|
Objection 1: It would seem that in no case can it be lawful to maim
anyone. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 20) that "sin
consists in departing from what is according to nature, towards that
which is contrary to nature." Now according to nature it is appointed
by God that a man's body should be entire in its members, and it is
contrary to nature that it should be deprived of a member. Therefore
it seems that it is always a sin to maim a person.
Objection 2: Further, as the whole soul is to the whole body, so
are the parts of the soul to the parts of the body (De Anima ii,
1). But it is unlawful to deprive a man of his soul by killing him,
except by public authority. Therefore neither is it lawful to maim
anyone, except perhaps by public authority.
Objection 3: Further, the welfare of the soul is to be preferred to
the welfare of the body. Now it is not lawful for a man to maim
himself for the sake of the soul's welfare: since the council of
Nicea [P. I, sect. 4, can. i] punished those who castrated
themselves that they might preserve chastity. Therefore it is not
lawful for any other reason to maim a person.
On the contrary, It is written (Ex. 21:24): "Eye for
eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
I answer that, Since a member is part of the whole human body, it is
for the sake of the whole, as the imperfect for the perfect. Hence a
member of the human body is to be disposed of according as it is
expedient for the body. Now a member of the human body is of itself
useful to the good of the whole body, yet, accidentally it may happen
to be hurtful, as when a decayed member is a source of corruption to
the whole body. Accordingly so long as a member is healthy and retains
its natural disposition, it cannot be cut off without injury to the
whole body. But as the whole of man is directed as to his end to the
whole of the community of which he is a part, as stated above
(Question 61, Article 1; Question 64, Articles 2,5),
it may happen that although the removal of a member may be detrimental
to the whole body, it may nevertheless be directed to the good of the
community, in so far as it is applied to a person as a punishment for
the purpose of restraining sin. Hence just as by public authority a
person is lawfully deprived of life altogether on account of certain
more heinous sins, so is he deprived of a member on account of certain
lesser sins. But this is not lawful for a private individual, even
with the consent of the owner of the member, because this would involve
an injury to the community, to whom the man and all his parts belong.
If, however, the member be decayed and therefore a source of
corruption to the whole body, then it is lawful with the consent of the
owner of the member, to cut away the member for the welfare of the
whole body, since each one is entrusted with the care of his own
welfare. The same applies if it be done with the consent of the person
whose business it is to care for the welfare of the person who has a
decayed member: otherwise it is altogether unlawful to maim anyone.
Reply to Objection 1: Nothing prevents that which is contrary to a
particular nature from being in harmony with universal nature: thus
death and corruption, in the physical order, are contrary to the
particular nature of the thing corrupted, although they are in keeping
with universal nature. In like manner to maim anyone, though contrary
to the particular nature of the body of the person maimed, is
nevertheless in keeping with natural reason in relation to the common
good.
Reply to Objection 2: The life of the entire man is not directed to
something belonging to man; on the contrary whatever belongs to man is
directed to his life. Hence in no case does it pertain to a person to
take anyone's life, except to the public authority to whom is
entrusted the procuring of the common good. But the removal of a
member can be directed to the good of one man, and consequently in
certain cases can pertain to him.
Reply to Objection 3: A member should not be removed for the sake
of the bodily health of the whole, unless otherwise nothing can be done
to further the good of the whole. Now it is always possible to further
one's spiritual welfare otherwise than by cutting off a member,
because sin is always subject to the will: and consequently in no case
is it allowable to maim oneself, even to avoid any sin whatever.
Hence Chrysostom, in his exposition on Mt. 19:12 (Hom. lxii
in Matth.), "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs
for the kingdom of heaven," says: "Not by maiming themselves, but
by destroying evil thoughts, for a man is accursed who maims himself,
since they are murderers who do such things." And further on he
says: "Nor is lust tamed thereby, on the contrary it becomes more
importunate, for the seed springs in us from other sources, and
chiefly from an incontinent purpose and a careless mind: and temptation
is curbed not so much by cutting off a member as by curbing one's
thoughts."
|
|