|
Objection 1: It would seem that cursing is a graver sin than
backbiting. Cursing would seem to be a kind of blasphemy, as implied
in the canonical epistle of Jude (verse 9) where it is said that
"when Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended
about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment
of blasphemy," where blasphemy stands for cursing, according to a
gloss. Now blasphemy is a graver sin than backbiting. Therefore
cursing is a graver sin than backbiting.
Objection 2: Further, murder is more grievous than backbiting, as
stated above (Question 73, Article 3). But cursing is on a par
with the sin of murder; for Chrysostom says (Hom. xix, super
Matth.): "When thou sayest: 'Curse him down with his house,
away with everything,' you are no better than a murderer."
Therefore cursing is graver than backbiting.
Objection 3: Further, to cause a thing is more than to signify it.
But the curser causes evil by commanding it, whereas the backbiter
merely signifies an evil already existing. Therefore the curser sins
more grievously than the backbiter.
On the contrary, It is impossible to do well in backbiting, whereas
cursing may be either a good or an evil deed, as appears from what has
been said (Article 1). Therefore backbiting is graver than
cursing.
I answer that, As stated in the FP, Question 48, Article 5,
evil is twofold, evil of fault, and evil of punishment; and of the
two, evil of fault is the worse (FP, Question 48, Article
6). Hence to speak evil of fault is worse than to speak evil of
punishment, provided the mode of speaking be the same. Accordingly it
belongs to the reviler, the tale-bearer, the backbiter and the
derider to speak evil of fault, whereas it belongs to the
evil-speaker, as we understand it here, to speak evil of punishment,
and not evil of fault except under the aspect of punishment. But the
mode of speaking is not the same, for in the case of the four vices
mentioned above, evil of fault is spoken by way of assertion, whereas
in the case of cursing evil of punishment is spoken, either by causing
it in the form of a command, or by wishing it. Now the utterance
itself of a person's fault is a sin, in as much as it inflicts an
injury on one's neighbor, and it is more grievous to inflict an
injury, than to wish to inflict it, other things being equal.
Hence backbiting considered in its generic aspect is a graver sin than
the cursing which expresses a mere desire; while the cursing which is
expressed by way of command, since it has the aspect of a cause, will
be more or less grievous than backbiting, according as it inflicts an
injury more or less grave than the blackening of a man's good name.
Moreover this must be taken as applying to these vices considered in
their essential aspects: for other accidental points might be taken
into consideration, which would aggravate or extenuate the aforesaid
vices.
Reply to Objection 1: To curse a creature, as such, reflects on
God, and thus accidentally it has the character of blasphemy; not so
if one curse a creature on account of its fault: and the same applies
to backbiting.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Article 3), cursing,
in one way, includes the desire for evil, where if the curser desire
the evil of another's violent death, he does not differ, in desire,
from a murderer, but he differs from him in so far as the external act
adds something to the act of the will.
Reply to Objection 3: This argument considers cursing by way of
command.
|
|