Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that the daughters of lust are unfittingly reckoned to be "blindness of mind, thoughtlessness, inconstancy, rashness, self-love, hatred of God, love of this world and abhorrence or despair of a future world." For mental blindness, thoughtlessness and rashness pertain to imprudence, which is to be found in every sin, even as prudence is in every virtue. Therefore they should not be reckoned especially as daughters of lust.

Objection 2: Further, constancy is reckoned a part of fortitude, as stated above (Question 128, ad 6; Question 137, Article 3). But lust is contrary, not to fortitude but to temperance. Therefore inconstancy is not a daughter of lust.

Objection 3: Further, "Self-love extending to the contempt of God" is the origin of every sin, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 28). Therefore it should not be accounted a daughter of lust.

Objection 4: Further, Isidore mentions four, namely, "obscene," "scurrilous," "wanton" and "foolish talking." There the aforesaid enumeration would seem to be superfluous.

On the contrary, stands the authority of Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45).

I answer that, When the lower powers are strongly moved towards their objects, the result is that the higher powers are hindered and disordered in their acts. Now the effect of the vice of lust is that the lower appetite, namely the concupiscible, is most vehemently intent on its object, to wit, the object of pleasure, on account of the vehemence of the pleasure. Consequently the higher powers, namely the reason and the will, are most grievously disordered by lust.

Now the reason has four acts in matters of action. First there is simple understanding, which apprehends some end as good, and this act is hindered by lust, according to Dan. 13:56, "Beauty hath deceived thee, and lust hath perverted thy heart." In this respect we have "blindness of mind." The second act is counsel about what is to be done for the sake of the end: and this is also hindered by the concupiscence of lust. Hence Terence says (Eunuch., act 1, sc. 1), speaking of lecherous love: "This thing admits of neither counsel nor moderation, thou canst not control it by counseling." In this respect there is "rashness," which denotes absence of counsel, as stated above (Question 53, Article 3). The third act is judgment about the things to be done, and this again is hindered by lust. For it is said of the lustful old men (Dan. 13:9): "They perverted their own mind . . . that they might not . . . remember just judgments." In this respect there is "thoughtlessness." The fourth act is the reason's command about the thing to be done, and this also is impeded by lust, in so far as through being carried away by concupiscence, a man is hindered from doing what his reason ordered to be done. Hence Terence says (Eunuch., act 1, sc. 1) of a man who declared that he would leave his mistress: "One little false tear will undo those words."

On the part of the will there results a twofold inordinate act. One is the desire for the end, to which we refer "self-love," which regards the pleasure which a man desires inordinately, while on the other hand there is "hatred of God," by reason of His forbidding the desired pleasure. The other act is the desire for the things directed to the end. With regard to this there is "love of this world," whose pleasures a man desires to enjoy, while on the other hand there is "despair of a future world," because through being held back by carnal pleasures he cares not to obtain spiritual pleasures, since they are distasteful to him.

Reply to Objection 1: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 5), intemperance is the chief corruptive of prudence: wherefore the vices opposed to prudence arise chiefly from lust, which is the principal species of intemperance.

Reply to Objection 2: The constancy which is a part of fortitude regards hardships and objects of fear; but constancy in refraining from pleasures pertains to continence which is a part of temperance, as stated above (Question 143). Hence the inconstancy which is opposed thereto is to be reckoned a daughter of lust. Nevertheless even the first named inconstancy arises from lust, inasmuch as the latter enfeebles a man's heart and renders it effeminate, according to Osee 4:11, "Fornication and wine and drunkenness take away the heart ." Vegetius, too, says (De Re Milit. iii) that "the less a man knows of the pleasures of life, the less he fears death." Nor is there any need, as we have repeatedly stated, for the daughters of a capital vice to agree with it in matter (cf. Question 35, Article 4, ad 2; Question 118, Article 8, ad 1; Question 148, Article 6).

Reply to Objection 3: Self-love in respect of any goods that a man desires for himself is the common origin of all sins; but in the special point of desiring carnal pleasures for oneself, it is reckoned a daughter of lust.

Reply to Objection 4: The sins mentioned by Isidore are inordinate external acts, pertaining in the main to speech; wherein there is a fourfold inordinateness. First, on account of the matter, and to this we refer "obscene words": for since "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" (Mt. 12:34), the lustful man, whose heart is full of lewd concupiscences, readily breaks out into lewd words. Secondly, on account of the cause: for, since lust causes thoughtlessness and rashness, the result is that it makes a man speak without weighing or giving a thought to his words. which are described as "scurrilous." Thirdly, on account of the end: for since the lustful man seeks pleasure, he directs his speech thereto, and so gives utterance to "wanton words." Fourthly, on account of the sentiments expressed by his words, for through causing blindness of mind, lust perverts a man's sentiments, and so he gives way "to foolish talking," for instance, by expressing a preference for the pleasures he desires to anything else.

Articulus 5

Argumentum 1

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter dicantur esse filiae luxuriae caecitas mentis, inconsideratio, inconstantia, praecipitatio, amor sui, odium dei, affectus praesentis saeculi, horror vel desperatio futuri.

Quia caecitas mentis et inconsideratio et praecipitatio pertinent ad imprudentiam, quae invenitur in omni peccato, sicut et prudentia in omni virtute.

Ergo non debent poni speciales filiae luxuriae.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, constantia ponitur pars fortitudinis, ut supra habitum est.

Sed luxuria non opponitur fortitudini, sed temperantiae. Ergo inconstantia non est filia luxuriae.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, amor sui usque ad contemptum dei est principium omnis peccati, ut patet per Augustinum, XIV de CIV. Dei.

Non ergo debet poni filia luxuriae.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, Isidorus ponit quatuor, scilicet turpiloquia, scurrilia, ludicra, stultiloquia.

Ergo praedicta enumeratio videtur esse superflua.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est auctoritas Gregorii, XXXI Moral..

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod quando inferiores potentiae vehementer afficiuntur ad sua obiecta, consequens est quod superiores vires impediantur et deordinentur in suis actibus.

Per vitium autem luxuriae maxime appetitus inferior, scilicet concupiscibilis, vehementer intendit suo obiecto, scilicet delectabili, propter vehementiam delectationis. Et ideo consequens est quod per luxuriam maxime superiores vires deordinentur, scilicet ratio et voluntas. Sunt autem rationis quatuor actus in agendis. Primo quidem, simplex intelligentia, quae apprehendit aliquem finem ut bonum. Et hic actus impeditur per luxuriam, secundum illud Dan. XIII, species decepit te, et concupiscentia subvertit cor tuum.

Et quantum ad hoc, ponitur caecitas mentis. Secundus actus est consilium de his quae sunt agenda propter finem. Et hoc etiam impeditur per concupiscentiam luxuriae, unde terentius dicit, in eunucho, loquens de amore libidinoso, quae res in se neque consilium neque modum habet ullum, eam consilio regere non potes.

Et quantum ad hoc, ponitur praecipitatio, quae importat subtractionem consilii, ut supra habitum est, tertius autem actus est iudicium de agendis. Et hoc etiam impeditur per luxuriam, dicitur enim Dan. XIII, de senibus luxuriosis, averterunt sensum suum, ut non recordarentur iudiciorum iustorum.

Et quantum ad hoc, ponitur inconsideratio. Quartus autem actus est praeceptum rationis de agendo. Quod etiam impeditur per luxuriam, inquantum scilicet homo impeditur ex impetu concupiscentiae ne exequatur id quod decrevit esse faciendum.

Unde terentius dicit, in eunucho, de quodam qui dicebat se recessurum ab amica, haec verba una falsa lacrimula restringet.

Ex parte autem voluntatis, consequitur duplex actus inordinatus.

Quorum unus est appetitus finis. Et quantum ad hoc, ponitur amor sui, quantum scilicet ad delectationem quam inordinate appetit, et per oppositum ponitur odium dei, inquantum scilicet prohibet delectationem concupitam. Alius autem est appetitus eorum quae sunt ad finem. Et quantum ad hoc, ponitur affectus praesentis saeculi, in quo scilicet aliquis vult frui voluptate, et per oppositum ponitur desperatio futuri saeculi, quia dum nimis detinetur carnalibus delectationibus, non curat pervenire ad spirituales, sed fastidit eas.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in VI ethic.

Intemperantia maxime corrumpit prudentiam. Et ideo vitia opposita prudentiae maxime oriuntur ex luxuria, quae est praecipua intemperantiae species.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod constantia in arduis et terribilibus ponitur pars fortitudinis. Sed constantiam habere in abstinendo a delectationibus pertinet ad continentiam, quae ponitur pars temperantiae, ut supra dictum est.

Et ideo inconstantia quae ei opponitur, ponitur filia luxuriae. Et tamen etiam prima inconstantia ex luxuria causatur, inquantum emollit cor hominis et effeminatum reddit, secundum illud Osee IV, fornicatio, et vinum et ebrietas, aufert cor.

Et vegetius dicit, in libro de re militari, quod minus mortem metuit qui minus deliciarum novit in vita.

Nec oportet, sicut saepe dictum est, quod filiae vitii capitalis cum eo in materia conveniant.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod amor sui quantum ad quaecumque bona quae sibi aliquis appetit, est commune principium peccatorum.

Sed quantum ad hoc specialiter quod aliquis appetit sibi delectabilia carnis, ponitur amor sui filia luxuriae.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod illa quae Isidorus ponit, sunt quidam inordinati actus exteriores, et praecipue ad locutionem pertinentes. In qua est aliquid inordinatum quadrupliciter. Uno modo, propter materiam. Et sic ponuntur turpiloquia.

Quia enim ex abundantia cordis os loquitur, ut dicitur Matth. XII, luxuriosi, quorum cor est turpibus concupiscentiis plenum, de facili ad turpia verba prorumpunt. Secundo, ex parte causae. Quia enim luxuria inconsiderationem et praecipitationem causat, consequens est quod faciat prorumpere in verba leviter et inconsiderate dicta, quae dicuntur scurrilia. Tertio, quantum ad finem. Quia enim luxuriosus delectationem quaerit, etiam verba sua ad delectationem ordinat, et sic prorumpit in verba ludicra.

Quarto, quantum ad sententiam verborum, quam pervertit luxuria, propter caecitatem mentis quam causat. Et sic prorumpit in stultiloquia, utpote cum suis verbis praefert delectationes quas appetit, quibuscumque aliis rebus.