Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that superstition is not a vice contrary to religion. One contrary is not included in the definition of the other. But religion is included in the definition of superstition: for the latter is defined as being "immoderate observance of religion," according to a gloss on Col. 2:23, "Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in superstition." Therefore superstition is not a vice contrary to religion.

Objection 2: Further, Isidore says (Etym. x): "Cicero states that the superstitious were so called because they spent the day in praying and offering sacrifices that their children might survive them." But this may be done even in accordance with true religious worship. Therefore superstition is not a vice opposed to religion.

Objection 3: Further, superstition seems to denote an excess. But religion admits of no excess, since, as stated above (Question 81, Article 5, ad 3), there is no possibility of rendering to God, by religion, the equal of what we owe Him. Therefore superstition is not a vice contrary to religion.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Decem Chord. Serm. ix): "Thou strikest the first chord in the worship of one God, and the beast of superstition hath fallen." Now the worship of one God belongs to religion. Therefore superstition is contrary to religion.

I answer that, As stated above (Question 81, Article 5), religion is a moral virtue. Now every moral virtue observes a mean, as stated above (1.2, Question 64, Article 1). Therefore a twofold vice is opposed to a moral virtue. One by way of excess, the other by way of deficiency. Again, the mean of virtue may be exceeded, not only with regard to the circumstance called "how much," but also with regard to other circumstances: so that, in certain virtues such as magnanimity and magnificence; vice exceeds the mean of virtue, not through tending to something greater than the virtue, but possibly to something less, and yet it goes beyond the mean of virtue, through doing something to whom it ought not, or when it ought not, and in like manner as regards other circumstances, as the Philosopher shows (Ethic. iv, 1,2,3).

Accordingly superstition is a vice contrary to religion by excess, not that it offers more to the divine worship than true religion, but because it offers divine worship either to whom it ought not, or in a manner it ought not.

Reply to Objection 1: Just as we speak metaphorically of good among evil things---thus we speak of a good thief---so too sometimes the names of the virtues are employed by transposition in an evil sense. Thus prudence is sometimes used instead of cunning, according to Lk. 16:8, "The children of this world are more prudent in their generation than the children of light." It is in this way that superstition is described as religion.

Reply to Objection 2: The etymology of a word differs from its meaning. For its etymology depends on what it is taken from for the purpose of signification: whereas its meaning depends on the thing to which it is applied for the purpose of signifying it. Now these things differ sometimes: for "lapis" takes its name from hurting the foot , but this is not its meaning, else iron, since it hurts the foot, would be a stone. In like manner it does not follow that "superstition" means that from which the word is derived.

Reply to Objection 3: Religion does not admit of excess, in respect of absolute quantity, but it does admit of excess in respect of proportionate quantity, in so far, to wit, as something may be done in divine worship that ought not to be done.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod superstitio non sit vitium religioni contrarium. Unum enim contrariorum non ponitur in definitione alterius. Sed religio ponitur in definitione superstitionis, dicitur enim superstitio esse religio supra modum servata, ut patet in Glossa ad Coloss. II, super illud, quae sunt rationem habentia sapientiae in superstitione.

Ergo superstitio non est vitium religioni oppositum.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, Isidorus dicit, in libro etymol., superstitiosos ait cicero appellatos qui totos dies precabantur et immolabant ut sui sibi liberi superstites fierent.

Sed hoc etiam fieri potest secundum verae religionis cultum.

Ergo superstitio non est vitium religioni oppositum.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, superstitio quendam excessum importare videtur.

Sed religio non potest habere excessum, quia sicut supra dictum est, secundum eam non contingit aequale deo reddere eius quod debemus.

Ergo superstitio non est vitium religioni oppositum.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de decem chordis, tangis primam chordam, qua colitur unus deus, et cecidit bestia superstitionis.

Sed cultus unius dei pertinet ad religionem.

Ergo superstitio religioni opponitur.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, religio est virtus moralis. Omnis autem virtus moralis in medio consistit, ut supra habitum est.

Et ideo duplex vitium virtuti morali opponitur, unum quidem secundum excessum; aliud autem secundum defectum. Contingit autem excedere medium virtutis non solum secundum circumstantiam quae dicitur quantum, sed etiam secundum alias circumstantias. Unde in aliquibus virtutibus, sicut in magnanimitate et magnificentia, vitium excedit virtutis medium non quia ad maius aliquid tendat quam virtus, sed forte ad minus, transcendit tamen virtutis medium, inquantum facit aliquid cui non debet, vel quando non debet, et similiter secundum alia huiusmodi; ut patet per philosophum, in IV ethic..

Sic igitur superstitio est vitium religioni oppositum secundum excessum, non quia plus exhibeat in cultum divinum quam vera religio, sed quia exhibet cultum divinum vel cui non debet, vel eo modo quo non debet.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sicut bonum metaphorice dicitur in malis, prout dicimus bonum latronem, ita etiam nomina virtutum quandoque transumptive accipiuntur in malis, sicut prudentia quandoque ponitur pro astutia, secundum illud Luc. XVI, filii huius saeculi prudentiores filiis lucis sunt.

Et per hunc modum superstitio dicitur esse religio.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod aliud est etymologia nominis, et aliud est significatio nominis. Etymologia attenditur secundum id a quo imponitur nomen ad significandum, nominis vero significatio attenditur secundum id ad quod significandum nomen imponitur.

Quae quandoque diversa sunt, nomen enim lapidis imponitur a laesione pedis, non tamen hoc significat; alioquin ferrum, cum pedem laedat, lapis esset. Similiter etiam nomen superstitionis non oportet quod significet illud a quo nomen est impositum.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod religio non potest habere excessum secundum quantitatem absolutam. Potest tamen habere excessum secundum quantitatem proportionis, prout scilicet in cultu divino fit aliquid quod fieri non debet.