FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   681   682   683   684   685   686   687   688   689   690   691   692   693   694   695   696   697   698   699   700   701   702   703   704   705  
706   707   708   709   710   711   712   713   714   715   716   717   718   719   720   721   722   723   724   725   726   727   728   729   730   >>   >|  
ords through some slight movement, or in jest, or without deliberation, and sins of word should be weighed chiefly with regard to the speaker's intention, as stated above (Q. 72, A. 2). From this the Replies to the Objections may be easily gathered. _______________________ FOURTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 76, Art. 4] Whether Cursing Is a Graver Sin Than Backbiting? Objection 1: It would seem that cursing is a graver sin than backbiting. Cursing would seem to be a kind of blasphemy, as implied in the canonical epistle of Jude (verse 9) where it is said that "when Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of blasphemy [Douay: 'railing speech']," where blasphemy stands for cursing, according to a gloss. Now blasphemy is a graver sin than backbiting. Therefore cursing is a graver sin than backbiting. Obj. 2: Further, murder is more grievous than backbiting, as stated above (Q. 73, A. 3). But cursing is on a par with the sin of murder; for Chrysostom says (Hom. xix, super Matth.): "When thou sayest: 'Curse him down with his house, away with everything,' you are no better than a murderer." Therefore cursing is graver than backbiting. Obj. 3: Further, to cause a thing is more than to signify it. But the curser causes evil by commanding it, whereas the backbiter merely signifies an evil already existing. Therefore the curser sins more grievously than the backbiter. _On the contrary,_ It is impossible to do well in backbiting, whereas cursing may be either a good or an evil deed, as appears from what has been said (A. 1). Therefore backbiting is graver than cursing. _I answer that,_ As stated in the First Part (Q. 48, A. 5), evil is twofold, evil of fault, and evil of punishment; and of the two, evil of fault is the worse (I, Q. 48, A. 6). Hence to speak evil of fault is worse than to speak evil of punishment, provided the mode of speaking be the same. Accordingly it belongs to the reviler, the tale-bearer, the backbiter and the derider to speak evil of fault, whereas it belongs to the evil-speaker, as we understand it here, to speak evil of punishment, and not evil of fault except under the aspect of punishment. But the mode of speaking is not the same, for in the case of the four vices mentioned above, evil of fault is spoken by way of assertion, whereas in the case of cursing evil of punishment is spoken, either by causing it in t
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   681   682   683   684   685   686   687   688   689   690   691   692   693   694   695   696   697   698   699   700   701   702   703   704   705  
706   707   708   709   710   711   712   713   714   715   716   717   718   719   720   721   722   723   724   725   726   727   728   729   730   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

cursing

 

backbiting

 
punishment
 

graver

 

blasphemy

 
Therefore
 

stated

 

backbiter

 
curser
 

Further


murder

 

speaking

 

speaker

 

spoken

 
belongs
 

Cursing

 

existing

 

signifies

 

understand

 

derider


commanding

 

murderer

 

bearer

 

signify

 

aspect

 

impossible

 

mentioned

 

causing

 

answer

 
assertion

twofold

 

provided

 

Accordingly

 
contrary
 
reviler
 
appears
 

grievously

 

ARTICLE

 
FOURTH
 

Objections


easily

 
gathered
 
Whether
 
implied
 

canonical

 

Objection

 
Backbiting
 

Graver

 

Replies

 

deliberation