|
Objection 1: It would seem that the consequences of the external
action increase its goodness or malice. For the effect pre-exists
virtually in its cause. But the consequences result from the action as
an effect from its cause. Therefore they pre-exist virtually in
actions. Now a thing is judged to be good or bad according to its
virtue, since a virtue "makes that which has it to be good"
(Ethic. ii, 6). Therefore the consequences increase the goodness
or malice of an action.
Objection 2: Further, the good actions of his hearers are
consequences resulting from the words of a preacher. But such goods as
these redound to the merit of the preacher, as is evident from Phil.
4:1: "My dearly beloved brethren, my joy and my crown."
Therefore the consequences of an action increase its goodness or
malice.
Objection 3: Further, punishment is not increased, unless the
fault increases: wherefore it is written (Dt. 25:2):
"According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the
stripes be." But the punishment is increased on account of the
consequences; for it is written (Ex. 21:29): "But if the ox
was wont to push with his horn yesterday and the day before, and they
warned his master, and he did not shut him up, and he shall kill a man
or a woman, then the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be
put to death." But he would not have been put to death, if the ox,
although he had not been shut up, had not killed a man. Therefore the
consequences increase the goodness or malice of an action.
Objection 4: Further, if a man do something which may cause death,
by striking, or by sentencing, and if death does not ensue, he does
not contract irregularity: but he would if death were to ensue.
Therefore the consequence of an action increase its goodness or
malice.
On the contrary, The consequences do not make an action that was
evil, to be good; nor one that was good, to be evil. For instance,
if a man give an alms to a poor man who makes bad use of the alms by
committing a sin, this does not undo the good done by the giver; and,
in like manner, if a man bear patiently a wrong done to him, the
wrongdoer is not thereby excused. Therefore the consequences of an
action doe not increase its goodness or malice.
I answer that, The consequences of an action are either foreseen or
not. If they are foreseen, it is evident that they increase the
goodness or malice. For when a man foresees that many evils may follow
from his action, and yet does not therefore desist therefrom, this
shows his will to be all the more inordinate.
But if the consequences are not foreseen, we must make a distinction.
Because if they follow from the nature of the action and in the
majority of cases, in this respect, the consequences increase the
goodness or malice of that action: for it is evident that an action is
specifically better, if better results can follow from it; and
specifically worse, if it is of a nature to produce worse results. On
the other hand, if the consequences follow by accident and seldom,
then they do not increase the goodness or malice of the action: because
we do not judge of a thing according to that which belongs to it by
accident, but only according to that which belongs to it of itself.
Reply to Objection 1: The virtue of a cause is measured by the
effect that flows from the nature of the cause, not by that which
results by accident.
Reply to Objection 2: The good actions done by the hearers, result
from the preacher's words, as an effect that flows from their very
nature. Hence they redound to the merit of the preacher: especially
when such is his intention.
Reply to Objection 3: The consequences for which that man is
ordered to be punished, both follow from the nature of the cause, and
are supposed to be foreseen. For this reason they are reckoned as
punishable.
Reply to Objection 4: This argument would prove if irregularity
were the result of the fault. But it is not the result of the fault,
but of the fact, and of the obstacle to the reception of a sacrament.
|
|