|
Objection 1: It would seem that sloth is not a mortal sin. For
every mortal sin is contrary to a precept of the Divine Law. But
sloth seems contrary to no precept, as one may see by going through the
precepts of the Decalogue. Therefore sloth is not a mortal sin.
Objection 2: Further, in the same genus, a sin of deed is no less
grievous than a sin of thought. Now it is not a mortal sin to refrain
in deed from some spiritual good which leads to God, else it would be
a mortal sin not to observe the counsels. Therefore it is not a mortal
sin to refrain in thought from such like spiritual works. Therefore
sloth is not a mortal sin.
Objection 3: Further, no mortal sin is to be found in a perfect
man. But sloth is to be found in a perfect man: for Cassian says
(De Instit. Caenob. x, l) that "sloth is well known to the
solitary, and is a most vexatious and persistent foe to the hermit."
Therefore sloth is not always a mortal sin.
On the contrary, It is written (2 Cor. 7:20): "The sorrow
of the world worketh death." But such is sloth; for it is not sorrow
"according to God," which is contrasted with sorrow of the world.
Therefore it is a mortal sin.
I answer that, As stated above (FS, Question 88, Articles
1,2), mortal sin is so called because it destroys the spiritual
life which is the effect of charity, whereby God dwells in us.
Wherefore any sin which by its very nature is contrary to charity is a
mortal sin by reason of its genus. And such is sloth, because the
proper effect of charity is joy in God, as stated above (Question
28, Article 1), while sloth is sorrow about spiritual good in as
much as it is a Divine good. Therefore sloth is a mortal sin in
respect of its genus. But it must be observed with regard to all sins
that are mortal in respect of their genus, that they are not mortal,
save when they attain to their perfection. Because the consummation of
sin is in the consent of reason: for we are speaking now of human sins
consisting in human acts, the principle of which is the reason.
Wherefore if the sin be a mere beginning of sin in the sensuality
alone, without attaining to the consent of reason, it is a venial sin
on account of the imperfection of the act. Thus in the genus of
adultery, the concupiscence that goes no further than the sensuality is
a venial sin, whereas if it reach to the consent of reason, it is a
mortal sin. So too, the movement of sloth is sometimes in the
sensuality alone, by reason of the opposition of the flesh to the
spirit, and then it is a venial sin; whereas sometimes it reaches to
the reason, which consents in the dislike, horror and detestation of
the Divine good, on account of the flesh utterly prevailing over the
spirit. In this case it is evident that sloth is a mortal sin.
Reply to Objection 1: Sloth is opposed to the precept about
hallowing the Sabbath day. For this precept, in so far as it is a
moral precept, implicitly commands the mind to rest in God: and
sorrow of the mind about the Divine good is contrary thereto.
Reply to Objection 2: Sloth is not an aversion of the mind from any
spiritual good, but from the Divine good, to which the mind is
obliged to adhere. Wherefore if a man is sorry because someone forces
him to do acts of virtue that he is not bound to do, this is not a sin
of sloth; but when he is sorry to have to do something for God's
sake.
Reply to Objection 3: Imperfect movements of sloth are to be found
in holy men, but they do not reach to the consent of reason.
|
|