Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that to approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin is the gravest of all sins; because the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:27): "Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord": upon which the gloss observes: "He shall be punished as though he slew Christ." But the sin of them who slew Christ seems to have been most grave. Therefore this sin, whereby a man approaches Christ's table with consciousness of sin, appears to be the gravest.

Objection 2: Further, Jerome says in an Epistle (xlix): "What hast thou to do with women, thou that speakest familiarly with God at the altar?" . Say, priest, say, cleric, how dost thou kiss the Son of God with the same lips wherewith thou hast kissed the daughter of a harlot? "Judas, thou betrayest the Son of Man with a kiss!" And thus it appears that the fornicator approaching Christ's table sins as Judas did, whose sin was most grave. But there are many other sins which are graver than fornication, especially the sin of unbelief. Therefore the sin of every sinner approaching Christ's table is the gravest of all.

Objection 3: Further, spiritual uncleanness is more abominable to God than corporeal. But if anyone was to cast Christ's body into mud or a cess-pool, his sin would be reputed a most grave one. Therefore, he sins more deeply by receiving it with sin, which is spiritual uncleanness, upon his soul.

On the contrary, Augustine says on the words, "If I had not come, and had not spoken to them, they would be without sin" (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.), that this is to be understood of the sin of unbelief, "in which all sins are comprised," and so the greatest of all sins appears to be, not this, but rather the sin of unbelief.

I answer that, As stated in the 1.2, Question 73, Articles 3,6; 2.2, Question 73, Article 3, one sin can be said to be graver than another in two ways: first of all essentially, secondly accidentally. Essentially, in regard to its species, which is taken from its object: and so a sin is greater according as that against which it is committed is greater. And since Christ's Godhead is greater than His humanity, and His humanity greater than the sacraments of His humanity, hence it is that those are the gravest sins which are committed against the Godhead, such as unbelief and blasphemy. The second degree of gravity is held by those sins which are committed against His humanity: hence it is written (Mt. 12:32): "Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come." In the third place come sins committed against the sacraments, which belong to Christ's humanity; and after these are the other sins committed against mere creatures.

Accidentally, one sin can be graver than another on the sinner's part. for example, the sin which is the result of ignorance or of weakness is lighter than one arising from contempt, or from sure knowledge; and the same reason holds good of other circumstances. And according to this, the above sin can be graver in some, as happens in them who from actual contempt and with consciousness of sin approach this sacrament: but in others it is less grave; for instance, in those who from fear of their sin being discovered, approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin.

So, then, it is evident that this sin is specifically graver than many others, yet it is not the greatest of all.

Reply to Objection 1: The sin of the unworthy recipient is compared to the sin of them who slew Christ, by way of similitude, because each is committed against Christ's body; but not according to the degree of the crime. Because the sin of Christ's slayers was much graver, first of all, because their sin was against Christ's body in its own species, while this sin is against it under sacramental species; secondly, because their sin came of the intent of injuring Christ, while this does not.

Reply to Objection 2: The sin of the fornicator receiving Christ's body is likened to Judas kissing Christ, as to the resemblance of the sin, because each outrages Christ with the sign of friendship. but not as to the extent of the sin, as was observed above (ad 1). And this resemblance in crime applies no less to other sinners than to fornicators: because by other mortal sins, sinners act against the charity of Christ, of which this sacrament is the sign, and all the more according as their sins are graver. But in a measure the sin of fornication makes one more unfit for receiving this sacrament, because thereby especially the spirit becomes enslaved by the flesh, which is a hindrance to the fervor of love required for this sacrament.

However, the hindrance to charity itself weighs more than the hindrance to its fervor. Hence the sin of unbelief, which fundamentally severs a man from the unity of the Church, simply speaking, makes him to be utterly unfit for receiving this sacrament; because it is the sacrament of the Church's unity, as stated above (Question 61, Article 2). Hence the unbeliever who receives this sacrament sins more grievously than the believer who is in sin; and shows greater contempt towards Christ Who is in the sacrament, especially if he does not believe Christ to be truly in this sacrament; because, so far as lies in him, he lessens the holiness of the sacrament, and the power of Christ acting in it, and this is to despise the sacrament in itself. But the believer who receives the sacrament with consciousness of sin, by receiving it unworthily despises the sacrament, not in itself, but in its use. Hence the Apostle (1 Cor. 11:29) in assigning the cause of this sin, says, "not discerning the body of the Lord," that is, not distinguishing it from other food: and this is what he does who disbelieves Christ's presence in this sacrament.

Reply to Objection 3: The man who would throw this sacrament into the mire would be guilty of more heinous sin than another approaching the sacrament fully conscious of mortal sin. First of all, because he would intend to outrage the sacrament, whereas the sinner receiving Christ's body unworthily has no such intent; secondly, because the sinner is capable of grace; hence he is more capable of receiving this sacrament than any irrational creature. Hence he would make a most revolting use of this sacrament who would throw it to dogs to eat, or fling it in the mire to be trodden upon.

Articulus 5

Argumentum 1

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod accedere ad hoc sacramentum cum conscientia peccati sit gravissimum omnium peccatorum.

Dicit enim apostolus, I Cor. XI, quicumque manducaverit panem et biberit calicem domini indigne, reus erit corporis et sanguinis domini, Glossa ibidem, ac si christum occiderit, punietur.

Sed peccatum christum occidentium videtur fuisse gravissimum.

Ergo et hoc peccatum, quo aliquis cum conscientia peccati ad mensam domini accedit, videtur esse gravissimum.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, Hieronymus dicit, in quadam epistola, quid tibi cum feminis, qui ad altare cum domino fabularis? dic, sacerdos, dic, clerice, qualiter cum eisdem labiis filium dei oscularis quibus osculatus es filiam meretricis.

O Iuda, osculo filium hominis tradis.

Et sic videtur fornicator ad mensam christi accedens peccare sicut Iudas peccavit, cuius peccatum fuit gravissimum. Sed multa alia peccata sunt graviora quam peccatum fornicationis, et praecipue peccatum infidelitatis. Ergo cuiuslibet peccatoris ad mensam christi accedentis peccatum est gravissimum.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, magis est abominabilis deo immunditia spiritualis quam corporalis. Sed si quis proiiceret corpus christi in lutum vel sterquilinium, gravissimum reputaretur esse peccatum. Ergo gravius peccat si ipsum sumat cum peccato, quod est immunditia spiritualis. Ergo hoc peccatum est gravissimum.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod, super illud Ioan. XV, si non venissem, et locutus eis non fuissem, peccatum non haberent, dicit Augustinus hoc esse intelligendum de peccato infidelitatis, quo retinentur cuncta peccata.

Et ita videtur hoc peccatum non esse gravissimum, sed magis peccatum infidelitatis.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in secunda parte habitum est, dupliciter aliquod peccatum potest dici gravius alio, uno modo, per se; alio modo, per accidens. Per se quidem, secundum rationem suae speciei, quae attenditur ex parte obiecti. Et secundum hoc, quanto id contra quod peccatur est maius, tanto peccatum est gravius. Et quia divinitas christi est maior humanitate ipsius; et ipsa humanitas est potior quam sacramenta humanitatis, inde est quod gravissima peccata sunt quae committuntur in ipsam divinitatem, sicut est peccatum infidelitatis et blasphemiae. Secundario autem sunt gravia peccata quae committuntur in humanitatem christi, unde Matth. XII dicitur, qui dixerit verbum contra filium hominis, remittetur ei, qui autem dixerit verbum contra spiritum sanctum, non remittetur ei neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro.

Tertio autem loco sunt peccata quae committuntur contra sacramenta, quae pertinent ad humanitatem christi.

Et post hoc sunt alia peccata, contra puras creaturas.

Per accidens autem unum peccatum est gravius alio ex parte peccantis, puta, peccatum quod est ex ignorantia vel infirmitate, est levius peccato quod est ex contemptu vel ex certa scientia; et eadem ratio est de aliis circumstantiis. Et secundum hoc, illud peccatum in quibusdam potest esse gravius, sicut in his qui ex actuali contemptu cum conscientia peccati ad hoc sacramentum accedunt; in quibusdam vero minus grave, puta in his qui ex quodam timore ne deprehendantur in peccato, cum conscientia peccati ad hoc sacramentum accedunt.

Sic igitur patet quod hoc peccatum est multis aliis gravius secundum suam speciem, non tamen omnium gravissimum.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod peccatum indigne sumentium hoc sacramentum comparatur peccato occidentium christum secundum similitudinem, quia utrumque committitur contra corpus christi, non tamen secundum criminis quantitatem. Peccatum enim occidentium christum fuit multo gravius. Primo quidem, quia illud peccatum fuit contra corpus christi in sua specie propria, hoc autem est contra corpus christi in specie sacramenti.

Secundo, quia illud peccatum processit ex intentione nocendi christo, non autem hoc peccatum.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod fornicator accipiens corpus christi comparatur Iudae christum osculanti, quantum ad similitudinem criminis, quia uterque ex signo caritatis christum offendit, non tamen quantum ad criminis quantitatem, sicut et prius dictum est.

Haec tamen similitudo non minus competit aliis peccatoribus quam fornicatoribus, nam et per alia peccata mortalia agitur contra caritatem christi, cuius signum est hoc sacramentum; et tanto magis quanto peccata sunt graviora.

Secundum quid tamen peccatum fornicationis magis reddit hominem ineptum ad perceptionem huius sacramenti, inquantum scilicet per hoc peccatum spiritus maxime carni subiicitur, et ita impeditur fervor dilectionis, qui requiritur in hoc sacramento. Plus tamen ponderat impedimentum ipsius caritatis quam fervoris eius.

Unde etiam peccatum infidelitatis, quod funditus separat hominem ab ecclesiae unitate, simpliciter loquendo, maxime hominem ineptum reddit ad susceptionem huius sacramenti, quod est sacramentum ecclesiasticae unitatis, ut dictum est.

Unde et gravius peccat infidelis accipiens hoc sacramentum quam peccator fidelis; et magis contemnit christum secundum quod est sub hoc sacramento, praesertim si non credat christum vere sub hoc sacramento esse, quia, quantum est in se, diminuit sanctitatem huius sacramenti, et virtutem christi operantis in hoc sacramento, quod est contemnere ipsum sacramentum in seipso. Fidelis autem qui cum conscientia peccati sumit, contemnit hoc sacramentum non in seipso, sed quantum ad usum, indigne accipiens.

Unde et apostolus, I Cor. XI, assignans rationem huius peccati, dicit, non diiudicans corpus domini, idest, non discernens ipsum ab aliis cibis, quod maxime facit ille qui non credit christum esse sub hoc sacramento.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui proiiceret hoc sacramentum in lutum, gravius peccaret quam ille qui cum conscientia peccati mortalis ad hoc sacramentum accedit. Primo quidem, quia ille hoc faceret ex intentione iniuriam inferendi huic sacramento, quod non intendit peccator indigne corpus christi accipiens.

Secundo, quia homo peccator capax est gratiae, unde etiam magis est aptus ad suscipiendum hoc sacramentum quam quaecumque alia irrationalis creatura. Unde maxime inordinate uteretur hoc sacramento qui proiiceret ipsum canibus ad manducandum, vel qui proiiceret in lutum conculcandum.