Aquinas - "acts virtuous for some and immoral for others"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rau
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rau

Guest
St Thomas Aquinas:

***“Because of the diverse conditions of humans, it happens that some acts are virtuous to some people, as appropriate and suitable to them, while the same acts are immoral for others, as inappropriate to them.”***Do we know what acts Aquinas had in mind when penning these words?

What acts - fit this description - I can think of the following (though I’m not sure if these are on-point):
  1. Acting in a role that one does not legitimately occupy - may be immoral, though the act performed by the legitimate occupier of the role would be moral.
  2. Acts where the Intentions or the Circumstances determine the morality. Eg. Almsgiving to attract praise and recognition is not a good act, whereas to help the poor is a good act.
I have read claims that in this statement, Aquinas makes a case that homosexual acts can be good, though of course we know that elsewhere he condemns homosexual acts.

Can anyone fill out what he is getting at?
 
Rau said:
St Thomas Aquinas:

***“Because of the diverse conditions of humans, it happens that some acts are virtuous to some people, as appropriate and suitable to them, while the same acts are immoral for others, as inappropriate to them.”***Do we know what acts Aquinas had in mind when penning these words?

What acts - fit this description - I can think of the following (though I’m not sure if these are on-point):
  1. Acting in a role that one does not legitimately occupy - may be immoral, though the act performed by the legitimate occupier of the role would be moral.
  2. Acts where the Intentions or the Circumstances determine the morality. Eg. Almsgiving to attract praise and recognition is not a good act, whereas to help the poor is a good act.
I have read claims that in this statement, Aquinas makes a case that homosexual acts can be good, though of course we know that elsewhere he condemns homosexual acts.
Click to expand...
Oh, my, please don’t fall for that sort of propaganda. St Thomas would never have thought that!
Can anyone fill out what he is getting at?
Click to expand...
Persons in authority can do things which others cannot do.

Police can put you in jail, but if someone else locked someone up, it would be wrong.

Married people can engage in the marital act, but not unmarried people.

Injured people can take drugs it would be a sin for others to take.
 
Rau said:
St Thomas Aquinas:

“Because of the diverse conditions of humans, it happens that some acts are virtuous to some people, as appropriate and suitable to them, while the same acts are immoral for others, as inappropriate to them.”Do we know what acts Aquinas had in mind when penning these words?

What acts - fit this description - I can think of the following (though I’m not sure if these are on-point):
  1. Acting in a role that one does not legitimately occupy - may be immoral, though the act performed by the legitimate occupier of the role would be moral.
  2. Acts where the Intentions or the Circumstances determine the morality. Eg. Almsgiving to attract praise and recognition is not a good act, whereas to help the poor is a good act.
I have read claims that in this statement, Aquinas makes a case that homosexual acts can be good, though of course we know that elsewhere he condemns homosexual acts.

Can anyone fill out what he is getting at?
Click to expand...
*Summa Theologica II, I, *Question 94. The natural law

Article 3. Whether all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law?

Objection 3. Further, those things which are according to nature are common to all. But acts of virtue are not common to all: since a thing is virtuous in one, and vicious in another. Therefore not all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law.

I answer that, We may speak of virtuous acts in two ways: first, under the aspect of virtuous; secondly, as such and such acts considered in their proper species.
  • If then we speak of acts of virtue, considered as virtuous, thus all virtuous acts belong to the natural law. For it has been stated (2) that to the natural law belongs everything to which a man is inclined according to his nature. Now each thing is inclined naturally to an operation that is suitable to it according to its form: thus fire is inclined to give heat. Wherefore, since the rational soul is the proper form of man, there is in every man a natural inclination to act according to reason: and this is to act according to virtue. Consequently, considered thus, all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law: since each one’s reason naturally dictates to him to act virtuously.
  • But if we speak of virtuous acts, considered in themselves, i.e. in their proper species, thus not all virtuous acts are prescribed by the natural law: for many things are done virtuously, to which nature does not incline at first; but which, through the inquiry of reason, have been found by men to be conducive to well-living.
Reply to Objection 3. This argument considers acts in themselves. For it is owing to the various conditions of men, that certain acts are virtuous for some, as being proportionate and becoming to them, while they are vicious for others, as being out of proportion to them.

newadvent.org/summa/2094.htm

Summa Theologica II, I, Question 95. Human law

Article 2. Whether every human law is derived from the natural law?

Objection 3. Further, the law of nature is the same for all; since the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 7) that “the natural just is that which is equally valid everywhere.” If therefore human laws were derived from the natural law, it would follow that they too are the same for all: which is clearly false.

Reply to Objection 3. The general principles of the natural law cannot be applied to all men in the same way on account of the great variety of human affairs: and hence arises the diversity of positive laws among various people.

newadvent.org/summa/2095.htm#article4
 
St_Francis said:
Persons in authority can do things which others cannot do.

Police can put you in jail, but if someone else locked someone up, it would be wrong.

Married people can engage in the marital act, but not unmarried people.

Injured people can take drugs it would be a sin for others to take.
Click to expand...
OK, these are along similar lines to the suggestions I made.
 
Rau said:
St Thomas Aquinas:

***“Because of the diverse conditions of humans, it happens that some acts are virtuous to some people, as appropriate and suitable to them, while the same acts are immoral for others, as inappropriate to them.”***Do we know what acts Aquinas had in mind when penning these words?

What acts - fit this description -
Click to expand...
Dropping an atomic bomb on a city. Many Americans argue that it was good when the Americans did so, but it would be bad if the Iranians did it.
Similarly with torture. It is good if it is done by Americans at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or by rendition in other countries, but it is bad if Communists did it.
 
Tomdstone said:
Dropping an atomic bomb on a city. Many Americans argue that it was good when the Americans did so, but it would not be good if the Iranians did it.
Click to expand...
LOL!

Or merely possessing said weapons!

Oh, wait a minute, were there nuclear weapons in Aquinas’ time 😉 ?
 
Rau said:
St Thomas Aquinas:

***“Because of the diverse conditions of humans, it happens that some acts are virtuous to some people, as appropriate and suitable to them, while the same acts are immoral for others, as inappropriate to them.”***Do we know what acts Aquinas had in mind when penning these words?
Click to expand...
It would help a lot if we looked at the context. What is the context here? I have no idea.
There are a lot of websites that attribute this quote to Aquinas. A few of them claim it is in the Summa Theologica. As far as I can tell, none gives a more detailed citation.
There are a lot of books in defense of homosexuality that attribute this quote to Aquinas. Some claim it is in the Summa Theologica. As far as I can tell, none gives a more detailed citation, except to say that the quote is cited in an earlier book in defense of homosexuality.
That quote does not appear anywhere in my translation of the Summa Theologica, and I have not yet been able to find anything that could conceivably be a different translation of the same line.

Conclusion: either Aquinas never said it, or the people using it to defend homosexuality don’t want you to know the context. Either way, their argument holds no weight.

If you can find where Aquinas said it, I’ll look into the context, but until then there is no reason to be concerned about it.
 
Mark1124 said:
It would help a lot if we looked at the context. What is the context here? I have no idea.
There are a lot of websites that attribute this quote to Aquinas. A few of them claim it is in the Summa Theologica. As far as I can tell, none gives a more detailed citation.
There are a lot of books in defense of homosexuality that attribute this quote to Aquinas. Some claim it is in the Summa Theologica. As far as I can tell, none gives a more detailed citation, except to say that the quote is cited in an earlier book in defense of homosexuality.
That quote does not appear anywhere in my translation of the Summa Theologica, and I have not yet been able to find anything that could conceivably be a different translation of the same line.

Conclusion: either Aquinas never said it, or the people using it to defend homosexuality don’t want you to know the context. Either way, their argument holds no weight.

If you can find where Aquinas said it, I’ll look into the context, but until then there is no reason to be concerned about it.
Click to expand...
See post #3, St. Thomas Aquinas* Summa Theologica II, I, *Question 94. The natural law, Article 3. Whether all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law?
Reply to Objection 3. This argument considers acts in themselves. For it is owing to the various conditions of men, that certain acts are virtuous for some, as being proportionate and becoming to them, while they are vicious for others, as being out of proportion to them
 
Rau said:
St Thomas Aquinas:

***“Because of the diverse conditions of humans, it happens that some acts are virtuous to some people, as appropriate and suitable to them, while the same acts are immoral for others, as inappropriate to them.”***Do we know what acts Aquinas had in mind when penning these words?

…]

I have read claims that in this statement, Aquinas makes a case that homosexual acts can be good, though of course we know that elsewhere he condemns homosexual acts.

Can anyone fill out what he is getting at?
Click to expand...
Well, I think to use it as an argument for homosexual behavior, St. Thomas would have had to say, “…it happens that all acts are virtuous to some people…”

But he didn’t. Acts that are always morally wrong are always morally wrong. And he was a very loyal son of the Church. The idea that anyone would have used a quotation from his works to argue against the teachings of the Church would have been appalling to him.

Another example of things this could be referring to: I could have a beer in fellowship with friends and it would be fine. An alcoholic would be sinning if she did the same thing.

Also, that glass of wine with dinner that my mother would have when she was pregnant with me would not have been sinful. But a pregnant woman today, who knows what damage can be done by drinking during pregnancy, would be sinning to have the wine.

–Jen
 
Rau said:
St Thomas Aquinas:

“Because of the diverse conditions of humans, it happens that some acts are virtuous to some people, as appropriate and suitable to them, while the same acts are immoral for others, as inappropriate to them.”…

What acts - fit this description -
Click to expand...
Burning heretics at the stake? It was good at the time of the Inquisition, but it is bad now?
 
This quote by Aquinas makes sense to me in this way - it’s actually quite similar to St. Paul’s lines in 1st Corinthians where he comes up with a list of charisms. Not everyone is given the same calling. Some are called to marriage, while others are called to a life of consecrated celibacy. Though it would be certainly permissible (and not a sin in any way), those called to marriage should not attempt a life of consecrated celibacy, and those called to a life of consecrated celibacy should not attempt marriage, because if one attempts a vocation apart from the vocation he/she is called to, it will be much more difficult for him/her.

So, simply put, Aquinas’s words seem to say (1) one cannot perform deeds in which one does not have the authority to do; and (2) God has given us each different gifts, and if we try to do something that we do not have the gift for, though it not be inherently evil, it could be extremely difficult for us to do correctly (and we might even not only fail miserably, but make such mistakes that it could be a cause of scandal for others).
 
Vico said:
See post #3, St. Thomas Aquinas* Summa Theologica II, I, *Question 94. The natural law, Article 3. Whether all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law?
Reply to Objection 3. This argument considers acts in themselves. For it is owing to the various conditions of men, that certain acts are virtuous for some, as being proportionate and becoming to them, while they are vicious for others, as being out of proportion to them
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the immediate context is not very helpful here. But what I think he is talking about is situations like this: it would be a virtuous act for Bob to have sex with a certain woman, while it would be a vicious act for Joe to have sex with that same woman, because the woman in question is married to Bob and not to Joe.
 
thistle said:
You think?? Well show us an official document that supports your thoughts.
Click to expand...
I already did.
Exsurge Domine
“[condemned] 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

“With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top