Help with St. Thomas

[atman]

I was reading St. Thomas’ treatise on law and came upon this bizarre “what if” scenario:

For instance, suppose that in a besieged city it be an established law that the gates of the city are to be kept closed, this is good for public welfare as a general rule: but, it were to happen that the enemy are in pursuit of certain citizens, who are defenders of the city, it would be a great loss to the city, if the gates were not opened to them: and so in that case the gates ought to be opened, contrary to the letter of the law, in order to maintain the common weal, which the lawgiver had in view.

Summa Theo. I-II:96:6​

Does anybody have a clue why the gates should be opened? I really don’t get it and this is annoying me like you would not believe! :banghead:

 

[GeorgeSword]

I would say that he was saying that the gates should be opened, against the law, if someone’s life was in danger. They were being chased by the enemy and needed to gain access to the safety of the city, but the gates had to be opened for them to do so. On the other hand, he calls the people who need to get in ‘defenders’ of the city, and I would think the defenders would already be in the city?

 

[Jim_Baur]

Epikeia and gnome are rather important.

 

[tonyrey]

I was reading St. Thomas’ treatise on law and came upon this bizarre “what if” scenario:

For instance, suppose that in a besieged city it be an established law that the gates of the city are to be kept closed, this is good for public welfare as a general rule: but, it were to happen that the enemy are in pursuit of certain citizens, who are defenders of the city, it would be a great loss to the city, if the gates were not opened to them: and so in that case the gates ought to be opened, contrary to the letter of the law, in order to maintain the common weal, which the lawgiver had in view.

The point is that it would be the lesser of two evils. St Thomas explicitly states that “necessity knows no law”. We have to presume that the enemy are in pursuit of certain citizens for a good reason. Why else? So it would be wrong not to open the gates and harbour criminals **merely because it is a law not to open the gates **. Incidentally it would be odd if the gates were **never **opened. Surely they have to be opened on specified occasions…

 

[Thing]

I was reading St. Thomas’ treatise on law and came upon this bizarre “what if” scenario:

For instance, suppose that in a besieged city it be an established law that the gates of the city are to be kept closed, this is good for public welfare as a general rule: but, it were to happen that the enemy are in pursuit of certain citizens, who are defenders of the city, it would be a great loss to the city, if the gates were not opened to them: and so in that case the gates ought to be opened, contrary to the letter of the law, in order to maintain the common weal, which the lawgiver had in view.

The natural place of the defenders of the city is with the city. The lawgiver had the intention of protecting the city with this law and as the defenders outside the walls are also the city they also must be given the same protection of the city according to the common weal which the lawgiver had in mind…:stretcher:

 

[Real_Presense92]

I think one anology would be when Jesus healed on the Sabbath. Jewish law opposed working , but Jesus asked isn’t the healing a higher or greater good?

God Bless

 

[atman]

Thanks all! Thing’s response makes sense to me. I understood his philosophical point, I just had a difficult time grasping how the analogy related to it.

God bless.