Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that, properly speaking, evil is not the motive of mercy. For, as shown above (Question 19, Article 1; 1.2, Question 79, Article 1, ad 4; 1, Question 48, Article 6), fault is an evil rather than punishment. Now fault provokes indignation rather than mercy. Therefore evil does not excite mercy.

Objection 2: Further, cruelty and harshness seem to excel other evils. Now the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 8) that "harshness does not call for pity but drives it away." Therefore evil, as such, is not the motive of mercy.

Objection 3: Further, signs of evils are not true evils. But signs of evils excite one to mercy, as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii, 8). Therefore evil, properly speaking, is not an incentive to mercy.

On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 2) that mercy is a kind of sorrow. Now evil is the motive of sorrow. Therefore it is the motive of mercy.

I answer that, As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5), mercy is heartfelt sympathy for another's distress, impelling us to succor him if we can. For mercy takes its name "misericordia" from denoting a man's compassionate heart for another's unhappiness. Now unhappiness is opposed to happiness: and it is essential to beatitude or happiness that one should obtain what one wishes; for, according to Augustine (De Trin. xiii, 5), "happy is he who has whatever he desires, and desires nothing amiss." Hence, on the other hand, it belongs to unhappiness that a man should suffer what he wishes not.

Now a man wishes a thing in three ways: first, by his natural appetite; thus all men naturally wish to be and to live: secondly, a man wishes a thing from deliberate choice: thirdly, a man wishes a thing, not in itself, but in its cause, thus, if a man wishes to eat what is bad for him, we say that, in a way, he wishes to be ill.

Accordingly the motive of "mercy," being something pertaining to "misery," is, in the first way, anything contrary to the will's natural appetite, namely corruptive or distressing evils, the contrary of which man desires naturally, wherefore the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 8) that "pity is sorrow for a visible evil, whether corruptive or distressing." Secondly, such like evils are yet more provocative of pity if they are contrary to deliberate choice, wherefore the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 8) that evil excites our pity "when it is the result of an accident, as when something turns out ill, whereas we hoped well of it." Thirdly, they cause yet greater pity, if they are entirely contrary to the will, as when evil befalls a man who has always striven to do well: wherefore the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 8) that "we pity most the distress of one who suffers undeservedly."

Reply to Objection 1: It is essential to fault that it be voluntary; and in this respect it deserves punishment rather than mercy. Since, however, fault may be, in a way, a punishment, through having something connected with it that is against the sinner's will, it may, in this respect, call for mercy. It is in this sense that we pity and commiserate sinners. Thus Gregory says in a homily (Hom. in Evang. xxxiv) that "true godliness is not disdainful but compassionate," and again it is written (Mt. 9:36) that Jesus "seeing the multitudes, had compassion on them: because they were distressed, and lying like sheep that have no shepherd."

Reply to Objection 2: Since pity is sympathy for another's distress, it is directed, properly speaking, towards another, and not to oneself, except figuratively, like justice, according as a man is considered to have various parts (Ethic. v, 11). Thus it is written (Ecclus. 30:24): "Have pity on thy own soul, pleasing God" .

Accordingly just as, properly speaking, a man does not pity himself, but suffers in himself, as when we suffer cruel treatment in ourselves, so too, in the case of those who are so closely united to us, as to be part of ourselves, such as our children or our parents, we do not pity their distress, but suffer as for our own sores; in which sense the Philosopher says that "harshness drives pity away."

Reply to Objection 3: Just as pleasure results from hope and memory of good things, so does sorrow arise from the prospect or the recollection of evil things; though not so keenly as when they are present to the senses. Hence the signs of evil move us to pity, in so far as they represent as present, the evil that excites our pity.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod malum non sit proprie motivum ad misericordiam.

Ut enim supra ostensum est, culpa est magis malum quam poena.

Sed culpa non est provocativum ad misericordiam, sed magis ad indignationem.

Ergo malum non est misericordiae provocativum.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, ea quae sunt crudelia seu dira videntur quendam excessum mali habere.

Sed philosophus dicit, in II rhet., quod dirum est aliud a miserabili, et expulsivum miserationis.

Ergo malum, inquantum huiusmodi, non est motivum ad misericordiam.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, signa malorum non vere sunt mala. Sed signa malorum provocant ad misericordiam; ut patet per philosophum, in II rhet..

Ergo malum non est proprie provocativum misericordiae.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit, in II Lib., quod misericordia est species tristitiae.

Sed motivum ad tristitiam est malum.

Ergo motivum ad misericordiam est malum.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, IX de CIV. Dei, misericordia est alienae miseriae in nostro corde compassio, qua utique, si possumus, subvenire compellimur, dicitur enim misericordia ex eo quod aliquis habet miserum cor super miseria alterius. Miseria autem felicitati opponitur. Est autem de ratione beatitudinis sive felicitatis ut aliquis potiatur eo quod vult, nam sicut Augustinus dicit, XIII de Trin., beatus qui habet omnia quae vult, et nihil mali vult.

Et ideo e contrario ad miseriam pertinet ut homo patiatur quae non vult. Tripliciter autem aliquis vult aliquid. Uno quidem modo, appetitu naturali, sicut omnes homines volunt esse et vivere.

Alio modo homo vult aliquid per electionem ex aliqua praemeditatione. Tertio modo homo vult aliquid non secundum se, sed in causa sua, puta, qui vult comedere nociva, quodammodo dicimus eum velle infirmari. Sic igitur motivum misericordiae est, tanquam ad miseriam pertinens, primo quidem illud quod contrariatur appetitui naturali volentis, scilicet mala corruptiva et contristantia, quorum contraria homines naturaliter appetunt. Unde philosophus dicit, in II rhet., quod misericordia est tristitia quaedam super apparenti malo corruptivo vel contristativo.

Secundo, huiusmodi magis efficiuntur ad misericordiam provocantia si sint contra voluntatem electionis.

Unde et philosophus ibidem dicit quod illa mala sunt miserabilia quorum fortuna est causa, puta cum aliquod malum eveniat unde sperabatur bonum.

Tertio autem, sunt adhuc magis miserabilia si sunt contra totam voluntatem, puta si aliquis semper sectatus est bona et eveniunt ei mala.

Et ideo philosophus dicit, in eodem libro, quod misericordia maxime est super malis eius qui indignus patitur.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod de ratione culpae est quod sit voluntaria. Et quantum ad hoc non habet rationem miserabilis, sed magis rationem puniendi. Sed quia culpa potest esse aliquo modo poena, inquantum scilicet habet aliquid annexum quod est contra voluntatem peccantis, secundum hoc potest habere rationem miserabilis. Et secundum hoc miseremur et compatimur peccantibus, sicut Gregorius dicit, in quadam homilia, quod vera iustitia non habet dedignationem, scilicet ad peccatores, sed compassionem.

Et Matth. IX dicitur, videns iesus turbas misertus est eis, quia erant vexati, et iacentes sicut oves non habentes pastorem.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod quia misericordia est compassio miseriae alterius, proprie misericordia est ad alterum, non autem ad seipsum, nisi secundum quandam similitudinem, sicut et iustitia, secundum quod in homine considerantur diversae partes, ut dicitur in V ethic.. Et secundum hoc dicitur Eccli. XXX, miserere animae tuae placens deo.

Sicut ergo misericordia non est proprie ad seipsum, sed dolor, puta cum patimur aliquid crudele in nobis; ita etiam, si sint aliquae personae ita nobis coniunctae ut sint quasi aliquid nostri, puta filii aut parentes, in eorum malis non miseremur, sed dolemus, sicut in vulneribus propriis. Et secundum hoc philosophus dicit quod dirum est expulsivum miserationis.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod sicut ex spe et memoria bonorum sequitur delectatio, ita ex spe et memoria malorum sequitur tristitia, non autem tam vehemens sicut ex sensu praesentium. Et ideo signa malorum, inquantum repraesentant nobis mala miserabilia sicut praesentia, commovent ad miserendum.