Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that the incontinent in anger is worse than the incontinent in desire. For the more difficult it is to resist the passion, the less grievous, apparently is incontinence: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7): "It is not wonderful, indeed it is pardonable if a person is overcome by strong and overwhelming pleasures or pains." Now, "as Heraclitus says, it is more difficult to resist desire than anger" . Therefore incontinence of desire is less grievous than incontinence of anger.

Objection 2: Further, one is altogether excused from sin if the passion be so vehement as to deprive one of the judgment of reason, as in the case of one who becomes demented through passion. Now he that is incontinent in anger retains more of the judgment of reason, than one who is incontinent in desire: since "anger listens to reason somewhat, but desire does not" as the Philosopher states (Ethic. vii, 6). Therefore the incontinent in anger is worse than the incontinent in desire.

Objection 3: Further, the more dangerous a sin the more grievous it is. Now incontinence of anger would seem to be more dangerous, since it leads a man to a greater sin, namely murder, for this is a more grievous sin than adultery, to which incontinence of desire leads. Therefore incontinence of anger is graver than incontinence of desire.

On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 6) that "incontinence of anger is less disgraceful than incontinence of desire."

I answer that, The sin of incontinence may be considered in two ways. First, on the part of the passion which occasions the downfall of reason. In this way incontinence of desire is worse than incontinence of anger, because the movement of desire is more inordinate than the movement of anger. There are four reasons for this, and the Philosopher indicates them, Ethic. vii, 6: First, because the movement of anger partakes somewhat of reason, since the angry man tends to avenge the injury done to him, and reason dictates this in a certain degree. Yet he does not tend thereto perfectly, because he does not intend the due mode of vengeance. on the other hand, the movement of desire is altogether in accord with sense and nowise in accord with reason. Secondly, because the movement of anger results more from the bodily temperament owing to the quickness of the movement of the bile which tends to anger. Hence one who by bodily temperament is disposed to anger is more readily angry than one who is disposed to concupiscence is liable to be concupiscent: wherefore also it happens more often that the children of those who are disposed to anger are themselves disposed to anger, than that the children of those who are disposed to concupiscence are also disposed to concupiscence. Now that which results from the natural disposition of the body is deemed more deserving of pardon. Thirdly, because anger seeks to work openly, whereas concupiscence is fain to disguise itself and creeps in by stealth. Fourthly, because he who is subject to concupiscence works with pleasure, whereas the angry man works as though forced by a certain previous displeasure.

Secondly, the sin of incontinence may be considered with regard to the evil into which one falls through forsaking reason; and thus incontinence of anger is, for the most part, more grievous, because it leads to things that are harmful to one's neighbor.

Reply to Objection 1: It is more difficult to resist pleasure perseveringly than anger, because concupiscence is enduring. But for the moment it is more difficult to resist anger, on account of its impetuousness.

Reply to Objection 2: Concupiscence is stated to be without reason, not as though it destroyed altogether the judgment of reason, but because nowise does it follow the judgment of reason: and for this reason it is more disgraceful.

Reply to Objection 3: This argument considers incontinence with regard to its result.

Articulus 4

Argumentum 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod incontinens irae sit peior quam incontinens concupiscentiae. Quanto enim difficilius est resistere passioni, tanto incontinentia videtur esse levior, unde philosophus dicit, in VII ethic., non enim, si quis a fortibus et superexcellentibus delectationibus vincitur vel tristitiis, est admirabile, sed condonabile. Sed, sicut Heraclitus dixit, difficilius est pugnare contra concupiscentiam quam contra iram.

Ergo levior est incontinentia concupiscentiae quam incontinentia irae.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, si passio per suam vehementiam totaliter auferat iudicium rationis, omnino excusatur aliquis a peccato, sicut patet in eo qui incidit ex passione in furiam. Sed plus remanet de iudicio rationis in eo qui est incontinens irae, quam in eo qui est incontinens concupiscentiae, iratus enim aliqualiter audit rationem, non autem concupiscens, ut patet per philosophum, in VII ethic..

Ergo incontinens irae est peior quam incontinens concupiscentiae.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, tanto aliquod peccatum videtur esse gravius, quanto est periculosius. Sed incontinentia irae videtur esse periculosior, quia perducit hominem ad maius peccatum, scilicet ad homicidium, quod est gravius peccatum quam adulterium, ad quod perducit incontinentia concupiscentiae. Ergo incontinentia irae est gravior quam incontinentia concupiscentiae.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in VII ethic., quod minus turpis est incontinentia irae quam incontinentia concupiscentiae.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod peccatum incontinentiae potest dupliciter considerari. Uno modo, ex parte passionis ex qua ratio superatur. Et sic incontinentia concupiscentiae est turpior quam incontinentia irae, quia motus concupiscentiae habet maiorem inordinationem quam motus irae.

Et hoc propter quatuor, quae philosophus tangit in VII ethic..

Primo quidem, quia motus irae participat aliqualiter ratione, inquantum scilicet iratus tendit ad vindicandum iniuriam sibi factam, quod aliqualiter ratio dictat, sed non perfecte, quia non intendit debitum modum vindictae. Sed motus concupiscentiae totaliter est secundum sensum, et nullo modo secundum rationem.

Secundo, quia motus irae magis consequitur corporis complexionem, propter velocitatem motus cholerae, quae intendit ad iram.

Unde magis est in promptu quod ille qui est secundum complexionem corporis dispositus ad irascendum, irascatur, quam quod ille qui est dispositus ad concupiscendum, concupiscat.

Unde etiam frequentius ex iracundis nascuntur iracundi quam ex concupiscentibus concupiscentes. Quod autem provenit ex naturali corporis dispositione, reputatur magis venia dignum.

Tertio, quia ira quaerit manifeste operari. Sed concupiscentia quaerit latebras, et dolose subintrat. Quarto, quia concupiscens delectabiliter operatur, sed iratus quasi quadam tristitia praecedente coactus. Alio modo potest considerari peccatum incontinentiae quantum ad malum in quod quis incidit a ratione discedens. Et sic incontinentia irae est, ut plurimum, gravior, quia ducit in ea quae pertinent ad proximi nocumentum.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod difficilius est assidue pugnare contra delectationem quam contra iram, quia concupiscentia est magis continua, sed ad horam difficilius est resistere irae, propter eius impetum.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod concupiscentia dicitur esse sine ratione, non quia totaliter auferat iudicium rationis, sed quia in nullo procedit secundum iudicium rationis.

Et ex hoc est turpior.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio illa procedit ex parte eorum in quae incontinens deducitur.