|
Objection 1: It would seem that sins of commission and omission
differ specifically. For "offense" and "sin" are condivided with
one another (Eph. 2:1), where it is written: "When you were
dead in your offenses and sins," which words a gloss explains,
saying: "'Offenses,' by omitting to do what was commanded, and
'sins,' by doing what was forbidden." Whence it is evident that
"offenses" here denotes sins of omission; while "sin" denotes sins
of commission. Therefore they differ specifically, since they are
contrasted with one another as different species.
Objection 2: Further, it is essential to sin to be against God's
law, for this is part of its definition, as is clear from what has
been said (Question 71, Article 6). Now in God's law, the
affirmative precepts, against which is the sin of omission, are
different from the negative precepts, against which is the sin of
omission. Therefore sins of omission and commission differ
specifically.
Objection 3: Further, omission and commission differ as affirmation
and negation. Now affirmation and negation cannot be in the same
species, since negation has no species; for "there is neither species
nor difference of non-being," as the Philosopher states (Phys.
iv, text. 67). Therefore omission and commission cannot belong to
the same species.
On the contrary, Omission and commission are found in the same
species of sin. For the covetous man both takes what belongs to
others, which is a sin of commission; and gives not of his own to whom
he should give, which is a sin of omission. Therefore omission and
commission do not differ specifically.
I answer that, There is a twofold difference in sins; a material
difference and a formal difference: the material difference is to be
observed in the natural species of the sinful act; while the formal
difference is gathered from their relation to one proper end, which is
also their proper object. Hence we find certain acts differing from
one another in the material specific difference, which are nevertheless
formally in the same species of sin, because they are directed to the
one same end: thus strangling, stoning, and stabbing come under the
one species of murder, although the actions themselves differ
specifically according to the natural species. Accordingly, if we
refer to the material species in sins of omission and commission, they
differ specifically, using species in a broad sense, in so far as
negation and privation may have a species. But if we refer to the
formal species of sins of omission and commission, they do not differ
specifically, because they are directed to the same end, and proceed
from the same motive. For the covetous man, in order to hoard money,
both robs, and omits to give what he ought, and in like manner, the
glutton, to satiate his appetite, both eats too much and omits the
prescribed fasts. The same applies to other sins: for in things,
negation is always founded on affirmation, which, in a manner, is its
cause. Hence in the physical order it comes under the same head, that
fire gives forth heat, and that it does not give forth cold.
Reply to Objection 1: This division in respect of commission and
omission, is not according to different formal species, but only
according to material species, as stated.
Reply to Objection 2: In God's law, the necessity for various
affirmative and negative precepts, was that men might be gradually led
to virtue, first by abstaining from evil, being induced to this by the
negative precepts, and afterwards by doing good, to which we are
induced by the affirmative precepts. Wherefore the affirmative and
negative precepts do not belong to different virtues, but to different
degrees of virtue; and consequently they are not of necessity, opposed
to sins of different species. Moreover sin is not specified by that
from which it turns away, because in this respect it is a negation or
privation, but by that to which it turns, in so far as sin is an act.
Consequently sins do not differ specifically according to the various
precepts of the Law.
Reply to Objection 3: This objection considers the material
diversity of sins. It must be observed, however, that although,
properly speaking, negation is not in a species, yet it is allotted to
a species by reduction to the affirmation on which it is based.
|
|