|
Objection 1: It would seem that respect of persons does not take
place in showing honor and respect. For honor is apparently nothing
else than "reverence shown to a person in recognition of his virtue,"
as the Philosopher states (Ethic. i, 5). Now prelates and
princes should be honored although they be wicked, even as our
parents, of whom it is written (Ex. 20:12): "Honor thy
father and thy mother." Again masters, though they be wicked,
should be honored by their servants, according to 1 Tim. 6:1:
"Whoever are servants under the yoke, let them count their masters
worthy of all honor." Therefore it seems that it is not a sin to
respect persons in showing honor.
Objection 2: Further, it is commanded (Lev. 19:32):
"Rise up before the hoary head, and, honor the person of the aged
man." But this seems to savor of respect of persons, since sometimes
old men are not virtuous; according to Dan. 13:5: "Iniquity
came out from the ancients of the people." Therefore it is not a sin
to respect persons in showing honor.
Objection 3: Further, on the words of James 2:1, "Have not
the faith . . . with respect of persons," a gloss of Augustine
[Ep. ad Hieron. clxvii.] says: "If the saying of James,
'If there shall come into your assembly a man having a golden ring,'
etc., refer to our daily meetings, who sins not here, if however he
sin at all?" Yet it is respect of persons to honor the rich for their
riches, for Gregory says in a homily (xxviii in Evang.): "Our
pride is blunted, since in men we honor, not the nature wherein they
are made to God's image, but wealth," so that, wealth not being a
due cause of honor, this will savor of respect of persons. Therefore
it is not a sin to respect persons in showing honor.
On the contrary, A gloss on James 2:1, says: "Whoever honors
the rich for their riches, sins," and in like manner, if a man be
honored for other causes that do not render him worthy of honor. Now
this savors of respect of persons. Therefore it is a sin to respect
persons in showing honor.
I answer that, To honor a person is to recognize him as having
virtue, wherefore virtue alone is the due cause of a person being
honored. Now it is to be observed that a person may be honored not
only for his own virtue, but also for another's: thus princes and
prelates, although they be wicked, are honored as standing in God's
place, and as representing the community over which they are placed,
according to Prov. 26:8, "As he that casteth a stone into the
heap of Mercury, so is he that giveth honor to a fool." For, since
the gentiles ascribed the keeping of accounts to Mercury, "the heap
of Mercury" signifies the casting up of an account, when a merchant
sometimes substitutes a pebble for one hundred marks. So too, is a
fool honored if he stand in God's place or represent the whole
community: and in the same way parents and masters should be honored,
on account of their having a share of the dignity of God Who is the
Father and Lord of all. The aged should be honored, because old age
is a sign of virtue, though this sign fail at times: wherefore,
according to Wis. 4:8,9, "venerable old age is not that of long
time, nor counted by the number of years; but the understanding of a
man is gray hairs, and a spotless life is old age." The rich ought
to be honored by reason of their occupying a higher position in the
community: but if they be honored merely for their wealth, it will be
the sin of respect of persons.
Hence the Replies to the Objections are clear.
|
|