|
Objection 1: It would seem that pride should be reckoned a capital
vice, since Isidore [Comment. in Deut. xvi] and Cassian [De
Inst. Caenob. v, 1: Collat. v, 2] number pride among the
capital vices.
Objection 2: Further, pride is apparently the same as vainglory,
since both covet excellence. Now vainglory is reckoned a capital
vice. Therefore pride also should be reckoned a capital vice.
Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (De Virginit. xxxi) that
"pride begets envy, nor is it ever without this companion." Now
envy is reckoned a capital vice, as stated above (Question 36,
Article 4). Much more therefore is pride a capital vice.
On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) does not include
pride among the capital vices.
I answer that, As stated above (Articles 2,5, ad 1) pride may
be considered in two ways; first in itself, as being a special sin;
secondly, as having a general influence towards all sins. Now the
capital vices are said to be certain special sins from which many kinds
of sin arise. Wherefore some, considering pride in the light of a
special sin, numbered it together with the other capital vices. But
Gregory, taking into consideration its general influence towards all
vices, as explained above (Article 2, Objection 3), did not
place it among the capital vices, but held it to be the "queen and
mother of all the vices." Hence he says (Moral. xxxi, 45):
"Pride, the queen of vices, when it has vanquished and captured the
heart, forthwith delivers it into the hands of its lieutenants the
seven principal vices, that they may despoil it and produce vices of
all kinds."
This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.
Reply to Objection 2: Pride is not the same as vainglory, but is
the cause thereof: for pride covets excellence inordinately: while
vainglory covets the outward show of excellence.
Reply to Objection 3: The fact that envy, which is a capital
vice, arises from pride, does not prove that pride is a capital vice,
but that it is still more principal than the capital vices themselves.
|
|