Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that prudence of the flesh is a mortal sin. For it is a mortal sin to rebel against the Divine law, since this implies contempt of God. Now "the prudence of the flesh . . . is not subject to the law of God" (Rm. 8:7). Therefore prudence of the flesh is a mortal sin.

Objection 2: Further, every sin against the Holy Ghost is a mortal sin. Now prudence of the flesh seems to be a sin against the Holy Ghost, for "it cannot be subject to the law of God" (Rm. 8:7), and so it seems to be an unpardonable sin, which is proper to the sin against the Holy Ghost. Therefore prudence of the flesh is a mortal sin.

Objection 3: Further, the greatest evil is opposed to the greatest good, as stated in Ethic. viii, 10. Now prudence of the flesh is opposed to that prudence which is the chief of the moral virtues. Therefore prudence of the flesh is chief among mortal sins, so that it is itself a mortal sin.

On the contrary, That which diminishes a sin has not of itself the nature of a mortal sin. Now the thoughtful quest of things pertaining to the care of the flesh, which seems to pertain to carnal prudence, diminishes sin . Therefore prudence of the flesh has not of itself the nature of a mortal sin.

I answer that, As stated above (Question 47, Article 2, ad 1; Article 13), a man is said to be prudent in two ways. First, simply, i.e. in relation to the end of life as a whole. Secondly, relatively, i.e. in relation to some particular end; thus a man is said to be prudent in business or something else of the kind. Accordingly if prudence of the flesh be taken as corresponding to prudence in its absolute signification, so that a man place the last end of his whole life in the care of the flesh, it is a mortal sin, because he turns away from God by so doing, since he cannot have several last ends, as stated above (1.2, Question 1, Article 5).

If, on the other hand, prudence of the flesh be taken as corresponding to particular prudence, it is a venial sin. For it happens sometimes that a man has an inordinate affection for some pleasure of the flesh, without turning away from God by a mortal sin; in which case he does not place the end of his whole life in carnal pleasure. To apply oneself to obtain this pleasure is a venial sin and pertains to prudence of the flesh. But if a man actually refers the care of the flesh to a good end, as when one is careful about one's food in order to sustain one's body, this is no longer prudence of the flesh, because then one uses the care of the flesh as a means to an end.

Reply to Objection 1: The Apostle is speaking of that carnal prudence whereby a man places the end of his whole life in the goods of the flesh, and this is a mortal sin.

Reply to Objection 2: Prudence of the flesh does not imply a sin against the Holy Ghost. For when it is stated that "it cannot be subject to the law of God," this does not mean that he who has prudence of the flesh, cannot be converted and submit to the law of God, but that carnal prudence itself cannot be subject to God's law, even as neither can injustice be just, nor heat cold, although that which is hot may become cold.

Reply to Objection 3: Every sin is opposed to prudence, just as prudence is shared by every virtue. But it does not follow that every sin opposed to prudence is most grave, but only when it is opposed to prudence in some very grave matter.

Articulus 2

Argumentum 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod prudentia carnis sit peccatum mortale. Rebellare enim divinae legi est peccatum mortale quia per hoc dominus contemnitur. Sed prudentia carnis non est subiecta legi dei, ut habetur Rom. VIII.

Ergo prudentia carnis est peccatum mortale.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, omne peccatum in spiritum sanctum est peccatum mortale.

Sed prudentia carnis videtur esse peccatum in spiritum sanctum, non enim potest esse subiecta legi dei, ut dicitur Rom. VIII; et ita videtur esse peccatum irremissibile, quod est proprium peccati in spiritum sanctum.

Ergo prudentia carnis est peccatum mortale.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, maximo bono opponitur maximum malum; ut patet in VIII ethic..

Sed prudentia carnis opponitur prudentiae quae est praecipua inter virtutes morales. Ergo prudentia carnis est praecipuum inter peccata moralia.

Et ita est peccatum mortale.

Sed Contra

Sed contra, illud quod diminuit peccatum non importat de se rationem peccati mortalis. Sed caute prosequi ea quae pertinent ad curam carnis, quod videtur ad prudentiam carnis pertinere, diminuit peccatum. Ergo prudentia carnis de sui ratione non importat peccatum mortale.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, prudens dicitur aliquis dupliciter, uno modo, simpliciter, scilicet in ordine ad finem totius vitae; alio modo, secundum quid, scilicet in ordine ad finem aliquem particularem, puta sicut dicitur aliquis prudens in negotiatione vel in aliquo huiusmodi. Si ergo prudentia carnis accipiatur secundum absolutam prudentiae rationem, ita scilicet quod in cura carnis constituatur ultimus finis totius vitae, sic est peccatum mortale, quia per hoc homo avertitur a deo, cum impossibile sit esse plures fines ultimos, ut supra habitum est.

Si vero prudentia carnis accipiatur secundum rationem particularis prudentiae, sic prudentia carnis est peccatum veniale. Contingit enim quandoque quod aliquis inordinate afficitur ad aliquod delectabile carnis absque hoc quod avertatur a deo per peccatum mortale, unde non constituit finem totius vitae in delectatione carnis. Et sic adhibere studium ad hanc delectationem consequendam est peccatum veniale, quod pertinet ad prudentiam carnis. Si vero aliquis actu curam carnis referat in finem honestum, puta cum aliquis studet comestioni propter corporis sustentationem, non vocatur prudentia carnis, quia sic utitur homo cura carnis ut ad finem.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod apostolus loquitur de prudentia carnis secundum quod finis totius vitae humanae constituitur in bonis carnis. Et sic est peccatum mortale.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod prudentia carnis non importat peccatum in spiritum sanctum. Quod enim dicitur quod non potest esse subiecta legi dei, non sic est intelligendum quasi ille qui habet prudentiam carnis non possit converti et subiici legi dei, sed quia ipsa prudentia carnis legi dei non potest esse subiecta, sicut nec iniustitia potest esse iusta, nec calor potest esse frigidus, quamvis calidum posset esse frigidum.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod omne peccatum opponitur prudentiae, sicut et prudentia participatur in omni virtute. Sed ideo non oportet quod quodlibet peccatum prudentiae oppositum sit gravissimum, sed solum quando opponitur prudentiae in aliquo maximo.