186. The Distinction of Sins: Object, Species, and Order

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Problem of Division and Common Properties #

• Logical principle: That which is common to every sin ought not to be laid down as a formal part in a division of sin
• The objection: It seems unsuitable to distinguish sin as being against God, neighbor, and self, since being against God’s law is common to every sin by its very definition
• Issue with opposites: These three do not form proper opposites—whoever sins against neighbor also sins against God and themselves
• Extrinsic causes: God and neighbor are outside us, so they should not determine the species of sin according to first objection

The Threefold Order in Man #

• Order to reason: All acts and passions ought to be measured according to the rule of reason
• Order to divine law: Man ought to be directed in all his acts by divine law, which exceeds and includes the order to reason
• Order to neighbor: Because man is naturally social and political (per Aristotle in Politics I), a third order is necessary by which man is ordered to others with whom he ought to live together
• Relationship between orders: The first order (divine law) contains and exceeds the second (reason); the second contains and exceeds the third (neighbor)

The Key Distinction: Common vs. What Exceeds #

• Thomas resolves the objection by distinguishing between what is common to all sin and what exceeds in each order
• Sin against God as common: To sin against God according as the order to God includes every human order is common to every sin
• Sin against God as special: As regards that in which the order of God exceeds the other two orders, sin against God is a special genus of sin (e.g., heresy, sacrilege, blasphemy)
• Principle of distinction: When some things include others, the distinction is understood not according to what one contains in another, but according to what one exceeds the other

Analogies for Understanding Inclusion and Distinction #

• Geometry: Triangle is not divided against square (quadrilateral) according to what is contained in it; rather, one divides four-sided figures from three-sided when the three is taken alone
• Animals: One does not divide man against animal according to what animal includes in man, but against that which is merely animal (without reason)
• Personal examples: When telling his mother “man is an animal,” she preferred him to specify “man is a rational animal”—distinguishing man from mere animal

Sins Against Self, Neighbor, and God #

• Sin against self: When a man sins in those things by which he is ordered only to himself (not to neighbor), such as gluttony, luxury (sexual excess), and prodigality
• Sin against neighbor: When a man sins in those things by which he is ordered to his neighbor, such as theft and homicide
• Sin against God particularly: Sins in which man is ordered to God in a way exceeding other orders, such as lack of belief or disbelief in God (heresy)
• Unity of objects: The distinction is according to diverse objects by which species of sin are diversified

The Role of Virtue in Understanding Sin’s Distinction #

• The virtues to which sins are opposed are distinguished according to the same threefold difference
• Theological virtues order man to God; temperance to himself; justice to his neighbor
• This confirms that the distinction of sins is properly according to diverse species, not according to causes

Clarification on Order of Nature vs. Enumeration #

• Important note on terminology: When Thomas says “first,” “second,” and “third” order, this refers to the order of nature, not the order of enumeration in the text
• The order of divine law is most universal and is therefore “first” in the order of nature
• The order of reason is “second”; the order to neighbor is “third”
• This can cause confusion in reading if not carefully attended to

Key Arguments #

The Objection from Common Properties #

• Premise 1: That which is common to every sin ought not to be a formal part in dividing sins
• Premise 2: Being against God’s law is common to every sin (it is in the definition of sin)
• Conclusion: Therefore, sin against God ought not to be a formal part in the division of sins

The Resolution: Distinction According to What Exceeds #

• Premise 1: When some things include others, division is made not according to what is contained but according to what exceeds
• Premise 2: The order to God exceeds the order to reason and to neighbor
• Premise 3: There are sins specifically against God that exceed what is common to all sin (heresy, sacrilege, blasphemy)
• Conclusion: Therefore, sin against God properly distinguishes a special genus of sin

The Objection from Extrinsic Causes #

• Premise 1: Those things extrinsic do not confer species
• Premise 2: God and neighbor are outside us
• Conclusion: Therefore, through them one does not distinguish species of sin
• Response: Although God and neighbor are extrinsic with respect to the sinner, they are not extrinsic with respect to the act of sin but are compared to it as its proper objects

Important Definitions #

Objects #

• That toward which the will is directed; the end intended by the sinner
• Proper objects of sin are not extraneous to the act but constitute its formal specification
• Example: In murder, the victim is the object of the sinful act

Order (ōrdo) #

• A proper relationship or arrangement between things
• Man has a threefold order: to reason, to divine law (which includes and exceeds the first), and to neighbor (which is included in the second)

Extrinsic (extrānsecus) #

• Outside of something; exterior to it
• God and neighbor are extrinsic with respect to the sinner’s being but not with respect to the act of sin

Heresy, Sacrilege, Blasphemy #

• Specific forms of sin against God in which the order of God is violated in a way exceeding common sinfulness
• Examples of sin against God as a special genus

Examples & Illustrations #

The Gluttonous Man #

• Both eats too much (sin of commission) and omits suitable fasting (sin of omission)
• Both acts proceed from disordered love of food
• Both are formally the same species of sin (gluttony) despite material difference

The Avaricious Man #

• Both steals from others and refuses to give to the poor
• Both proceed from inordinate love of money
• Demonstrates how negation (omission to give) is founded on affirmation (love of money)

Venetian Art Periods #

• Berquist uses Venetian painting history as an analogy: three periods, each dominated by two painters (the Bellinis; Titian and Giorgione; Tintoretto and Veronese)
• Illustrates the principle of ordered division into subsections
• Personal note: He has a painting by Veronese in his dining room

Etymology: Tintoretto #

• Tintoretto’s real name was Robusty; he was named Tintoretto because he worked in his father’s shop doing the tinting (tinta) of materials
• Small example used to show how names reflect the nature of things

Biblical Example: Adam and Eve #

• Their disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit stemmed from disbelief in God (“you shall not surely die”)
• Had to live with the consequences through particular judgment and eventual general judgment
• Used to illustrate the gravity of sin against God specifically

Notable Quotes #

“That which is common to every sin ought not to be laid down as a word, part in a division of sin.” — Thomas Aquinas (cited by Berquist as “a good, solid, logical principle”)

“It’s threefold order that ought to be in man.” — Thomas Aquinas (Berquist notes he “hadn’t adverted to it” before)

“When something is separated by itself and not part of it… you don’t divide it against the thing that makes up it, but when it’s separated by itself and not part of it.” — Thomas Aquinas (explaining the principle of division according to what exceeds)

“God and neighbor, although they are outside with respect to the one sinning, nevertheless, they’re not extraneous with respect to the act of sin, but they are compared to it as its proper objects.” — Thomas Aquinas

Questions Addressed #

Article 4: Is sin suitably distinguished as sin against God, neighbor, and self? #

• Objections:
  1. Being against God’s law is common to all sin, so it cannot be a formal dividing principle
  2. Commission and omission do not form true opposites (one who sins against neighbor also sins against God and self)
  3. God and neighbor are extrinsic to us, so they should not determine species
• Resolution: The distinction is made not according to what is common (being against God’s law) but according to what exceeds in each order. The order to God exceeds and includes the orders to reason and neighbor, allowing for a proper threefold distinction of sins

Pedagogical Notes #

• Berquist is suspicious of chapter titles and summaries in edited versions of Thomas, expressing doubt that they faithfully represent Thomas’s original utrums (questions)
• He emphasizes the importance of going back to Thomas’s original text
• He notes a possible confusion in his edition regarding the ordering of first, second, and third “order,” and clarifies that these refer to the order of nature, not the enumeration in the text
• The careful distinction between what is common to all sin and what is specific to certain genera of sin is crucial for understanding the entire division