|
Objection 1: It would seem that respect of persons is not a sin.
For the word "person" includes a reference to personal dignity
[FP, Question 29, Article 3, ad 2]. Now it belongs to
distributive justice to consider personal dignity. Therefore respect
of persons is not a sin.
Objection 2: Further, in human affairs persons are of more
importance than things, since things are for the benefit of persons and
not conversely. But respect of things is not a sin. Much less,
therefore, is respect of persons.
Objection 3: Further, no injustice or sin can be in God. Yet
God seems to respect persons, since of two men circumstanced alike He
sometimes upraises one by grace, and leaves the other in sin,
according to Mt. 24:40: "Two shall be in a bed, one shall be
taken, and one shall be left." Therefore respect of persons is not a
sin.
On the contrary, Nothing but sin is forbidden in the Divine law.
Now respect of persons is forbidden, Dt. 1:17: "Neither shall
you respect any man's person." Therefore respect of persons is a
sin.
I answer that, Respect of persons is opposed to distributive
justice. For the equality of distributive justice consists in
allotting various things to various persons in proportion to their
personal dignity. Accordingly, if one considers that personal
property by reason of which the thing allotted to a particular person is
due to him, this is respect not of the person but of the cause. Hence
a gloss on Eph. 6:9, "There is no respect of persons with
God," says that "a just judge regards causes, not persons." For
instance if you promote a man to a professorship on account of his
having sufficient knowledge, you consider the due cause, not the
person; but if, in conferring something on someone, you consider in
him not the fact that what you give him is proportionate or due to him,
but the fact that he is this particular man (e.g. Peter or
Martin), then there is respect of the person, since you give him
something not for some cause that renders him worthy of it, but simply
because he is this person. And any circumstance that does not amount
to a reason why this man be worthy of this gift, is to be referred to
his person: for instance if a man promote someone to a prelacy or a
professorship, because he is rich or because he is a relative of his,
it is respect of persons. It may happen, however, that a
circumstance of person makes a man worthy as regards one thing, but not
as regards another: thus consanguinity makes a man worthy to be
appointed heir to an estate, but not to be chosen for a position of
ecclesiastical authority: wherefore consideration of the same
circumstance of person will amount to respect of persons in one matter
and not in another. It follows, accordingly, that respect of persons
is opposed to distributive justice in that it fails to observe due
proportion. Now nothing but sin is opposed to virtue: and therefore
respect of persons is a sin.
Reply to Objection 1: In distributive justice we consider those
circumstances of a person which result in dignity or right, whereas in
respect of persons we consider circumstances that do not so result.
Reply to Objection 2: Persons are rendered proportionate to and
worthy of things which are distributed among them, by reason of certain
things pertaining to circumstances of person, wherefore such conditions
ought to be considered as the proper cause. But when we consider the
persons themselves, that which is not a cause is considered as though
it were; and so it is clear that although persons are more worthy,
absolutely speaking, yet they are not more worthy in this regard.
Reply to Objection 3: There is a twofold giving. one belongs to
justice, and occurs when we give a man his due: in such like givings
respect of persons takes place. The other giving belongs to
liberality, when one gives gratis that which is not a man's due: such
is the bestowal of the gifts of grace, whereby sinners are chosen by
God. In such a giving there is no place for respect of persons,
because anyone may, without injustice, give of his own as much as he
will, and to whom he will, according to Mt. 20:14,15, "Is
it not lawful for me to do what I will? . . . Take what is thine,
and go thy way."
|
|