Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that there cannot be sin in the excess of play. For that which is an excuse for sin is not held to be sinful. Now play is sometimes an excuse for sin, for many things would be grave sins if they were done seriously, whereas if they be done in fun, are either no sin or but slightly sinful. Therefore it seems that there is no sin in excessive play.

Objection 2: Further, all other vices are reducible to the seven capital vices, as Gregory states (Moral. xxxi, 17). But excess of play does not seem reducible to any of the capital vices. Therefore it would seem not to be a sin.

Objection 3: Further, comedians especially would seem to exceed in play, since they direct their whole life to playing. Therefore if excess of play were a sin, all actors would be in a state of sin; moreover all those who employ them, as well as those who make them any payment, would sin as accomplices of their sin. But this would seem untrue; for it is related in the Lives of the Fathers (ii. 16; viii. 63) that is was revealed to the Blessed Paphnutius that a certain jester would be with him in the life to come.

On the contrary, A gloss on Prov. 14:13, "Laughter shall be mingled with sorrow and mourning taketh hold of the end of joy," remarks: "A mourning that will last for ever." Now there is inordinate laughter and inordinate joy in excessive play. Therefore there is mortal sin therein, since mortal sin alone is deserving of everlasting mourning.

I answer that, In all things dirigible according to reason, the excessive is that which goes beyond, and the deficient is that which falls short of the rule of reason. Now it has been stated (Article 2) that playful or jesting words or deeds are dirigible according to reason. Wherefore excessive play is that which goes beyond the rule of reason: and this happens in two ways. First, on account of the very species of the acts employed for the purpose of fun, and this kind of jesting, according to Tully (De Offic. i, 29), is stated to be "discourteous, insolent, scandalous, and obscene," when to wit a man, for the purpose of jesting, employs indecent words or deeds, or such as are injurious to his neighbor, these being of themselves mortal sins. And thus it is evident that excessive play is a mortal sin.

Secondly, there may be excess in play, through lack of due circumstances: for instance when people make use of fun at undue times or places, or out of keeping with the matter in hand, or persons. This may be sometimes a mortal sin on account of the strong attachment to play, when a man prefers the pleasure he derives therefrom to the love of God, so as to be willing to disobey a commandment of God or of the Church rather than forego, such like amusements. Sometimes, however, it is a venial sin, for instance where a man is not so attached to amusement as to be willing for its sake to do anything in disobedience to God.

Reply to Objection 1: Certain things are sinful on account of the intention alone, because they are done in order to injure someone. Such an intention is excluded by their being done in fun, the intention of which is to please, not to injure: in these cases fun excuses from sin, or diminishes it. Other things, however, are sins according to their species, such as murder, fornication, and the like: and fun is no excuse for these; in fact they make fun scandalous and obscene.

Reply to Objection 2: Excessive play pertains to senseless mirth, which Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 17) calls a daughter of gluttony. Wherefore it is written (Ex. 32:6): "The people sat down to eat and drink, and they rose up to play."

Reply to Objection 3: As stated (Article 2), play is necessary for the intercourse of human life. Now whatever is useful to human intercourse may have a lawful employment ascribed to it. Wherefore the occupation of play-actors, the object of which is to cheer the heart of man, is not unlawful in itself; nor are they in a state of sin provided that their playing be moderated, namely that they use no unlawful words or deeds in order to amuse, and that they do not introduce play into undue matters and seasons. And although in human affairs, they have no other occupation in reference to other men, nevertheless in reference to themselves, and to God, they perform other actions both serious and virtuous, such as prayer and the moderation of their own passions and operations, while sometimes they give alms to the poor. Wherefore those who maintain them in moderation do not sin but act justly, by rewarding them for their services. on the other hand, if a man spends too much on such persons, or maintains those comedians who practice unlawful mirth, he sins as encouraging them in their sin. Hence Augustine says (Tract. c. in Joan.) that "to give one's property to comedians is a great sin, not a virtue"; unless by chance some play-actor were in extreme need, in which case one would have to assist him, for Ambrose says (De Offic. ): "Feed him that dies of hunger; for whenever thou canst save a man by feeding him, if thou hast not fed him, thou hast slain him."

Articulus 3

Argumentum 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod in superfluitate ludi non possit esse peccatum. Illud enim quod excusat a peccato, non videtur esse peccatum. Sed ludus quandoque excusat a peccato, multa enim, si serio fierent, gravia peccata essent, quae quidem, ioco facta, vel nulla vel levia sunt.

Ergo videtur quod in superabundantia ludi non sit peccatum.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, omnia alia vitia reducuntur ad septem vitia capitalia, ut Gregorius dicit, XXXI Moral..

Sed superabundantia in lucis non videtur reduci ad aliquod capitalium vitiorum.

Ergo videtur quod non sit peccatum.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, maxime histriones in ludo videntur superabundare, qui totam vitam suam ordinant ad ludendum. Si ergo superabundantia ludi esset peccatum, tunc omnes histriones essent in statu peccati. Peccarent etiam omnes qui eorum ministerio uterentur, vel qui eis aliqua largirentur, tanquam peccati fautores.

Quod videtur esse falsum.

Legitur enim in vitis patrum, quod beato paphnutio revelatum est quod quidam ioculator futurus erat sibi consors in vita futura.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod, super illud Prov. XIV, risus dolori miscebitur et extrema gaudii luctus occupat, dicit Glossa, luctus perpetuus.

Sed in superfluitate ludi est inordinatus risus et inordinatum gaudium. Ergo est ibi peccatum mortale, cui soli debetur luctus perpetuus.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod in omni eo quod est dirigibile secundum rationem, superfluum dicitur quod regulam rationis excedit, diminutum autem dicitur aliquid secundum quod deficit a regula rationis. Dictum est autem quod ludicra sive iocosa verba vel facta sunt dirigibilia secundum rationem. Et ideo superfluum in ludo accipitur quod excedit regulam rationis. Quod quidem potest esse dupliciter. Uno modo, ex ipsa specie actionum quae assumuntur in ludum, quod quidem iocandi genus secundum tullium dicitur esse illiberale, petulans, flagitiosum, obscenum, quando scilicet utitur aliquis, causa ludi, turpibus verbis vel factis, vel etiam his quae vergunt in proximi nocumentum, quae de se sunt peccata mortalia. Et sic, patet quod excessus in ludo est peccatum mortale. Alio autem modo potest esse excessus in ludo secundum defectum debitarum circumstantiarum, puta cum aliqui utuntur ludo vel temporibus vel locis indebitis, aut etiam praeter convenientiam negotii seu personae. Et hoc quidem quandoque potest esse peccatum mortale, propter vehementiam affectus ad ludum, cuius delectationem praeponit aliquis dilectioni dei, ita quod contra praeceptum dei vel ecclesiae talibus ludis uti non refugiat. Quandoque autem est peccatum veniale, puta cum aliquis non tantum afficitur ad ludum quod propter hoc vellet aliquid contra deum committere.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod aliqua sunt peccata propter solam intentionem, quia scilicet in iniuriam alicuius fiunt, quam quidem intentionem excludit ludus, cuius intentio ad delectationem fertur, non ad iniuriam alicuius. Et in talibus ludus excusat a peccato, vel peccatum diminuit. Quaedam vero sunt quae secundum suam speciem sunt peccata, sicut homicidium, fornicatio et similia.

Et talia non excusantur per ludum, quinimmo ex his ludus redditur flagitiosus et obscenus.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod superfluitas in ludo pertinet ad ineptam laetitiam, quam Gregorius dicit esse filiam gulae.

Unde Exod. XXXII dicitur, sedit populus manducare et bibere, et surrexerunt ludere.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ludus est necessarius ad conversationem humanae vitae. Ad omnia autem quae sunt utilia conversationi humanae, deputari possunt aliqua officia licita. Et ideo etiam officium histrionum, quod ordinatur ad solatium hominibus exhibendum, non est secundum se illicitum, nec sunt in statu peccati, dummodo moderate ludo utantur, idest, non utendo aliquibus illicitis verbis vel factis ad ludum, et non adhibendo ludum negotiis et temporibus indebitis. Et quamvis in rebus humanis non utantur alio officio per comparationem ad alios homines, tamen per comparationem ad seipsos et ad deum, alias habent seriosas et virtuosas operationes, puta dum orant, et suas passiones et operationes componunt, et quandoque etiam pauperibus eleemosynas largiuntur.

Unde illi qui moderate eis subveniunt, non peccant, sed iusta faciunt, mercedem ministerii eorum eis attribuendo. Si qui autem superflue sua in tales consumunt, vel etiam sustentant illos histriones qui illicitis ludis utuntur, peccant, quasi eos in peccato foventes.

Unde Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., quod donare res suas histrionibus vitium est immane.

Nisi forte aliquis histrio esset in extrema necessitate, in qua esset ei subveniendum.

Dicit enim Ambrosius, in libro de offic., pasce fame morientem. Quisquis enim pascendo hominem servare poteris, si non paveris, occidisti.