQ. DD. De Malo, q. 11. - St. Alphonsus, n. 84.

Gluttony is the disordered appetite of food or drink, and from its genus it is nothing but venial sin. But it becomes grave if it gravely harms health, or if it renders someone unfit for duties. - From gluttony come drunkenness, about which more fully presently, dullness of mind, buffoonery, much speaking, and uncleanness of every kind. Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 148 and 150; and QQ. DD. De Malo, q. 14. - St. Alphonsus, nn. 74 and seq.

Note. - It would perhaps be very fitting to consult St. Thomas concerning sobriety. Sobriety is especially concerned with drink having the power of making drunk. For sobriety preserves measure: "and therefore," says the Angelic Doctor, 2-2, q. 149, a. 1, "it especially assigns to itself that matter in which it is especially praiseworthy to preserve measure. But of this kind is drink capable of making drunk, because its measured use contributes much and a moderate excess harms much, because it impedes the use of reason more than excess of food." And ibid. ad 3: "although measure is required in all things, nevertheless sobriety is not properly said in all things, but in those things in which measure is especially necessary." Now then, "it pertains to moral virtue to preserve the good of reason against those things by which it can be impeded. And therefore," he says ibid. a. 2, "where a special impediment of reason is found, there it is necessary that there be a special virtue for removing it. But intoxicating drink has a special account of impeding the use of reason, insofar as namely it disturbs the brain by its fumes. And therefore ... a special virtue is required, which is sobriety." And although "food and drink commonly can impede the good of reason, by absorbing it through immoderation of delectation, ... drink capable of making drunk impedes according to a special account." Would that also the following words of the Angelic Doctor were noted by some: "in all drinks capable of making drunk there is one and the same account of impeding the use of reason. And thus that diversity of drinks is related accidentally to virtue." Ibid. ad 3. No food or drink, speaking according to itself, is illicit. Yet drink can be rendered illicit by accident, either "because by wine [a man] is easily harmed, or because by a special vow he is obliged not to drink wine," or "from the manner of drinking, because namely he exceeds measure in drinking," or "on the part of others who are scandalized by this." Ibid. art. 3. To the objection that the use of wine is totally illicit, because it impedes wisdom without which someone cannot be in the state of salvation, the Angelic Doctor responds: "Wisdom can be had in two ways. In one way according to the common mode, insofar as it suffices for salvation. And thus it is not required for having wisdom that someone altogether abstain from wine, but that he abstain from the immoderate use of wine. In another way according to a certain degree of perfection. And thus it is required in some persons, for perceiving wisdom perfectly, that they altogether abstain from wine, according to the conditions of certain persons and places." ad 1. But for women and young people, if we regard proneness to pursuing bodily pleasures, "for old men in whom reason ought to flourish for the instruction of others, and for Bishops or any ministers of the Church who with devout mind ought to insist upon spiritual offices, and for kings who by wisdom ought to govern the subject people, sobriety is specially enjoined." Ibid. a. 4. - Cf. the places to be cited at n. 148 from St. Thom. 1-2, q. 88, a. 5, ad 1; 2-2, q. 150, a. 2.

Drunkenness is a voluntary excess in drink unto disturbance of reason, whether this is done from or with pleasure, or without pleasure. But it is divided into perfect and imperfect. The first is had when the use of reason is altogether taken away, so that the drunk man is incapable of acting morally; but the other is that by which the mind is indeed disturbed, yet still has the power to discern between good and evil.

But many others, following St. Thomas, define the vice of drunkenness as: superfluous drink without necessity and from the pleasure of wine alone unto deprivation of the use of reason.

Perfect drunkenness is always a mortal sin, but imperfect drunkenness of itself is only venial. The reason for the first is gathered both from the consent of theologians and the estimation of God-fearing men, and because to deprive oneself of the use of reason in a violent and unnatural way, and indeed in such a way that it cannot immediately be recovered, gravely repugns rational nature; and finally because in the Scriptures, for example, I Cor. vi, 10, drunkards are excluded from the kingdom of God. But the reason for the second is both because there is no grave disordering as long as one can act morally, and because the consent of theologians so holds. - Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 150, art. 2. - St. Alphonsus, n. 75. But St. Thomas speaks thus, 1-2, q. 88, a. 5, ad 1: "Concerning drunkenness it must be said that according to its own account it has this, that it is a mortal sin. For that a man without necessity renders himself unable to use reason, through which man is ordered to God and avoids many sins that occur, from the pleasure of wine alone, is expressly contrary to virtue. But that it is venial sin happens on account of a certain ignorance or infirmity, for instance when a man does not know the strength of wine or his own weakness, whence he does not think that he will be made drunk: for then drunkenness is not imputed to him as sin, but only overabundance of drink. But when he is frequently made drunk, he cannot be excused through this ignorance, without his will seeming to choose rather to suffer drunkenness than to abstain from superfluous wine, whence the sin returns to its own nature." Therefore the drunk man is guilty of a twofold disordering according to St. Thomas: by drinking wine from pleasure alone; and by drinking from excess unto the loss of the use of reason without any motive which would justify even the account of excessive drink. Cf. Baller., tr. 4, n. 381, seq. - Azor., l. 7, c. 33, q. 5. - Lessius, lib. 4, c. 3, d. 3, n. 13. - Dicastillo, lib. 1, disp. 3, d. 11, n. 104.

You Will Resolve. 1st. It is lawful to use any liquors whatever, as medicine for driving away diseases, for example, typhus, even if drunkenness is foreseen as going to follow, provided nevertheless that it is not directly intended, and the salvation of the soul is not placed in danger. It is required namely 1st. that drunkenness follow only indirectly, and 2nd. that no danger be present that the sick man die without reception of the sacraments. Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 150, a. 2, ad 3. - St. Alphonsus, n. 76. St. Thomas speaks thus: "When someone drinks much according to the counsel of medicine ... the drink is not reputed superfluous." l. c.

2nd. The same seems able to be said of those of our country who take a great quantity of liquor in order to expel or restrain the poison which they have drawn from the bites of serpents; for drunkenness, if any follows in such a case, would be said to have followed only indirectly. In this case it is not taken from the pleasure of wine alone nor without necessity.

3rd. It can never be lawful to assume drunkenness as a means for obtaining some effect, however good, because evils are not to be done that goods may come. But if a great quantity of liquor were taken, not indeed for violent deprivation of the use of reason, but for relaxing and thus soothing the nerves, so that from this some surgical operation may be done more easily, it does not appear why this would be illicit, since it is said to be lawful to use opium or ether for performing similar operations.

4th. Those mothers or nurses are altogether to be condemned who, for quieting the tears of children, use alcoholic or opiated drinks, and thus from the first age introduce an evil custom into them.

5th. A fortiori doctors are to be condemned who recur to the same remedy in order to provoke the sick to gladness or to lessen pains of the body; for those acting thus, although perhaps they can be excused from the sin of drunkenness, because they procure it only indirectly, nevertheless certainly introduce an evil custom into the sick if they recover; or, if they die, expose them to the danger of eternal damnation.

6th. Certainly they sin gravely who by command, counsel, or provocation induce others to drunkenness, or induce them to drink with foresight of future drunkenness: something which here and there is done under the vain pretext of friendship or civility.

7th. Likewise he who drinks to excess in order to free himself from the death which another threatens against him does not drink from the pleasure of wine alone or without cause; hence it is not sin.

Question 1. What must be said concerning the promise not to drink (the pledge) as it is accustomed to be made among us?

Response. Although a promise of this kind is good in itself, and, as daily experience establishes, offers an excellent remedy for amending the life of many, nevertheless the practice of receiving it is not without difficulties. For if it is said openly, what theologically speaking is certainly true, namely that violation of that promise is no sin or only venial sin, it will scarcely not happen that the whole efficacy of the remedy vanishes. But from the other side, if nothing is said, many and grave sins will be perpetrated from an ill-formed conscience; since there are many who judge violations of that promise to be graver sins than perfect drunkenness. Therefore much prudence and discretion is needed in receiving promises of this kind. - Wherefore, if there are those who doubt concerning the quantity of that obligation and inquire about it, or if they are not so untaught that they can easily grasp an explanation, or are not drawn to liquors by an utterly mad and ruined love, it will be useful, indeed necessary, to explain to them what the nature of that promise is; for since this is not a vow, but only a purpose manifested to a priest, it cannot of itself oblige under grave sin. But in the other hypothesis perhaps it would be better to say nothing, and to bear oneself permissively concerning those grave sins which would follow; for the lessening of drunkenness will be a sufficient reason for permitting them. - Cf. Irish Ecclesiastical Record, May 1883, pp. 338 and seq.

Question 2. What must be said concerning those sodalities recently instituted for extirpating the vice of drunkenness?

Response. That they are very good and are preferred by many apostolic laborers to the other remedy which consists in the promise not to drink. The reason is that these more recent remedies, while from one side they foster piety more, which is the beginning of every true conversion, from the other side offer no occasion of new sins. The Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore indeed alluded to these remedies in the following words: "Since monstrous scandals arise from excessive drinking, we exhort pastors, and beseech them by the bowels of Jesus Christ, that they put every zeal into eliminating the vice of drunkenness. To this end, we judge worthy of praise the zeal of those faithful who abstain from every ardent liquor in order to decline more safely the danger of excesses. But those who spontaneously enter a society among themselves, so that by mutual examples of virtues they may help and strengthen one another, ought first of all to employ those aids which Christ the Lord left in the Church, by which human vices are amended and infirmity is sustained; and by prayer, frequent reception of the sacraments, and other exercises of piety, to obtain heavenly aid for themselves, and to trust not in themselves, nor in their purposes, but in God, without whom human effort profits nothing." But the Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, speaking more explicitly, say: "The societies which come under the name of 'Catholic Union for promoting Total Abstinence' and 'Sacred Thirst,' we acknowledge as worthy of great praise; for they are governed by a truly Catholic spirit, and seek the necessary strength not so much in firmness of their own will as in the power of prayers and of the sacraments. Moreover it is known that the Head of the whole Church and Vicar of Christ on earth has more than once enriched them with his apostolic blessing and with the indulgences of the Church. Therefore we also exhibit to the same the signs of our benevolence, and that they may flourish the more, we commend them to the paternal care of all our priests, that they may not only add courage to them but also always show them the Catholic path." Cf. Conc. Plen. Balt. II, nn. 470 and seq.; and Conc. Plen. Balt. III, nn. 260 and seq.

Very recently special spiritual graces in favor of the faithful enrolled in societies of Temperance or Abstinence from intoxicating drink were conceded by the Supreme Pontiff Pius X on 21 May 1914 - namely: indulgences both plenary and partial, and also an altogether singular favor by virtue of which all Masses which are applied by any priest whatsoever for the soul of some deceased member can assist that soul as if they had been celebrated at a privileged altar. These graces were granted by the Supreme Pontiff wishing to show his more favorable will toward the aforesaid Societies and to find their Members more eager in advancing so salutary a purpose. - Acta Apost. Sed., v. VI, p. 309.

Question 3. Is it lawful to induce someone to drunkenness so that he may be turned away from a greater evil?

Response. Affirmatively, if drunkenness is only material to him; because a material evil can be permitted for a grave cause. Thus commonly against Collet, Concina, etc. But they more commonly deny it if drunkenness is formal; because evils are not to be done that goods may come: nevertheless St. Alphonsus, n. 77, admits the opposite opinion as probable with several others, "because it is lawful to induce another to a lesser evil so that he may be impeded from a greater." For when someone can be deterred from perpetrating a greater evil by no other means, to persuade the lesser evil has the account of good. See below n. 185. Q. 5th.

Note. - 1st. Habitual excessive drink produces enormous harms for the individual, the family, and society. It harms the health, fortune, and morals of individuals: domestic peace departs from the family, horrible crimes are committed, reason itself day by day becomes degenerate and more vicious.

Personal remedies: for all to avoid the occasions of this sin and those persons and assemblies by whom temperance is violated; to acquire strength by exercise of this virtue and of Christian mortification, and by consideration of motives both natural and supernatural by which men may become stronger against the vice of drunkenness, finally by petition of divine aid. - Dictionnaire de Theol. Cath., under the word Gourmandise.

2nd. The use of morphine, chloroform, and other medicines bringing exile of reason must be ruled by these general principles. The use of morphine, etc., for calming grave pains by soothing the senses is permitted in surgical operations, in more difficult births, and in general when there is a just cause. The use of morphine, etc., taken habitually induces an unquenchable thirst, to which follows unfitness for performing grave duties, and servitude under the medicine itself: such use is gravely prohibited; indeed doctors sin gravely who so frequently prescribe these things to the sick that there is proximate danger of inducing this habit or desire for morphine. The use of morphine which does not bring with it this danger but only a lessening of pains is not illicit of itself. The use of morphine, etc., inducing the loss of the exercise of reason for a long time without cause is certainly a grave sin.

The use of morphine, etc., employed with the dying without their consent so that they may remain in a state of semi-wakefulness is a grave sin and against natural right: such use in those circumstances, that is, with one dying, is gravely illicit when he is not prepared by the sacraments for dying, nor is it lawful for him to consent to it. If he is prepared and there is no danger of falling into grave sin, doctors are to be deterred from employing these means. But what if the pains are most bitter and extraordinary, for example, if someone is burned by slow fire in a conflagration, and cannot be removed from the flames themselves, because, say, he is held by the beams of the house? Is it lawful in this case, when there is no danger of falling into a state of sin, without the consent of the dying man so to soothe his senses that he will remain in fainting until death? It is not lawful: because he has a right to acquire enormous merits. What if he himself wishes it, or if there is danger of falling into grave sin? In those most difficult circumstances let the priest assist him with every help and exhortation so that he may suffer the pains bravely. If at last the sacred minister himself fears, let him be silent; indeed it does not seem altogether certainly prohibited so to soothe the senses, because in the case, morally speaking, he is a prepared sick man: to this indeed he is bound, but it is not clear that he is bound to acquire greater merits. It is his right: but whether a grave obligation rests upon him, this is not evident. Cf. Villada, Cas., v. 3, p. 309. Lehmkuhl speaks more severely, n. 892, ed. 11a.

3rd. Nor does artificial sleep seem illicit, by which, induced by medicinal injections, a woman giving birth does not fully perceive the pains of birth. During this state, so it is reported, she is not deprived of the use of the senses; afterward, however, she is said not to remember those things which then happened, and the sleep is called twilight. Moreover we affirm that if the woman in that state is duly protected, if the doctor is prudent, if care is applied so that nothing harmful happens either to the woman or to the fetus, the matter is done licitly. But another thing would have to be said if these conditions were not verified.

SINCE Charity, after the manner of fire, always acts, and is impatient of idleness, hence, the material of operating being furnished to it by the readiness of the one operating, it rejoices in great gladness; but when the will slackens from the good work, sadness is born; hence Acedia is opposed to the Joy of Charity, as D. Bonav. notes, prima parte Centiloq. sect. 21. Therefore it must be treated of here.

Case.—Anna has a great desire for Christian perfection. Accordingly she goes to confession every week, and receives Holy Communion daily, whenever possible, hoping thus to attain by sacramental graces a steadily increasing purity of heart. The results, however, do not meet her expectations, she is conscious of still possessing many faults, hence she loses courage and weakens in her efforts.

Question.—How should a confessor treat his penitent in order to encourage her faithful adherence to the practice of daily Communion?

Solution.—In the well-known decree of December 20, 1905, hope is expressed that Communicants who receive daily, with the right dispositions and in the state of grace, may also gradually avoid venial sins. Anna desires to be freed of her faults, hence her zeal in receiving the Sacraments. She had hoped to draw this fruit quickly from daily Communion, but she is disappointed in her expectations. The confessor, as a wise physician of the soul, must, before all things, inquire into the causes of this disappointment. Possibly it is brought about by the fact that her expectations were exaggerated, or even presumptuous. Anna believed that she would be freed not only from all sins, but even from all imperfections. As imperfections, the moralists designate either acts or omissions contrary, not to a positive commandment, but to a counsel; another definition classes them as violations of the moral law which are quite involuntary, such as distraction in prayer, involuntary emotions of anger, envy, etc., and, in general, all faults that proceed from guiltless ignorance or inattention. This latter definition, where there is discussion of the difference between imperfections and venial sins, is to be preferred to the former, since imperfections in the first sense are not always free from real sin, while, as defined in the other sense, they never include guilt. To free one’s self by degrees from such imperfections, in as far as this is possible to human beings, should be the endeavor of every Christian, but he should not forget that he can never achieve this perfectly in this life. Perfect purity is exclusively the privilege of the spirits dwelling in Heaven; on earth even the just have always occasion to accuse themselves of moral shortcomings, and to lament with the Apostle: “Who will deliver me from the body of this death?”

It would be presumptuous to insist on the gift of angelic purity, and it would surely lead to various errors. To a penitent with such aspirations St. Francis of Sales gave the admonition, “Often we take pains to become good angels, and in our zeal we neglect to be good men and good women.” He pointed out the importance of being patient with oneself: “Patience is that virtue which most assures us perfection. We must practice it in dealing with others, but it is equally necessary to exercise it with ourselves. Those who aspire to a perfect charity, must have more patience with themselves than with others. We must endure our imperfections in order to gain perfection.”

With venial sins it is different. These are more or less voluntary violations of the moral law, for this reason they offend God, and in this aspect they are to be abhorred as a positive evil. While in this life it is not possible to avoid always even the least of venial sins, yet it is possible to lessen their number, or to keep oneself entirely free from a certain species of them. That the penitent may never become lax in this endeavor, should be the special solicitude of the confessor. He will, in order to avoid the rock of extreme severity, and in order to discourage neither himself nor his penitent, clearly distinguish between sins of frailty and sins that result from a perversity of the will, or from bad habits. Even the saints were not wholly free from sins of frailty; they, too, had to confess with St. James: “In many things we all offend.” Such faults enter only too easily into our minds, actions and omissions; they can, however, be just as easily wiped out again, especially through prayer, as St. Augustine teaches: “For the daily, brief, and light sins without which this life is not led, the daily prayer of the faithful makes satisfaction... this prayer completely wipes away slight and daily sins,” Ench. 71. As a matter of fact these very faults of weakness work for the good of those who truly love God; for as they are thus continually reminded of their frailty, they are more firmly imbued with an humble self-knowledge. P. Scupoli tell us how advantageous is this knowledge of our faults: “O happy knowledge (of our frailty) which sanctifies us in this world, and uplifts us to the glory of Heaven! O splendid light, proceeding from the darkness and flooding the soul with celestial clarity! O hidden pearl, shining forth from our obscurity! O nothingness that uplifts us to the possession of all things!” If the saints received extraordinary graces from God, not a little of this was due to the fact that they chose to give themselves up to the contemplation of their own nothingness, and fostered within themselves the spirit of humility and contrition.

Upon this important point Anna must be enlightened so that what should really inspire confidence and courage may not become a cause for discouragement.

When, however, there is question of faults arising from perversity of will, and deliberately committed, then the case assumes another aspect. A spiritual condition of this kind requires careful treatment on the part of the confessor.

How harmful such faults are to our striving for virtue is aptly told by P. Lancicius. He writes, in the introduction to an exhaustive treatise upon venial sins: “During the forty-seven years of my priesthood, I have been at different times the spiritual director of lay persons and of Religious. In this work I was made aware that many persons received great graces from the Lord, but with the greater number I saw that they received lesser graces than the Divine bounty would have poured out upon them if they had been more diligent in avoiding numerous venial sins, especially those committed with deliberation.”

Should the confessor perceive that Anna is enmeshed in faults of this kind, that she commits certain faults from habit, then he will, first of all, prescribe the remedies needed against her shortcomings, and impress upon her the conscientious use of the same. Some pious, but little instructed, persons fall into the error that sacramental grace will do all and that it will suffice to receive Communion frequently in order to attain the heights of Christian perfection. If Anna sincerely desires to be cured of moral ills she will assuredly show her good will by a diligent use of the prescribed remedies, and thus gradually attain the desired goal. Should Anna, however, manifest a lack of good intention, by neglecting to cooperate with sacramental grace by her own suitable effort, then the prudent confessor will regard her case as critical, and, if necessary, treat her with warranted severity. Such souls are frequently in grave danger of straying afar from the path of virtue. In the case of such persons the question arises: Have they, indeed, the pious disposition, which is before all things requisite for daily Communion? Are they, indeed, in the state of grace? Admittedly they will not commit any sin which they regard as a grievous sin. Yet, what security is there, in their deplorable condition, that their supposedly venial sins are not really mortal sins, or at least will not soon lead to such? In judging sinful acts, which Moralists hold to be grievous sins ex genere suo, which, however, may be slight on account of parvitas materiae, it is often very difficult to define the borderline that divides venial sins and grievous ones, and, since even the most skilled Casuists often admit their inability to distinguish in this matter, how can a person, less well-informed, without conscious self-deception claim that this borderline has not been overstepped, when she has over and over again sinned deliberately against charity, justice, etc.? Moreover the neglected grace is gradually withdrawn from the tepid soul, and the Divine warning is being fulfilled which was pronounced upon the Bishop of Ephesus: “Because thou art tepid I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.” There is, finally a particular point to be taken into consideration regarding such persons. Not infrequently the habitual faults of those avowing the aspiration to a devout life are yielding scandal. Their lack of charity, of fidelity to duty, of humility, meekness, etc., casts not seldom a dark shadow upon piety itself and brings it into discredit. The scandal which the world takes at the devout is surely often a pharisaical scandal-taking, their malice gleefully making small faults the occasion for vilification of all religion. Unfortunately, however, there is sometimes real scandal of this sort which the confessor must combat with energy. Should all his endeavors fail, then he must not hesitate to keep such persons, who evidently misuse the sacraments, from approaching them until they are induced to make a better use of the same.