Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that strife is not always a sin. For strife seems a kind of contention: hence Isidore says (Etym. x) that the word "rixosus is derived from the snarling of a dog, because the quarrelsome man is ever ready to contradict; he delights in brawling, and provokes contention." Now contention is not always a sin. Neither, therefore, is strife.

Objection 2: Further, it is related (Gn. 26:21) that the servants of Isaac "digged" another well, "and for that they quarrelled likewise." Now it is not credible that the household of Isaac quarrelled publicly, without being reproved by him, supposing it were a sin. Therefore strife is not a sin.

Objection 3: Further, strife seems to be a war between individuals. But war is not always sinful. Therefore strife is not always a sin.

On the contrary, Strifes are reckoned among the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20), and "they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." Therefore strifes are not only sinful, but they are even mortal sins.

I answer that, While contention implies a contradiction of words, strife denotes a certain contradiction of deeds. Wherefore a gloss on Gal. 5:20 says that "strifes are when persons strike one another through anger." Hence strife is a kind of private war, because it takes place between private persons, being declared not by public authority, but rather by an inordinate will. Therefore strife is always sinful. In fact it is a mortal sin in the man who attacks another unjustly, for it is not without mortal sin that one inflicts harm on another even if the deed be done by the hands. But in him who defends himself, it may be without sin, or it may sometimes involve a venial sin, or sometimes a mortal sin; and this depends on his intention and on his manner of defending himself. For if his sole intention be to withstand the injury done to him, and he defend himself with due moderation, it is no sin, and one cannot say properly that there is strife on his part. But if, on the other hand, his self-defense be inspired by vengeance and hatred, it is always a sin. It is a venial sin, if a slight movement of hatred or vengeance obtrude itself, or if he does not much exceed moderation in defending himself: but it is a mortal sin if he makes for his assailant with the fixed intention of killing him, or inflicting grievous harm on him.

Reply to Objection 1: Strife is not just the same as contention: and there are three things in the passage quoted from Isidore, which express the inordinate nature of strife. First, the quarrelsome man is always ready to fight, and this is conveyed by the words, "ever ready to contradict," that is to say, whether the other man says or does well or ill. Secondly, he delights in quarrelling itself, and so the passage proceeds, "and delights in brawling." Thirdly, "he" provokes others to quarrel, wherefore it goes on, "and provokes contention."

Reply to Objection 1: The sense of the text is not that the servants of Isaac quarrelled, but that the inhabitants of that country quarrelled with them: wherefore these sinned, and not the servants of Isaac, who bore the calumny .

Reply to Objection 3: In order for a war to be just it must be declared by authority of the governing power, as stated above (Question 40, Article 1); whereas strife proceeds from a private feeling of anger or hatred. For if the servants of a sovereign or judge, in virtue of their public authority, attack certain men and these defend themselves, it is not the former who are said to be guilty of strife, but those who resist the public authority. Hence it is not the assailants in this case who are guilty of strife and commit sin, but those who defend themselves inordinately.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod rixa non semper sit peccatum. Rixa enim videtur esse contentio quaedam, dicit enim Isidorus, in libro etymol., quod rixosus est a rictu canino dictus, semper enim ad contradicendum paratus est, et iurgio delectatur, et provocat contendentem.

Sed contentio non semper est peccatum. Ergo neque rixa.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, Gen. XXVI dicitur quod servi Isaac foderunt alium puteum, et pro illo quoque rixati sunt.

Sed non est credendum quod familia Isaac rixaretur publice, eo non contradicente, si hoc esset peccatum.

Ergo rixa non est peccatum.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, rixa videtur esse quoddam particulare bellum.

Sed bellum non semper est peccatum.

Ergo rixa non semper est peccatum.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod ad Gal. V rixae ponuntur inter opera carnis, quae qui agunt regnum dei non consequuntur.

Ergo rixae non solum sunt peccata, sed etiam sunt peccata mortalia.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod sicut contentio importat quandam contradictionem verborum, ita etiam rixa importat quandam contradictionem in factis, unde super illud Gal. V dicit Glossa quod rixae sunt quando ex ira invicem se percutiunt.

Et ideo rixa videtur esse quoddam privatum bellum, quod inter privatas personas agitur non ex aliqua publica auctoritate, sed magis ex inordinata voluntate. Et ideo rixa semper importat peccatum. Et in eo quidem qui alterum invadit iniuste est peccatum mortale, inferre enim nocumentum proximo etiam opere manuali non est absque mortali peccato. In eo autem qui se defendit potest esse sine peccato, et quandoque cum peccato veniali, et quandoque etiam cum mortali, secundum diversum motum animi eius, et diversum modum se defendendi. Nam si solo animo repellendi iniuriam illatam, et cum debita moderatione se defendat, non est peccatum, nec proprie potest dici rixa ex parte eius. Si vero cum animo vindictae vel odii, vel cum excessu debitae moderationis se defendat, semper est peccatum, sed veniale quidem quando aliquis levis motus odii vel vindictae se immiscet, vel cum non multum excedat moderatam defensionem; mortale autem quando obfirmato animo in impugnantem insurgit ad eum occidendum vel graviter laedendum.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod rixa non simpliciter nominat contentionem, sed tria in praemissis verbis Isidori ponuntur quae inordinationem rixae declarant. Primo quidem, promptitudinem animi ad contendendum, quod significat cum dicit, semper ad contradicendum paratus, scilicet sive alius bene aut male dicat aut faciat. Secundo, quia in ipsa contradictione delectatur, unde sequitur, et in iurgio delectatur. Tertio, quia ipse alios provocat ad contradictiones, unde sequitur, et provocat contendentem.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ibi non intelligitur quod servi Isaac sint rixati, sed quod incolae terrae rixati sunt contra eos.

Unde illi peccaverunt, non autem servi Isaac, qui calumniam patiebantur.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod ad hoc quod iustum sit bellum, requiritur quod fiat auctoritate publicae potestatis, sicut supra dictum est.

Rixa autem fit ex privato affectu irae vel odii. Si enim minister principis aut iudicis publica potestate aliquos invadat qui se defendant, non dicuntur ipsi rixari, sed illi qui publicae potestati resistunt.

Et sic illi qui invadunt non rixantur neque peccant, sed illi qui se inordinate defendunt.